The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[DETTY29]

Not sure what Leckie is getting at.

 

Why would a Rangers fan move to another club?

 

Peter Lawwells interview over the weekend has laid the foundations as to what will happen next.

 

He is now admitting Celtic need Rangers even if only to cover his own failings. Not only is he CEO of Celtic but he is on both SFA and SPFL boards (SPFL via Eric Reilly proxy).

 

The SPL rules at one point determined how to deal with a liquidated club was down to the SPL board. As it was becoming obvious Rangers may not survive last time and club fans were getting agitated, these were changed that all clubs would get a vote. Under the revised SPFL rules, this decision has reverted back to the SPFL board. It was also muted that the rules changed so that an insolvency event should lead to an automatic relegation but was deemed too complicated (I probably agree)

 

Administration will mean a 25 point penalty and at best a play off place, liquidation 25 points too but no reapplication to leagues requirements.

 

If Hibs continue to be distinctly average they may still not make the play offs even with a 25 point Rangers penalty. As with Lawwell (and Ogilvie), Petrie has a duty of care to the Scottish game.

 

League restructuring is a distinct possibility for next season, but not under the circumstances most of us called for irrespective of Doncaster saying it just isn't viable.

 

Lawwell was the final card player to play his hand. And he has shown an open hand now too.

 

It has now been confirmed that what the fans of the club playing out of Ibrox have been saying all along.

 

They have indeed been punished enough.

[I P Knightley]

My understanding is that they haven't been able to access the ST money to date, it has been ring fenced and released to the club on a game by game basis. This I believe was at the insistence of their auditors, who did not want them to use ST monies to pay off pre-existing debts, namely the ?1.5m borrowed from shareholder in Feb and due to be repaid by the end of August (approx 4 hours from now!).

 

If they raise the ?4m from the share issue, that will allow them to clear their existing debts and they will be able to access the full ST money, which will tide them over a bit longer.

 

Auditors wouldn't have that power. They may have made a recommendation but there's no evidence that the numpties in charge at Ibrox pay any attention to sensible financial advice.

 

You have a PM.

 

EDIT: Or you would do if you had space.

 

If it takes a PM to clear the confusion and intrigue you're causing, I'll take a PM.

 

Fwiw, I think Rudi's been making sensible observations and damping down some over-excitement that appears to have been driven by half-truths, rumour and speculation. I don't get the accusations that he's "one of them" - "they" are usually more blatant!

[Statts1976uk]

if rumors are correct (if) and Wallace & mcLeod are being flogged to Brighton for ?3 mill (up front) today,does that mean the gers would need to go ahead and play their match against East Fife?

 

I think the fee will be closer to ?300k than ?3m, no club will offer large amounts to a club that's openly admitted to being desperate for cash.

[Skivingatwork]

Take the points re: Lawell Detty, that he must be looking at his own P&L given no champions league football this year and the depressed attendances this will bring. In this regard, he will be looking for Sevco to be back in the top league next year in order to create demand amongst his own fans.

 

However, the sticking point he'll come up against is the very fans he wants back through the turnstiles. Will they accept their own club bending rules and showing favouritism to Sevco?

 

You're right that he was last to declare his position during the previous insolvency event, however, IMO that was because his own views were at odds to that of his support.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

As predicted, it seems that Septic are the only team suffering significantly from the other arsecheek disappearing and a dodgy hip replacement being installed.

[2NaFish]

However, the sticking point he'll come up against is the very fans he wants back through the turnstiles. Will they accept their own club bending rules and showing favouritism to Sevco?

.

 

All they can do is boycott, and i can't see them not showing up when there's an old firm game on offer. As soon as the first one starts all complaints will be forgotten

[Abbey Craig]

I don't agree with Detty that they have been punished enough. They were punished for going into liquidation as we were for going into administration. Correctly their punishment was more severe as liquidation is a more serious event. However, after rewriting the rules, they got into div 3. If they do go into administration they will be punished for that. 25 point deduction and hopefully BDO as administrators; that would ensure that they cut their cloth to fit.

[Paolo]

I don't agree with Detty that they have been punished enough. They were punished for going into liquidation as we were for going into administration. Correctly their punishment was more severe as liquidation is a more serious event. However, after rewriting the rules, they got into div 3. If they do go into administration they will be punished for that. 25 point deduction and hopefully BDO as administrators; that would ensure that they cut their cloth to fit.

 

Or PWC,whom Southern, and the others running the club at the time. wanted for us.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Claudia

[Rudolf]

I don't agree with Detty that they have been punished enough. They were punished for going into liquidation as we were for going into administration. Correctly their punishment was more severe as liquidation is a more serious event. However, after rewriting the rules, they got into div 3. If they do go into administration they will be punished for that. 25 point deduction and hopefully BDO as administrators; that would ensure that they cut their cloth to fit.

 

They were deducted 10 points and fined for going into administration. They were given a signing ban that was deferred effectively negating it. That was their only punishment.

 

After liquidation, the newco were allowed to enter the scottish League at the lowest level without meeting the criteria. The newco then blew ?70M to get where they are now.

 

Tough toly I say.

[DETTY29]

Take the points re: Lawell Detty, that he must be looking at his own P&L given no champions league football this year and the depressed attendances this will bring. In this regard, he will be looking for Sevco to be back in the top league next year in order to create demand amongst his own fans.

 

However, the sticking point he'll come up against is the very fans he wants back through the turnstiles. Will they accept their own club bending rules and showing favouritism to Sevco?

 

You're right that he was last to declare his position during the previous insolvency event, however, IMO that was because his own views were at odds to that of his support.

Lawwell was last to declare in 2012 so all the other clubs could do the dirty work for him. If they had voted to keep Rangers in, he may have abstained.

 

What I was alluding to with last(open) hand, he has now done an interview over the weekend laying down foundations to try and convince Celtic fans how much Rangers are needed so that if they have an insolvency event, it will be as soft a landing as possible, including league reconstruction as a last resort.

 

If Keith Jackson is to be believed, lines of communication are still open to Ashley (as a spiv) and King to take control. This may need er, relaxing of the letter of the law rules to allow either in. I still think King's preferred option is an insolvency event. He'd be peeing ?30m in to a black hole to try and buy out / work in partnership with the spivs. Ashley will be trying to protect his onerous contract.

 

I think Lawwell is banking on the Rangers business plan being such a basket case that even when in the top league they can't bring in the quality of player to challenge.

 

He just needs to convince the Celtic fans of this too.

 

Armageddon II or just back to as you were.

 

If league reconstruction is on the table this year, I want fans of all non OF to lobby their clubs for top end of the Premiership play offs to determine the title. If you sell your soul to the (money) devil then let's go the whole way

[missed98]

Not sure what Leckie is getting at.

 

Why would a Rangers fan move to another club?

 

Peter Lawwells interview over the weekend has laid the foundations as to what will happen next.

 

He is now admitting Celtic need Rangers even if only to cover his own failings. Not only is he CEO of Celtic but he is on both SFA and SPFL boards (SPFL via Eric Reilly proxy).

 

The SPL rules at one point determined how to deal with a liquidated club was down to the SPL board. As it was becoming obvious Rangers may not survive last time and club fans were getting agitated, these were changed that all clubs would get a vote. Under the revised SPFL rules, this decision has reverted back to the SPFL board. It was also muted that the rules changed so that an insolvency event should lead to an automatic relegation but was deemed too complicated (I probably agree)

 

Administration will mean a 25 point penalty and at best a play off place, liquidation 25 points too but no reapplication to leagues requirements.

 

If Hibs continue to be distinctly average they may still not make the play offs even with a 25 point Rangers penalty. As with Lawwell (and Ogilvie), Petrie has a duty of care to the Scottish game.

 

League restructuring is a distinct possibility for next season, but not under the circumstances most of us called for irrespective of Doncaster saying it just isn't viable.

 

Lawwell was the final card player to play his hand. And he has shown an open hand now too.

 

It has now been confirmed that what the fans of the club playing out of Ibrox have been saying all along.

 

They have indeed been punished enough.

 

I take umbrage to that. Shouldn't punishment be about rehabilitation, learning from past misdemeanours.... If they go into Admin again, they should IMO be punished MORE, not less.

[DETTY29]

I don't agree with Detty that they have been punished enough. They were punished for going into liquidation as we were for going into administration. Correctly their punishment was more severe as liquidation is a more serious event. However, after rewriting the rules, they got into div 3. If they do go into administration they will be punished for that. 25 point deduction and hopefully BDO as administrators; that would ensure that they cut their cloth to fit.

They were deducted 10 points and fined for going into administration. They were given a signing ban that was deferred effectively negating it. That was their only punishment.

 

After liquidation, the newco were allowed to enter the scottish League at the lowest level without meeting the criteria. The newco then blew ?70M to get where they are now.

 

Tough toly I say.

Sorry,

 

I'm not saying they have been punished enough. On the whole they have been dealt with in line with the rules of the time, given one punishment out of line with the rules and potentially the odd concession too.

 

What I'm getting at is that a soft landing is potentially being prepared.

 

It will be in line with the rules, especially as more and more rules are written 'to the boards discretion'

 

A successful Rangers is indeed needed for Scottish football, sorry Celtic. Lawwell is the final piece in jigsaw to tell us.

[Rudolf]

 

 

Sorry,

 

I'm not saying they have been punished enough. On the whole they have been dealt with in line with the rules of the time, given one punishment out of line with the rules and potentially the odd concession too.

 

What I'm getting at is that a soft landing is potentially being prepared.

 

It will be in line with the rules, especially as more and more rules are written 'to the boards discretion'

 

A successful Rangers is indeed needed for Scottish football, sorry Celtic. Lawwell is the final piece in jigsaw to tell us.

 

What was the punishment out of line with the rules?

[DETTY29]

I take umbrage to that. Shouldn't punishment be about rehabilitation, learning from past misdemeanours.... If they go into Admin again, they should IMO be punished MORE, not less.

They are far too important to the game, sorry Celtic.

 

Just wait and see where we go next.

[Walter Bishop]

OnlyAnExcuse ?@OnlyAnExcuse 9m

1.8m shares traded in RIFC plc today. A stock market announcement may be imminent.

[DETTY29]

What was the punishment out of line with the rules?

Transfer embargo for signing off Whyte as FPP and paying no PAYE/NI/VAT during his tenure etc.

 

They should have been fined up to another ?100k/suspended from Scottish Cup/SFA licence revoked for a period of time.

[Strachsuit]

 

OnlyAnExcuse ?@OnlyAnExcuse 9m

1.8m shares traded in RIFC plc today. A stock market announcement may be imminent.

 

So at their current share price that's ?445k been traded this morning. Interesting.

[Strachsuit]

That figure is now 3.6 million, which is 5.5% of the club. A very substantial amount..

 

Share price up from 24.75 pence to 25.28 pence based on the first purchase and no doubt will be rising now.

[Strachsuit]

Actually, I see those two trades for 1.8m shares were carried out at the same time. Share price still 25.28 pence, up just over 2% today.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Strachsuit

[Paolo]

At least those traded shares will not be new money, so it does not solve the club's immediate predicament, though it could make the share offer slightly more attractive, if the price rises to quite a bit above the price the shares are being offered for, (though any take up, could dilute current holdings, and the current price could go back down). It does not remove the fact, however, that the money is still to pay debt, and, once it is paid, there is nothing left.

[Don Dan]

What does this share trading mean and does it depend on who is doing it?

[Strachsuit]

yes, a statement telling us who purchased them would be enlightening, 2 blocks of 1.8 million at the same time is strange though..

 

Yup, sure there will be a stock exchange announcement. Very odd, suggests two individuals working together doesn't it? The Easdales perhaps?

[Hagar the Horrible]

That's what a 5.5% move in volume of shares, must be the biggest transfer since the IPO? or since Green sold? something is afoot, perhaps they might just survive a bit longer? but why spend ?891,000 at 25p when you can buy them at 20p?

Edited September 1, 2014 by Hagar the Horrible

[Mysterion]

Could be someone wants to get first option to take up the 20p shares and have a better chance at getting some of the assets if admin takes place.

[Hagar the Horrible]

 

 

 

I couldn't say, why anyone would buy at this price given the open offer price would be lower beats me unless it's a sale between spivs to generate working capital ..

could be a false transfer to generate confidence? this looks like 2 transactions of 1,8m shares in essence it looks like 3.6m but it could be I will sell to you, you sell straight back? that would boost the share price, but then again I am just a massive cynic!

[Rudolf]

 

Transfer embargo for signing off Whyte as FPP and paying no PAYE/NI/VAT during his tenure etc.

 

They should have been fined up to another ?100k/suspended from Scottish Cup/SFA licence revoked for a period of time.

 

That's the concession is it not? It was what punishment they received that they shouldn't have that you seemed to allude to?

[Strachsuit]

I couldn't say, why anyone would buy at this price given the open offer price would be lower beats me unless it's a sale between spivs to generate working capital ..

 

That's my guess.

 

Little point in doing this tbh as the price will sink down again shortly.. A transaction of this size will trigger a statement before close of business today though & we might be a little wiser..

 

Yes, looks like we'll just need to wait and see. Could be an interesting development. What is clear (as you've stated above) is that they are in desperate need for urgent working capital simply to keep their head above water and this would be one way to get it. I don't think we are going to be blown away when we are told who it is that've made these purchases but I'll wait to be proven wrong...

[Hagar the Horrible]

I find it very odd, that somebody will but this volume when if a successful share issue over the next 2 weeks will also trigger a new shares floatation later to raise ?30m will dilute the current shares by 50% Ranger fans think this is King making a move? could be but I still think this is spivs moving stock around themselves? If it is a director then they have to announce it to AIMS? and as for King....meet the new boss same as the old boss? its all on a bit of a knife edge? which is why this soap opera is so fascinating to watch? Today will be interesting will they sell players to repay the loan or will the share issue do that? but in the interest of individual share holders surely they need to make an announcement to the stock exchange on the loan as its due to be paid back in full today???????? although technically it was due to be repaid just as soon as the first 31.5m of season tickets were sold??

[Paolo]

I find it very odd, that somebody will but this volume when if a successful share issue over the next 2 weeks will also trigger a new shares floatation later to raise ?30m will dilute the current shares by 50% Ranger fans think this is King making a move? could be but I still think this is spivs moving stock around themselves? If it is a director then they have to announce it to AIMS? and as for King....meet the new boss same as the old boss? its all on a bit of a knife edge? which is why this soap opera is so fascinating to watch? Today will be interesting will they sell players to repay the loan or will the share issue do that? but in the interest of individual share holders surely they need to make an announcement to the stock exchange on the loan as its due to be paid back in full today???????? although technically it was due to be repaid just as soon as the first 31.5m of season tickets were sold??

 

Can't remember the figures, but if anyone is buying shares, and it takes them above certain thresholds, they do need to announce it to the stock market, normally on the dame business day, sometimes within an hour.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Claudia

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

King is restricted on how much he can move out of South Africa. It won't be him.

[Hagar the Horrible]

 

 

 

Can't remember the figures, but if anyone is buying shares, and it takes them above certain thresholds, they do need to announce it to the stock market, normally on the dame business day, sometimes within an hour.

If it is a director then even buying a few shares they must inform? but if its a single investor they have to ensure that they remain below the 29.9% otherwise it would trigger a hostile takeover, anyhoo http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11947519

[I P Knightley]

Could be someone wants to get first option to take up the 20p shares and have a better chance at getting some of the assets if admin takes place.

 

I doubt it.

 

Given that admin would result in a "pennies in the pound" distribution of net assets (after satisfying all other creditors - presumably including McCoist's deferred salary), added to the uncertainty about security on the non-current assets, I doubt that any shareholder would get their stake back in the event of admin.

 

could be a false transfer to generate confidence? this looks like 2 transactions of 1,8m shares in essence it looks like 3.6m but it could be I will sell to you, you sell straight back? that would boost the share price, but then again I am just a massive cynic!

 

I prefer this cynical view of it.

 

Not sure where the City sits at the moment in terms of this "share price support". It sounds like the stuff that got Ronson and Saunders into soapy bubble back in the 80s.

 

If it is a director then even buying a few shares they must inform? but if its a single investor they have to ensure that they remain below the 29.9% otherwise it would trigger a hostile takeover, anyhoo http://www.londonsto...mentId=11947519

 

There's also a lower tier where you have to declare yourself as a significant shareholder. I think it's when you hit 5%; just to alert the other shareholders that there's a 'new' player in town who might have other designs.

 

Are we sure this sale of shares isn't an exercise of options?

[Paolo]

 

 

I doubt it.

 

Given that admin would result in a "pennies in the pound" distribution of net assets (after satisfying all other creditors - presumably including McCoist's deferred salary), added to the uncertainty about security on the non-current assets, I doubt that any shareholder would get their stake back in the event of admin.

 

 

 

I prefer this cynical view of it.

 

Not sure where the City sits at the moment in terms of this "share price support". It sounds like the stuff that got Ronson and Saunders into soapy bubble back in the 80s.

 

 

 

There's also a lower tier where you have to declare yourself as a significant shareholder. I think it's when you hit 5%; just to alert the other shareholders that there's a 'new' player in town who might have other designs.

 

Are we sure this sale of shares isn't an exercise of options?

 

3% came to my mind, but it could be 5% and blocks of thereafter.

[DETTY29]

That's the concession is it not? It was what punishment they received that they shouldn't have that you seemed to allude to?

Sort of.

 

Others may argue that being placed in Div 3 was a concession against at a minimum, offering the place freed up in the league by allowinging say Spartans the opportunity to apply too. Others argue that as no 3 continuous years signed off accounts, they shouldn't be any higher than the Lowland League just now. Doncaster is adamant that no rules were broken by placing TRFC in SFL Division 3 in the summer of 2012 so I take him at his word. He is a lawyer and knows and understand the rules far better than any of us.

Edited September 1, 2014 by DETTY29

[Zico]

 

 

3% came to my mind, but it could be 5% and blocks of thereafter.

I'm pretty sure it's 3% - it definitely used to be 3%, anyway.

[I P Knightley]

Sort of.

 

Others may argue that being placed in Div 3 was a concession against at a minimum, offering the place freed up in the league by allowinging say Spartans the opportunity to apply too. Others argue that as no 3 continuous years signed off accounts, they shouldn't be any higher than the Lowland League just now. Doncaster is adamant that no rules were broken by placing TRFC in SFL Division 3 in the summer of 2012 so I take him at his word. He is a lawyer and knows and understand makes up the rules far better than any of us.

 

Wee edit there for you.

[The Comedian]

 

 

5% triggers a statement ..

 

Will it begin with 'WE NOTE WITH DISMAY' perhaps?

 

I like those ones.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

The record are now reporting it, better late than never.. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-latest-more-35m-shares-4144426?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The average Orc will think the ?900k mentioned goes into the WAR CHEST!

[The Don]

The average Orc will think the ?900k mentioned goes into the WAR CHEST!

 

That is exactly how the record are trying to make it sound with that headline.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Samster]

The average Orc will think the ?900k mentioned goes into the WAR CHEST!

We really need a war chest emoji, I'm thinking a lost treasure chest with all the gold coins spilling out.

[The Comedian]

 

 

That is exactly how the record are trying to make it sound with that headline.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's what I thought it meant knowing little about shares etc.

 

Hopefully a few more demoralised Huns is the outcome.

[Footballfirst]

There may be no disclosure. If this was simply an agreed trade, then someone who holds 1.8M shares could sell them to a new buyer at an agreed price. That would show as two trades of 1.8M each. 1.8M equates to 2.74% (below the reporting threshold)

 

The threshold for reporting is 3% and every 1% beyond that on the way up. Similarly on the way down, but once a holding drops below 3% there is no further need for disclosure.

 

All deals by directors must be disclosed no matter how many shares are held.

 

Of the original pre IPO holders, Craig Mather held exactly 1.8M shares. That number is most likely to be co-incidence though.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Footballfirst

[FarmerTweedy]

So what your saying is that they don't deserve the same early hand out's that we and other clubs have received for our/their over spending?

 

If they go into administration, make all (or almost all) of their senior players redundant and take all other steps they can to reduce their operating costs, they will deserve the same early handouts other clubs have had. At the moment, they deserve nothing.

[Hagar the Horrible]

What is interesting is the institutional investors who have so far said no to pumping more money in are: Artemis, River & mecantile, hargrieve hale, Miton and a bit of uncertainty about Mike Ashley, but this group represents 6.3m of the 19.8m available leaving everybody else with 13.4m, they need 15m to make it work, so even if there is enough left over its going to be tight to make it a success? This list represents the institutional investors with >3% as well as Mather who may have been moving shares around today? so here is a list of the spivs the amount of shares they currently have, the amount they are allowed to buy and how much it will cost them?

 

Spiv Shares options cash

Laxey 8292957 2487887 ?497,577.42

Artemis 5479000 1643700 ?328,740.00

River & Mercantile 4795500 1438650 ?287,730.00

Hargeave Hale 4601688 1380506 ?276,101.28

BPH 4000000 1200000 ?240,000.00

Miton 3143857 943157.1 ?188,631.42

Mike Ashley 3000000 900000 ?180,000.00

Wigs 2942957 882887.1 ?176,577.42

Mather 1800000 540000 ?108,000.00

Margarita 2600000 780000 ?156,000.00

Totals: 40655959 12196788 ?2,439,357.54

 

[LoveNgoo]

It's taken me 2 months but I have finally managed to finish reading this thread.

[Don Dan]

 

It's taken me 2 months but I have finally managed to finish reading this thread.

 

Was it worth it?

[LoveNgoo]

Nope

[I.T.K]

It's taken me 2 months but I have finally managed to finish reading this thread.

 

How much pop corn is on your shopping list?

[Don Dan]

Naughty Naughty..

 

http://news.stv.tv/w...-while-driving/

 

Rangers player Mohsni fined for using mobile phone while driving

 

Mohsni: Told police he was in Scotland for catering course.

 

Rangers player Bilel Mohsni has been fined more than ?400 after he was caught driving with no insurance and while on his phone.

The 27-year-old defender was stopped by police on Saracen Street, in Glasgow's Possilpark area, in October 2013 after officers noticed he was speaking on his mobile.

When police did a background check it was found that he had no insurance to drive the car.

French-born Mohsni pled guilty on Monday at Glasgow's Justice of the Peace Court to driving without insurance and while on his mobile phone. He was fined a total of ?405 with 28 days to pay, and handed six penalty points.

A plea of not guilty to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, by pretending to police that he did not live in the UK and was visiting the country for a catering course, was accepted by prosecutors.

Mohsni was not present when the case called at the court but was represented by defence lawyer Martin Black.

The car he was caught while carrying out the offences was owned by Kilmarnock Football Club.

Mr Black said that Mohsni had borrowed the car from Kilmarnock player Ismael Bouzid, who was on trial with Rangers this summer. He added that his client thought he was covered to drive the car.

 

 

"A plea of not guilty to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, by pretending to police that he did not live in the UK and was visiting the country for a catering course, was accepted by prosecutors."

 

He either did say that or he didn't. If he did say it then he was trying to pervert justice. I can never understand why these things are dropped by prosecutors.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Dannie Boy

[FarmerTweedy]

I'm pretty sure it's 3% - it definitely used to be 3%, anyway.

 

It's 3% on the main list, not sure if the AIM rules are the same or not.