The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[tntjambo]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

But I though he said he has no control over NOAL.

 

 

 He did but when you are Glib and Shameless you can say whatever you like. LOL

[milky_26]

Who are NOAL again?

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

Who are NOAL again?

 

New Oasis Asset Ltd

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.insider.co.uk/news/dave-king-ignores-takeover-panel-10219497.amp

[sadj]

37 minutes ago, tntjambo said:

 

 He did but when you are Glib and Shameless you can say whatever you like. LOL

Is there not now routes others can go down in terms of criminal charges for claiming he has no control over NOAL which is clearly untrue as the offer has to come from him in some form?

[Drumelzier]

55 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It wasn't just Lord Glennie. Lords  Carloway and Drummond-Young also on the bench.

 

It was revealed in court that King had emailed the RIFC board at 10.15 this morning that NOAL would make the offer  if his appeal failed.

 

He loves a bit of grandstanding doesn't he.

He knew the appeal would fail, it was purely a delaying tactic.

Now, I wonder if there's anything in the pipeline to prevent the offer actually being formalised ?

[davieholt]

5 minutes ago, Drumelzier said:

 

He loves a bit of grandstanding doesn't he.

He knew the appeal would fail, it was purely a delaying tactic.

Now, I wonder if there's anything in the pipeline to prevent the offer actually being formalised ?

 

Money I would imagine. It costs a lot to make such an offer even if few shareholders take it up

[Don Dan]

But he claimed in court saying he had no control over NOAL monies. Anyway this should be fun seeing his families money swirl down the drain.

 

How much does NOAL has to part with again?

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dannie Boy

[tntjambo]

5 minutes ago, davieholt said:

 

Money I would imagine. It costs a lot to make such an offer even if few shareholders take it up

 

Not sure if any will take up on his 20p per share offer as they are currently at 34p per share  http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/share_price/symbol-RFC unless the ones who got the penny shares cash in.

[Footballfirst]

Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

 

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

 

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his grounds for appeal.
1. That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went too far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

 

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne.  He sought to obfuscate matters  arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do something wasn’t the same as having “control” of NOAL. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”.

 

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

 

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision.  He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded. His submissions lasted little more than half an hour.

Proceedings ended just after lunch, but not before Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

 

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

 

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.  

Edited February 28, 2018 by Footballfirst

[The Gasman]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

 

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

 

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his grounds for appeal.
1. That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

 

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne.  He sought to obfuscate matters  arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do something wasn’t the same as having “control” of NOAL. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”.

 

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

 

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision.  He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded. His submissions lasted little more than half an hour.

Proceedings ended just after lunch, but not before Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

 

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

 

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.  

 

Seems a bit of an own goal by King there, wonder who told the judges about his 10:15 email this morning..?

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, The Gasman said:

 

Seems a bit of an own goal by King there, wonder who told the judges about his 10:15 email this morning..?

 

It was King's QC himself, just before the Lords made their decision.

[Don Dan]

"the impecunious argument was wrong."

 

We all new that  poor Glib and shameless Liar lives up to his name. Caught with his pants down 

 

 

[tntjambo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

 

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

 

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his grounds for appeal.
1. That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went too far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

 

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne.  He sought to obfuscate matters  arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do something wasn’t the same as having “control” of NOAL. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”.

 

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

 

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision.  He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded. His submissions lasted little more than half an hour.

Proceedings ended just after lunch, but not before Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

 

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

 

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.  

impecunious

ˌɪmpɪˈkjuːnɪəs/

adjective

having little or no money.

"a titled but impecunious family"

synonyms:penniless, penurious, in penury, poor, impoverished, indigent, insolvent, moneyless, hard up, poverty-stricken, needy, in need, in want, destitute; 

poor as a church mouse, without a sou, in straitened circumstances, on one's beam ends, unable to make ends meet; 

on the breadline, without a penny (to one's name); 

informalbroke, flat broke, strapped for cash, cleaned out, strapped, on one's uppers, without two pennies/brass farthings to rub together; 

informalskint, boracic, stony broke, in Queer Street; 

informalstone broke;

rarepauperized, beggared

"she came from a respectable but impecunious family"

[The Gasman]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

It was King's QC himself, just before the Lords made their decision.

 

Seems a bit strange, as by doing that it destroyed part of Kings case, no matter how weak that was.

 

I wonder if they were worried that non disclosure might have left their client in danger of being found in contempt of court..?

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, The Gasman said:

 

Seems a bit strange, as by doing that it destroyed part of Kings case, no matter how weak that was.

 

I wonder if they were worried that non disclosure might have left their client in danger of being found in contempt of court..?

it does scream that to me, basically king is saying please dont punish me i'm sooooo sorry WATP

[Deevers]

Well then - what happens next.................?

[tntjambo]

1 minute ago, Deevers said:

Well then - what happens next.................?

 

 Looks like he needs to make an offer for all the remaining shares he needs to pony up 11 million   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43231582 or he gets the cold shoulder.

[Footballfirst]

26 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

Seems a bit strange, as by doing that it destroyed part of Kings case, no matter how weak that was.

 

I wonder if they were worried that non disclosure might have left their client in danger of being found in contempt of court..?

 

It could be a defensive measure against any future action against King personally, particularly if the offer has strings attached and doesn't go through, e.g. NOAL being cold shouldered would probably have less impact than King being cold shouldered, such as his FPP status.

[Mikey1874]

47 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

Seems a bit strange, as by doing that it destroyed part of Kings case, no matter how weak that was.

 

I wonder if they were worried that non disclosure might have left their client in danger of being found in contempt of court..?

 

Sensible moves for once

Edited February 28, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Hagar the Horrible]

At last the legal system had a common sense decision, it would make a mockery of the city rules and codes? 

 

Still Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC cannot be cheap, and his argument I was expecting to be well a wee bit more imaginative than that?  which might explain that King and the QC were expecting to fail, so why bother?  again that could not have been cheap.  But was releasing the email just out of full disclosure?  because without it the decision sounds like it would have still been rejected, but with it, it certainly confirms the Glib branding and once again the impecunious situation that King claimed he was in was even more 'Irrelevant', And once again confirmed that King is a GASL only this time by the Scottish legal system.

 

So what now? king might get to buy those shares for 20p and sell them on, so might not be a "pointless exercise"  but this can has now been kicked down to the end of a cul de sac

[Five to One]

10 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

At last the legal system had a common sense decision, it would make a mockery of the city rules and codes? 

 

Still Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC cannot be cheap, and his argument I was expecting to be well a wee bit more imaginative than that?  which might explain that King and the QC were expecting to fail, so why bother?  again that could not have been cheap.  But was releasing the email just out of full disclosure?  because without it the decision sounds like it would have still been rejected, but with it, it certainly confirms the Glib branding and once again the impecunious situation that King claimed he was in was even more 'Irrelevant', And once again confirmed that King is a GASL only this time by the Scottish legal system.

 

So what now? king might get to buy those shares for 20p and sell them on, so might not be a "pointless exercise"  but this can has now been kicked down to the end of a cul de sac

Aye, but does he have the money to purchase the shares?

 

Seems to be a lot of stalling going on. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

23 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

At last the legal system had a common sense decision, it would make a mockery of the city rules and codes? 

 

Still Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC cannot be cheap, and his argument I was expecting to be well a wee bit more imaginative than that?  which might explain that King and the QC were expecting to fail, so why bother?  again that could not have been cheap.  But was releasing the email just out of full disclosure?  because without it the decision sounds like it would have still been rejected, but with it, it certainly confirms the Glib branding and once again the impecunious situation that King claimed he was in was even more 'Irrelevant', And once again confirmed that King is a GASL only this time by the Scottish legal system.

 

So what now? king might get to buy those shares for 20p and sell them on, so might not be a "pointless exercise"  but this can has now been kicked down to the end of a cul de sac

What happens is that the takeover is completed correctly then the Orcs are tapped in a rights issue in the close season.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

24 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

What happens is that the takeover is completed correctly then the Orcs are tapped in a rights issue in the close season.

 

Can they have a share issue without a NOMAD?

 

Genuinely don't know if they can or can't.

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

At last the legal system had a common sense decision, it would make a mockery of the city rules and codes? 

 

Still Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC cannot be cheap, and his argument I was expecting to be well a wee bit more imaginative than that?  which might explain that King and the QC were expecting to fail, so why bother?  again that could not have been cheap.  But was releasing the email just out of full disclosure?  because without it the decision sounds like it would have still been rejected, but with it, it certainly confirms the Glib branding and once again the impecunious situation that King claimed he was in was even more 'Irrelevant', And once again confirmed that King is a GASL only this time by the Scottish legal system.

 

So what now? king might get to buy those shares for 20p and sell them on, so might not be a "pointless exercise"  but this can has now been kicked down to the end of a cul de sac

 

What about the Fit and Proper Person that the SPFL lauded on him. Complete mockery of and contempt shown Scottish football. This must surely be challenged now as once again he’s (Glib and Shamless) blatantly lied in open court. 

Over to the SPFL now. I’m not holding my breath waiting!

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dannie Boy

[BelgeJambo]

Are they ****ed?

[jambovambo]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/28/a-very-bad-day-for-mr-king-and-sevco/

[Rods]

6 minutes ago, jambovambo said:

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/28/a-very-bad-day-for-mr-king-and-sevco/

 

So he is basically saying King was kicking the tyres further down the road with the appeal as he we expecting some serious cash in the door. That has not now transpired so he has accepted the decision albeit without saying he has accepted.

[Jodami]

Hope this isn't the end of King,  he is the perfect face of Sevco and seems to be able to convince the unwashed bigots that the sun is the moon as in the background the giant hole they are in gets deeper. Somebody save him please. 

[Cruyff Turn]

I just want them to die. Has this increased the chances? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, BelgeJambo said:

Are they ****ed?

No

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Can they have a share issue without a NOMAD?

 

Genuinely don't know if they can or can't.

Depends if they are still listed or not. If not, then they do not need one.

[Sarah O]

Not dead?

 

I’ll pop back in 500 pages time for better news hopefully.

[Cruyff Turn]

34 minutes ago, farin said:

 

No. 

Shame. 

 

As long as the debt keeps rising. 

[brunoatemyhamster]

2 hours ago, jambovambo said:

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/28/a-very-bad-day-for-mr-king-and-sevco/

 

The link within this is a better read.

 

Far more detail will be in the public domain very soon as he has to disclose far more detail in a prospectus before making the offer.

 

Would you take 20p now or end up with nowt if they go into admin ? 

 

I have a good feeling about this.

 

 

 

 

[The Future's Maroon]

Getting close to "popcorn time".

 

They will probably struggle on (maybe, another six months), but the shit....the real shit they are in is about to become public.

 

Look forward to seeing the SMSM pathetic spin on it.

 

"everything is fine, nothing to see here" is my prediction, it's good the truth will soon become clear to all!

Edited February 28, 2018 by The Future's Maroon

[Dirty Deeds]

We all poured money into Hearts share issue in the last days of Romanov even though we knew the shares were worthless.

 

It worked by delaying the inevitable and allowed FoH to organise, even though we never really knew that at the time.

 

Rangers fans will buy any share issue, whether the club comes out better for it, well who knows.

[Footballfirst]

34 minutes ago, brunoatemyhamster said:

 

The link within this is a better read.

 

Far more detail will be in the public domain very soon as he has to disclose far more detail in a prospectus before making the offer.

 

Would you take 20p now or end up with nowt if they go into admin ? 

 

I have a good feeling about this.

I doubt very much if the offer document will cost anything like the numbers quoted.

 

There is a comparable precedent when BIDCO was required to make a similar offer to Hearts shareholders after they acquired a 79% shareholding in Hearts in 2014.

 

The forward looking statements were extremely limited and were full of ifs, buts, and maybes.

[Mysterion]

22 minutes ago, Dirty Deeds said:

Rangers fans will buy any share issue, whether the club comes out better for it, well who knows.

 

History has shown that the ordinary Rangers fan base are incapable of generating large amounts of money. 

 

David Murray had to underwrite millions when fans didn’t buy shares . Most of the Charles Green share issue was picked up by institutional investors.

 

That aside - it will not be possible to issue new shares this  till King has settled the takeover panel directives.

[michael_bolton]

32 minutes ago, Dirty Deeds said:

We all poured money into Hearts share issue in the last days of Romanov even though we knew the shares were worthless.

 

It worked by delaying the inevitable and allowed FoH to organise, even though we never really knew that at the time.

 

Rangers fans will buy any share issue, whether the club comes out better for it, well who knows.

 

Rangers fans have no track record of financially backing their club when required.

[FWJ]

2 hours ago, farin said:

 

No. 

That’s disappointing.

[Fozzyonthefence]

So Morales is still a Sevco player after the Chinese transfer window has closed? Well who saw that coming??

[buzzbomb1958]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So Morales is still a Sevco player after the Chinese transfer window has closed? Well who saw that coming??

As I said earlier any bids on a mill close season,wages bill will have to be slashed they might have to come to their senses and live within their means,but I won't hold my breath

[sadj]

1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

History has shown that the ordinary Rangers fan base are incapable of generating large amounts of money. 

 

David Murray had to underwrite millions when fans didn’t buy shares . Most of the Charles Green share issue was picked up by institutional investors.

 

That aside - it will not be possible to issue new shares this  till King has settled the takeover panel directives.

Surely this wont be repeated

[Unknown user]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Can they have a share issue without a NOMAD?

 

Genuinely don't know if they can or can't.

I don't see why not. Nomads are there to advise on exchange rules etc, but rangers shares aren't listed on an exchange so they have no need for one

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Have the SFA been informed yet of the latest court goings on or are the jungle drums being repaired again?

[sadj]

12 minutes ago, farin said:

 

This is kings turn, the question is will king finally do what the ToP have asked or will he continue to simply ignore them & be dammed ?. 

 

Share issue bingo. 

Whats the timescale to adhere to the top ruling and what hapoens if he doesn’t? 

 

How are NOAL allowed to pay ,  i thought it had to be King due to his shares taking it beyond the threshold?

 

If King uses NOAL does that not open him up to other rulings where hes claimed he has no rule over NOAL and therefore no access to money not get brought under scrutiny. Surely no company would take a mans financial obligations on unless said man was a major player? 

[Dirty Deeds]

6 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Rangers fans have no track record of financially backing their club when required.

They raised about £5m when Charles Green went to them. They'll pour more money away for King.

[Deevers]

2 hours ago, Dirty Deeds said:

They raised about £5m when Charles Green went to them. They'll pour more money away for King.

Given the losses they are making and the state of their debt, that amount is not going to go far.

[marshallschunkychicken]

9 hours ago, Dirty Deeds said:

We all poured money into Hearts share issue in the last days of Romanov even though we knew the shares were worthless.

 

It worked by delaying the inevitable and allowed FoH to organise, even though we never really knew that at the time.

 

Rangers fans will buy any share issue, whether the club comes out better for it, well who knows.

 

The difference being that we knew that we were totally fecked. The rhetoric coming out of Ibrox is that everything is awesome.

 

It’s a lot harder to get motivated to put your hands in your pocket if you swallow the spin that the club is financially stable.

[Dirty Deeds]

50 minutes ago, Deevers said:

Given the losses they are making and the state of their debt, that amount is not going to go far.

True, a bit of honesty wouldn't hurt them.