Jump to content

The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.


Sergio Garcia

Recommended Posts

Can King be done for this, which is obviously misleading the shareholders and customers into believing one thing and in this case not fullfiling his promise of investment. Is it a breach of share market rules?

 

Extremely unlikely, he "may" have believed what he was saying was the truth but things have changed since then, not against the law to be a complete and utter fud, unfortunately.

 

Paul Murray wont invest anything in sevco, he has no money and he is also the glib and shameless liars mini me.

 

The liar king has now had a look at the books and is now shitting himself as he now realises it is far far worse than he thought. That is why his mouthpiece is now saying that he wont invest until he has passed the fpp crap, despite only 3 weeks ago trumpeting how much he would put into the club irrespective of the fpp stuff.

 

Also, the cash the 3 stooges have stumped up is being described as an investment, it isn't, it's a loan(unsecured, what a trio of morons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...an enormous stool to pass?

 

A solid number 2 perhaps? to quote the glib and shameless liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Slim Stylee

Well done, TC.  People usually call it (wrongly) the Marie Celeste.

 

Even if he'd got it wrong it's still an excellent post:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He bought a single share in Sports Direct and decided to be a nuisance, now they're taking him to court and pursuing costs. All a bit odd ..

Must admit that if I was a shareholder, I wouldn't be that keen on the likes of Dingwall being able to get my details, and wasn't really aware that could happen....

 

....but it does seem like he is legally entitled to it, and SD's lawyers are just trying to bully / intimidate him with the threat of dire financial consequences....

 

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone should be able to see who holds the shares... unless you have something to hide it should not be an issue

 

 

The problem in this and other countries is the difficulty faced finding out who does control companies/corporations...... that should not be allowed.

Edited by CJGJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible

Must admit that if I was a shareholder, I wouldn't be that keen on the likes of Dingwall being able to get my details, and wasn't really aware that could happen....

 

....but it does seem like he is legally entitled to it, and SD's lawyers are just trying to bully / intimidate him with the threat of dire financial consequences....

 

:unsure:

Mark is going to make a nuisance and is quite right, he is going after them in the same way they are consuming his club. I fully support him, regardless of the reasons, the zero hours contracts etc. But what you have here is the legal team for sports direct not acting in the interests of a shareholder? albeit 1 share. I might even donate, because sometime the little guy does need to take on corporate bullies and win!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Mark is going to make a nuisance and is quite right, he is going after them in the same way they are consuming his club. I fully support him, regardless of the reasons, the zero hours contracts etc. But what you have here is the legal team for sports direct not acting in the interests of a shareholder? albeit 1 share. I might even donate, because sometime the little guy does need to take on corporate bullies and win!

 

If Dingwall is prepared to go to such lengths to get hold of shareholder details for SD, one would be surprised that he hasn't (to my knowledge) used the same tactic to establish who was behind Blue Pitch, Margarita and Beaufort in RIFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible

If Dingwall is prepared to go to such lengths to get hold of shareholder details for SD, one would be surprised that he hasn't (to my knowledge) used the same tactic to establish who was behind Blue Pitch, Margarita and Beaufort in RIFC.

he would need to buy shares in those companies, and I don't think they will sell to him? Also on this subject you would think that the new regime would have their exposure high on the agenda, as after all they have had 3 weeks to get a shifty under the hood and as promised be open and upfront? Still getting a NOMAD must be high on the agendas well, although they had one lined up did they not? 5 working days before they get delisted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they'll be happy to be delisted. The costs of keeping the listing going are pretty big, and the chances of raising significant funds from external investors pretty small no matter whether they are listed or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they'll be happy to be delisted. The costs of keeping the listing going are pretty big, and the chances of raising significant funds from external investors pretty small no matter whether they are listed or not. 

 

You may well be right.

 

But that is not what Mr King said- he said he had a Nomad lined up. He also said he would match other's funding . He also said he would "invest" whether or not he passed the FPP test. He said he had the kid's inheritance of ?30m/?18m/?5m* to invest

 

Looks like the South African Judge is a good  judge of character...because that could be perceived as 4 big fibs already.

 

Instead of , or as well as, hounding SD and Mr Ashley, perhaps Mr Dingwall should be seeking some truth from Mr King.

 

 

 

 

*delete etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they'll be happy to be delisted. The costs of keeping the listing going are pretty big, and the chances of raising significant funds from external investors pretty small no matter whether they are listed or not.

How much do you think it costs them?

 

I'll be generous and say up to ?10,000. Per annum fee's to the AIM.

 

They will also probably issue more detailed accounts on a fancy brochure but no doubt would do similar if they weren't listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalstonjambo

he would need to buy shares in those companies, and I don't think they will sell to him? Also on this subject you would think that the new regime would have their exposure high on the agenda, as after all they have had 3 weeks to get a shifty under the hood and as promised be open and upfront? Still getting a NOMAD must be high on the agendas well, although they had one lined up did they not? 5 working days before they get delisted

Correct. Also the rules around hedge funds etc are different. They don't have to declare who owns them to shareholders or what they hold anywhere near as much as what listed companies do. If they are privately owned you can't just buy shares in them. 

Edited by Dalstonjambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark is going to make a nuisance and is quite right, he is going after them in the same way they are consuming his club. I fully support him, regardless of the reasons, the zero hours contracts etc. But what you have here is the legal team for sports direct not acting in the interests of a shareholder? albeit 1 share. I might even donate, because sometime the little guy does need to take on corporate bullies and win!

Fair comment Hagar. :thumb:

 

Maybe a bit of "nimbyism" in my post, as I'd never given it much thought about shareholders rights, and just assumed their identities would be covered by Data Protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user

How much do you think it costs them?

 

I'll be generous and say up to ?10,000. Per annum fee's to the AIM.

 

They will also probably issue more detailed accounts on a fancy brochure but no doubt would do similar if they weren't listed.

Probably not much really, it's probably more inconvenient than anything - they're restricted in certain ways and have to make announcements they'd probably prefer not to.

 

The future share issue will bring in money from existing shareholders so they don't really need the market.

 

And who actually wants a Nomad hanging about anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not much really, it's probably more inconvenient than anything - they're restricted in certain ways and have to make announcements they'd probably prefer not to.

 

The future share issue will bring in money from existing shareholders so they don't really need the market.

 

And who actually wants a Nomad hanging about anyway?

 

If there is a rights issue,it will be interesting to see if any of the institutional shareholders take more. I have my doubts on that score. Any money that is raised will come from King, Murray and the three bears. That is if they actually have any that they themselves are willing to invest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user

If there is a rights issue,it will be interesting to see if any of the institutional shareholders take more. I have my doubts on that score. Any money that is raised will come from King, Murray and the three bears. That is if they actually have any that they themselves are willing to invest.

That's what I'm getting from this, the share issue is intended to be the vehicle for them putting the promised money in, so AIM would then be of very little interest to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

I think it's about the tenth time I've said it on this thread but it still takes my breath away to think Traynor was presented as an impartial voice by the BBC. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Surprised the Bigirimana issue hasn't gotten play here yet (or maybe I've missed it):

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rumour-mill-gael-bigirimana-crisis-scotland-1-3730772

 

He apparently knew of his medical issues before the transfer was approved. Hard to see the whole loan affair as anything more than more revenue pumping from Ashley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glamorgan Jambo

Surprised the Bigirimana issue hasn't gotten play here yet (or maybe I've missed it):

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rumour-mill-gael-bigirimana-crisis-scotland-1-3730772

 

He apparently knew of his medical issues before the transfer was approved. Hard to see the whole loan affair as anything more than more revenue pumping from Ashley.

 

Except it's unlikely that the payments (?1K per week per player) will cover anything like these players salaries.

 

And one of the 'unfit' players was selected for the Northern Ireland squad a couple of weeks ago (he eventually withdrew).

 

And another player was deemed fit by Rangers to play for the first team before getting injured.

 

And another is currently playing for their U21s.

 

And no one knows what the rule is that prevents Gael Bigirimana from playing in Scotland while he's clear to play in England.

 

And another player is their top scorer since he came in on loan.

 

This is all classic 'succulent lamb' type journalism from the likes of Jackson to get on the good side of the new ?1brox regime who want to use the loan fiasco as a reason to sack Llambias and Leech for gross misconduct.

 

I notice Murray failed to mention what the status with the financially much more significant McCoist contract.

Edited by Glamorgan Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very vague, unconvincing and evasive answers from Paul Murray in that interview with Traynor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football clubs shares shouldn't be listed and available for anyone to buy. Thats how the real owners, the fans, lose out. I hope HMFC is never listed again.

 

Surely it's the easiest way for fans to by them (other than through an offer of new shares) and if done correctly control can still lie with one party, e,g FoH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRAVEHEART1874

He doesn't even know who is behind bph yet? Aye right ;) also the 15-20 million investment needed Is actually a long term not short term investment wow hands up how many sevco glory hunting fans got fooled into voting by that :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user

Surely it's the easiest way for fans to by them (other than through an offer of new shares) and if done correctly control can still lie with one party, e,g FoH. 

Didn't we delist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barney Rubble

Some very vague, unconvincing and evasive answers from Paul Murray in that interview with Traynor.  

keeping the dream alive = its dead jim :kirklol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't get a new Nomad. They'll delist,saving ?300k-500k pa and try to do crowd-funding instead imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keeping the dream alive = its dead jim

Perfect example of "nailing it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874

The only thing I'm sure off is if Rangers do get back to the top, Nicky law won't be playing in midfield...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I'm sure off is if Rangers do get back to the top, Nicky law won't be playing in midfield...

My thoughts exactly...and Scottish footballs decline will accelerate once more when the skid marked cheek gets up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalstonjambo

The other issue with a nomad is that for the return they will get relatively rangers are not worth the work. I have a friend of a friend who works for wh Ireland and lets just say it was not worth the hassle even without the legal issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maple Leaf locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...