The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[CJGJ]

The longer the current regime stay in place the better.

 

The difficult decisions are going to be undertaken after this wonderful 120 day review that is going on.

 

If season ticket sales are poor then this will impact even more on the clubs finances next season.

 

The club will cut back in all areas should the current board stay in place and that can only be good news for us.

 

King is already talking about soft loans and investment as per the old Murray days and would spend to get them back up in one season.

Edited February 26, 2014 by CJGJ

[Alva-Jambo]

The longer the present administration remain in place, the better for the rest of us / Scottish football. Of course I have a personal axe to grind. I want Sevco deducted points to give Heats a a really good chance of getting back to the top flight in one season. Why should I be dishonest and say otherwise. But the key reasons for their disaster situation has nothing to do with me or Hears, so moving on:

They, Sevco, are assured administration simply because they cannot afford the wage bill etc, and King's comments today, will probably halve, the income from the 2014 briefs, - or more. They should be dead in the water as 'Rangers' avoided the ?32Million tax case cost and should have died. ( edited, ongoing)

I curse Green, as do my witchy brothes and sisters ;-) for even giving the appearance! of a year's continuity.

 

And so, here we are now. Hearts are in MUCH better shape than they, now thanks to actually having a genuine concerned person who has supported us with good money and equally supportive 8000 and more who are building a fund.

Meanwhile

Rangers, are cursed - by having only business sharks, such as hedge funds and spivs, and even their white knight ( who will of course own a rangers setup by August) is prepared to see them suffer , he of the large SA tax bill a man no different really from White.

- they see the 45,000 support = cash. Trouble is, they are in a feeding fenzy. Enjoy, sharks.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Alva-Jambo

[milky_26]

 

 

 

I don't often agree with McMurdo but I think he calls king 100% correct with this

 

http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/blog-2/

 

King was on whytes board & was heavily censored over his tenure by the Sfa, that & his criminal business dealing in S. Africa make him no better that the Kraysdales at ibroke imo. Like the Murray's he seems t-o wan in without actually putting his hand in his wa/

llet ..

 

Hmfc the team for me ...

does that mean he also wants a shot of joanna lumley

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

does that mean he also wants a shot of joanna lumley

 

Succulent turkey neck?

[Barney Rubble]

Without a ' bank of scotland ' to prop them up and make sure the other clubs are in there place this incarnation of the liquidated rangers will be heading nowhere fast , and good enough for them , they can take their superiority complex and their watp attitude and shove it right up their farters , they were fake under murray and theyre fake now !

[Deevers]

 

Without a ' bank of scotland ' to prop them up and make sure the other clubs are in there place this incarnation of the liquidated rangers will be heading nowhere fast , and good enough for them , they can take their superiority complex and their watp attitude and shove it right up their farters , they were fake under murray and theyre fake now !

Don't worry, they will have plenty folk willing to give them any help they can inside the halls of power in the SFA/SPFL. They've started already with the tinkering about with the regulations about an insolvency event.

[Barney Rubble]

Don't worry, they will have plenty folk willing to give them any help they can inside the halls of power in the SFA/SPFL. They've started already with the tinkering about with the regulations about an insolvency event.

 

Of that i have no doubt but it wont work Deevers , walls are crumbling my man !

[naeclue]

I like how he says he invested ?20m and lost it all apart from the ?18m he got back from Rangers after the money was all cleaned which he neglects to mention!

 

Any more details on that? Wasn't aware that had happened. Nothing surprises about Rangers these days, all the same

[milky_26]

 

 

Of that i have no doubt but it wont work Deevers , walls are crumbling my man !

can we get the hoff to song while this happens just like the berlin wall

[naeclue]

I agree but can't see the mechanism by which they would achieve fan ownership? The incumbents would need to agree to sell their shares. How likely is that?

 

Those guys definitely don't do walking away, unless they do it with wheelbarrows full of cash. Lots and lots of them.

 

Rangers seem to have fallen into the hands of people with considerable expertise at wringing cash out of them. I don't think the key guys (ie those holding the keys) care remotely about the club, just about realizing cash.

 

I'm starting to think that there won't be a Rangers the way things are going.

Edited February 26, 2014 by naeclue

[swavkav]

there is not a rangers, there is a tribute act though.

[jamboruss]

McMurdo - " the Queen's eleven" - what a welt!

[DETTY29]

I like how he says he invested ?20m and lost it all apart from the ?18m he got back from Rangers after the money was all cleaned which he neglects to mention!

Now that's a statement and a half.

 

We can call King a convicted tax dodger but using Rangers to launder and clean his dirty money is serious $h!t.

 

I have to ask. How did that come about?

[Brick Tamland]

 

The only reason he was not able to do so before was the tax case he was the subject of in South Africa.

 

He paid a rather large sum well into the tens of millions as a settlement

He has agreed to pay it but hasn't yet...

Edited February 26, 2014 by Brick Tamland

[Mikey1874]

Without a ' bank of scotland ' to prop them up and make sure the other clubs are in there place this incarnation of the liquidated rangers will be heading nowhere fast , and good enough for them , they can take their superiority complex and their watp attitude and shove it right up their farters , they were fake under murray and theyre fake now !

I've always felt a most interesting part a this sorrow fable is the role of HBOS. While small businesses have struggled a cosy relationship allowed Murray to do what he wanted. Clearly no banker is ever going to jail as it would have happened by now but its a poor show. Small world of those in power.

[Central Belt 1874]

The fans would never raise enough money to compete with Celtic and they know it. I have been speaking to family, friends and colleagues who are season ticket holders at Ibrox over the past week or so about fans getting together like Hearts and every single one of them are completely against the idea. They just wont pay the money to sit mid table in the SPFL for years while a rich arab is bribed to take over.

 

What are KBers hun friends/colleagues seriously thinking about this?

 

It's compete with Celtic or they are finished with the club. I think this is now really the beginning of the end of "Rangers". It's over.

 

It's stick with the current shambles and go under (This summer) or let King in while you copy the Hearts model and become the size of Hearts/Aberdeen/Dundee Utd for the forseeable future.

 

The fans don't want either so the support will split, cash will fall as fans stop going and the longer it will take them to get out of the Championship.

 

 

Happy days

[Zico]

 

 

Those guys definitely don't do walking away, unless they do it with wheelbarrows full of cash. Lots and lots of them.

 

Rangers seem to have fallen into the hands of people with considerable expertise at wringing cash out of them. I don't think the key guys (ie those holding the keys) care remotely about the club, just about realizing cash.

At one of my previous firms, I used to deal with Laxey and they are vultures. If they can make a penny more selling their shares/assets they get their hands on (should their 15% loan or shares not come to fruition) to Dermot Desmond, the Pope or Gerry Adams, then they will. I've been struggling to work out why they were getting involved but with the 'loan' at 15%, secured on assets, with the option of an arbitrage play on the shares, it's all becoming clear.

[tartofmidlothian]

The fans would never raise enough money to compete with Celtic and they know it. I have been speaking to family, friends and colleagues who are season ticket holders at Ibrox over the past week or so about fans getting together like Hearts and every single one of them are completely against the idea. They just wont pay the money to sit mid table in the SPFL for years while a rich arab is bribed to take over.

 

What are KBers hun friends/colleagues seriously thinking about this?

 

It's compete with Celtic or they are finished with the club. I think this is now really the beginning of the end of "Rangers". It's over.

 

It's stick with the current shambles and go under (This summer) or let King in while you copy the Hearts model and become the size of Hearts/Aberdeen/Dundee Utd for the forseeable future.

 

The fans don't want either so the support will split, cash will fall as fans stop going and the longer it will take them to get out of the Championship.

 

 

Happy days

 

This is the key issue IMO. Either King or someone like him (Ashley?) comes in and spunks money to his heart's content to get them "back where they belong", or they choose a sensible, sustainable model which won't see them in trouble again a few years down the line, and then get used to challenging for 2nd and treasuring every rare point they take from Celtic.

 

The second option will see the club survive, but how many of them will wash their hands if Celtic run away with ten in a row and beyond?

[tartofmidlothian]

At one of my previous firms, I used to deal with Laxey and they are vultures. If they can make a penny more selling their shares/assets they get their hands on (should their 15% loan or shares not come to fruition) to Dermot Desmond, the Pope or Gerry Adams, then they will. I've been struggling to work out why they were getting involved but with the 'loan' at 15%, secured on assets, with the option of an arbitrage play on the shares, it's all becoming clear.

 

Ooft.

[Barney Rubble]

At one of my previous firms, I used to deal with Laxey and they are vultures. If they can make a penny more selling their shares/assets they get their hands on (should their 15% loan or shares not come to fruition) to Dermot Desmond, the Pope or Gerry Adams, then they will. I've been struggling to work out why they were getting involved but with the 'loan' at 15%, secured on assets, with the option of an arbitrage play on the shares, it's all becoming clear.

 

'CMON THE LAXEYS'

[Shanks]

I don't think rangers will ever be able to compete with celtic again. It's obvious the only way they can compete is by spending millions and millions of cash they don't have. They were able to do this previously due to bank loans and ebts but it just won't be possible now.

[Central Belt 1874]

I don't think rangers will ever be able to compete with celtic again. It's obvious the only way they can compete is by spending millions and millions of cash they don't have. They were able to do this previously due to bank loans and ebts but it just won't be possible now.

 

It might be possible to challenge Celtic in the future if apathy sets in at Parkhead and attendances continue to fall, income drops and therefore a lesser standard of player coming in and making it harder for Celtic to qualify for the champions league.

 

What everyone in Scotland should want is Celtic to start failing to qualify for the CL and Rangers to go down the fan ownership route. They would lose half their support overnight.

[Shanks]

 

 

It might be possible to challenge Celtic in the future if apathy sets in at Parkhead and attendances continue to fall, income drops and therefore a lesser standard of player coming in and making it harder for Celtic to qualify for the champions league.

 

What everyone in Scotland should want is Celtic to start failing to qualify for the CL and Rangers to go down the fan ownership route. They would lose half their support overnight.

 

True but it still feels like celtic will still have a massive edge over rangers.

 

What we really want to happen is for Scotland to lose it's champions league place!

[The Comedian]

 

 

Of that i have no doubt but it wont work Deevers , walls are crumbling my man !

 

Lucky there are two sentinels guarding old Ibrox's walls.

 

Or something.

 

[Statts1976uk]

I can't see Ashley spunking too much cash on Rangers, everyone can see how tight a ship he runs at Newcastle and that's with EPL money.

[jamboinglasgow]

So Dave King is calling a boycott to get away from the current spivs, because he fears they wont spend what is needed to stop Celtic winning the league as the current board wants them living in their means.

 

That speaks a man who has not learnt the lessons of the past, who doesn't understand how a strong Rangers can live within their means. But their arrogance demands the short term glory that creates problem long term. If they got together and took over the club, were careful and planned well they could really build a strong club, but that requires sacrifice and patience.

[Footballfirst]

Wendnesday's UTTT update from TSFM (half day only)

 

Do not read this unless you are really keen, There is nothing terribly exciting about this mornings doings in the UTTT, I?m posting it just for anyone who might like a further flavour.

I confess that without access to the transcript of evidence and the ?skeletons? given to the judge by the QCs, I find it very hard to make sense of some of what is said. But i enjoy it.

In Tribunal this morning only (taking a half-day?s ?leave?).

 

13 people present in total ?Sun? reporter not present, and one lawyer on Mr Thomson?s side was absent, and I was the only member of the public present. (And I was reminded that, if names of people who were entitled to anonymity were accidentally mentioned, I would be hanged, drawn and quartered if I even uttered, let alone published, them! No, I?m kidding about the penalty. But I was reminded).

 

Mr T began with reminding us that yesterday he had argued that the First Tier ?majority? had failed to make any finding of fact about what the Trust transaction actually was. It was NOT along the lines of the Employer saying ?we want to benefit your families through a Trust. Rather there was evidence that it was along the lines of ?we want to pay YOU?, and the whole Trust edifice was designed was designed to accomplish that end.

 

In Mr T?s view, the ?majority? failed to make findings of fact to support their dismissal of the Scot.Prov case as irrelevant, seeming to dismiss it only on the grounds of the ?documentary? ?legality? of the trust.

 

They made no finding of fact relating to the question whether in the actual, practical operation of the EBT scheme, evidence relating to which was available in quantity, there was ever any intention or real commercial risk that repayment would ever be required.

 

Lord D. raised the point that repayment would be due on death- and no beneficiary had yet died,so..? Yes, said Mr T. But interest was rolled over and could be rolled over loan after loan to decrease the our inheritance Tax liability. So the trust arrangement did not just avoid tax and N.I. but Inheritance Tax as well. He agreed that as a matter of ?legal? reality there was ?debt?. But several witnesses said that they would examine the options open to them in years to come about how they would deal with that.

 

A number of foreign players wanted their Trusts undone, the arrangement was changed and the employees ended up with all the money free of debt.

 

What matters, said Mr T is the underlying reality. The legal wording of the Trust is of relevance only in so far as it shows the purpose of the Trust.

 

Coming back to the Scot.Prov. Case, there the ?payment on death element? was the same position as in the Aberdeen Asset case- there was on the face of it ?debt?, but that did not prevent ?unreserved disposal?. The starting point is that it was only ever about channelling money to employees. The MG say that the loans were enthusiastically taken up by employees. But I say, that that was because they were being granted without vetting of any kind, without security, rolled over interest and no realistic requirement to repay.

 

In the Scot Prov. decision, since ?Ramsay? it has been accepted that ?the language of statute would need wide interpretation..? and ?Ramsay? would be destroyed if it was held to be right NOT to consider the composite transaction, but only to focus on each individual step in isolation. The inclusion of ?commercially irrelevant? elements in the legal formulation of a Trust to create doubt as to the relevance of an attack by HMRC is something that both parties in this case did not accept as valid. And there was a quote from Lord Birkenhead to support this, and a quote from another source about the ?bogus nature? of ?commercially irrelevant contingency? in the loan agreement.

 

We (HMRC) were saying that , on the evidence, the Trust mechanism was operated in such a way that there was no risk of it not working as planned. In reality(never mind the terms of the Trust) there was no risk of refusing a loan, no risk of refusal to grant a loan, no risk of repayment being required. But in any event, even if the First Tier majority believed there was a risk, then all that that represented was a risk that the parties had included and that it was commercially irrelevant , and therefore it was in line with the Revenue Commissioners? views in the Scot. Prov case. And if only a part of the transaction in the Scot Prov case was ?artificial? so much more was the whole transaction in the case we are dealing with. We argue that there was no ?discretion? and on that footing the Scot Prov decision does not come in to play-HMRC win that point But if there were ?discretion? we are back in Scot Prov territory in respect of ?a risk known and accepted by the parties??so HMRC still win.

 

Looking at the Astor case, ?purposive construction? is in two stages ; no account should be taken of artificialities. The Commissioners found that the acceptance of risk by the parties could be ignored and the ?unity? of the transaction IS to be taken into account. The statute is to be interpreted ?purposively? unless Parliament had said it had not to be.

If it were the case that there was some real commercial discretion, then the parties have proceeded on the basis that the risk should be disregarded. I say this because these propositions are all facets of the requirement to construe ?purposively?, so if there were some ?element? of risk, it can be disregarded by the Court.

 

I say it was INCUMBENT on the First Tier majority to address themselves to this argument. They could not do so without identifying what the transaction was, what the ?risk? step was, and whether the parties had accepted the risk. But they simply dismissed case-law out of hand.

 

The next point Mr T raised was the ?majority?s? failure to address the fact that ?Sempra? was erroneous in law. The First Tier majority did not appear to know that the Sempra decision had been appealed by HMRC and the case settled under a different basis. There has been a lot of ground covered since Sempra, but I (Mr T) suggest that the First Tier did not pay attention to it, partly because they did not know that the Sempra they relied on had been appealed!

 

The side-letters were next in Mr T?s sights.

Rangers did not register these with the SFA/SPL as they did with the ?contracts?. My learned friend agreed that the side-letters were ?contractual? but not part of the players? ?contracts?

I say that the First Tier should have found out whether they ought to have been submitted as part of the contracts. The witnesses told us that they did not submit them because they were separate contracts.

 

[Lord D said: I am not clear, but I had read it as that the contracts were part of the whole contract of employment?]

(looked up some para 120 in some document)

 

MrT then followed up with his next point-the fact that the side-letters were kept secret., and had been kept secret from HMRC for 5 years. And the fact that they were nor lodged with the football authorities is relevant to the REALITY of the Trust transaction. The First Tier should have tested the gloss applied by MG, because it was obviously relevant that the side-letters had been concealed. I (Mr T) had argued in detail that failure to disclose was in breach of the SFA/SPL rules The First Tier majority simply IGNORED those submissions. And your Lordship will perhaps know that the LNS enquiry had held Rangers to have been in breach of the rules.

[Lord D: where do I find where they ignored..?]

 

There was no discussion, my Lord, only a comment or finding that Rangers did not consider it appropriate to register the side-letters. There was also, Mr T continued, the fact that the side-letters were kept from the Auditors. This was all part of the picture of secrecy. ( denied by witness Mr X ) [ I , me, don't know whether this was one of the 'keep anonymous' witnesses, but I'm taking no chances!'] If the scheme operated in the way MG said, why was it that its true nature was concealed? Why conceal the side-letters for 5 years? Why were they not lodged with the SFA/SPL? In my submission, it was not for reasons of commercial confidentiality. For the Football authorities know how to keep the confidential business of their members secret.

[ Lord D asked : where do I find the SPL/SFA rules?]

 

In folder 21 ,was the reply, and his Lordship eventually found it on the floor behind him .( Stacks of folders already heaped on his desk!) Mr T then said that he was not , of course, arguing these questions. He was simply pointing out that there lots of questions that should have been addressed by the First Tier and findings of fact made. They basically did not do this.

 

Next point was that it was clear from their very decision that the majority of the First Tier simply did not have regard to all the evidence: they failed to consider the true nature of loans

they erroneously in law equated ?legal existence? with ?commercial existence? failed to have regard to the fact that employee beneficiaries were the Protectors of their Trusts

made only findings of a non-controversial nature their ?factual matrix? contains only comments on issues but no findings of fact their narration of their view of the evidence is materially incomplete and addresses only what the MG said was relevant HMRC?s evidence is not even included in the narration let alone any analysis of it the narration is anodyne and brief

 

Witness Mr X ( the same guy as above!) gave evidence for 3 and a half days- this was summarised in one and a half pages lots of areas of relevance do not appear in the narrative . For example , Mr Y?s evidence on the ?grossing up? question, or on the uncommerciality of paying money for living expenses, Mr B?s unusully prudent approach to the whole business, Mr C?s admission of not knowing in detail how the scheme operated, Mr L?s evidenc- none of this gets any mention, and none of it appears in ?findings of fact?. Nor was Mr P?s evidence about ?not expecting to have to pay anything back in my lifetime?,or Mr L?s evidence about the discussion on bonus payment mechanisms and decisions. The story of the players? dispute in the matter of UEFA CL bonus schedule just before a CL game, and HMRC?s contention that a schedule of bonuses to be paid by Trust arrangements was hastily agreed, simply does not appear or is not considered. The First Tier, in Mr T?s submission simply did not make, as they ought to have done, findings of fact!

 

[ A wee scurry through the Sheriff Court guidance and T Jacob's 'Tribunal Practice and Procedure']

And Lord D says, yes, full findings are to be made in every sphere of law at any level. Tribunals must not simply repeat what people say. They must state what they themselves make of what people say. And it is not good enough just to make findings of fact that support their decision .. ?Judges are under a duty to find the facts..?]

Further points gone into in detail related to the fact that Trident knew, even before they were appointed, they were expected to grant loans simply on the say-so of the Club.

Equity were bumped when they raised difficulties.

 

The Tribunal took into account wholly irrelevant material, waffling on about HMRC?s attitude to Inheritance Tax, for example, and in the narration of one witnesses statement, waffling on about the witnesses view about ?sham? rather than about the evidence he gave. There was then a lot about evidence that recipients did have a choice about whether to accept payment by loan or by Trust. The tribunal?s view that if a player did not accept a loan, he got nothing is unsupported by the evidence.

 

And all of a sudden it was lunch time! I took a half-day.

I?ll be in Tribunal only tomorrow morning: having a beer with my Glaswegian pals, who are coming through at lunch time.

[Tommy Brown]

True but it still feels like celtic will still have a massive edge over rangers.

 

What we really want to happen is for Scotland to lose it's champions league place!

 

Oh come on!!

"They are two of the biggest clubs in Europe, UEFA need them for TV money"

 

(Quote by every uglies fan that I know.)

 

Disgusting shower of shite the lot of them, bring it on.

[Rods]

Rangers will be able to compete with Celtic once back in the SPL. The referees will see to that.

[franko1874]

Rangers will be able to compete with Celtic once back in the SPL. The referees will see to that.

 

This is what I'm thinking aswell, the refereeing should be interesting (in a bad way) next season when we play them in the championship.

 

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

This is what I'm thinking aswell, the refereeing should be interesting (in a bad way) next season when we play them in the championship.

 

Something similar to Celtic's current 20 odd fouls per card I would imagine.

[Craig_]

True but it still feels like celtic will still have a massive edge over rangers.

 

What we really want to happen is for Scotland to lose it's champions league place!

 

Can't be too far off surely, given the presence of St Johnstone et al. in Europe!

[scott_jambo]

Can't be too far off surely, given the presence of St Johnstone et al. in Europe!

 

Beating Rosenborg? Surely you mean Hibs in Europe?

[Alva-Jambo]

I appreciated many of King's points yesterday and you can see how they are directed mainly at the support and their season ticket cash,

Perhaps he intends to set up a fund, which he does mention, for their season ticket cash which makes sense as it starves the current board

and prevents repayment to Laxey and co.

The effect of his open letter is also do damage the current AIM share price further. If there is a way 'people' copuld be short of Rangers shares, tfhey would be before now,

and thus gain from the fall in the price. I do not know if King is short of Rangers shares, and have no way of telling. If he were, then he'd lose support of the 'fans' so its unlikely.

I do suggest that his plan to create starvation of funds is going to work. Sevco might get ?2 or 3 Million from sale of briefs but the majority are likely to follow King.

King might or might not succeed in getting the present board to sell to him ( at a loss of course to them). But I suspect there is yet another twist in this saga about to be performed over the coming few weeks.

 

For next term, Sevco need around ?25-26 Million I believe, to run the club and also build the squad with better players to leap into the top flight all guns blazing ( though some of this could follow in summer window of 2015 too)

and a combination of King's money and full supporter backing would provide that sort of cash.

But it won't be easy getting there.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Alva-Jambo

[Hagar the Horrible]

I appreciated many of King's points yesterday and you can see how they are directed mainly at the support and their season ticket cash,

Perhaps he intends to set up a fund, which he does mention, for their season ticket cash which makes sense as it starves the current board

and prevents repayment to Laxey and co.

The effect of his open letter is also do damage the current AIM share price further. If there is a way 'people' copuld be short of Rangers shares, tfhey would be before now,

and thus gain from the fall in the price. I do not know if King is short of Rangers shares, and have no way of telling. If he were, then he'd lose support of the 'fans' so its unlikely.

I do suggest that his plan to create starvation of funds is going to work. Sevco might get ?2 or 3 Million from sale of briefs but the majority are likely to follow King.

King might or might not succeed in getting the present board to sell to him ( at a loss of course to them). But I suspect there is yet another twist in this saga about to be performed over the coming few weeks.

 

For next term, Sevco need around ?25-26 Million I believe, to run the club and also build the squad with better players to leap into the top flight all guns blazing ( though some of this could follow in summer window of 2015 too)

and a combination of King's money and full supporter backing would provide that sort of cash.

But it won't be easy getting there.

 

Remember No bank will touch them, They are being run by business people at present with a kosher track record as far as the banks are concerned, so what chance does King have of getting credit facilities set up in this country when SARS have found him guilty of tax evasion. King will need to buy the club, use fans cash again, both ST and perhaps another shares issue which would dilute all existing shares and that would need the approval of 80.4% of current shareholders (see resolution 9 and 10). King will also have to fund the upkeep of a dilapidated Ibrox. It will need the best part of an additional income of ?20 per year to make his plans workable. King will have to work under the same conditions as does the current regime with a bank balance in the black.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Hagar the Horrible

[Deevers]

 

I appreciated many of King's points yesterday and you can see how they are directed mainly at the support and their season ticket cash,

Perhaps he intends to set up a fund, which he does mention, for their season ticket cash which makes sense as it starves the current board

and prevents repayment to Laxey and co.

The effect of his open letter is also do damage the current AIM share price further. If there is a way 'people' copuld be short of Rangers shares, tfhey would be before now,

and thus gain from the fall in the price. I do not know if King is short of Rangers shares, and have no way of telling. If he were, then he'd lose support of the 'fans' so its unlikely.

I do suggest that his plan to create starvation of funds is going to work. Sevco might get ?2 or 3 Million from sale of briefs but the majority are likely to follow King.

King might or might not succeed in getting the present board to sell to him ( at a loss of course to them). But I suspect there is yet another twist in this saga about to be performed over the coming few weeks.

 

For next term, Sevco need around ?25-26 Million I believe, to run the club and also build the squad with better players to leap into the top flight all guns blazing ( though some of this could follow in summer window of 2015 too)

and a combination of King's money and full supporter backing would provide that sort of cash.

But it won't be easy getting there.

I really don"t know why any Rangers Supporter would have any confidence in King after his last tenure of office on the Rangers Board. All his bluster seems to be aimed at him picking up control as cheaply as he can, the once there fronting another share issue. I suspect it's all just going to stagger along into the summer just as it is just now before the corpse eventually fails and insolvency follows. What happens after that is the question - and that I reckon all depends on who actually owns the fixed assets.

[davieholt]

and yet ...

 

 

Rangers: Dave King appeal popular among fans - claim

 

Former Ibrox director Dave King has been praised by a Rangers fans' group for his "hard-hitting" statement on the club's future.

King has urged supporters to withhold season ticket money until they receive assurances about the League One outfit.

And Craig Houston, of the Sons of Struth, said supporters were keen for King to become involved.

"The fans see him as the knight coming over the hill to help," Houston said.

The Sons of Struth describes itself as "a body of like-minded Rangers fans who hold dear the values of" former manager Bill Struth and claims to have the backing of most of the club's supporters groups.

 

The South African-based businessman said his own offer to put fresh investment into Rangers was rejected.

Houston said supporters were seeking greater transparency from the current Ibrox board, adding that King's input would be welcome.

"A lot of fans, the feedback we're getting is that it sat nicely with their thoughts and views," Houston told BBC Scotland.

"It was a good statement and very hard-hitting; there's not a lot you can disagree with.

"There's been a lot of cry outs for Dave King to get involved and speak out."

Houston said a joint statement from the various Rangers supporters groups will be issued on Thursday afternoon.

Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace last week insisted that the club were not under threat of a second period in administration before this week confirming the loans from Sandy Easdale and Laxey Partners Ltd.

Edited February 27, 2014 by davieholt

[Feeno]

"The fans see him as the knight coming over the hill to help"

 

 

Why the **** does itall have to be knights and warchests with these morons.

[Tasavallan]

Remember No bank will touch them, They are being run by business people at present with a kosher track record as far as the banks are concerned...

'KOSHER' has a meaning of being genuine and legitimate. Were you really meaning to say that the businessmen running Sevco are kosher?

[Deevers]

 

"The fans see him as the knight coming over the hill to help"

 

 

Why the **** does itall have to be knights and warchests with these morons.

These people still think that their dreams are going to be funded by somebody else. Morons just about sums them up.

[Alva-Jambo]

I really don"t know why any Rangers Supporter would have any confidence in King after his last tenure of office on the Rangers Board. All his bluster seems to be aimed at him picking up control as cheaply as he can, the once there fronting another share issue. I suspect it's all just going to stagger along into the summer just as it is just now before the corpse eventually fails and insolvency follows. What happens after that is the question - and that I reckon all depends on who actually owns the fixed assets.

The majority of Sevco supporters will clutch at King's straw, and if they do, King will run that club next term. And note that King used the word 'consortium' so he has others with him.

Meanwhile the only thing that could save the Easdale people ( and I don't care, except I prefer to see the present mob in charge as they can not buy good players or retain sdome of the current ones) is if they run a huge fund raising share issue, which is the only thing that will get King's claws off them!

But the Easedales are front men, or so many of us believe. The people behind them are probably pump and dump people who ( like Easdale) probably feel a bit sick at the moment . King will come calling again, to buy most of their shares, and they will have little choice to sell them- this is of course only my opinion. PS I would love to know what percentage of their shares are being sold short on AIM but I can't find this data.

[Allowayjambo1874]

"The fans see him as the knight coming over the hill to help"

 

 

Why the **** does itall have to be knights and warchests with these morons.

 

Because there are 65.1m shares in Rangers going for about 30p per share = ?19.5m to buyout all the shares even getting your hands on a third of the shares is ?6m.

 

A fans group is going to struggle big time to raise that kind of cash, the sevco support is divided about nearly everything. The effort and time for someone to head up a group to get their hands on the shares would be phenomenal. Then there is the question of what happens if they do get a stake. The sevco fans are still living in the past, most haven't moved on from 1690, however they expect to be in champions league year on year. If Rangers have to live within their means given how little money is around in Scottish football then that dream dies.

 

It is just easier to put your head in the sand and wait for the hero to come riding over the hill to save you.

[Don Dan]

Consortium in this instance means King runs the club through puppet board as he can't be involved other than emptying his wallet.

[Alva-Jambo]

So Dave King is calling a boycott to get away from the current spivs, because he fears they wont spend what is needed to stop Celtic winning the league as the current board wants them living in their means.

 

That speaks a man who has not learnt the lessons of the past, who doesn't understand how a strong Rangers can live within their means. But their arrogance demands the short term glory that creates problem long term. If they got together and took over the club, were careful and planned well they could really build a strong club, but that requires sacrifice and patience.

Its not quite that: by publishing that he wants the support not to buy season briefs but that he is around and willing to return, he damages the current share price - which equates also as the market capitalisation of Sevco. The share price is most likely! to drift, it was 26p the other day. Now there are shareholders who cannot really afford to see the share price drop to say, 10p, they are relying on the share price not falling all the time. So that suggests they will be forced by King when he comes knocking, to sell to him at some agreed price. King's strategy appears to have contradictory qualities but it doesn't really.

Then there is Ibrox , and other assets. As a percentage of the share price /market cap, the Stadium becomes worth less too. It is in King's group's interest to be able to mop up the assets as cheaply as possible - but at that point he can also afford to pump more new money in. ( and that's not in Hearts' interest of course but that aside).

Edited February 27, 2014 by Alva-Jambo

[We_are_the_Hearts]

The majority of Sevco supporters will clutch at King's straw, and if they do, King will run that club next term. And note that King used the word 'consortium' so he has others with him.

Meanwhile the only thing that could save the Easdale people ( and I don't care, except I prefer to see the present mob in charge as they can not buy good players or retain sdome of the current ones) is if they run a huge fund raising share issue, which is the only thing that will get King's claws off them!

But the Easedales are front men, or so many of us believe. The people behind them are probably pump and dump people who ( like Easdale) probably feel a bit sick at the moment . King will come calling again, to buy most of their shares, and they will have little choice to sell them- this is of course only my opinion. PS I would love to know what percentage of their shares are being sold short on AIM but I can't find this data.

Aye right enough, King has been 100% honest in the past, completely law abiding that one. If he said it was Thursday today I would need to check the paper. So you think the fans will give King the money to buy the shares? Imagine all the brain dead huns just now thinking about what to do about their Season Ticket..........

[busby1985]

Rangers will come back into the top flight in Scottish football because nothing has changed. Their demise was a golden opportunity for all the lesser clubs so to speak to change Scottish football for good. They haven't done that. I firmly believe that most players at most clubs when rangers come back will just accept the natural order again and won't try against rangers like the old days. The media hasn't changed its opinion regarding sevco. They are a club on its knees playing in the 3rd tier of Scottish football yet the media cling onto the old rangers and believe that when rangers return the old order will be established. It just shows you how bad and un ambitious this country is. What an opportunity we have missed. All the clubs should be embarrassed if and when sevco come back they go straight back to the 2nd force.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Rangers will come back into the top flight in Scottish football because nothing has changed. Their demise was a golden opportunity for all the lesser clubs so to speak to change Scottish football for good. They haven't done that. I firmly believe that most players at most clubs when rangers come back will just accept the natural order again and won't try against rangers like the old days. The media hasn't changed its opinion regarding sevco. They are a club on its knees playing in the 3rd tier of Scottish football yet the media cling onto the old rangers and believe that when rangers return the old order will be established. It just shows you how bad and un ambitious this country is. What an opportunity we have missed. All the clubs should be embarrassed if and when sevco come back they go straight back to the 2nd force.

At least a yay or nay vote on independence wont change our $#!tty professional football set up. So we have that going for us.

[skinnybob72]

How do soft loans or a cash injection from the likes of King sit in terms of UEFAs Financial Fair Play rules?

 

They can't just throw money at The Rangers because 'ra peepell' think that they deserve to be winning the Premiership.

[Alva-Jambo]

Rangers will come back into the top flight in Scottish football because nothing has changed. Their demise was a golden opportunity for all the lesser clubs so to speak to change Scottish football for good. They haven't done that. I firmly believe that most players at most clubs when rangers come back will just accept the natural order again and won't try against rangers like the old days. The media hasn't changed its opinion regarding sevco. They are a club on its knees playing in the 3rd tier of Scottish football yet the media cling onto the old rangers and believe that when rangers return the old order will be established. It just shows you how bad and un ambitious this country is. What an opportunity we have missed. All the clubs should be embarrassed if and when sevco come back they go straight back to the 2nd force.

Dont you think its the right moment for Celtic to leave and go to England? After all 'Rangers' won't be back next term, and then after that they are likely to prove weak for a futher year. Also Celtic players and support have already got used to Rangers not being around. They desire big matches, they will only get them down south.

[Statts1976uk]

To try and buy all the shares for a takeover don't they have to make an offer that's at least as high as the 12 month share price high once they hit a certain percentage?