The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Alva-Jambo]

If the rights to the badges etc are MA's with a linked contingency element over the 5 years mentioned,

I'd assume that Sports Direct will be entitled to the revenues from that possession of their rights for 5 years

so yes, there very likely shall be an onerous clause linked to early repayment.  After all, why plant a minefield

without arming the mines?   Its something he is a master of.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Top table = being pumped bandy by euro giants like Malmo in the qualifiers.

 

The Linus Pillowbiter goal was a highlight

[Deevers]

If the rights to the badges etc are MA's with a linked contingency element over the 5 years mentioned,

I'd assume that Sports Direct will be entitled to the revenues from that possession of their rights for 5 years

so yes, there very likely shall be an onerous clause linked to early repayment.  After all, why plant a minefield

without arming the mines?   Its something he is a master of.

 

Exactly, and I suspect that's what's caused the latest bout of panic from King and Murray. I wonder what other ticking time bombs there are lurking in the dark comers though there. I get the feeling that Ashley has stitched them up good and proper and that's why there has hardly been a cheap from him and his gang since King and Co grabbed control.

[Jambof3tornado]

Can they not just come up with a new badge,perhaps a buckfast bottle rising from the ashes??

[Alva-Jambo]

In today's Daily Ranger  former Chairman Alastair Johston suggests  that (newco)  may have to abandon their crest and start with another new one.

But poor Alastair, that's giving up yet more or the history that you have already given up. 

Secondly he thinks that its not impossible to overcome the trademark problems of doing so.   Oh?  Yes it will be,  he should know

better as he understands trademarking.  

He goes on to say  and I quote:    "  there are certain things that they can't protect.. they can't protect the red white and blue scraf".  

Well said!   they are, the scraf.  

 

He then says, "  I am not sure how much they could protect the Lion Rampant ......"   ( This appears on part of Rangers badge ?)

The Lord Lyon, is guardian of heraldry in Scotland, and any application to use a Lion Rampant in a commercial logo is not likely to come under acceptance.

And he has strong sanctions. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by Alva-Jambo

[Footballfirst]

Following the Alastair Johnston story in the Record, there is a Twitter discussion this morning between David Low (@heavidor) and STV's Grant Russell as to whether or not Rangers have defaulted on the terms of the ?5M SD loan.

 

David Low had been close to the Rangers saga throughout and has had a few exclusives.

 

David Low @Heavidor  ?  2h 2 hours ago

This is a huge story with huge implications & the SMSM hasn't picked it up. No crest anywhere without MA permission. New club with no crest.

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago

@Heavidor We picked it up yesterday. Rangers have the right to use the badge under terms of the agreement. http://bit.ly/1aRej47

 

David Low?@Heavidor 42m42 minutes ago

@STVGrant That's not the story. The loan is in default is the story. MA is entitled to his cash back. The trademarks can be sold.

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 38m38 minutes ago

@Heavidor Why do you believe they have defaulted? I can see no evidence of that.

 

David Low ?@Heavidor 33m33 minutes ago

@STVGrant Where are the two Ashley nominated directors?

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 31m31 minutes ago

@Heavidor Still unappointed? I don't recall there being a time limit on their appointment. Pertinent point though. But still supposition.

 

Phil MacGiollaBhain ?@Pmacgiollabhain 19m19 minutes ago

@STVGrant @Heavidor Grant I'm hearing similar apropos "default" from an excellent source. It is definitely a line worth pursuing.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Mikey1874]

oops

[Don Dan]

Will the SMSM pursue it though? Or will Jabba brief against it.

[jamboozy]

Can they not just come up with a new badge,perhaps a buckfast bottle rising from the ashes??

surrounded with a laurel of big blue noses?

[DETTY29]

Following the Alastair Johnston story in the Record, there is a Twitter discussion this morning between David Low (@heavidor) and STV's Grant Russell as to whether or not Rangers have defaulted on the terms of the ?5M SD loan.

 

David Low had been close to the Rangers saga throughout and has had a few exclusives.

 

David Low @Heavidor  ?  2h 2 hours ago

This is a huge story with huge implications & the SMSM hasn't picked it up. No crest anywhere without MA permission. New club with no crest.

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago

@Heavidor We picked it up yesterday. Rangers have the right to use the badge under terms of the agreement. http://bit.ly/1aRej47

 

David Low?@Heavidor 42m42 minutes ago

@STVGrant That's not the story. The loan is in default is the story. MA is entitled to his cash back. The trademarks can be sold.

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 38m38 minutes ago

@Heavidor Why do you believe they have defaulted? I can see no evidence of that.

 

David Low ?@Heavidor 33m33 minutes ago

@STVGrant Where are the two Ashley nominated directors?

 

Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 31m31 minutes ago

@Heavidor Still unappointed? I don't recall there being a time limit on their appointment. Pertinent point though. But still supposition.

 

Phil MacGiollaBhain ?@Pmacgiollabhain 19m19 minutes ago

@STVGrant @Heavidor Grant I'm hearing similar apropos "default" from an excellent source. It is definitely a line worth pursuing.

Wasn't Grant/STV reporting that Sports Direct aren't charging Rangers for use of the TMs?

 

Default conditions may change this.  

 

The first (?5m) tranche had no fixed repayment term, just as most personal overdrafts although business ones tend to be up for annual review.  But they are repayable on demand.

 

Is Mike calling the RRM bluff to find out how much liquid candy they actually have?  It sort of looks like they are going to have to pony up an 8 figure sum ahead of any share issue.  And how much will they want back, how much converted to shares and how much a 'working capital' gift?

 

Once again neither SMSM or the wider Rangers fan base asking direct questions and not giving up until they are given direct and truthful answers.

 

Once bitten, twice shy etc, but for what is it now, a 4th or 5th time?

 

In other news looks like Keith Jackson is winning Scottish Sports Journalist of the Year again.

Edited April 11, 2015 by DETTY29

[Diadora Van Basten]

To the tune of he's got the whole world in your hands:

 

Mike Ashley owns your badge

Mike Ashley owns your badge

Mike Ashley owns your badge

And he owns Broxy the bear

[Tommy Brown]

What's that some on here were saying?

 

"This thread should be closed down now"

 

Bollocks, it gives brilliant new angles week by week.

 

And as usual, SMSM would have kept us in the dark.

[RobboM]

To the tune of he's got the whole world in your hands:

 

Mike Ashley owns your badge

Mike Ashley owns your badge

Mike Ashley owns your badge

And he owns Broxy the bear

.....

He's got the whole Gers in his hands

[Jammy T]

Hahahaha

 

Of course - the requirement that 2 SD directors had to be on the board for the loan.

 

Hahaha

 

Jesus. It's actually just the beginning of the fun not the end of it.

[DETTY29]

Grant could always check the MR01 entries in Co. House & ask the board to clarify them, & also if there's any truth in the rumour about D. Park being close to walking away.

And if he does that, Rangers then refuse to talk to STV and Grant gets added to Chris Graham's Enemy of Rangers list.....

[Mr Nobody]

Hahahaha

Of course - the requirement that 2 SD directors had to be on the board for the loan.

Hahaha

Jesus. It's actually just the beginning of the fun not the end of it.

I thought the 2 directors were only part of the 2nd 5m from MA which hasn't been given to them.

[disgruntledfan]

Grant could always check the MR01 entries in Co. House & ask the board to clarify them, & also if there's any truth in the rumour about D. Park being close to walking away.

Gee Whizz you cant expect him to do all that, he would then be classed as an investigative journalist looking for a real story, not titbits he reads on forums,   

[givememychoice]

I thought the 2 directors were only part of the 2nd 5m from MA which hasn't been given to them.

No, it was tied in to the first tranche of the loan.

Obviously without seeing the contract of the loan, we dont know, but knowing what we do about MA, it is likely that the contract would have been cleverly worded, and so the removal of the two appointed directors would constitute a breach of the loan conditions. And some thought Ashley had been beaten!

It wouldnt surprise me if there is a financial penalty as well as the transfer of rights.

[Mr Nobody]

No, it was tied in to the first tranche of the loan.

Obviously without seeing the contract of the loan, we dont know, but knowing what we do about MA, it is likely that the contract would have been cleverly worded, and so the removal of the two appointed directors would constitute a breach of the loan conditions. And some thought Ashley had been beaten!

It wouldnt surprise me if there is a financial penalty as well as the transfer of rights.

Cheers. MA not going to go away and the silence from King is a bit strange.

[steve444]

[Angus Young]

Really hoping that the Sevco Walking Dead club do not get promotion ideal scenario is Sevco wipe out either QOS Or the Vermin then the get beat by Murderwell in the play of final another year at least down in the championship would really hit them hard financially.

 

And no sign yet of the lying king ponying up a penny.

[Holyrood_Hearts]

If our msm wanted to end this farce they simply refuse to print sevco P.r guff . Clubs need newspapers but it's a two way St & threats of banning like the BBC episode are a disgrace to a free press & shouldn't be accepted either.

 

 

 

G. Spiers once gave a good account of how sports journalists operated in his day & their cosy chats with directors more or less giving them "titbits" to run in their column's in return for not being overly critical etc..

 

Not a lot has changed as the sevco saga has shown. [emoji6].

I was listening to Off the Ball ages ago & Graeme Spiers was on talking about David Murray doing this.

[Libertarian]

Really hoping that the Sevco Walking Dead club do not get promotion ideal scenario is Sevco wipe out either QOS Or the Vermin then the get beat by Murderwell in the play of final another year at least down in the championship would really hit them hard financially.

 

And no sign yet of the lying king ponying up a penny.

Some (most) Rangers supporters still believe that Dave King will plough in ?30 million. Laughable. 

[The Gasman]

Some (most) Rangers supporters still believe that Dave King will plough in ?30 million. Laughable.

Unless they can stem the continually increasing debt, and the constant hemoraging of cash, even ?30m (no matter how unlikely it is to be ploughed in by King) would only keep them afloat for about the next three seasons....

 

[Jamboelite]

Really hoping that the Sevco Walking Dead club do not get promotion ideal scenario is Sevco wipe out either QOS Or the Vermin then the get beat by Murderwell in the play of final another year at least down in the championship would really hit them hard financially.

 

And no sign yet of the lying king ponying up a penny.

No the ideal scenario is QofS get promoted leaving Motherwell, Hibs, St Mirren and Rangers in the Championship next year.

[rudi]

I was listening to Off the Ball ages ago & Graeme Spiers was on talking about David Murray doing this.

It's been going on for years oor Wallace had the press in his back pocket.

[Seymour M Hersh]

No the ideal scenario is QofS get promoted leaving Motherwell, Hibs, St Mirren and Rangers in the Championship next year.

 

How effing superb would that be. And how hard would that make it to get out of the championship.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Seymour M Hersh

[Deevers]

Unless they can stem the continually increasing debt, and the constant hemoraging of cash, even ?30m (no matter how unlikely it is to be ploughed in by King) would only keep them afloat for about the next three seasons....

 

No sign of King ponying up anything at present. He might have a job getting money out of South Africa and I would reckon the revenue service there will be watching him like Hawks.

 

I think that Dave really hoped that he would get to play with other people's money. I just wonder if the penny has finally dropped with Park and Co. There are continuing rumours of discord between him and King and some think he might just be on the point of walking.

[Dutchmul]

Some (most) Rangers supporters still believe that Dave King will plough in ?30 million. Laughable. 

 

It's been reducing everytime he's interviewed, started at 50m, it's now 10m on a 50/50 basis but no one has actually seen any cash from him. I think he's seen the books and is now baulking at putting any cash in as it goes straight out to another spiv. 

 

Unless they can stem the continually increasing debt, and the constant hemoraging of cash, even ?30m (no matter how unlikely it is to be ploughed in by King) would only keep them afloat for about the next three seasons....

 

 

This. They are spending more than they earn every single month, onerous contracts syphoning money to the spivs. They will never make it work without getting rid of all the spivs feeding off the carcass and that will take upwards of 50m before they spend anything on the team and stadium.

 

No, it was tied in to the first tranche of the loan.

Obviously without seeing the contract of the loan, we dont know, but knowing what we do about MA, it is likely that the contract would have been cleverly worded, and so the removal of the two appointed directors would constitute a breach of the loan conditions. And some thought Ashley had been beaten!

It wouldnt surprise me if there is a financial penalty as well as the transfer of rights.

 

This is what I think happened, ashley led them by the nose to the EGM and let them have their day knowing full well that as soon as the removed leach and llambias from the board they where in breach of the loan agreement. Leach and llambias never resigned unlike somers they were removed by the glib and shameless liar and therefore thats what I think was the loan breach.

 

The silence from the "victors" of the egm is deafening, ashley has once again stitched them up and they walked right into it.

 

King has always wanted to do this with other peoples money, he hasn't invested a single penny in sevco. I suspect he now knows how much he is going to have to pony up and he is not a happy man. I expect an appeal for the orcs to get behind the board by buying season tickets to happen any time soon.

[Angus Young]

Some (most) Rangers supporters still believe that Dave King will plough in ?30 million. Laughable. 

 

you are correct i was speaking to a hun yesterday i mentioned that MA Now owns all the badges he said yes i know but when we pay him the 5 million we get them back was his answer he further went on to tell me that King put in 30 million before so money was not a problem.

 

This is a picture into the mindset of a typical hun.

[Footballfirst]

Statement o'clock

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9052-rangers-international-football-club-statement

 

IT WILL not become custom and practice for the Board of Rangers International Football Club to respond to every outbreak of media speculation regarding this Club but because of the sensitivity of the subject at the centre of recent reporting the Directors felt a response is legitimate at this time.

 

It has been widely reported that the trademarks, the iconic symbols of our Club, are now in the possession of Sports Direct

 

Although the trademarks are registered in Sports Direct's name, the position is not as alarming as it may first appear.

 

Let us all be absolutely clear on this matter. Rangers remain the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks and Interim Chairman Paul Murray has clarified this position with Sports Direct. In fact, both parties will come together within the next two weeks for talks. 

 

Confusion over ownership arose last week when it was noticed on a Government Intellectual Property site that they appeared to be the possessions of Sports Direct but this was as a consequence of the loan facility entered into by the Club?s previous Board in January of this year. In return for the loan, Sports Direct took security over all Rangers assets ? but not Ibrox ? including intellectual property owned by the Club.

 

In England, it is possible to secure such rights by a fixed charge but in Scotland the equivalent of an English fixed charge (a standard security) can only be granted over heritable property - land and buildings. Intellectual Property is counted as moveable property for these purposes and Scots Law doesn't allow fixed security to be granted over moveable property.

 

Accordingly a practice has developed of lenders taking absolute transfers subject to a back letter setting out that the transfer is in security and the property will be returned when the facility has been repaid. This is a common device adopted by most of the UK banks and other main commercial lenders.

 

Rangers supporters can be reassured that Sports Direct fully accept that all of the IP rights registered in their name will be returned to the Club when the loan facility ? the previous Board drew down ?5m - is repaid.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Diadora Van Basten]

I would have thought they would give an indication in the statement of when they intend to repay the loan and get their badges back.

[Jambof3tornado]

A back letter? Aye ok then. Sounds side contracty to me!!

[Don Dan]

So at present Big Mikey owns the rights to the Trademarks and Iconic Symbols and until they pay him they won't.

[Skivingatwork]

Doesn't confirm or deny whether they are currently in breach of the loan conditions.

[I.T.K]

Doesn't confirm or deny whether they are currently in breach of the loan conditions.

 

That's what I am interested in, but from the telegraph "Derek Llambias and Barry Leach remain executives, despite Dave King removing them as directors".

 

So don't think there has been a breach in contract.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11460425/Rangers-news-Derek-Llambias-and-Barry-Leach-remain-executives-despite-Dave-King-removing-them-as-directors.html 

[Unknown user]

A back letter? Aye ok then. Sounds side contracty to me!!

Totally different thing, there would have been nothing wrong with the side contracts if they hadn't been hidden.

 

However, some on RangersMedia are suggesting that a floating charge can be granted on intellectual property so the board's version of events maybe needs scrutinising.

 

They're also making the point that it should be alarming to Rangers fans that the board didn't know about this until someone broke the story on twitter

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Totally different thing, there would have been nothing wrong with the side contracts if they hadn't been hidden.

 

However, some on RangersMedia are suggesting that a floating charge can be granted on intellectual property so the board's version of events maybe needs scrutinising.

 

They're also making the point that it should be alarming to Rangers fans that the board didn't know about this until someone broke the story on twitter

 

King & Co probably knew only to well about this when they took over but wanted to keep quite about it.

So much for the promise of openness and transparency, which must have been said in the same sentence as 'We have a Nomad already lined up'.

And we know how that turned out.

[Unknown user]

King & Co probably knew only to well about this when they took over but wanted to keep quite about it.

So much for the promise of openness and transparency, which must have been said in the same sentence as 'We have a Nomad already lined up'.

And we know how that turned out.

We can't know for sure of course, but I don't think their reaction was fake. They may, for example, have known that the intellectual property was being used as security without knowing that meant a transfer of ownership for the duration of the loan

[jamboz]

We can't know for sure of course, but I don't think their reaction was fake. They may, for example, have known that the intellectual property was being used as security without knowing that meant a transfer of ownership for the duration of the loan

Aye but surely you would find all that stuff out when doing your due diligence. If not then questions should be asked about their compitance.

[Angus Young]

Stewart Regan, Campbell Ogilvie, Ralph Topping, Peter Lawwell, Alan McRae, Rod Petrie, Barrie Jackson and Tom Johnston.

 

 

These men must decide if A Glib and Shameless Liar/Convicted Tax Cheat is a Fit And Proper Person they must for the sake of Scottish football do the right thing and confirm that charlatans like King are kept away from our Football Clubs if he passes this test we might as well remove the rule and open the doors to every shady crook and declare open season.

[givememychoice]

 from practicallaw.com (dealing with the scottish legislation)

Intellectual property

7. What are the most common types of intellectual property over which security is granted in your jurisdiction? What are the most common forms of security granted over intellectual property? How are they created and perfected?

Intellectual property

Intellectual property (IP) includes:

• Registered IP, including:

  • patents;

  • trade marks; and

  • designs.

• Unregistered IP, including:

  • unregistered trade names or marks;

  • goodwill; and

  • licences over registered and unregistered IP.

Common forms of security

Floating charges are commonly taken over IP, as for other forms of property (see Question 3, Common forms of security: Floating charges).

It is relatively rare to take fixed security over IP, unless it is particularly significant in a particular transaction and the disadvantages of a floating charge cannot be addressed adequately in other ways. However, fixed security can be taken over registered IP.

IP licences are treated as contractual rights. Fixed security is taken in the same way as for claims and receivables, by assignation to the security holder (see Question 5).

Fixed security can be taken over copyright by assignation. However, there is no clear mechanism to take fixed security over other forms of non-contractual unregistered IP.

Formalities

Floating charges over intellectual property are taken in the same way as for other assets (see Question 3, Formalities: Floating charges).

Fixed security over registered IP is taken by transferring the IP in question to the security holder (or its nominee) and registering the transfer in the relevant public register under the relevant statutory regime, such as the Trade Marks Register (Trade Marks Act 1994) or Patents Register (Patents Act 1977, Patents Rules 1990 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988).

In practice, assignations are often signed up and delivered as conditions precedent, but not perfected until required by the lender (for example, on default or if default is likely). However, perfection of a security on insolvency may give rise to issues concerning hardening periods, alienations and preferences (see Question 23). In addition, given the need for the debtor to continue to deal with its IP, fully perfected assignations of IP are rare in Scotland, and are generally considered uncommercial.

The relevant IP must be specifically identified and owned by the grantor of the security at the time it is secured. No fixed security is created unless and until the transfer is registered.

The security document usually provides for:

• The manner in which the security holder must deal with its title to the IP.

• A licence back to the grantor of the security to use the IP.

• The management of infringement actions.

Formalities for the assignation of IP licences are the same as for claims and receivables (see Question 5, Formalities). No security is created unless and until notice of the assignation is given to and acknowledged by the relevant licensor, and any further steps required under the licence have been taken.

It is not necessary to give notice of an assignation of copyright. There is no clear mechanism to take fixed security over other unregistered non-contractual unregistered IP.

All securities granted by a UK company or limited liability partnership (LLP) over IP must be registered at Companies House within 21 days of their creation.

 

 

 

 

 

So, the assertion that a fixed (not floating) charge can not be granted in Scotland does appear wrong. However, it looks like it is common for the IP to be transferred under a fixed charge for the duration of the charge. Others with superior legal mind may be able to quibble this!

[OmiyaHearts]

Stewart Regan, Campbell Ogilvie, Ralph Topping, Peter Lawwell, Alan McRae, Rod Petrie, Barrie Jackson and Tom Johnston.

 

 

These men must decide if A Glib and Shameless Liar/Convicted Tax Cheat is a Fit And Proper Person they must for the sake of Scottish football do the right thing and confirm that charlatans like King are kept away from our Football Clubs if he passes this test we might as well remove the rule and open the doors to every shady crook and declare open season.

But I thought you wanted Rangers to die again? Surely it's better for King to get the nod?

[Unknown user]

Aye but surely you would find all that stuff out when doing your due diligence. If not then questions should be asked about their compitance.

Exactly what I was saying on the previous page

[Armageddon]

Just a side note re Ashley and the people he deals with - here's a section from this Sports Direct/USC Admin carve up story in the BBC today - guess who the Administrators were in a pre-packed Admin event???

 

Keith Hellawell, the company's chairman, was sent in Mr Ashley's place. But he told the committee he and the board hadn't known anything about the collapse of USC until the day before it folded. But, he said, chief executive Dave Forsey had begun "consulting" with administrators Duff and Phelps as early as 14 November. Dr Hellawell insisted the firm "didn't want" USC to fold.

 

Full story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32144206

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Aye but surely you would find all that stuff out when doing your due diligence. If not then questions should be asked about their compitance.

 

Exactly.

 

I just can't believe that King & Co or indeed their lawyers failed to ask or find out who owned the badges, the name and all that stuff etc before they took over, especially since the said ownership of the badges had been questioned in the press a couple of months previously when a story went around about Green selling the badge to Ashley for ?1 and then Green trying to get it back IIRC.

[DesertDawg]

Sums up why this nonsense has to stop.

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=282056

[Deevers]

Sums up why this nonsense has to stop.

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=282056

 

 

Sums up to me everything that is wrong with the game here.

 

To me it sums up why King has to be chased by the SFA and why Scottish Football needs complete change and a cull of the people who are running ( or is it ruining) the game here.

[wibble]

Sums up to me everything that is wrong with the game here.

 

To me it sums up why King has to be chased by the SFA and why Scottish Football needs complete change and a cull of the people who are running ( or is it ruining) the game here.

Agreed. The article should be screaming in panic about the stitch up of the game and all of its commercial levers by a duopoly who care nothing about what's good for the game. Instead its suggesting that its a great thing that the stitch up is getting closer.

[Mr Nobody]

Interesting that no money coming from King until he is approved supposedly. That isn't going to happen until May.

 

Presume another fix will be required to pay April wages?

 

Will Park cough up another loan again?

 

Every month that goes by with no change just results in another 1m or so that needs to be paid back just to stand still. How much is it now. 6.5m?