Jammy T Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What is the difference if King is director or not for him to invest money in the club? Sounds like just an excuse to me, a delaying tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What is the difference if King is director or not for him to invest money in the club? Sounds like just an excuse to me, a delaying tactic. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What is the difference if King is director or not for him to invest money in the club? Sounds like just an excuse to me, a delaying tactic. Without doubt. If, and it's a big if, the glib and shameless lier is not granted leave to become a director of Mk.II then it will give him the excuse he needs to explain why he cannot risk investing when he has no real control (not a Director) yada, yada, yada. Then he'll deflect the blame at the GFA and the orcs will feel even more victimised. Almost a no lose situation for the glib and shameless lier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 ....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? This is something many Orcs miss, and the MSM seem to continually ignore.... It could easily be as much as the first ?10,000,000 of season ticket money instantly vanishes to pay off their debts. With an estimated burn rate between half and one million a month seemingly continuing, their S/T money could all be about gone by the end of the summer.... Do they then just start borrowing again, and racking up even more debt, as I don't see investors queuing up to throw cash at a loss making business..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Looks like Dark Mingwall will be in court next. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/27/sports-direct-takes-rangers-fan-to-court-over-effort-to-access-shareholder-register Sports Direct is taking legal action against a Rangers supporter who applied to access the company?s shareholder register to garner support for a campaign over the use of zero-hours contracts and club merchandise deals. Mark Dingwall, a co-founder of the Rangers Supporters Trust and fanzine Follow Follow, told Sports Direct: ?I wish to canvass my fellow shareholders as to whether they would be willing to support resolutions to end the use of zero-hours contracts and to review the terms of the retail agreements with [Rangers] to ensure that these generate sales revenue that benefits shareholders.? Sports Direct controls Rangers? merchandise stores and many of its trademarks after a controversial deal in which it loaned money to the Scottish football club. The fan told the Guardian: ?I?m mainly interested in seeing Rangers fairly treated.? He bought a single share in the company so that he could gain the right to access the details of fellow investors under the Companies Act. The Rangers Supporters Trust used the same tactic in order to contact shareholders in the listed football firm on several occasions and Dingwall said this had proved ?an effective way shareholders could influence the club?. Sports Direct, which is 55% owned by Newcastle United boss Mike Ashley, who has been embroiled in a tussle for control over Rangers, has applied to block Dingwall?s request with action at the companies court in London. The legal application, set to be heard on 14 April, not only attempts to block Dingwall from accessing the share register, but also any other person who wishes to do so ?where the only purpose given for the request is to enable members to be contacted, without identifying the subject matter and purpose of such contact?. It also requests that Dingwall be liable for all legal costs, including those of Sports Direct. A letter from the retailer?s lawyers to Dingwall adds: ?In order to avoid the risk of incurring those costs ? we invite you to withdraw your request as soon as possible.? Advertisement ?I can understand a company not wishing to hand out its share register willy-nilly, but the principle is that sensible shareholders dissatisfied with the performance of a company should be able to seek out other shareholders and canvass their opinions,? Dingwall wrote on Follow Follow?s website. He said he had pledged not to divulge investors? details to anyone else or contact them regarding anything other than company affairs. ?There is a point of principle here. This could set a precedent that if anyone has concerns about the running of a company they will not be able to contact other shareholders,? Dingwall told the Guardian. The fan is now trying to raise money from fellow Rangers supporters in order to help contest Sports Direct?s legal action. He fears the costs could run into thousands of pounds. Sports Direct declined to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I will be honest with you, he is doing it just to cause Mike some grief and mike is using his legal weight to back him off, but I would be happy to donate towards his legal costs if he continues and calls SD's bluff, apart from anything there is 2 points, 1 the big guy needs a bloody nose sometimes and I hate lawyers and 2 the zero hours thing needs addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledfan Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I will be honest with you, he is doing it just to cause Mike some grief and mike is using his legal weight to back him off, but I would be happy to donate towards his legal costs if he continues and calls SD's bluff, apart from anything there is 2 points, 1 the big guy needs a bloody nose sometimes and I hate lawyers and 2 the zero hours thing needs addressed. Seems the MPs want to get there nose into his business as well, though it does stink how he can put one part of his portfolio into admin, then buy it back with another company leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32144206 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Sums up why this nonsense has to stop. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=282056 Lawell says he's losing ?10 million,surely if they qualify for the CL then it covers the loss of the Zombies not being there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I will be honest with you, he is doing it just to cause Mike some grief and mike is using his legal weight to back him off, but I would be happy to donate towards his legal costs if he continues and calls SD's bluff, apart from anything there is 2 points, 1 the big guy needs a bloody nose sometimes and I hate lawyers and 2 the zero hours thing needs addressed. The Zero hours are a disgrace,my daughter sometimes works as low as 4 hours per week or as high as 20,she's tried looking for other jobs,she's a a beautician and it's hard even getting a job elsewhere these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 The Zero hours are a disgrace,my daughter sometimes works as low as 4 hours per week or as high as 20,she's tried looking for other jobs,she's a a beautician and it's hard even getting a job elsewhere these days. Some are, some arent. for example Universities will have postgrads doing tuition in a variety of forms. The postgrad has them-self got work to do for their study. It can suit them to work 0 hours some weeks. The issue is not 0 hour contracts in themselves, but where and when they are used. (somebody seeking full time work shouldnt be put on a 0 hours contract) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It seems that Dingwall backed down. from Follow Follow Sadly, I?ve had to withdraw from the action. Happily, it means we have over a thousand pounds to donate to charities or good causes. I was lucky enough to receive some free legal advice from a couple of sources so there has been no expenditure and the Sports Direct lawyers offered to waive their costs in return for a withdrawal of the request. I was advised that Sports Direct would very probably win and there was a danger that they might be able to set a further precedent in law to stop other shareholders in the future from obtaining the register. Previous similar cases have floundered on the shareholder having either not having a significant shareholding or proving that they are a professional investor. I?m writing to thank all our donors this afternoon and ask where they would like charitable donations to be made to. Overall, for an outlay of just over ?40 we managed to draw attention to Sports Direct business practises and how bad the Rangers contract is via national media coverage. Many thanks to everyone for their support ? it is through hundreds of small battles like this that we will win the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Lawell says he's losing ?10 million,surely if they qualify for the CL then it covers the loss of the Zombies not being there. That is not what he said. Not at all. IIRC , it is to do with a drop in income (not the same as making a loss) and is due to a number of factors , including the reduction in Celtic's ST prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What is the difference if King is director or not for him to invest money in the club? Sounds like just an excuse to me, a delaying tactic. This. If King wants to spend his money and save Sevco there is nothing to stop him. Plain & simple. He needs the SFA clearance because he no doubt wants to be seen to be at the helm of the SS Sevco officially and to be its saviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) It seems that Dingwall backed down. from Follow Follow I?m writing to thank all our donors this afternoon Many thanks to everyone for their support ? it is through hundreds of small battles like this that we will win the war. Hilarious. All the small battles are going to win sweet FA! The precedent could have been set if he'd proceeded (which I agree could have been bad) - however he was deliberately acting to try and damage Sports Direct's commercial strategy for his own agenda and not one which would benefit fellow shareholders or the company. He's completely missed the point of why the register is available in the first place. Dingwall should count himself lucky Sports Direct have offered him a chance to back off at no cost to be honest. Edited April 14, 2015 by Mysterion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Young Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 two weeks till pay day who will be ponying up the loan/investment this month ? so far MA Has chucked in 5 million and the 3 bears ponyed up last month is it time The Glib and Shameless Liar finally shows the colour of his money ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Lawell says he's losing ?10 million,surely if they qualify for the CL then it covers the loss of the Zombies not being there. That is not what he said. Not at all. IIRC , it is to do with a drop in income (not the same as making a loss) and is due to a number of factors , including the reduction in Celtic's ST prices. Celtic's cashflow has been slashed without their rivals around. As much as their fans are enjoying seeing them suffer, the board will view it quite differently. They will be lobbying the SFA and clubs that the return of sevco means more money for all (the reality is the opposite). CL qualification is becoming a nightmare for them. They need a full house Parkhead and TV cash. As long as Rangers keep suffering, they drag Celtic down at the same time, all good in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 That is not what he said. Not at all. IIRC , it is to do with a drop in income (not the same as making a loss) and is due to a number of factors , including the reduction in Celtic's ST prices. Correct. He said that Rangers not being in the top tier with them cost them ?10m in revenue, not that they had a ?10m loss on the books. Off this topic, but Celtic are starting to run out of Lennon-recruited players to sell on, and Delia has had nowhere near the recruitment coups that Lennon did. We might actually be getting close to having as much sell-on value on our squad as they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 two weeks till pay day who will be ponying up the loan/investment this month ? so far MA Has chucked in 5 million and the 3 bears ponyed up last month is it time The Glib and Shameless Liar finally shows the colour of his money ? He won't - he wants other people to put up the money for him to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Correct. He said that Rangers not being in the top tier with them cost them ?10m in revenue, not that they had a ?10m loss on the books. Off this topic, but Celtic are starting to run out of Lennon-recruited players to sell on, and Delia has had nowhere near the recruitment coups that Lennon did. We might actually be getting close to having as much sell-on value on our squad as they have. Nick over to KDS,I'm certain I saw a poll taken regarding if Celtic fans wanted them in the SPL,I'm sure it was 78% against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Nick over to KDS,I'm certain I saw a poll taken regarding if Celtic fans wanted them in the SPL,I'm sure it was 78% against. And going by the the crowds at Parkhead the last couple of years, the fhans don't to be in the SPL either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 How exactly is no Rangers in the top league costing Celtic ?10m PA? What is costing Celtic ?10m is their own fans not turning up to see games. Of course derbies would be a sell out but how exactly does that make the other games sell better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertDawg Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Taz, That's a really good question. From what I know of the other Championship clubs they've had a good financial year due to the visiting fans from Hearts, Hibs, and Rangers and also interest from other clubs. Raith Rovers and QOS are good examples. However, the SPFL game plan is 4 x "Old Firm" games a season + any others that cup ties throw up. No consideration for the national game or the fairness of competition. The clubs seriously need to cut costs by eliminating Regan, Ogilvie and Doncaster then start getting a real competition in place. Either we go for a 16 club league system or a 16 club system with play-offs like the MLS. Nobody outside Scotland could cope with the 4 game scenario which is totally "OF" designed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 How exactly is no Rangers in the top league costing Celtic ?10m PA? What is costing Celtic ?10m is their own fans not turning up to see games. Of course derbies would be a sell out but how exactly does that make the other games sell better? Well, those things are related. Every OF derby is a sellout, plus more will attend games that are key for gaining an advantage over the other one. I don't know for sure but my guess is they charge more for OF derby tickets too. TV money is higher with the OF in it, of course, and I'm sure Celtic sell more of their version of Hearts TV when they're up against Rangers. Put more simply, does anyone really question that the OF rivalry props up both clubs? That having one side missing hurts the other? Or are we just talking by how much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve444 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Well, those things are related. Every OF derby is a sellout, plus more will attend games that are key for gaining an advantage over the other one. I don't know for sure but my guess is they charge more for OF derby tickets too. TV money is higher with the OF in it, of course, and I'm sure Celtic sell more of their version of Hearts TV when they're up against Rangers. Put more simply, does anyone really question that the OF rivalry props up both clubs? That having one side missing hurts the other? Or are we just talking by how much? Celtic crowds are way down, and they are closing top stand a lot. Hopefully they will be next to go into Admin/Liquidation (lets hope anyway). Maybe they should merge and form Glasgow United to compete in champions league? They are always sneering at other clubs in Scotland saying they should merge etc Edited April 15, 2015 by steve444 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 How exactly is no Rangers in the top league costing Celtic ?10m PA? What is costing Celtic ?10m is their own fans not turning up to see games. Of course derbies would be a sell out but how exactly does that make the other games sell better? Bigotry is big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getintaethem Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The ?10 million figure is pie in the sky, plucked out of thin air for the benefit of reestablishing the old firm duopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Celtic Revenue to year end in june of each year: 2008 72.95 2009 72.59 2010 61.72 2011 52.56 2012 51.34 2013 75.82 2014 64.74 So, the 2011 figure predates rangers going into admin, let alone being in division 3. The big increase in 2013 comes main from "Multimedia and Other Commercial Activities"...mainly money from getting to the last 16 of the CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 How exactly is no Rangers in the top league costing Celtic ?10m PA? What is costing Celtic ?10m is their own fans not turning up to see games. Of course derbies would be a sell out but how exactly does that make the other games sell better? Would imagine it's fans buying STs to ensure their tickets for OF derbies, whereas at the moment they can pick and choose which games to attend as there's so many empty seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Do you know what, Mark Dingwall is the winner in this, being a small nuisance proved what corporate bullies Sport Direct are and exposing what is morally wrong with zero hours contracts, albeit he was doing it just because its a war with his club? would we do anything different NO? Also on another point the TV money was divvied up and agreed upon that there MUST be 4 OF games a year, I don't think Glibco can guarantee that not even Hugh Dallas can assist with that as I just don't see them as being a top six side, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, ICT and us will be better over a season, so they will be in a fight with St Johnstone to try and catch the named above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Young Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 And still not a peep from the Glib and Shameless Liar since the takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Do you know what, Mark Dingwall is the winner in this, being a small nuisance proved what corporate bullies Sport Direct are and exposing what is morally wrong with zero hours contracts, albeit he was doing it just because its a war with his club? would we do anything different NO? Also on another point the TV money was divvied up and agreed upon that there MUST be 4 OF games a year, I don't think Glibco can guarantee that not even Hugh Dallas can assist with that as I just don't see them as being a top six side, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, ICT and us will be better over a season, so they will be in a fight with St Johnstone to try and catch the named above? I don't think we should credit Dingwall too much on the morality of zero hours contracts - I doubt that was ever his motivation at all. But he probably thought it added weight to his argument. Given the behavior of the Ibrox hordes over the last 3 years I doubt he would have had any chance if he had limited his personal crusade purely to the self interest of Sevco fans. Still, there's always next years agm for him to try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Would imagine it's fans buying STs to ensure their tickets for OF derbies, whereas at the moment they can pick and choose which games to attend as there's so many empty seats. An ex collegue who moved down to London, used to keep his Celtic Season Ticket just so he could guarantee his seat at any games against Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Celtic Revenue to year end in june of each year: 2008 72.95 2009 72.59 2010 61.72 2011 52.56 2012 51.34 2013 75.82 2014 64.74 So, the 2011 figure predates rangers going into admin, let alone being in division 3. The big increase in 2013 comes main from "Multimedia and Other Commercial Activities"...mainly money from getting to the last 16 of the CL Gross revenue figures aren't going to mean much unless you tease out player sales, CL success, etc. 2008, 2009, and 2013 would have been the years the payouts were received from reaching the CL knockout stages. Also 2011 would have been when several of the previous TV and sponsorship deals ended, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 @winnersports_: Exclusive: Rangers FC news to be published at 10pm GMT (tonight) via @winnersports_ Probably nonsense but thought I'd share anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewboy Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Updated to "Controversial" https://twitter.com/winnersports_/status/588387514852966400 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Oooh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 80,000th post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Updated to "Controversial" https://twitter.com/winnersports_/status/588387514852966400 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I wouldn't get excited. Does that site ever release anything that isn't a day or two behind or a rehash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewboy Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I wouldn't get excited. Does that site ever release anything that isn't a day or two behind or a rehash? [emoji3] I'm definitely not excited just thought it was funny (haha) that it took them 30 minutes to realise the scoop they had was controversial! On that basis it'll probably be a change of pie supplier! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) 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.there was no due diligence. This was no takeover. All that happened was they bought some chunks of shares from institutional investors then used these to demand an EGM. No due diligence, no bible, no saferoom...they just had to look at what they had when they got in the door. These guys are not outright owners, just large shareholders... Edited April 15, 2015 by Spellczech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Is it worth opening another box of popcorn? Controversial news is there ever anything else from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewboy Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Is it worth opening another box of popcorn? Controversial news is there ever anything else from there.Nope, keep it for something newsworthy! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I see that it is "Fruity Cake King" who are behind this. A Walter Mitty company if ever there was one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Fruity king getting free advertising again. Load of baws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Nope, keep it for something newsworthy! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk #controversial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12XU Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Today is the day of the postponed SFA hearing against Rangers What's the chances of a points deduction ? Maybe Doncaster has played a blinder knowing the the last game being moved will have no influence on who finishes second ( I know this is highly unlikely ) but you never who what's going on with the SFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Today is the day of the postponed SFA hearing against Rangers What's the chances of a points deduction ? Maybe Doncaster has played a blinder knowing the the last game being moved will have no influence on who finishes second ( I know this is highly unlikely ) but you never who what's going on with the SFA My bet is that, like Andy Coulsen's perjury trial just having been postponed until after the election, conveniently, this will also be postponed again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Today is the day of the postponed SFA hearing against Rangers What's the chances of a points deduction ? Zero. The SFA has no jurisdiction over the League as it's not their competition. Probably a small fine and/or some suspended larger fine. At worst a suspended sanction of excluding them from the Scottish Cup. There might be something said about the 5 x Loan agreements having to be terminated before the start of next season. The more difficult decision is whether they deem Llambias and Leach as being connected to Ashley, thus preventing them being reappointed directors as part of the SD loan agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Chris McLaughlin ?@BBCchrismclaug 16m16 minutes ago Stewart Regan confirms discussions ongoing with Dave King re fit and proper. Admits tax convictions mean it will be a 'challenge' for him. A challenge? Understatement of the century. The fact the SFA are still considering this shows how corrupt the game is in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftBack Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Chris McLaughlin ?@BBCchrismclaug 16m16 minutes ago Stewart Regan confirms discussions ongoing with Dave King re fit and proper. Admits tax convictions mean it will be a 'challenge' for him. A challenge? Understatement of the century. The fact the SFA are still considering this shows how corrupt the game is in this country. 'in other news local authority reveal it will be a challenge for Josef Fritzl to be granted retrospective planning permission' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,676
Recommended Posts