jambovambo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 http://www.thenational.scot/sport/football-king-warned-over-finances.3915?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1433916627 King warned how long this is going to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 When shares are not listed, do you know how their true value is established, to enable a deal like that to be struck..? There's no such thing as a "true" value for shares. There's a maximum amount an investor is prepared to pay; there's a minimum for which a shareholder would be prepared to sell. If those two numbers offer any overlap, a deal may be done. All businesses have a 'value' which is based upon various investors expectation of what future benefits can be earned from holding shares, balanced against the risk of buying into the company. Another factor in share value would be the ease which which your investment in the shares can be liquidated - i.e. whether you can sell or raise cash on the back of the shares easily. When still on AIM, RIFC had a share price of around 20-25p, iirc. By de-listing, they pretty much knock 25-40% of the share value, due to illiquidity. Failure to gain promotion will have increased the risk perception around future earnings, as will the dispute with MASH/SD over loan repayment. The lack of cash forthcoming from 3Bs and G&SL also raises doubts about the size and risk of future cash flow. Therefore, I'd not be surprised if King argued that the share price is 10-15p and that ?100 of loan stock could be traded (in future) for loads of new shares. If he said, FTSOA, that he'd take 200 shares instead of getting his ?100 back, he'd be giving a signal that he believes the share price would be 50p or more by that time. It could work very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 http://www.thenational.scot/sport/football-king-warned-over-finances.3915?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1433916627 King warned how long this is going to take. Neil Patey is a pretty poor opinion to ask. He thought HMRC would agree Rangers CVA despite them having a blanket policy of rejecting CVAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busby1985 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 As it stands now, Rangers will be lucky to match last seasons season ticket sales. They came up as champions, they were chomping at the bit to put us and hibs in our place etc. The future for them now is even more unclear with King at the helm as it has been under any of the previous owners. They have delisted from the stock exchange, released 11 full time players, manager less, penny less..........they need to pull a massive name out the hat to get the fans on board. NO Rangers fan will accept them playing second fiddle to Hibs let alone Celtic so tough times ahead I am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Neil Patey is a pretty poor opinion to ask. He thought HMRC would agree Rangers CVA despite them having a blanket policy of rejecting CVAs. Exactly and if I recall he suggested we would be liquidated. The piece he has written is all so predictable and he sounds like one of those consultants who metaphorically give you a watch and then tell you the time.Much more illuminating ad hoc contributions on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve444 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 2h2 hours ago Fulham's interest in Warburton throws a spanner in the works for Rangers board. Full story in tomorrow's @Daily_Record King's short list of five may now be down to four. lol Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) MASH speaks As you will know MASH has requisitioned a general meeting of shareholders of Rangers International Football Club Plc (Rangers Plc) to be held as it considers that there are various matters that are of importance both to Rangers Plc and its group companies and to its shareholders, that should be discussed with the new Board of Rangers PLC (the New Board). Some of those matters are clear from the various questions set out in the Notice of General Meeting dated 26 May 2015, but MASH thought that it would be helpful, after consulting with Sports Direct, to provide some further background and context as follows: MASH was surprised and concerned as to the speed with which, following the general meeting held on 6 March 2015, Rangers Plc was delisted from AIM. MASH had relied upon Mr. David King?s various public statements that that there was a NOMAD willing to come in to act for Rangers Plc (subject to the customary checks). Clearly, at some stage in the NOMAD appointment process, it became clear to the New Board that the potential NOMAD was not satisfied with its investigations of Rangers Plc. The key question is when exactly did this happen and what steps did the New Board take as part of normal contingency planning to consider alternative NOMADs and engage with the AIM Regulator so as to ensure that the AIM listing was preserved? Crucially, did the New Board leave it all to the very last minute and were then left with no viable alternative? The consequence of what happened is that Rangers Plc no longer has a public listing, nor is it subject to the AIM regulatory rules which is all the more important in circumstances where the new Chairman of the New Board has, as is a matter of public record, been prosecuted for and admitted liability in respect of various criminal offences in South Africa, resulting in the payment then of approximately ?44 million to cover liabilities and fines in South Africa. Rangers Retail Limited Joint Venture (Rangers Retail): Whilst the contractual arrangements relating to the Rangers Retail joint venture are covered by confidentiality provisions, there are some matters that are non-confidential: 1. At the relevant time, it would not have made commercial sense for RFC to finance its own retail operation, nor did it have all the necessary retailing expertise to do so. It recognised that its expertise should lie in the running of a football club, not in the running of a retail organisation. 2. RFC chose to partner with the most successful sports retailer in the UK market. Sports Direct has proven retail prowess, significant buying power and a far reaching distribution network. 3. Prior to entering into the Sports Direct joint venture, it is understood that RFC had entered into a 10 year joint venture with JJB Sports as its retail partner. 4. RFC benefits not only from goods and merchandise sold in the Ibrox Megastore and online, but also from sales of Rangers goods and merchandise sold in Sports Direct retail stores and on the Sports Direct website Sports Direct notes from the recent voting advice statement issued by the new Board on 3 June 2015 that the New Board are saying that there has been: ?a continued and dramatic reduction in income generated by retail operations?. Sports Direct is of the opinion that there is no basis for this statement whatsoever, and invites the New Board (subject to complying with confidentiality obligations) to explain in detail the facts behind this statement. Sports Direct remains of the view that profits can be increased at Rangers Retail through more focused budgeting and ordering of products and that the historic profitability of Rangers Retail has been badly affected by the over ordering of products in the past and the opening of additional retail stores outside of the Ibrox Stadium. In Sports Direct?s experience, the ordering of products should reflect the football league in which RFC operates and standalone stores outside of the main stadium are rarely profitable. It should not be forgotten that at the end of the day, Sports Direct is not a bank, it is a supportive business partner and it entered into ?10 million loan facility with RFC on the basis of providing much needed financial support at the relevant time. As has previously been announced, this loan facility was entered into together with other contractual documents to bolster that joint venture relationship, but it was always drawn on the basis, at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned, of being a short term loan facility that RFC would be incentivised to repay and restore its shareholding in Rangers Retail back to what it had previously been. That is why if, nevertheless the New Board and the shareholders of Rangers Plc believe that the current shareholding in Rangers Retail of 75% Sports Direct and 25% RFC is too generous to Sports Direct, then the solution is simple. RFC is fully entitled at any time to repay the current ?5 million loan to Sports Direct and revert back to the prior shareholding in Rangers Retail of 51% RFC and 49% Sports Direct. This would also result in the release of security over: (i) the Rangers? brands owned by RFC; (ii) the Murray Park training ground; (iii) the Albion Street car park; and (iv) Edmiston House; and also release RFC from the current restrictions preventing it from being able to provide security over the Ibrox stadium without the prior consent of Sports Direct. This point goes to the heart of the proposed Sports Direct resolution, RFC has the ability to equalise the profit arrangements at Rangers Retail and release itself from security provisions; that is entirely a decision for RFC to take. Edited June 10, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 STV Sport ?@STVSport 2m2 minutes ago Dave King holds talks with Stuart McCall for Rangers manager job http://bit.ly/1HqWqFW The Ursines won't be overly enamoured if he is appointed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Reading that Mash statement, and comparing it to the statements from King, if I was a shareholder, it would be a no brainer to vote to pay back the ?5.0m. There can only be one reason they won't. They can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I hadn't realised that the loan deal with SD meant that Ashley retained a veto over granting a security over Ibrox. I knew that they had put such a restriction in place at the end of last year, but I thought it had expired. Edited June 10, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Reading that Mash statement, and comparing it to the statements from King, if I was a shareholder, it would be a no brainer to vote to pay back the ?5.0m. There can only be one reason they won't. They can't. Good statement from Mash. Just facts of what and why deals were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Statement spells out what everyone except the Rangers fans can see, King has no money to invest. McCall will be appointed manager aswell proving this is the case, cheapest option. They will be down for a good few years imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 All seems very reasonable and balanced from Ashely. Lets see how King and his media machinations respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 10/1 for McCall to be in charge for 1st game of season with Skybet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Reading that Mash statement, and comparing it to the statements from King, if I was a shareholder, it would be a no brainer to vote to pay back the ?5.0m. There can only be one reason they won't. They can't. Second reason: They're dicks. Good statement from Mash. Just facts of what and why deals were made. Agreed. I like the four points on why the RR JV makes sense. Reference to JJB is sly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 10/1 for McCall to be in charge for 1st game of season with Skybet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 10/1 for McCall to be in charge for 1st game of season with Skybet.If only dodgy Dave had half a mill. Ashley paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Remember MASH/SD legal advice said King would struggle to pass SFA FPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Good statement from Mash. Just facts of what and why deals were made. There are still some contradictions in the Mash statement. "it was always drawn on the basis, at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned, of being a short term loan facility that RFC would be incentivised to repay" Contrast that with the AIM notice of the loan facility on 27th January: "Rangers Football Club Limited ("the Club") has entered in to agreements with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies ("SD"), to provide a long term on-going credit facility of up to ?10m" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve444 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Former Rangers manager, Ally McCoist formally opened the new 'Tranquil Space' Garden to the community today at St Vincent's Hospice in Howwood, Renfrewshire. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/news/ally-mccoist-opens-new-hospice-garden-209765n.128512024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 If only dodgy Dave had half a mill. Ashley paid off. In all seriousness, what is to stop King or someone else close telling someone else who will be manager and then going to put a bet on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Thanks to FF for posting the Mash statement. That statement appears to me to have pulled the rug from under GASL. I would imagine there will be another call to arms by King for ST sales so they can normalise The Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Remember MASH/SD legal advice said King would struggle to pass SFA FPP. They hadn't taken into consideration who was making the decision and the aims of these weasels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 There are still some contradictions in the Mash statement. "it was always drawn on the basis, at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned, of being a short term loan facility that RFC would be incentivised to repay" Contrast that with the AIM notice of the loan facility on 27th January: "Rangers Football Club Limited ("the Club") has entered in to agreements with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies ("SD"), to provide a long term on-going credit facility of up to ?10m" We could debate the difference of 'loan' verses 'credit facility', but i get your point. Seems that the MASH statement has not registered on Twitter and the normal news outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Former Rangers manager, Ally McCoist formally opened the new 'Tranquil Space' Garden to the community today at St Vincent's Hospice in Howwood, Renfrewshire. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/news/ally-mccoist-opens-new-hospice-garden-209765n.128512024 Just a wonderful "get it up yeah" moment from Super Salary to King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 If only dodgy Dave had half a mill. Ashley paid off. lol I wouldn't think something like that would outside the realms of possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Meldrew Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 MASH speaks This confirms what I had suspected: this is a move to call King's bluff on funding. The challenge is simply this: if you don't like it, put in ?5m of the fortune you've previously said you'd put in. He won't though. "Glib and shameless liar" - isn't that what the judge called him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 This confirms what I had suspected: this is a move to call King's bluff on funding. The challenge is simply this: if you don't like it, put in ?5m of the fortune you've previously said you'd put in. He won't though. "Glib and shameless liar" - isn't that what the judge called him? Agreed. The statement is a corker. It puts the ball back in King's court. I suspect the in house PR team will be frantically trying to come up with a riposte to bullshit their way out of the corner Cashley has just painted them into. Never mind they've still got marching season to look forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 "How would you spend the transfer kitty"? http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=2279f5e5660950f7bd5979a7274a018d&showtopic=284106 :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Vallance Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 There are still some contradictions in the Mash statement. "it was always drawn on the basis, at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned, of being a short term loan facility that RFC would be incentivised to repay" Contrast that with the AIM notice of the loan facility on 27th January: "Rangers Football Club Limited ("the Club") has entered in to agreements with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies ("SD"), to provide a long term on-going credit facility of up to ?10m" Which highlights the bit in the statement that says Sports Direct is not a bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alva-Jambo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The MASH statement ( thank you for this above) infers to me, two things - Mash have timed this to coincide with the start of season briefs after King's own statement the other day. and Mash have inferred that King and co are waiting for season brief money, to be in a better position to repay the loan then . After all repayment of the ?5 M is very much in " Rangers" interest. I suspect strongly that season brief sales will go poorly - with no team or new funds to make the faitful more confident - further pressuring the new board. Yet if King had stuck say, just ?10M into the club this past week, it would have motivated the faithful to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 There's no such thing as a "true" value for shares. There's a maximum amount an investor is prepared to pay; there's a minimum for which a shareholder would be prepared to sell. If those two numbers offer any overlap, a deal may be done. All businesses have a 'value' which is based upon various investors expectation of what future benefits can be earned from holding shares, balanced against the risk of buying into the company. Another factor in share value would be the ease which which your investment in the shares can be liquidated - i.e. whether you can sell or raise cash on the back of the shares easily. When still on AIM, RIFC had a share price of around 20-25p, iirc. By de-listing, they pretty much knock 25-40% of the share value, due to illiquidity. Failure to gain promotion will have increased the risk perception around future earnings, as will the dispute with MASH/SD over loan repayment. The lack of cash forthcoming from 3Bs and G&SL also raises doubts about the size and risk of future cash flow. Therefore, I'd not be surprised if King argued that the share price is 10-15p and that ?100 of loan stock could be traded (in future) for loads of new shares. If he said, FTSOA, that he'd take 200 shares instead of getting his ?100 back, he'd be giving a signal that he believes the share price would be 50p or more by that time. It could work very easily. Thanks for that, interesting stuff. :thumbs: It suggests to me that MASH may be using the EGM as a means to highlight the terms of the deal King has struck - presumably because they think he's at it, and they want that made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Caine Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 "How would you spend the transfer kitty"? http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=2279f5e5660950f7bd5979a7274a018d&showtopic=284106 :facepalm: There's some absolute beauties in there! What on earth is in the water down Govan way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 "How would you spend the transfer kitty"? http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=284106 :facepalm: Love the fact that they think that the ?12m they might scrape together is all for players. [emoji38] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 10/1 for McCall to be in charge for 1st game of season with Skybet. I only see 4/1 at best. Probably still worth a punt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 10/1 for McCall to be in charge for 1st game of season with Skybet. I only see 4/1 at best. Probably still worth a punt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I only see 4/1 at best. Probably still worth a punt In to 7/2 now, i got 10/1 at Lunchtime!! http://www.skybet.com/football/manager-specials/event/17352427 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 "How would you spend the transfer kitty"? http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=2279f5e5660950f7bd5979a7274a018d&showtopic=284106 :facepalm: I love the halfwit that thinks the way to ensure you get a player is to offer quadruple their current wage and then they couldn't turn them down. Exactly the kind of wise thinking that you expect and the type of tactic that got them into their current mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 @TheTributeAct: Has the genius aka Chris Graham just breached the confidentiality provisions of Sevco's deal with Mike Ashley? http://t.co/KGxmfOt3r6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 @TheTributeAct: Even if only a director for a day, he's left the door wide open for Ashley. I do hope he doesn't get in any trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biffa Bacon Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 King had stated that he is investing his kids inheritance, surely a trifling ?5 million would be loose change, and well worth getting Ashley off his case, whilst releasing the rights to the logos, training facility and car park..... You would think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Most interesting for me about MASH statement "on behalf of Sports Direct" is that Rangers are not making best use of their expertise to sell stuff. Surprised a little on that and maybe giving room for positive negociations. MASH / Sports Direct / Ashley may be concerned re reputation for being tough. But that is all about seeking to maximise sales and profit. Ashley has always sought proper governance and is also challenging King's competence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alva-Jambo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Thanks for that, interesting stuff. :thumbs: It suggests to me that MASH may be using the EGM as a means to highlight the terms of the deal King has struck - presumably because they think he's at it, and they want that made public. Shares as a store of " value" are transitory ( and AIM is a poor place to trawl, to my own cost) . I'd go for gold or silver.! You can hold on to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 There's some absolute beauties in there! What on earth is in the water down Govan way? Shopping trollies and empty beer cans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) This confirms what I had suspected: this is a move to call King's bluff on funding. The challenge is simply this: if you don't like it, put in ?5m of the fortune you've previously said you'd put in. He won't though. "Glib and shameless liar" - isn't that what the judge called him? I think it is more than this. MASH has concerns about King and is seeking to reduce its exposure. Ashley may not mind risking ?5m but tying up this money interest free indefinitely, whilst retail sales are low and being forced down by King himself is not good business-sense ... King wants renegotiation, Ashley wants a reduction in investment and explanation as to why his shares are worth less. In summary, Ashley suspects King is a shyster... Edited June 10, 2015 by Spellczech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Glad to see Mr Ashley admit he has no contract to demand the money straight away . Indeed in his own words "As has previously been announced, this loan facility was entered into together with other contractual documents to bolster that joint venture relationship, but it was always drawn on the basis, at least AS FAR AS Sports Direct is concerned' So Ashley made the mistake of assuming all parties were on the same page as Mash only to find out they were not and he has no legal basis to demand repayment at present. This from one of the top businessmen in the UK who many on here are cheering from the sidelines. Like it or not he has made an **** of this and can simply shout from the sidelines but do little else other than bluster away. I know some on here won't like it but it is confirmation of what was said previously.. he cannot demand his money back as long as the agreement is fulfilled by Rangers current board...he can ask as he is doing but this makes it clear he has no legal basis for repayment at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Why doesn't Ashley just hit them with a winding up order and call their bluff? Maybe that's what King wants? It was that big bad Mike Ashley that put us down. They get rid of the onerous contracts and start from scratch. Again. Or maybe not if Ashley wants to keep the contracts in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) With the King statement now over 48 hours old, and today's rather challenging statement from Ashley, I'm wondering where the posters on here, who insinuated that those posters who questioned the 'might of King' and the future of TRFC under his leadership were stupid and unknowledgeable, have disappeared to? I can't think of any post on here, since Monday, telling us we were all wrong in our assessment of King - or of his latest mouthful of mince! Perhaps we will all be put in our place after King maulicates Mike Ashley at Friday's EGM! Edit: Looks like I was wrong, and we are being told we are stupid after all! Edited June 10, 2015 by AllyjamboDerbyshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Glad to see Mr Ashley admit he has no contract to demand the money straight away . Indeed in his own words "As has previously been announced, this loan facility was entered into together with other contractual documents to bolster that joint venture relationship, but it was always drawn on the basis, at least AS FAR AS Sports Direct is concerned' So Ashley made the mistake of assuming all parties were on the same page as Mash only to find out they were not and he has no legal basis to demand repayment at present. This from one of the top businessmen in the UK who many on here are cheering from the sidelines. Like it or not he has made an **** of this and can simply shout from the sidelines but do little else other than bluster away. I know some on here won't like it but it is confirmation of what was said previously.. he cannot demand his money back as long as the agreement is fulfilled by Rangers current board...he can ask as he is doing but this makes it clear he has no legal basis for repayment at present. Is he actually demanding payment right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Is he actually demanding payment right now? no but facts never get in the way of one of CJGJ's rants in support of King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,104
Recommended Posts