The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[gjcc]

23 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

So glib you named him twice 

 

FTFY

[Jambof3tornado]

Close this thread.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My RSE

[Phage]

MA is having a little fun here. No doubt he will profit from the situation also.

 

Either with the retail deal or by forfeiting the retail deal option for a fee.

 

My preferred scenario is he takes the first refusal option and continues to mess with them

[NANOJAMBO]

Interesting read on what MA is up to - https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/blogs/mike-ashley-leaves-king-on-the-brink-as-he-wins-a-stunning-court-battle-over-sevco-shirt-sales/

[Unknown user]

45 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Interesting read on what MA is up to - https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/blogs/mike-ashley-leaves-king-on-the-brink-as-he-wins-a-stunning-court-battle-over-sevco-shirt-sales/

Ooft!

 

If that's true, SD actually have te right first refusal on any parts of the contract they fancy - so they could take the kit rights but leave the keyrings and the other stuff that doesn't make much. 

And of course, no one's going to bid on the stuff that doesn't make much.

[Jambof3tornado]

Rangers bedspreads and posters of bruno alves.....superb stuff.

[jake]

4 hours ago, John Findlay said:

They are and so are Sevco. They are a match made in hell. If the majority of Sevco supporters are dumb enough to fall for Dave King. Then they deserve all that's coming their way and at the least that is administration volume two.

No.

Regardless of it being Rangers this company regularly operates in a way that should be outlawed.

 

And most if not all Rangers supporters are boys who go to work pay to watch football.

The bigotry is in your generalisation of them.

[Gizmo]

Quote

From followfollow: We sold 43,253 according to the annual report, and grossed £13.6m last season (average s/t price £314).

I think that the club will do well to get £16m in s/t revenue.

We also spent £80k a day on operating / staffing costs according to the last annual report.

£80K a day to keep the club running or nearly £30 million a year. 

Season tickets will bring in half that at best I'd expect once VAT and costs are removed.

Staggering really when you consider they restarted in a league it would have cost t'uppence ha'penny to escape. 


 

[...a bit disco]

What the actual...?

 

Saturday, 07 July 2018, 16:00

by Rangers Football Club

35352

RANGERS has been informed that the SPFL Board has refused our request for an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the position and disclosure by its chairman, Murdoch MacLennan, of his appointment to the position of non-executive chairman at Dublin-based Independent News and Media (INM).

It is common knowledge that INM and Celtic FC share two significant shareholders in Mr Dermot Desmond and Mr Denis O’Brien. Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien each have the ability to appoint directors to the Board of INM. These directors are described in INM’s annual report and accounts as not being independent.

It is also clear that, as chairman of a company in the difficult position that INM finds itself, Mr MacLennan will be required to review evidence and materials relating to INM’s dealings with its shareholders, including Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien. Has Mr MacLennan notified the SPFL chief executive of this conflict? If the chief executive was notified, as he should have been, can he confirm why he did not notify the SPFL Board of this interest?

It is surprising that Mr MacLennan does not recognise and acknowledge that there is clear scope for conflict of interest between the duties owed by him to the SPFL and its shareholders and the duties he now owes to INM and Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien as INM shareholders. Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served.

Our concerns are heightened by the fact that Mr MacLennan has yet to offer an explanation for the very serious public allegations that he used highly inappropriate language when speaking about Rangers while working in the newspaper industry.

In the interests of proper governance, transparency and integrity the SPFL should have agreed to an independent investigation of this extremely serious matter and should not have refused to answer all questions and address the genuine concerns put to them in a formal letter by Rangers.

Now, however, and because there is no route of appeal against this decision, Rangers is left with no alternative but to call for Mr MacLennan to stand down as SPFL chairman. Apart from this being the correct course of action under the circumstances, it would also be the honourable thing to do.

Rangers believes that Mr MacLennan cannot be considered fit and proper to continue in his role as SPFL chairman as he is now obliged to recuse himself from meetings and decision-making processes which could impact on member clubs. The SPFL needs a chairman that can openly participate in all meetings.

 

 

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-89/#.W0DXXsUOdmM.twitter

[NANOJAMBO]

8 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

What the actual...?

 

Saturday, 07 July 2018, 16:00

by Rangers Football Club

35352

RANGERS has been informed that the SPFL Board has refused our request for an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the position and disclosure by its chairman, Murdoch MacLennan, of his appointment to the position of non-executive chairman at Dublin-based Independent News and Media (INM).

It is common knowledge that INM and Celtic FC share two significant shareholders in Mr Dermot Desmond and Mr Denis O’Brien. Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien each have the ability to appoint directors to the Board of INM. These directors are described in INM’s annual report and accounts as not being independent.

It is also clear that, as chairman of a company in the difficult position that INM finds itself, Mr MacLennan will be required to review evidence and materials relating to INM’s dealings with its shareholders, including Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien. Has Mr MacLennan notified the SPFL chief executive of this conflict? If the chief executive was notified, as he should have been, can he confirm why he did not notify the SPFL Board of this interest?

It is surprising that Mr MacLennan does not recognise and acknowledge that there is clear scope for conflict of interest between the duties owed by him to the SPFL and its shareholders and the duties he now owes to INM and Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien as INM shareholders. Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served.

Our concerns are heightened by the fact that Mr MacLennan has yet to offer an explanation for the very serious public allegations that he used highly inappropriate language when speaking about Rangers while working in the newspaper industry.

In the interests of proper governance, transparency and integrity the SPFL should have agreed to an independent investigation of this extremely serious matter and should not have refused to answer all questions and address the genuine concerns put to them in a formal letter by Rangers.

Now, however, and because there is no route of appeal against this decision, Rangers is left with no alternative but to call for Mr MacLennan to stand down as SPFL chairman. Apart from this being the correct course of action under the circumstances, it would also be the honourable thing to do.

Rangers believes that Mr MacLennan cannot be considered fit and proper to continue in his role as SPFL chairman as he is now obliged to recuse himself from meetings and decision-making processes which could impact on member clubs. The SPFL needs a chairman that can openly participate in all meetings.

 

 

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-89/#.W0DXXsUOdmM.twitter

How long has Sevco been sitting on this squirrell ? 

[sac]

Fit and proper. Really!  Foxtrot Oscar you absolute filth. Again.

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, jake said:

No.

Regardless of it being Rangers this company regularly operates in a way that should be outlawed.

 

And most if not all Rangers supporters are boys who go to work pay to watch football.

The bigotry is in your generalisation of them.

Aye right. Total nonsense from you there imho. Vile institution, vile supporters.  That's speaking with over 50 yrs  experience of watching Scottish football and from a man who's own father called his father an auld bigot for the plain fact he was. When it comes to sectarianism and bigotry is scottish football I can assure you I am way ahead of most 

[Neon]

18 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

How long has Sevco been sitting on this squirrell ? 

spin, anything to detract from their gaze over the crevasse.

 

Did Mike Ashley not sell 25% of his shares this week, can't be a coincidence.

 

 

[...a bit disco]

" Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served."

 

 

What do they mean, 'present'?

 

[NANOJAMBO]

8 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

" Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served."

 

 

What do they mean, 'present'?

 

Dear Sevco, call a vote of no confidence.

 

That is all. 

[Jambof3tornado]

9 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

" Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served."

 

 

What do they mean, 'present'?

 

When will they actually be accused of bringing the game into disrepute with these statements??

 

Vlad would be getting threatened already.

 

Smoke and mirrors.

[Spellczech]

53 minutes ago, neonjambo said:

spin, anything to detract from their gaze over the crevasse.

 

Did Mike Ashley not sell 25% of his shares this week, can't be a coincidence.

 

 

Who bought them?

[...a bit disco]

56 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

When will they actually be accused of bringing the game into disrepute with these statements??

 

Vlad would be getting threatened already.

 

Smoke and mirrors.

 

What did we get hit with?

 

'Utmost good faith' I think it was?

 

Googled it. It was.

 

The Scottish Premier League Board met this evening to consider the alleged failure by Heart of Midlothian FC to comply with the terms of the order made by the SPL on 4 January 2012 that the club pay the January wages due to the relevant players on the due date of 16 January 2012.

 

As a result, Heart of Midlothian FC are being charged under SPL Rule A3.1 with failing to behave with the utmost good faith to the SPL.

 

A hearing date will be notified to the club in due course.

[James1874f]

Big hoose falling down fans remain deluded as ever got my mate to up our bet on them winning league to 100£ on back of the friendly win last night 

[Mysterion]

1 hour ago, neonjambo said:

spin, anything to detract from their gaze over the crevasse.

 

Did Mike Ashley not sell 25% of his shares this week, can't be a coincidence.

 

 

 

I though he sold them to club1872 when he reached and agreement in 2017 regarding the retail deal.

[RobNox]

24 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

I though he sold them to club1872 when he reached and agreement in 2017 regarding the retail deal.

 

That's right, Ashley got out last year, Club 1872 paid 27p a share, which is where King's claim s that the shares are worth 27p come from.

[sadj]

2 hours ago, ...a bit disco said:

What the actual...?

 

Saturday, 07 July 2018, 16:00

by Rangers Football Club

35352

RANGERS has been informed that the SPFL Board has refused our request for an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the position and disclosure by its chairman, Murdoch MacLennan, of his appointment to the position of non-executive chairman at Dublin-based Independent News and Media (INM).

It is common knowledge that INM and Celtic FC share two significant shareholders in Mr Dermot Desmond and Mr Denis O’Brien. Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien each have the ability to appoint directors to the Board of INM. These directors are described in INM’s annual report and accounts as not being independent.

It is also clear that, as chairman of a company in the difficult position that INM finds itself, Mr MacLennan will be required to review evidence and materials relating to INM’s dealings with its shareholders, including Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien. Has Mr MacLennan notified the SPFL chief executive of this conflict? If the chief executive was notified, as he should have been, can he confirm why he did not notify the SPFL Board of this interest?

It is surprising that Mr MacLennan does not recognise and acknowledge that there is clear scope for conflict of interest between the duties owed by him to the SPFL and its shareholders and the duties he now owes to INM and Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien as INM shareholders. Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served.

Our concerns are heightened by the fact that Mr MacLennan has yet to offer an explanation for the very serious public allegations that he used highly inappropriate language when speaking about Rangers while working in the newspaper industry.

In the interests of proper governance, transparency and integrity the SPFL should have agreed to an independent investigation of this extremely serious matter and should not have refused to answer all questions and address the genuine concerns put to them in a formal letter by Rangers.

Now, however, and because there is no route of appeal against this decision, Rangers is left with no alternative but to call for Mr MacLennan to stand down as SPFL chairman. Apart from this being the correct course of action under the circumstances, it would also be the honourable thing to do.

Rangers believes that Mr MacLennan cannot be considered fit and proper to continue in his role as SPFL chairman as he is now obliged to recuse himself from meetings and decision-making processes which could impact on member clubs. The SPFL needs a chairman that can openly participate in all meetings.

 

 

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-89/#.W0DXXsUOdmM.twitter

 

Deflection ???

[JamboAl]

22 minutes ago, sadj said:

 

Deflection ???

Possibly but I do think they have a point re neutrality/integrity.  Did I actually use that word in relation to the SPFL?

[Gizmo]

1 hour ago, James1874f said:

Big hoose falling down fans remain deluded as ever got my mate to up our bet on them winning league to 100£ on back of the friendly win last night 

 

On the back of a home friendly win against League 2 nobodies?



Enjoy your money, he'll be paying you by February.

[Boris]

3 hours ago, jake said:

No.

Regardless of it being Rangers this company regularly operates in a way that should be outlawed.

 

And most if not all Rangers supporters are boys who go to work pay to watch football.

The bigotry is in your generalisation of them.

Do me a favour Jake. 

 

These same lads never sing the party songs or think they are the people? 

 

**** them. 

[sadj]

6 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Possibly but I do think they have a point re neutrality/integrity.  Did I actually use that word in relation to the SPFL?

Very much but they must of been sitting on it a while and why release it 4pm on a Saturday? Seems more like putting it out there when it can deflect from something or put the SFA in a position when they are expecting the SFA to come out with something against them. 

[JamboAl]

5 minutes ago, sadj said:

it Very much but they must of been sitting on it a while and why release it 4pm on a Saturday? Seems more like putting it out there when it can deflect from something or put the SFA in a position when they are expecting the SFA to come out with something against them. 

3

I seem to recollect they have mentioned this before and quite rightly so.  I have no doubt they will mention it again, strategically, and again quite rightly so.

As we all know there is a law for the Ugly Sisters and a law for everyone else and if they start to get at each other's throats maybe some good will come of it.

Edited July 7, 2018 by JamboAl

[James1874f]

8 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

On the back of a home friendly win against League 2 nobodies?



Enjoy your money, he'll be paying you by February.

If you’ve got deluded hun mates cash in before season starts they really believe they will do it.

 

original bet was made last year after 3 2 old firm at Ibrox 

[Rudolf]

20 minutes ago, James1874f said:

If you’ve got deluded hun mates cash in before season starts they really believe they will do it.

 

original bet was made last year after 3 2 old firm at Ibrox 

He must be a right trumpet as you can get 6/1 on Betfair

[RobNox]

30 minutes ago, sadj said:

Very much but they must of been sitting on it a while and why release it 4pm on a Saturday? Seems more like putting it out there when it can deflect from something or put the SFA in a position when they are expecting the SFA to come out with something against them. 

 

More likely to deflect attention away from further facts emerging that the deal made with Sports Direct last season is not the 'victory' of King over Ashley that was heralded in the press at the time.

 

It's a predictable tactic by King.  Whenever news emerges that might direct fans' criticism in his direction, he'll put something out there to redirect them.

[sadj]

Just now, RobNox said:

 

More likely to deflect attention away from further facts emerging that the deal made with Sports Direct last season is not the 'victory' of King over Ashley that was heralded in the press at the time.

 

It's a predictable tactic by King.  Whenever news emerges that might direct fans' criticism in his direction, he'll put something out there to redirect them.

Yeah that was my exact thought on it.

[Elmore]

3 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

More likely to deflect attention away from further facts emerging that the deal made with Sports Direct last season is not the 'victory' of King over Ashley that was heralded in the press at the time.

 

It's a predictable tactic by King.  Whenever news emerges that might direct fans' criticism in his direction, he'll put something out there to redirect them.

And they fall for it every time. The pathetic thing is, he thinks we do as well. That's the good thing about these statements, it shoes he's sweating. It must be checkmate soon. 

[hereford_hearts]

This is comedy gold on follow follow - https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/sports-direct-not-going-away.36084/  

 

But at least some realise that SD can bend them over and ride them raw!

 

What is to stop SD matching the terms, then not stocking any Sevco kit in his stores?

[James1874f]

16 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

He must be a right trumpet as you can get 6/1 on Betfair

Nobody said he was the brightest  deluded ain’t even the word. 

 

My my old man said you won’t take £100 off him would you my reply it’s his own fault can’t keep his mouth shut ? 

[Footballfirst]

22 minutes ago, hereford_hearts said:

What is to stop SD matching the terms, then not stocking any Sevco kit in his stores?

 

That won't happen, otherwise SD would be open to legal claims that they failed to execute the rights granted to them, i.e. operate and manage the retail operations etc.

[Footballfirst]

I wonder if Club 1872 finally feels that it has been shafted by King.

 

Here's what they said a few months back.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/

 

Quote

WAS THE DECISION TO SPEND £1MILLION ON MIKE ASHLEY’S SHARES A DIFFICULT ONE? THAT WAS MONEY THAT WENT TO HIM RATHER THAN INTO THE CLUB.

LF: That was a consideration but it brought an end to the well documented difficulties that the club had been having with Mike Ashley. We factored that in and that was ultimately what made us take that decision.

BT: I think that has proven to be the right decision, hasn’t it? In terms of the reaction to it.

 LF: We had between 700-1000 new members in the week or two after the Mike Ashley share purchase and I think because it removed his influence from the club, you can’t underestimate or underplay the significance of the purchase, not just for Club 1872 because it saw us become the second largest shareholder, but for Rangers as well.

 

I remember the negotiations and discussions over a number of weeks. It was myself and Joanne Percival that were dealing with it. But we didn’t know until a certain point who was selling the shares.

We were asked to be in the office a few times and this one time they said they would reveal to us who the seller was. We got a call to say they were still talking to the lawyers and they didn’t know if it was going to be tonight so we ordered a pizza and waited.

It got to about 9.30pm and we said it looked like it wasn’t going to happen so I was driving Joanne home and her mobile rang and it was the call. We pulled over and the person on the phone asked if we could confirm that we were alone in the car and that nobody else was there. They revealed it was MASH that we were purchasing the shares from and

Joanne and I literally high-fived each other. We knew the significance of that.

It has not been easy at Club 1872 and because it is run by people who are passionate about it and believe in the project, that is why you can take it to heart. But that was such a significant moment for us and what it is all about. We want to be working towards that again and something that is so important for the club.

The money did go directly to Mike Ashley. But we believe it was an investment in the club in terms of removing his influence. It was a really good moment.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Biffa Bacon]

16 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I wonder if Club 1872 finally feels that it has been shafted by King.

 

Here's what they said a few months back.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/

 

The whole prospect of getting rid of Ashley, just because Sevco wanted a better deal is fanciful. MA is a billionaire and if he had a watertight contract with a 7 year termination clause, it would be a valuable and legal asset. Billionaires dont throw away that kind of deal just because the other Party doesnt like it.Someone acting for Sevco was quite happy to sign the agreement, whether it was King or not is of no consequence. If MA changed the agreement in any way, you can be sure that it was because an other opportunity equally as good as the original deal was presented. I am no fan of Ashley, but in this case Sevco will get what they deserve.

[JackLadd]

Sevco are on the ropes before a ball is kicked. Worth a punt for admin before Xmas. 

[RobNox]

What are the implications for the Hummel deal if the courts side with Sports Direct in this action?

 

Would SD be allowed to match the Hummel deal, thereby usurping Hummel, leading to possible litigation from Hummel against Rangers?  Or is it more likely that Rangers will be forced to pay compensation to SD for having reneged on the terms of their contract?

[RENE]

3 hours ago, sadj said:

 

Deflection ???

My thoughts exactly.  Timing very suspect....

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

40 minutes ago, RobNox said:

What are the implications for the Hummel deal if the courts side with Sports Direct in this action?

 

Would SD be allowed to match the Hummel deal, thereby usurping Hummel, leading to possible litigation from Hummel against Rangers?  Or is it more likely that Rangers will be forced to pay compensation to SD for having reneged on the terms of their contract?

SD have said they don't want compensation, because it's capped at £1m, so, clearly, they are looking to make more than that figure from whatever deal they choose to have with TRFC. SD don't make the strips, they sell them, so Hummel might continue to manufacture the strips, with SD selling them, but...if Hummel don't already have a partnership with SD, SD will have them over a barrel and could demand an SD favoured contract to sell the kits. Then there is the contract TRFC have with whoever they have their distribution deal with, which, if SD are granted the distribution rights, will, almost certainly be looking for compensation from TRFC. And so will Hummel. TRFC might end up with very little income from kit sales for a few years to come. This is what an un-named blogger called an onerous contract, but he made that up so RIFC/TRFC aren't in court this week...

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, RobNox said:

What are the implications for the Hummel deal if the courts side with Sports Direct in this action?

 

Would SD be allowed to match the Hummel deal, thereby usurping Hummel, leading to possible litigation from Hummel against Rangers?  Or is it more likely that Rangers will be forced to pay compensation to SD for having reneged on the terms of their contract?

I don't think it's the Hummel deal that's at stake. It's more likely to be the retailer such as JD Sports.  Hummel has the same status as Puma did last season.  It was their branded shirts, but they were mostly sold through SD outlets and online.

[Dunks]

BBC has picked up the story ...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44751374

[Brick Tamland]

“Mr Justice Bryan's decision continued: "It is said that if that opportunity is missed there will be a loss of income and of cash-flow, which impacts upon the ability to bring in players in the transfer window in August and, hence, on on-field performance which, in turn, impacts upon prize money."

 

But didn’t they say in their last incarnation that offering EBT’s gave them no sporting advantage...

 

I sincerely hope this shitehawk of a club wither away and die. 

[Spellczech]

14 hours ago, James1874f said:

Big hoose falling down fans remain deluded as ever got my mate to up our bet on them winning league to 100£ on back of the friendly win last night 

Wish I had mates like that! You may get the money in time for Christmas!

[buzzbomb1958]

Dear Sevco goodbye

[Spellczech]

7 hours ago, Dunks said:

BBC has picked up the story ...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44751374

As usual though, there is no interpretation, just straight quotes. The lack of commentary either shows that the BBC Sport journos don't understand business enough to make comment, or are afraid to comment as it will annoy King and Traynor. Probably the latter.

[Spellczech]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't think it's the Hummel deal that's at stake. It's more likely to be the retailer such as JD Sports.  Hummel has the same status as Puma did last season.  It was their branded shirts, but they were mostly sold through SD outlets and online.

Doesn't say much for the lawyers at Anderson Strathern's ability to read a contract does it?  You wonder why large firms with reputations to lose are still associating themselves with King's Rangers...?

[Biffa Bacon]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

As usual though, there is no interpretation, just straight quotes. The lack of commentary either shows that the BBC Sport journos don't understand business enough to make comment, or are afraid to comment as it will annoy King and Traynor. Probably the latter.

And put their windows at risk.

[Gulf Jambo]

Rangers will not win this one against Ashley.

Doesn't matter who signed the deal, it's legally binding and they broke it. New board or not it needs to be honoured.

 

Which is good for us as it will probably impact them financially again, plus the fans hate Ashley and Sports Direct so would impact sales I think.