The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Don Dan]

Does King have ?5m available outside do SA. There are restrictions of moving monies out of the country and if he is to be believed he's already spent some of the family inheritance on the club. Has he reached the limit of transferring money out of SA?

[Paolo]

Iirc king had moved funds to the Cayman Is out of reach of SARS & put things into his wife's name too. People like him often have numerous offshore accounts in tax havens.

Does his dog have a bank account too?

[reaths17]

No is the short answer.  Everyone thought he had, however, when Ashley sought to challenge the SFA in court, the SFA decided to disclose that King was ruled unfit to be involved with the football club (TRFC), but was OK to have a stake in the holding company (RIFC). Ashley dropped his action as a result. That is why King has never been appointed.a director of the football club.

 

From a Mash Statement:

?MASH notes that the SFA did not approve Dave King to be a director of the football club (The Rangers Football Club Limited, the body which has membership of the SFA), but instead only approved him as a director of the club?s holding company (Rangers International Football Club plc).

I get that they didn't let him into the football club but do the SFA have jurisdiction over company rules/laws, isn't he unfit for running a company with his record ?

Edited March 14, 2017 by reaths17

[Shanks]

The penny share brigade will be licking their lips. ?100,000 worth of shares is now worth ?2m

[Lincon Premier]

If King proceeds with the offer and any of the 3 Bears bailed out, then it could leave King in an awkward position.  The 3 Bears bought in at 20p so there would be no loss on their initial investment, however it would be unlikely that they would subsequently want their loan converted to equity.  Would it remain as a soft loan with no repayment date or would they look to seek repayment?

 

If I was a gambling man, I would bet that King will now look to get out on similar terms, by selling up and seeking repayment of his loans over a period. King holds 14.57%, bought at 20.1p for ?2.4m.  The 3 Bears currently hold 19.5%, so wouldn't want to hit the 30% threshold, should they purchase some of King's shares. One solution would be for the 3 Bears and Club1872 each to buy half of Kings shareholding. That would leave the 3 Bears with around 27% and Club1872 would go up from 6.25% up to 13.5%.  Club1872 should have around ?1.5m in cash reserves so could easily afford a 20p deal for half the shares.

 

?1.5m of King's loans are repayable on demand.  The other King and 3 Bears loans are due for repayment in December 2017 (but would probably be rolled over if not converted to equity).

Some of the other board members are reported to be a bit miffed King has not ponied up as much as he said or,they thought he would. I would be a good time for them to recover some cash and force him to " over invest" 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Iirc king had moved funds to the Cayman Is out of reach of SARS & put things into his wife's name too. People like him often have numerous offshore accounts in tax havens.

 

It is my understanding that SARS are aware of any and all bank accounts held by King et al.

 

Even if King does have money spirited away, he can't readily use it, without SARS asking questions about when it was moved and if tax had been paid upon it.

 

What needs to be remembered is that King wasn't only being investigated for unpaid tax, but also tax evasion and money laundering as well, that is on an altogether different level.

[Footballfirst]

I get that they didn't let him into the football club but do the SFA have jurisdiction over company rules/laws, isn't he unfit for running a company with his record ?

 

The SFA can't and won't intervene in the running of RIFC.  He has no disqualification that prevents him being a director of a UK company.

 

[XB52]

The penny share brigade will be licking their lips. ?100,000 worth of shares is now worth ?2m

Nope, penny shares is just a name; it doesn't mean they only paid a penny for them. IIRC most of the big investors paid 70p a share, although a few paid 20p.

[DETTY29]

Some folk were awarded shares at 1p, Super Ally for one.

 

I think the info has been put up before on who paid what at the initial IPO.

 

Best of luck looking through 1903 pages.

 

FF however, may be so kind as to put up again.....

Nope, penny shares is just a name; it doesn't mean they only paid a penny for them. IIRC most of the big investors paid 70p a share, although a few paid 20p.

[DETTY29]

No is the short answer.  Everyone thought he had, however, when Ashley sought to challenge the SFA in court, the SFA decided to disclose that King was ruled unfit to be involved with the football club (TRFC), but was OK to have a stake in the holding company (RIFC). Ashley dropped his action as a result. That is why King has never been appointed.a director of the football club.

 

From a Mash Statement:

?MASH notes that the SFA did not approve Dave King to be a director of the football club (The Rangers Football Club Limited, the body which has membership of the SFA), but instead only approved him as a director of the club?s holding company (Rangers International Football Club plc).

Sometimes we deserve the football authorities we get as, as far as I'm aware clubs are not challenging this contradiction and on the face of it, a complete and utter lie by the SFA.

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=14785

 

Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association.

 

Mr King provided substantial information in relation to the matters set out at Article 10.2 (h) and 10.2 (j) namely:

 

? He has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud and;

 

? He has been ?a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event?.

 

In considering the request, the Board of the Scottish FA has sought and received specialist independent legal advice, both in Scotland and South Africa, in respect of Mr King?s conviction further to the South African Income Tax Act and in relation to his previous involvement as a Director of the club. It has also received significant documentation from relevant authorities both within the UK and South Africa.

 

The scale of this due diligence is unprecedented but befitting the complexities of the consideration placed before the Board. During this exercise both Mr King and the club were fully co-operative and responded to all questions put to them by the Scottish FA.

 

On the basis of this advice presented to it, and having considered all submissions received from Mr King and the club in respect of this matter, the Scottish FA Board granted an approval, conditional upon further submissions from Mr King in respect of documented agreements with the appropriate authorities in South Africa.

 

The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[John Findlay]

No is the short answer.  Everyone thought he had, however, when Ashley sought to challenge the SFA in court, the SFA decided to disclose that King was ruled unfit to be involved with the football club (TRFC), but was OK to have a stake in the holding company (RIFC). Ashley dropped his action as a result. That is why King has never been appointed.a director of the football club.

 

From a Mash Statement:

?MASH notes that the SFA did not approve Dave King to be a director of the football club (The Rangers Football Club Limited, the body which has membership of the SFA), but instead only approved him as a director of the club?s holding company (Rangers International Football Club plc).

If this is the case. Can I ask why media outlets describe him as the Sevco chairman if he is not fit and proper?

[CollyWolly]

Nope, penny shares is just a name; it doesn't mean they only paid a penny for them. IIRC most of the big investors paid 70p a share, although a few paid 20p.

McCoist and Traynor both paid 1p per share.(small fry investors in terms of cash right enough)

Traynor's small ?3k investment is now worth around ?60-?80k depending if you are looking at the King price or the market price.

 

There were something like 81 million shares available at 1p. God knows who has them all now but there are a lot out there. Not all in King friendly hands I wouldn't imagine. I am pretty sure MASH holds a large chunk at 1p.

 

The release didn't raise very much cash, but its now a massive (and probably fatal for King) noose round their neck if people are moved to take him up on the offer.

Edited March 14, 2017 by CollyWolly

[CollyWolly]

If this is the case. Can I ask why media outlets describe him as the Sevco chairman if he is not fit and proper?

Because he is, in all but name and legality.

[john5698]

Sometimes we deserve the football authorities we get as, as far as I'm aware clubs are not challenging this contradiction and on the face of it, a complete and utter lie by the SFA.

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=14785

 

Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association.

 

Mr King provided substantial information in relation to the matters set out at Article 10.2 (h) and 10.2 (j) namely:

 

? He has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud and;

 

? He has been ?a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event?.

 

In considering the request, the Board of the Scottish FA has sought and received specialist independent legal advice, both in Scotland and South Africa, in respect of Mr King?s conviction further to the South African Income Tax Act and in relation to his previous involvement as a Director of the club. It has also received significant documentation from relevant authorities both within the UK and South Africa.

 

The scale of this due diligence is unprecedented but befitting the complexities of the consideration placed before the Board. During this exercise both Mr King and the club were fully co-operative and responded to all questions put to them by the Scottish FA.

 

On the basis of this advice presented to it, and having considered all submissions received from Mr King and the club in respect of this matter, the Scottish FA Board granted an approval, conditional upon further submissions from Mr King in respect of documented agreements with the appropriate authorities in South Africa.

 

The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[john5698]

Sometimes we deserve the football authorities we get as, as far as I'm aware clubs are not challenging this contradiction and on the face of it, a complete and utter lie by the SFA.

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=14785

 

Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association.

 

Mr King provided substantial information in relation to the matters set out at Article 10.2 (h) and 10.2 (j) namely:

 

? He has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud and;

 

? He has been ?a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event?.

 

In considering the request, the Board of the Scottish FA has sought and received specialist independent legal advice, both in Scotland and South Africa, in respect of Mr King?s conviction further to the South African Income Tax Act and in relation to his previous involvement as a Director of the club. It has also received significant documentation from relevant authorities both within the UK and South Africa.

 

The scale of this due diligence is unprecedented but befitting the complexities of the consideration placed before the Board. During this exercise both Mr King and the club were fully co-operative and responded to all questions put to them by the Scottish FA.

 

On the basis of this advice presented to it, and having considered all submissions received from Mr King and the club in respect of this matter, the Scottish FA Board granted an approval, conditional upon further submissions from Mr King in respect of documented agreements with the appropriate authorities in South Africa.

 

The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[john5698]

 

 

 

Having a disaster replying here, apologies.

 

So the fact that King has actually admitted to his criminalities is irrelevant, but because he co-operated with the SFA seems to make everything alright.You just couldn't make this stuff up. Just out of curiosity who pays for this expert advise that the SFA sought, would they bill King himself, his club or does all the other clubs pick up the tab through their contributions to the SFA? 

[DETTY29]

Notts Forest appoint Warburton as their manager.

While not guaranteed, probably good news for TRFC.

 

More chance of litigation ceasing or significantly reduced out of court settlement.

[The Future's Maroon]

They won't care about the bread man.

 

Their new knobjockey was on tv earlier boasting how he has the biggest club in the world and the best squad in the league.....wow, he is in for a big fright!

[Mikey1874]

While not guaranteed, probably good news for TRFC.

 

More chance of litigation ceasing or significantly reduced out of court settlement.

No

 

Makes no odds

 

Suppose you could say "why bother...I've got a job". But football management is precarious. And he could be due a very decent wedge. And there's the principle. And standing up for yourself and showing people can't mess with you or your colleagues.

 

League Managers Association would be advising to continue any claims.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Mikey1874

[Footballfirst]

Here is what the original TRFC investors paid per share (pre RIFC IPO)

 

As you will see, most paid 99p and were given the same amount of shares at 1p, making an average price of 50p

 

[drewbusbomb]

.

[Don Dan]

While not guaranteed, probably good news for TRFC.

 

More chance of litigation ceasing or significantly reduced out of court settlement.

I'd be hanging out for full compensation especially after seeing what Sevco paid to get their man. Having been made to look foolish in the eyes of the world I be looking for full payment plus.

[Lincon Premier]

Either way you look at it that is a hell of an amount of shares. The cost to King is not only to 20p per share but the cost of setting up the sale/buying. Small investors may not sell and would have to find someone to do the trade if they did but many ( as stated before ) in the 1P mob will maybe see this as a way to make some cash and get out before the storm. Personally I think King will do a runner as he doesn't have the cash.

[reaths17]

The SFA can't and won't intervene in the running of RIFC.  He has no disqualification that prevents him being a director of a UK company.

 

you said the SFA agreed to him joining RIFC, which has caused the confusion, I thought the SFA had nothing to do with the company side.

 

surely his tax swindling case would be enough to get him barred from running a tax paying/non-paying company, bizarre if not IMO

[Footballfirst]

you said the SFA agreed to him joining RIFC, which has caused the confusion, I thought the SFA had nothing to do with the company side.

 

surely his tax swindling case would be enough to get him barred from running a tax paying/non-paying company, bizarre if not IMO

All that the SFA has influence over is the football club which is TRFC Ltd, the registered member of the SFA.

 

Like everything else that the SFA has done relating to Rangers, it is a fudge.  Nobody believes that King does not influence the football club in his role as chairman of the holding company. Any SFA limitation imposed on King being a director of the football club, as claimed by MASH, is therefore only window dressing.

[August Landmesser]

Only his legal team can answer that tbh. I'd like to think he'll continue his campaign to have all the monies he's entitled too paid in full though.

And now he's in work again he can relax a bit and not feel as pressured into taking the first derisory out-of-court offer that Sevco make to him.

[tcjambo]

And now he's in work again he can relax a bit and not feel as pressured into taking the first derisory out-of-court offer that Sevco make to him.

Pretty sure he's only entitled to recover any financial loss. Now that he's got a job unless they're paying him way below what he previously was on at Sevco he'll not get a lot.

[Justin Z]

Pretty sure he's only entitled to recover any financial loss. Now that he's got a job unless they're paying him way below what he previously was on at Sevco he'll not get a lot.

 

The buyout amount is fixed and does not change regardless of his new employment.

[August Landmesser]

Warburtons already a rich man, so any pressure is on sevco to bring this to a conclusion before court in order to save on costs tbh.

If I was Warbs, it'd be feet up and lighting cigars with Rangers' solicitor's letters until I got a court date...

[buzzbomb1958]

Barry whoreing himself out for the blue pound,he's pleading for the assistant job after being a resounding success at the bully wee.Probably knows Cashina has never been long at any club so sees it as a fast track to his holy grail,please let it happen

[Hagar the Horrible]

Having been out the country and trying to catch up on this, I take it there has been a ruling (similar to the 30% rule?) that once you go beyond 29.9%  you have to offer every other shareholder the valued price for all shares?  but in our case Bidco were also forced but requested fans not to take it up, which we did not?

 

OK so this ruling (concert party ruling) meant that King and his cohorts were acting together and now must offer 20p per share to all current share holder?  Hmmm  I understand the small and/or emotional investors, would rather keep their shares, but the big boys might jump ship?  so...

 

1.  Does/can  King get the money based on a large uptake of this deal?

2.  Does he want them?

3.  If he does he will have enough voting rights to push though the righst issue?

4. will the other camp bail out, knowing it might screw him over?

5. will the big guys just cut their loses and get 20p per share, knowing that any future shares for equity sceme might dilute their shares from currently 4p to 2p in value?

6.  will this money for shares come from the warchest?  if it actually exists?

 

Also what will the Ides of March ruling bring tommorow?  is that still on????

 

More popcorn on order

[By The Light..]

So this 20p thing is non story really except if King or the board wanted to raise cash by relisting on a London market like AIM and raise more cash, he can ignore

[Spellczech]

Here is what the original TRFC investors paid per share (pre RIFC IPO)

 

As you will see, most paid 99p and were given the same amount of shares at 1p, making an average price of 50p

 

So Ally McCoist got 2.99% of Rangers for ?10k and others paid half a million for the same shares, and Laxey paid ?1m... Ouch. Where did they see the value? I don't know who these outfits are but I would hope they are not wealth managers investing on behalf of some dudes...

[RobNox]

So Ally McCoist got 2.99% of Rangers for ?10k and others paid half a million for the same shares, and Laxey paid ?1m... Ouch. Where did they see the value? I don't know who these outfits are but I would hope they are not wealth managers investing on behalf of some dudes...

Lol, looks like Ally stands to pocket ?200k for his ?10k investment

[The Comedian]

Hopefully the pensioners John Broon swindled haven't lost out a second time

[By The Light..]

Lol, looks like Ally stands to pocket ?200k for his ?10k investment

No i'd say the shares are almost worthless

[milky_26]

Hopefully the pensioners John Broon swindled haven't lost out a second time

Ra Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spellczech]

So this 20p thing is non story really except if King or the board wanted to raise cash by relisting on a London market like AIM and raise more cash, he can ignore

Are you sure? I thought the Takeover Panel's decisions are binding and are grounded in Companies Act meaning they have significant enforcement powers? Moreover there are few grounds for appeal...

[Spellczech]

No i'd say the shares are almost worthless

Ironically King's statement indicates that he thinks the shares are worth much more than 20p - he would say that though, as he wants people to refuse the offer he will have to make at 20p...

[jamboz]

Ironically King's statement indicates that he thinks the shares are worth much more than 20p - he would say that though, as he wants people to refuse the offer he will have to make at 20p...

 

Well he should offer what he considers their value then.

[RobNox]

No i'd say the shares are almost worthless

You're probably right on the basis that King isn't actually going to make an offer of 20p per share to the other shareholders.

 

Even if he believed that very few would take him up on that offer (and I happen to think a lot would accept it), he would have to ring fence enough money to buy everyone else out as well as paying for the costs of the offer.  Unless he can persuade anyone else to put money up, there's little likelihood he has the funds, or the inclination, to go ahead with an offer.

[Footballfirst]

The EBT case at the Supreme Court should be streamed live from 10:00 today.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

 

Also the decision in the Albert KInloch v Coral Racing (Rangers "relegation" bet) is expected to be published around 12:00 today

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session

 

Coincidentally(?)  it is Coral Cup day at Cheltenham (2:50)

Edited March 15, 2017 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

The EBT case at the Supreme Court should be streamed live from 10:00 today.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

 

Also the decision in the Albert KInloch v Coral Racing (Rangers "relegation" bet) is expected to be published around 12:00 today

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session

 

Coincidentally(?)  it is Coral Cup day at Cheltenham (2:50)

EBT case - riveting .... (?)

 

Where's Ironside when you need him ?

[jambovambo]

Actually it's now fun. They're talking about an imaginary "aunt Agatha" ...

[jambovambo]

Remember the John Bird and John Fortune sketches ? Very similar.

[Don Dan]

Any live updates

[Footballfirst]

Kinloch decision - Rangers wasn't "relegated"

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

 

Conclusion
[210] In summary, for the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that the sound construction is that contended for by the defenders. Accordingly, on this construction of the pursuer?s bet it is a losing bet.

[jambali]

The EBT case at the Supreme Court should be streamed live from 10:00 today.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

 

Also the decision in the Albert KInloch v Coral Racing (Rangers "relegation" bet) is expected to be published around 12:00 today

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session

 

Coincidentally(?)  it is Coral Cup day at Cheltenham (2:50)

Duly done!

[The Comedian]

Old Albert on his second bottle bleach right about now...

 

[Homme]

What a waste of time, seriously

 

He should have just asked for a free bet.