Jump to content

The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.


Sergio Garcia

Recommended Posts

...a bit disco
2 minutes ago, sadj said:

 

Certain irony to that

 

What could you possibly mean?

 

:whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot
1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

they will need to be wiley to beat them

 

You mean beeet, beeet them

 

 

:pleased:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Those who run football need to look at themselves over this

1- King sits as Director with RFC

2- RFC board act in such a way that RFC is liquidated

3- RFC 2 born

4-King passed fit to run RFC 2

5-RFC2 board act in such a way that they are in real danger of insolvency

 

Why any of the antics of RFC 2 is a surprise is beyond me- what next

 

RFC3 born, david Murray passed fit to run RFC3?

 

Not just King - Paul Murray and Alistair Johnston were also Directors of the oldco.  If the newco does enter administration, the SFA / SPFL should be taken to task as to why these 3 were allowed back at the helm after helping steer oldco into the rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Not just King - Paul Murray and Alistair Johnston were also Directors of the oldco.  If the newco does enter administration, the SFA / SPFL should be taken to task as to why these 3 were allowed back at the helm after helping steer oldco into the rocks.

 

 

Aye but King and Co didn’t know what Minty Murray was up to, so they conveniently claim.

The zip on the back of my head is stuck! 

Edited by Dannie Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Not just King - Paul Murray and Alistair Johnston were also Directors of the oldco.  If the newco does enter administration, the SFA / SPFL should be taken to task as to why these 3 were allowed back at the helm after helping steer oldco into the rocks.

Says much about the governance of the game here that these people were allowed to take up positions in the new club given their track records.  The way all of this was dealt with by the SFA was little short of scandalous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Friday 12th January
EXTRA DIVISION
INNER HOUSE OPPOSITION TO MOTION
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for Orders under section955

 

This looks like King’s appeal or TOP’s opposition to such an appeal (the case number is that used for the TOP’s action against King).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

 

Aye but King and Co didn’t know what Minty Murray was up to, so they conveniently claim.

The zip on the back of my head is stuck! 

That doesn't matter.  They had fiduciary responsibilities towards the oldco, that's why they were getting paid big bucks as directors.  They can't just decide to turn a blind eye to what SDM was up to and then claim ignorance as an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Friday 12th January
EXTRA DIVISION
INNER HOUSE OPPOSITION TO MOTION
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for Orders under section955

 

This looks like King’s appeal or TOP’s opposition to such an appeal (the case number is that used for the TOP’s action against King).

 

It does look like it FF.  Am I right in thinking King had 3 weeks in which to seek leave of appeal, which would mean that timescale was now almost up?

 

Do you have any idea how long this may take (i.e. the decision on whether to grant leave of appeal).  Will it be decided tomorrow or could it rumble on for a bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
Just now, RobNox said:

It does look like it FF.  Am I right in thinking King had 3 weeks in which to seek leave of appeal, which would mean that timescale was now almost up?

 

Do you have any idea how long this may take (i.e. the decision on whether to grant leave of appeal).  Will it be decided tomorrow or could it rumble on for a bit?

I was in court when RFC 2012 (IL) sought leave to appeal the CoS decision on the EBT case.  IIRC the hearing took two or three hours with each side (RFC and HMRC) making their points.  At the end of it, the three Lords present stood up, gathered together, had a discussion of no more than a minute, then announced that they had granted leave to appeal.

 

It might work in a similar fashion tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible
5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

SFM @TheSFMonitor 19m19 minutes ago

Dave King been given leave to appeal against CoS result. Will be heard on 28 Feb. Two days set aside. Motion for Early disposal by ToP brief appears to have been granted.

gutted they get to kick the can further down the road then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

gutted they get to kick the can further down the road then

 

Look on the bright side, with the rate of money the loss making entity continue to lose everyday, by the end of February they'll have even less money in the bank (if they have any) than they do today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

SFM @TheSFMonitor 19m19 minutes ago

Dave King been given leave to appeal against CoS result. Will be heard on 28 Feb. Two days set aside. Motion for Early disposal by ToP brief appears to have been granted.

Boooo. A nap that though I suppose. Still, the champagne can wait another 6 weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 21:48, Footballfirst said:

Hearts creditors list contained all the players who hadn't received wages from the start of the month until the day we entered Admin (the period of 1-18 June 2013).  We also had one player (Andy Driver) who had an outstanding bonus or signing-on fee and whose claim was much higher than anyone else at £115k.  John Sutton had the largest claim of players still at the club at the time with £20,492, followed by Webster, Barr, Novikovas, Hamill, Stevenson, Zaliukas and McDonald, who all had 5 figure claims. 

 

 

None of those players are/were named on the creditors list. We may well have owed them money, or owed agents of theirs money on their behalf, but the only Hearts employee on the list of creditors was Scott Wilson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

None of those players are/were named on the creditors list. We may well have owed them money, or owed agents of theirs money on their behalf, but the only Hearts employee on the list of creditors was Scott Wilson

 

2013-11-15 CVA Proposal.pdf

See pages 41-45 of the attached document.

 

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, We_are_the_Hearts said:

STs to go on sale on the 27th then :laugh:

Yes, the annual trousering of the season ticket money begins.......  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hueyview said:

Yes, the annual trousering of the season ticket money begins.......  ;)

 

shores up the shortfall, sign a couple average players.

Gets them through summer and then bigger than previous years' soft loans get announced.

Annual accounts then get released showing a shortfall (larger than previous years').

 

repeat

repeat

 

running a football club, the Rangers way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to be interesting to see what he sees as having grounds to have the ruling changed. I myself think, although I would lying if I said I actually knew the law, it would be foolish of him to think that saying I do not have the finances to buy these shares is a get out. Just as much as I think, again yada yada, that it would be foolish for him to say what is the point of offering to buy these shares at 20p if they are worth 27p. Even if that was true there may still be some shareholders who would want to rid themselves of their shares because they think the price is fair. However , and most importantly, is it right that anybody should knowingly be part of a group who in concert decide to take control of a company but for the law of the land not to be applied when it comes to them making a offer for the full company shareholding ? It would seem to me that it would be inviting take overs of a similar nature in the future... or is it a case of this particular company being such a shitey wee outfit that there can be, on the part of the judiciary,  a reason to turn a blind eye to the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff the Mince
2 hours ago, hueyview said:

Yes, the annual trousering of the season ticket money begins.......  ;)

I see Les never purchased the gold car on Hardcore Pawn .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot

Ranger's are like one of my wife's shites.

 

Don't pay for themselves and won't flush away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

SFM @TheSFMonitor 19m19 minutes ago

Dave King been given leave to appeal against CoS result. Will be heard on 28 Feb. Two days set aside. Motion for Early disposal by ToP brief appears to have been granted.

Why would they allow an appeal ?surely they would have to be presented with some grounds for it to be accepted.

 

On the basis that everyone and their granny would ignore the 30% ruling going forward if he were to win then i just cant see the rationale.

 

In saying that Dave King doesnt do “rationale”

Edited by Jamboelite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BigDave'sHeed said:

Ranger's are like one of my wife's shites.

 

Don't pay for themselves and won't flush away.

 

Ah, romance isn't dead. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jamboelite said:

Why would they allow an appeal ?surely they would have to be presented with some grounds for it to be accepted.

 

On the basis that everyone and their granny would ignore the 30% ruling going forward if he were to win then i just cant see the rationale.

 

I assume that the leave to appeal will have been granted relating to Dave King's insistence that he doesn't have the funds available (although, if this is the case, I personally can't understand why that would be deemed a reasonable defence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I assume that the leave to appeal will have been granted relating to Dave King's insistence that he doesn't have the funds available (although, if this is the case, I personally can't understand why that would be deemed a reasonable defence).

Maybe he is trying to find out how many beans are in a glass or a nightcap ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Maybe he is trying to find out how many beans are in a glass or a nightcap ;)

 

I get that you're showing you were able to translate my profile Italian phrase (clever you ;) ), but where does the "nightcap" fit in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Why would they allow an appeal ?surely they would have to be presented with some grounds for it to be accepted.

 

On the basis that everyone and their granny would ignore the 30% ruling going forward if he were to win then i just cant see the rationale.

 

In saying that Dave King doesnt do “rationale”

 

To set a precedence I'd presume.

Allow King the appeal and when he loses then that particular appeal route closes for everyone else.

Like you say if King were to win then it'll be open season on every company with shares in the country, and I just can't see that happening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I get that you're showing you were able to translate my profile Italian phrase (clever you ;) ), but where does the "nightcap" fit in? 

Translate and see for yourself ;). I did gain an O Grade in Italian many moons ago,  39 years now to be exact. It is the country have had the good fortune to have visited the most. So keep my hand in. Me clever? Never ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo dans les Pyrenees
22 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I was in court when RFC 2012 (IL) sought leave to appeal the CoS decision on the EBT case.  IIRC the hearing took two or three hours with each side (RFC and HMRC) making their points.  At the end of it, the three Lords present stood up, gathered together, had a discussion of no more than a minute, then announced that they had granted leave to appeal.

 

It might work in a similar fashion tomorrow.

 

Did the 3 learned Lords, erm,...”shake hands” at the beginning or the end of the minute?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I get that you're showing you were able to translate my profile Italian phrase (clever you ;) ), but where does the "nightcap" fit in? 

 

 

Right before the Dutch Cap! :qqb006:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
3 minutes ago, Queensland Jambo said:

 

Did the 3 learned Lords, erm,...”shake hands” at the beginning or the end of the minute?

 

There was only one judge today and the whole proceedings only took 20 minutes, including a five minute break for Counsel to agree dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Translate and see for yourself ;). I did gain an O Grade in Italian many moons ago,  39 years now to be exact. It is the country have had the good fortune to have visited the most. So keep my hand in. Me clever? Never ;)

 

Ah, gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There was only one judge today and the whole proceedings only took 20 minutes, including a five minute break for Counsel to agree dates.

Shook hands with himself?;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Findlay said:

Shook hands with himself?;)

Did we catch any mention of his grannies age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2018 at 19:01, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

To set a precedence I'd presume.

Allow King the appeal and when he loses then that particular appeal route closes for everyone else.

Like you say if King were to win then it'll be open season on every company with shares in the country, and I just can't see that happening.

 

 

A good summary of event at the CoS yesterday by John Clark on SFM, who attended the hearing

 

https://www.sfm.scot/the-elephant-in-the-room/?cid=165714

 

Basically, the hearing yesterday was not to consider whether King had grounds for appeal against the CoS ruling, but to agree a date by when they would consider his grounds for appeal, that date being 28th February.

 

Between now and then, King's representatives have until 7th Feb to submit their grounds of appeal and notes of argument (i.e. the basis on which they believe they can challenge the CoS ruling) and until 15th Feb to submit their note of authorities and case law (i.e. the substance that backs up their challenge).

 

 

All that will be decided on 28th Feb is whether he is able to pursue his appeal or not.  If he's not granted leave to appeal, that should be the end of this business, and he either complies with the TOP ruling or faces contempt of court charges.  If he is given leave to appeal, I have no idea how long the process might drag on before his appeal is eventually heard.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

A good summary of event at the CoS yesterday by John Clark on SFM, who attended the hearing

 

https://www.sfm.scot/the-elephant-in-the-room/?cid=165714

 

Basically, the hearing yesterday was not to consider whether King had grounds for appeal against the CoS ruling, but to agree a date by when they would consider his grounds for appeal, that date being 28th February.

 

Between now and then, King's representatives have until 7th Feb to submit their grounds of appeal and notes of argument (i.e. the basis on which they believe they can challenge the CoS ruling) and until 15th Feb to submit their note of authorities and case law (i.e. the substance that backs up their challenge).

 

 

All that will be decided on 28th Feb is whether he is able to pursue his appeal or not.  If he's not granted leave to appeal, that should be the end of this business, and he either complies with the TOP ruling or faces contempt of court charges.  If he is given leave to appeal, I have no idea how long the process might drag on before his appeal is eventually heard.  

 

I don't understand how King can breach a simple and straightforward  ruling from the TOP , then wait until the TOP gets  a court order to get their ruling enforced  , which he duly and predictable loses , but then says he's gonna appeal. How can it be that in criminal cases a judge can refuse an appeal but King is running rings around the judicial system and now has judges deciding whether or not an appeal can be granted  in such a clear breach of TOP rules ? Any legal brains on here ?  What is King "testing" ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't understand how King can breach a simple and straightforward  ruling from the TOP , then wait until the TOP gets  a court order to get their ruling enforced  , which he duly and predictable loses , but then says he's gonna appeal. How can it be that in criminal cases a judge can refuse an appeal but King is running rings around the judicial system and now has judges deciding whether or not an appeal can be granted  in such a clear breach of TOP rules ? Any legal brains on here ?  What is King "testing" ? 

Maybe just delaying tactics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't understand how King can breach a simple and straightforward  ruling from the TOP , then wait until the TOP gets  a court order to get their ruling enforced  , which he duly and predictable loses , but then says he's gonna appeal. How can it be that in criminal cases a judge can refuse an appeal but King is running rings around the judicial system and now has judges deciding whether or not an appeal can be granted  in such a clear breach of TOP rules ? Any legal brains on here ?  What is King "testing" ? 

This isn't an appeal; the appeal process is exhausted. TOP went to court to seek enforcement action against King; it is this which King is fighting- I have no idea on what grounds. It seems to me that if King wins( ie is not forced to offer for the shares) then TOP can still "cold shoulder " King. ( They can do that anytime ). I can see no grounds for a King win, TB,- essentially Lorrd Bannatyne would've had to have made an error in law. 

 

I have little legal experience so don't rely on this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
8 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't understand how King can breach a simple and straightforward  ruling from the TOP , then wait until the TOP gets  a court order to get their ruling enforced  , which he duly and predictable loses , but then says he's gonna appeal. How can it be that in criminal cases a judge can refuse an appeal but King is running rings around the judicial system and now has judges deciding whether or not an appeal can be granted  in such a clear breach of TOP rules ? Any legal brains on here ?  What is King "testing" ? 

It’s what glib and shameless liers do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wilson said:

This isn't an appeal; the appeal process is exhausted. TOP went to court to seek enforcement action against King; it is this which King is fighting- I have no idea on what grounds. It seems to me that if King wins( ie is not forced to offer for the shares) then TOP can still "cold shoulder " King. ( They can do that anytime ). I can see no grounds for a King win, TB,- essentially Lorrd Bannatyne would've had to have made an error in law. 

 

I have little legal experience so don't rely on this!

He will no doubt have taken legal advice on this before embarking on taking this route.

 

Desperate people do desperate things. The man has no shame so he is well suited to that mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glamorgan Jambo

King is playing for time that's all. And since the Takeover Panel have been on to him for almost 3 years now it's hard to argue he's not been successful. 

 

Will be interesting to see whether the closed share issue floated previously for March this year actually materialises. Can't see it happening personally but who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
9 hours ago, Wilson said:

This isn't an appeal; the appeal process is exhausted. TOP went to court to seek enforcement action against King; it is this which King is fighting- I have no idea on what grounds. It seems to me that if King wins( ie is not forced to offer for the shares) then TOP can still "cold shoulder " King. ( They can do that anytime ). I can see no grounds for a King win, TB,- essentially Lorrd Bannatyne would've had to have made an error in law. 

 

I have little legal experience so don't rely on this!

This is how it appears to me, the TOP found King 'guilty' of breaking their legally binding rules and ordered him to offer to buy the shares not already held by the concert party. The TOP, however, doesn't have the legal power to force him to comply, but obviously have the power to introduce the cold shoulder. They don't  want to use the cold shoulder, because that would affect the smaller shareholders, the people they are trying to protect, so their preferred route is to force King to do what he is legally bound to do, and they have gone to court to request it to enforce the order. 

 

The CoS found in favour of the TOP, and if King fails to comply, he will now be held in contempt of court, rather than just face the effects of the cold shoulder. So, at the moment, it would appear that, should he fail to comply, not only does he face the cold shoulder, he also faces jail time, while, if he wins his appeal he will no longer face the jail time, the TOP order will remain in place. It is to avoid the possibility of jail time that has prompted his appeal. He may well be hoping, though, that if he wins his appeal, he can then take the TOP to court to prevent them issuing the cold shoulder, regardless of whether or not he has a genuine chance of success, for this is the man who spent a fortune keeping his SARS case going through the courts for some ten years.

 

The longer the matter is dragged through the courts, the worse the effect of the uncertainty will be for TRFC, but I think the threat of jail time and/or the cold shoulder will bother King much more than the future of a football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

This is how it appears to me, the TOP found King 'guilty' of breaking their legally binding rules and ordered him to offer to buy the shares not already held by the concert party. The TOP, however, doesn't have the legal power to force him to comply, but obviously have the power to introduce the cold shoulder. They don't  want to use the cold shoulder, because that would affect the smaller shareholders, the people they are trying to protect, so their preferred route is to force King to do what he is legally bound to do, and they have gone to court to request it to enforce the order. 

 

The CoS found in favour of the TOP, and if King fails to comply, he will now be held in contempt of court, rather than just face the effects of the cold shoulder. So, at the moment, it would appear that, should he fail to comply, not only does he face the cold shoulder, he also faces jail time, while, if he wins his appeal he will no longer face the jail time, the TOP order will remain in place. It is to avoid the possibility of jail time that has prompted his appeal. He may well be hoping, though, that if he wins his appeal, he can then take the TOP to court to prevent them issuing the cold shoulder, regardless of whether or not he has a genuine chance of success, for this is the man who spent a fortune keeping his SARS case going through the courts for some ten years.

 

The longer the matter is dragged through the courts, the worse the effect of the uncertainty will be for TRFC, but I think the threat of jail time and/or the cold shoulder will bother King much more than the future of a football club.

 

His get out was supposed to be that his money was held in trust and he could not access it although the judge told him that if he managed to access it to buy into Rangers in the first place then he could do it again to comply with the court ruling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maple Leaf locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...