The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Dutchmul]

Costs claimed by Sports Direct are "shocking" according to the judge!!!!

 

SD claiming that 24 hours of phone calls have been made!!!

 

There goes another chunk of the warchest if sevco have to pay the costs.

[Unknown user]

Costs included 24 hours of phonecalls...

[Dutchmul]

Another 20k from wee stevies player fund as well as their own costs, not including the costs incurred at the court of session in edinburgh, good work.

[Paolo]

James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 52s53 seconds ago

Judge orders ?20,000 in costs to be paid by RFC to Sports Direct

[Rods]

Hopefully the season ticket holders who paid for today's court action get some sort of memerobillia/programme.

[Feeno]

CJGJ

 

 

 

at the news

Edited June 11, 2015 by Feeno

[CJGJ]

Imagine that the ?20,000 costs drawn from Sports Directs own loan /credit facility.

[Victor Meldrew]

You up in front of her often?

From time to time. She's a friend and former colleague of mine.

[Don Dan]

James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman  52s53 seconds ago

Judge orders ?20,000 in costs to be paid by RFC to Sports Direct

Ouch

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Given what was leaked then, it would suggest the 7 year rolling contract is accurate.

 

[naeclue]

So Phil thingimmybob wrong on this one.

 

Surely costs too low - equivalent to only 2.5 weeks pay for Rangers gardener

[jambovambo]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sevco-confidential/#more-6447

 

Round 1 of 3 to Mike.

[Dutchmul]

You up in front of her often?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So Phil thingimmybob wrong on this one.

 

Surely costs too low - equivalent to only 2.5 weeks pay for Rangers gardener

The last three words aren't required.

[Don Dan]

Remember this ?20k is just 'approved fees' with detailed submissions still to be viewed by the Judge.. If accurate, the final costs figure could be much more. [emoji6]

They must be really very dumb at RFC if they did not read all the documents correctly before going blabbing to the DR. RFC just can't help themselves.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GingaNinja]

So TFRC have broken the loan agreement then ? by breaking the confidentiality agreement attached to the loan agreement surely that means Mr Ashley is entitled to call in his loan or the assets that are attached to said loan agreement if the money isn't forth coming ? 

 

I've no clue wondered if anyone else did ? 

Edited June 11, 2015 by GingaNinja

[jaywalker]

If I'd known it was happening, I'd have popped over court to find out.

 

I do know the judge who's hearing it, so will ask her what it's all about the next time I speak to her.

 

She will probably be chuffed to bits that a friend and former colleague is telling the entire internet she discusses her cases with all and sundry, so they can then post the details on a football forum.

[CJGJ]

CJGJ

 

 

 

at the news

Why ?....those who post like this really are sad.

 

In any case this will help King and his support from the fans will increase.

 

It seems anyone who dares to point out that there may be more to this is then by implication some sort of King/Rangers fan. It's sad that SOME think like this but then again they don't seem to be thinking at all re this topic.

 

Some posters on here (not all) seem to want to see it as a right or wrong matter when the truth is as usual somewhere inbetween and that is what I am trying to point out.  Ashley has made mistakes and is not immune to being wrong despite some on here telling us he has Rangers by the short and curiles..for example it's clear he made a mistake in his loan facility agreement and has no ability to call it in and as long as Rangers abide by the terms and conditions he is powereless re this matter.

 

Todays gagging order coming just before the meeting he called will simply strengthen the view he has something to hide and that if the full details became public he would look far worse than he does just now and that is saying something.

Tomorrows meeting will it seems go ahead and votes will be counted.......this decision today may mean that he loses both resolutions but of course not all the details will be able to be told which means shareholders cannot be told the full details of a contract that may or may not be something they would like to know before said vote.

 

It's clear this is a commercial game in which Ashley was out thought when shares were bought by others and his influence diminished when he could not buy more due to his agreement with the Scottish football authorities. He is unhappy at this I am sure and is of course doing his best to be as obstructive as possible.. it's not like he does not have the money to do so.

His deals were set up when he had his men in control and of course they had to become employees so as to try and create the image that he had no undue influence as per his agreement with the footballing authorities. They were then sacked when the new regime came in and controlled matters and to date he has not attemped to get others on board.

 

Ashley is looking after his interests just as King and co are looking after theirs. That's business and the commercial deal entered into is one he wants to keep and King and co want to end or renegotiate (as ending it would it seems be an impossible scenario).......is renegotiation a likely scenario ?..well who knows but that seems to be King and co's strategy. As part of that they see the loan/credit facility as a bargaining chip and again who knows if their strategy will work.

 

Still a long way to go in this I would think and a few twists and turns to come.

 

This is my opinion not fact and I believe we are allowed opinion on this board.

[Feeno]

Why ?....those who post like this really are sad.

 

In any case this will help King and his support from the fans will increase.

 

It seems anyone who dares to point out that there may be more to this is then by implication some sort of King/Rangers fan. It's sad that SOME think like this but then again they don't seem to be thinking at all re this topic.

 

Some posters on here (not all) seem to want to see it as a right or wrong matter when the truth is as usual somewhere inbetween and that is what I am trying to point out.  Ashley has made mistakes and is not immune to being wrong despite some on here telling us he has Rangers by the short and curiles..for example it's clear he made a mistake in his loan facility agreement and has no ability to call it in and as long as Rangers abide by the terms and conditions he is powereless re this matter.

 

Todays gagging order coming just before the meeting he called will simply strengthen the view he has something to hide and that if the full details became public he would look far worse than he does just now and that is saying something.

Tomorrows meeting will it seems go ahead and votes will be counted.......this decision today may mean that he loses both resolutions but of course not all the details will be able to be told which means shareholders cannot be told the full details of a contract that may or may not be something they would like to know before said vote.

 

It's clear this is a commercial game in which Ashley was out thought when shares were bought by others and his influence diminished when he could not buy more due to his agreement with the Scottish football authorities. He is unhappy at this I am sure and is of course doing his best to be as obstructive as possible.. it's not like he does not have the money to do so.

His deals were set up when he had his men in control and of course they had to become employees so as to try and create the image that he had no undue influence as per his agreement with the footballing authorities. They were then sacked when the new regime came in and controlled matters and to date he has not attemped to get others on board.

 

Ashley is looking after his interests just as King and co are looking after theirs. That's business and the commercial deal entered into is one he wants to keep and King and co want to end or renegotiate (as ending it would it seems be an impossible scenario).......is renegotiation a likely scenario ?..well who knows but that seems to be King and co's strategy. As part of that they see the loan/credit facility as a bargaining chip and again who knows if their strategy will work.

 

Still a long way to go in this I would think and a few twists and turns to come.

 

This is my opinion not fact and I believe we are allowed opinion on this board.

 

 

enough to make you post ten paragraphs of pish

[Boris]

enough to make you post ten paragraphs of pish

 

That's a bit harsh.

 

From what I understand of what CJGJ has posted, King et al are deliberately winding up Ashley in an attempt to force a renegotiation of the retail contract.  I'm not sure this will work tbh.  But it does draw a line between King and Ashley, making King look like the "good guy" to the Orc droves.

 

To me, that's fair comment.

 

I feel, though, that King will end up with a double-yoker on his face at the end of all this.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That's a bit harsh.

 

From what I understand of what CJGJ has posted, King et al are deliberately winding up Ashley in an attempt to force a renegotiation of the retail contract. I'm not sure this will work tbh. But it does draw a line between King and Ashley, making King look like the "good guy" to the Orc droves.

 

To me, that's fair comment.

 

I feel, though, that King will end up with a double-yoker on his face at the end of all this.

I don't think Ashley cares if King gets kudos amongst bluenoses or not. He'll protect his money and protect Sports Direct at all costs.

[Mr Nobody]

Why ?....those who post like this really are sad.

 

In any case this will help King and his support from the fans will increase.

 

It seems anyone who dares to point out that there may be more to this is then by implication some sort of King/Rangers fan. It's sad that SOME think like this but then again they don't seem to be thinking at all re this topic.

 

Some posters on here (not all) seem to want to see it as a right or wrong matter when the truth is as usual somewhere inbetween and that is what I am trying to point out.  Ashley has made mistakes and is not immune to being wrong despite some on here telling us he has Rangers by the short and curiles..for example it's clear he made a mistake in his loan facility agreement and has no ability to call it in and as long as Rangers abide by the terms and conditions he is powereless re this matter.

 

Todays gagging order coming just before the meeting he called will simply strengthen the view he has something to hide and that if the full details became public he would look far worse than he does just now and that is saying something.

Tomorrows meeting will it seems go ahead and votes will be counted.......this decision today may mean that he loses both resolutions but of course not all the details will be able to be told which means shareholders cannot be told the full details of a contract that may or may not be something they would like to know before said vote.

 

It's clear this is a commercial game in which Ashley was out thought when shares were bought by others and his influence diminished when he could not buy more due to his agreement with the Scottish football authorities. He is unhappy at this I am sure and is of course doing his best to be as obstructive as possible.. it's not like he does not have the money to do so.

His deals were set up when he had his men in control and of course they had to become employees so as to try and create the image that he had no undue influence as per his agreement with the footballing authorities. They were then sacked when the new regime came in and controlled matters and to date he has not attemped to get others on board.

 

Ashley is looking after his interests just as King and co are looking after theirs. That's business and the commercial deal entered into is one he wants to keep and King and co want to end or renegotiate (as ending it would it seems be an impossible scenario).......is renegotiation a likely scenario ?..well who knows but that seems to be King and co's strategy. As part of that they see the loan/credit facility as a bargaining chip and again who knows if their strategy will work.

 

Still a long way to go in this I would think and a few twists and turns to come.

 

This is my opinion not fact and I believe we are allowed opinion on this board.

Re the loan agreement neither side has actually stated whether SD have the ability to recall the loan. What we do know is that repayment of the loan will revert the retail deal to what it was prior to the loan.

 

It could be that SD are happy to continue with the loan as it is in their interests financially.

 

Doesn't actually mean they don't have the ability to recall it when they want. That is still unknown.

[CJGJ]

'That's a bit harsh.

 

From what I understand of what CJGJ has posted, King et al are deliberately winding up Ashley in an attempt to force a renegotiation of the retail contract.  I'm not sure this will work tbh.  But it does draw a line between King and Ashley, making King look like the "good guy" to the Orc droves.

 

To me, that's fair comment.

 

I feel, though, that King will end up with a double-yoker on his face at the end of all this.'

 

 

and

 

'I don't think Ashley cares if King gets kudos amongst bluenoses or not. He'll protect his money and protect Sports Direct at all costs'

 

 

 

Both of the above posts are fair comment .

Edited June 11, 2015 by CJGJ

[Mr Nobody]

More or less how I see it  as well

who are you replying to?

[Boris]

I don't think Ashley cares if King gets kudos amongst bluenoses or not. He'll protect his money and protect Sports Direct at all costs.

 

Oh, indeed, this is more about King being seen by the hordes as a PRM (or is that acronym RRM?)

 

However, I suspect that his aggressive attitude toward Ashley will do him no favours.

[altyjambo]

Why ?....those who post like this really are sad.

 

In any case this will help King and his support from the fans will increase.

 

It seems anyone who dares to point out that there may be more to this is then by implication some sort of King/Rangers fan. It's sad that SOME think like this but then again they don't seem to be thinking at all re this topic.

 

Some posters on here (not all) seem to want to see it as a right or wrong matter when the truth is as usual somewhere inbetween and that is what I am trying to point out.  Ashley has made mistakes and is not immune to being wrong despite some on here telling us he has Rangers by the short and curiles..for example it's clear he made a mistake in his loan facility agreement and has no ability to call it in and as long as Rangers abide by the terms and conditions he is powereless re this matter.

 

Todays gagging order coming just before the meeting he called will simply strengthen the view he has something to hide and that if the full details became public he would look far worse than he does just now and that is saying something.

Tomorrows meeting will it seems go ahead and votes will be counted.......this decision today may mean that he loses both resolutions but of course not all the details will be able to be told which means shareholders cannot be told the full details of a contract that may or may not be something they would like to know before said vote.

 

It's clear this is a commercial game in which Ashley was out thought when shares were bought by others and his influence diminished when he could not buy more due to his agreement with the Scottish football authorities. He is unhappy at this I am sure and is of course doing his best to be as obstructive as possible.. it's not like he does not have the money to do so.

His deals were set up when he had his men in control and of course they had to become employees so as to try and create the image that he had no undue influence as per his agreement with the footballing authorities. They were then sacked when the new regime came in and controlled matters and to date he has not attemped to get others on board.

 

Ashley is looking after his interests just as King and co are looking after theirs. That's business and the commercial deal entered into is one he wants to keep and King and co want to end or renegotiate (as ending it would it seems be an impossible scenario).......is renegotiation a likely scenario ?..well who knows but that seems to be King and co's strategy. As part of that they see the loan/credit facility as a bargaining chip and again who knows if their strategy will work.

 

Still a long way to go in this I would think and a few twists and turns to come.

 

This is my opinion not fact and I believe we are allowed opinion on this board.

 

Not sure that Ashley has been out-thought here. He entered into two main transactions with RIFC - one of them to provide a loan of up to ?10m and the other to manage a retail operation for them. In both cases, there is a requirement for the club and the company to survive as he'd lose his loan and the merchandise would be useless. As such, he's been prepared to provide his loan for the long term, as the cost of that loan (and it is interest free I think) would be compensated by the profit from the retail deal. 

 

Since then, King and Co have, to use a footballing expression, moved the goalposts. They are happy to maintain the longer term aspect of the loan, but have basically told the punters not to buy any merchandise. They have released or threatened to release details of the contract with the aim of turning more punters away from the retail side. Ashley is trying to stop that from deteriorating further by going to court today. I agree it's pretty much a lost cause as I suspect most fans are avoiding the SD shops already. However, to suggest he didn't know his loan wasn't repayable is mere supposition - and most likely wrong. He's trying to move the goalposts back to where they were.

 

The other bit that's interesting is the AIM bit. His shareholding is pretty much valueless without a market to sell it in, and I'd have thought that was much more valuable to him than the ?5m loan. Not surprising he's asking questions about it.

[CJGJ]

Re the loan agreement neither side has actually stated whether SD have the ability to recall the loan. What we do know is that repayment of the loan will revert the retail deal to what it was prior to the loan.

 

It could be that SD are happy to continue with the loan as it is in their interests financially.

 

Doesn't actually mean they don't have the ability to recall it when they want. That is still unknown.

Just a small point why would SD call a meeting to request repayment of the loan if they are so happy ?

 

...and if they had the ability to call in the loan/credit facility why not do so ?...by implication they don't have the legal ability at this time (though I would imagine there is some point at which they do but not just at present unless terms and conditions of said arrangement are broken)

 

I've no doubt this loan/credit facility will have to be repaid by King and co./Rangers eventually but at present it is being used as a bargaining chip and tactically who knows if this is the right way to go in this game of corporate politics.

[Boris]

Just a small point why would SD call a meeting to request repayment of the loan if they are so happy ?

 

...and if they had the ability to call in the loan/credit facility why not do so ?...by implication they don't have the legal ability at this time (though I would imagine there is some point at which they do but not just at present unless terms and conditions of said arrangement are broken)

 

I've no doubt this loan/credit facility will have to be repaid by King and co./Rangers eventually but at present it is being used as a bargaining chip and tactically who knows if this is the right way to go in this game of corporate politics.

 

I think this all goes back to Llambias' famous comment regards money and NOMADS.  Both sides are using the loan like Billy Kramer.

[Mr Nobody]

Just a small point why would SD call a meeting to request repayment of the loan if they are so happy ?

 

...and if they had the ability to call in the loan/credit facility why not do so ?...by implication they don't have the legal ability at this time (though I would imagine there is some point at which they do but not just at present unless terms and conditions of said arrangement are broken)

 

I've no doubt this loan/credit facility will have to be repaid by King and co./Rangers eventually but at present it is being used as a bargaining chip and tactically who knows if this is the right way to go in this game of corporate politics.

They are calling the EGM not just for repayment of the loan.there are other issues being raised as well.

 

SD are getting it tight in relation to the structure of the retail deal. Could be that SD are just making it clear that all Rangers have to do is repay the loan.

 

As I said before it could be SD are happy whether Rangers repay or not. Maybe the extra 25% is worth more than the 5m that is tied up to SD.

 

Ultimately I don't know and neither do you whether they have the ability to call up the loan but you are stating it as fact that they don't on a number of occasions.

 

I am more interested in how DO responds in relation to the issues raised about the delisting given his prior comments about having a Nomad lined up etc.

 

Going to be a very interesting response.

[Don Dan]

Why ?....those who post like this really are sad.

 

In any case this will help King and his support from the fans will increase.

 

It seems anyone who dares to point out that there may be more to this is then by implication some sort of King/Rangers fan. It's sad that SOME think like this but then again they don't seem to be thinking at all re this topic.

 

Some posters on here (not all) seem to want to see it as a right or wrong matter when the truth is as usual somewhere inbetween and that is what I am trying to point out. Ashley has made mistakes and is not immune to being wrong despite some on here telling us he has Rangers by the short and curiles..for example it's clear he made a mistake in his loan facility agreement and has no ability to call it in and as long as Rangers abide by the terms and conditions he is powereless re this matter.

 

Todays gagging order coming just before the meeting he called will simply strengthen the view he has something to hide and that if the full details became public he would look far worse than he does just now and that is saying something.

Tomorrows meeting will it seems go ahead and votes will be counted.......this decision today may mean that he loses both resolutions but of course not all the details will be able to be told which means shareholders cannot be told the full details of a contract that may or may not be something they would like to know before said vote.

 

It's clear this is a commercial game in which Ashley was out thought when shares were bought by others and his influence diminished when he could not buy more due to his agreement with the Scottish football authorities. He is unhappy at this I am sure and is of course doing his best to be as obstructive as possible.. it's not like he does not have the money to do so.

His deals were set up when he had his men in control and of course they had to become employees so as to try and create the image that he had no undue influence as per his agreement with the footballing authorities. They were then sacked when the new regime came in and controlled matters and to date he has not attemped to get others on board.

 

Ashley is looking after his interests just as King and co are looking after theirs. That's business and the commercial deal entered into is one he wants to keep and King and co want to end or renegotiate (as ending it would it seems be an impossible scenario).......is renegotiation a likely scenario ?..well who knows but that seems to be King and co's strategy. As part of that they see the loan/credit facility as a bargaining chip and again who knows if their strategy will work.

 

Still a long way to go in this I would think and a few twists and turns to come.

 

This is my opinion not fact and I believe we are allowed opinion on this board.

Two questions.

1) how do you know the terms of the loan agreement.

2) if you and I made an agreement which included a confidentiality clause and you broke it would I be justified in wanting the clause enforced.

 

There is obviously terms of the (any) agreement that are sensitive and I sure you're well aware that this is not unusual in any contract no matter how big or small.

What King needs to do is to buy out Ashely say to the prospective ST holders look I've done my bit and put the company in a better financial footing now you can join me in supporting the club. Will he? To date other than rhetoric he has not done that and IMO he won't.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Dannie Boy

[doctor jambo]

The GM is being called to humiliate King, that's all- its a public slapping as revenge for the one Ashley suffered when his stooges were emasculated in the coup.

[marquis]

I agree with CJGJ that some on here indulge in a great deal of wishful thinking as far as this saga is concerned. However, I believe the ?5m is only partly being used as a bargaining chip. Ashley is using its repayment to highlight King's unwillingness/inability to put loads of cash into the Huns. Don't see how King can use it as a part of his strategy since one way or another Ashley will get his cash back. Whether that's tomorrow or a year down the line won't make much difference to him since I'm sure he's got enough to tide him over meantime.

[CJGJ]

They are calling the EGM not just for repayment of the loan.there are other issues being raised as well.

 

SD are getting it tight in relation to the structure of the retail deal. Could be that SD are just making it clear that all Rangers have to do is repay the loan.

 

As I said before it could be SD are happy whether Rangers repay or not. Maybe the extra 25% is worth more than the 5m that is tied up to SD.

 

Ultimately I don't know and neither do you whether they have the ability to call up the loan but you are stating it as fact that they don't on a number of occasions.

 

I am more interested in how DO responds in relation to the issues raised about the delisting given his prior comments about having a Nomad lined up etc.

 

Going to be a very interesting response.

Never stated it as 'fact' though others of course like to post this in an attempt to make their point (i'm sure not you of course) ..opinion is not fact, though in some posts re this subject that has been forgotten.

When people post it is generally an opinion though of course there will be times when that is fact.

[Victor Meldrew]

She will probably be chuffed to bits that a friend and former colleague is telling the entire internet she discusses her cases with all and sundry, so they can then post the details on a football forum.

I didn't say I'd ask for anything confidential did I? I was going to ask what it was about, but as we now know (thanks to Twitter) I probably won't bother.

[Zico]

I agree with CJGJ that some on here indulge in a great deal of wishful thinking as far as this saga is concerned. However, I believe the ?5m is only partly being used as a bargaining chip. Ashley is using its repayment to highlight King's unwillingness/inability to put loads of cash into the Huns. Don't see how King can use it as a part of his strategy since one way or another Ashley will get his cash back. Whether that's tomorrow or a year down the line won't make much difference to him since I'm sure he's got enough to tide him over meantime.

That's how I see it - Ashley publicly asking King to put his money where his mouth is.

[Mr Nobody]

Never stated it as 'fact' though others of course like to post this in an attempt to make their point (i'm sure not you of course) ..opinion is not fact, though in some posts re this subject that has been forgotten.

When people post it is generally an opinion though of course there will be times when that is fact.

82370 you state MA admits he has no legal ability to recall the loan.

[steve444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33098380

 

 

Mike Ashley's Sports Direct has won a court injunction against Rangers disclosing confidential information about its retail deal with the club.

 

It prevents Rangers revealing details of their contract to an extraordinary meeting of the Championship club called by Ashley and being held on Friday.

 

The Newcastle United owner and Rangers shareholder asked for the EGM to force the club to pay back a ?5m loan.

 

Sports Direct was also awarded costs of ?20,000 at the Royal Courts of Justice.

 

The company complained that information had already been leaked to the media and asked the Chancery Division of the High Court in London for its deal with Rangers to remain private.

The application heard evidence from lawyers representing both sides but found in Sports Direct's favour and ordered Rangers to pay legal costs.

A judge ruled: "I am satisfied there is a real risk of disclosure tomorrow of confidential information."

 

Ashley had sent his lawyers to court after the Daily Record newspaper carried reports of what the judge was told was secret information relating to commercial links between Sports Direct and Rangers.

 

It was claimed in court that this information must have come from board members, but Rangers' lawyers said there was no evidence as to the actual source of the leaks.

 

Sports Direct currently controls around 75% of Rangers' retail operations, but the club say they want to challenge those contracts at the EGM.

 

The club have also asked shareholders to vote against resolutions put forward by Ashley's company, which wants Rangers to repay a ?5m loan and explain the decisions that led to the club being delisted from the AIM stock exchange.

 

Ashley said on Wednesday that repaying the loan would allow Rangers to restore some of their retail income.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just a small point why would SD call a meeting to request repayment of the loan if they are so happy ?

 

...and if they had the ability to call in the loan/credit facility why not do so ?...by implication they don't have the legal ability at this time (though I would imagine there is some point at which they do but not just at present unless terms and conditions of said arrangement are broken)

 

I've no doubt this loan/credit facility will have to be repaid by King and co./Rangers eventually but at present it is being used as a bargaining chip and tactically who knows if this is the right way to go in this game of corporate politics.

I've made this point to you before; in the same vein as your thinking, why does King not say, if it is indeed the case, that Ashley has no power to demand repayment of the loan? We all know that King likes to play to the gallery, so what better way than to remove the fear that Ashley can recall the loan, and win the undying love of the bears, than by stating that under the terms of the loan he can't demand repayment? What's more, just because Ashley hasn't called in the loan doesn't mean he can't! I worked in a bank for many years and it was common for a customer to be encouraged to repay, or reduce, his borrowing rather than the bank to demand repayment. Ashley is in the unique position of being both the lender and a party (as a shareholder) to the loan. He is perfectly entitled to act in either capacity and has chosen to, firstly, take action as a shareholder. Perhaps this is sneaky and underhand, perhaps he is taking advantage of his wealth and power; so what? It still doesn't mean he can't demand repayment of the loan in his capacity as the lender, not demanding repayment is hardly evidence that he can't! But, maybe you are right, though not by your reasoning, just guesswork. Anyway, I await your reasoning/guesswork as to why King hasn't told the world that Ashley cannot demand repayment of the loan!

[Disco Dave]

Its great that Rangers turmoil continues but what does MA/Sports Direct really get out of this in the end? Surely a few million quid here or there is simply not worth the bother to a billionaire? His brand in half of Glasgow at least is being damaged the longer this goes on. Is his end game the cheap pitch side advertising of a club who may or may not become high profile again should they get back to "their rightful place"

 

I guess thats how Ashley got rich in the first place, negotiating great deals for his companies but this just doesn't quite stack up in my opinion.

[jambovambo]

@RichwilBBC: Ian Cathro has left Valencia

[Jambo-Jimbo]

By breaking the confidentiality clause in releasing details to the D.R. (7 years rolling contract) i'd imagine they'd be seen by S.Direct as braking the terms of the contract. Imagine if they made King & Murray swear under oath in court that they never leaked that info to Keef ?...

 

Just as well sevco aren't listed on the AIM or they'd have to issue a statement on this too.. Days like this court case means kings de-listing helps him out once again with a lack of transparency that he promised.. On the bright side the D.R's cheer leading of king with confidential information not in the public domain at the time of print might make them fearful of court action should they not desist from more hyperbole..

 

Read this for a laugh. Ra peepul just don't get it.

http://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-statement-on-ashley-court-action/

 

If what has been reported is correct and Rangers have to buy back any and all unsold stock, then the boycott doesn't cost Sports Direct anything as it costs Rangers as they have to buy the unsold stock.

If that is correct, then any boycott suits Sports Direct as they don't have to pay Rangers the alleged 70p per ?10 and thus save that money and get a larger profit.

 

Ashley must be laughing all the way to the bank at just how thick the orcs are.

[CJGJ]

82370 you state MA admits he has no legal ability to recall the loan.

Mash/MA admit that they 'thought' the agreement meant one thing and that's what I have posted. Their admission of what they thought is posted below (see number 1)..seems Rangers do not have the same thought but the fact is what was admitted to by Mash and that is that their thought was one thing but the reality would appear to be another as far as Rangers are concerned. In my opinion that was an admission that they could not recall the loan or credit facility at this time.

They also informed for public consumption that Rangers could repay it at any time..(see below also number 2.)..note the phrase 'at any time' why if they had the ability to recall it/cancel it when Mash wanted to ?

There are times when you can infer something by non actions even in court cases. This is one of those times (opinion not fact)

 

After all this time that by not going to court (re the loan/credit facility) it is becoming clear that Mash/Ashley do not at this time have the ability to recall the loan/credit facility. To be fair I think more and more are agreeing with this reading some of the recent posts.

 

The longer they do not simply seems to confirm that they cannot at this time recall it......though I am pretty sure they will have the right to at some point... If not then that really would be a poor deal to have agreed to and I'm sure Mash/Ashley would not have been that generous though it was their men running the show when the deal was signed so maybe they never thought about that should control be lost as it was..(speculation in this case not fact)

If they really wanted the money and had the legal ability to get it back straight away they could have done so weeks ago. That would have left King and co having to repay ?5 million and the contracts reverting back to the way they were e.g the 51/49% split.

 

1.'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.'

 

2. '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.'

 

 

I hope the struggles continue and that it makes things difficult for Rangers to strengthen on and off the park but it won't blind me to the bigger picture of what is really going on......... but the current situation is great to watch from the sidelines.

[jambovambo]

This to and fro stuff is getting a bit tedious.

 

Ian Cathro - he the man for the Rangers job ?

 

It's going to get them excited.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Sad type post imo

 

If all you have is trying to infer things that are not true then it says it all.  I thought better of you but it seems we live and learn.

 

 

Anyway the case seems to be about an attempt to limit information available at the meeting called by Ashley tomorrow..

 

 

"Counsel for Sports Direct says that information about the percentage of income going to RFC from merchandise should not be disclosed."

 

 

 

   

[Footballfirst]

On balance, I think today's judgement will work marginally in King's favour, although Ashley achieved the confidentiality he sought.

 

King's will feel that the fans will increasingly back him in believing that SD's contract is skewed inordinately in Ashley's favour and may support him further re ST sales, boycotts of SD, or in a share issue.

 

Ashley won the big picture argument. I would expect that all SD's deals with clubs or other parties are all different with varying degrees of profitability in SD's favour. It may well be that the TRFC deal is one at the upper end of the revenue share, but in the end it will suit Ashley for the finer detail not to become public.

 

There is clearly a clash of personalities between Ashley and King, so I suspect that Ashley will continue to try to expose King's increasingly apparent lack of ready cash.

 

Note that today's injunction has very little, if anything, to do with the Loan facility.  That may be the next target for Ashley.

[Mikey1874]

Certainly Sports Direct seems to have confirmed the 7 year rolling contract / notice period today.

[Riccarton3]

Like how the BBC has two pictures of Ashley leaning back, laughing, as if at rangers. Pretty clear where this impartial organisation stands.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

By breaking the confidentiality clause in releasing details to the D.R. (7 years rolling contract) i'd imagine they'd be seen by S.Direct as braking the terms of the contract. Imagine if they made King & Murray swear under oath in court that they never leaked that info to Keef ?...

 

Just as well sevco aren't listed on the AIM or they'd have to issue a statement on this too.. Days like this court case means kings de-listing helps him out once again with a lack of transparency that he promised.. On the bright side the D.R's cheer leading of king with confidential information not in the public domain at the time of print might make them fearful of court action should they not desist from more hyperbole..

 

Read this for a laugh. Ra peepul just don't get it.

http://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-statement-on-ashley-court-action/

Tut tut, to suggest I might laugh at the deluded; sadly, I did

 

It's about time that, instead of demanding the details of the SD contract, they started to demand that King starts to tell them the truth and lives up to the massive figures he was happy to band about before finding himself in place at Ibrox. If he continues reducing his promised investment, instead of putting money into the club, he'll be taking it out, oh wait...

[rudi]

Tut tut, to suggest I might laugh at the deluded; sadly, I did

 

It's about time that, instead of demanding the details of the SD contract, they started to demand that King starts to tell them the truth and lives up to the massive figures he was happy to band about before finding himself in place at Ibrox. If he continues reducing his promised investment, instead of putting money into the club, he'll be taking it out, oh wait...

Aye because we'll know all about blethering erses taking fans up the rear.

[Dave McCreery's knee]

So blatantly using the DR as their corporate PR machine has backfired. P Murray and King coming across as amateurs

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-interim-chairman-paul-murray-5287851