bossy

thanks but i wouldnt have seen it mate. did they know this gentlemans name at the time? bbc and chris m seem to be passing it off as some exclusive.

Yes, they named Naqvi Arif Masood and provided links supporting the claim.

why is mclaughlin always first with the news on rangers? he is as bitter a tim as you will find.

This information was reported on both FF and RM as far back as early July.

Possible mate, but I think they want us to accept it so they can kick us more. TBH, I think we're in a strong position because of the revenue we generate.

 

Somewhere down the line I think we will be the winners, even in the SFL.

Agreed. It is all about the revenue and that should put Green in a strong negotiating position.

It also puts the Rangers support in a strong position if we ever get ourselves organised to the extent that we can impose an effective boycott. We only need to make that happen a couple of times to have the rest of them running scared.

One of the things this whole sorry saga has shown us is just how fragile, financially, the SPL and SPL clubs are. Much more so than the SFL clubs who are used to managing with much less. That knowledge gives us immense potential power.

One really does wonder at what point this mess is going to end up in the Court of Session?

Brian Kennedy is gambling that ...

1. Green is running out of cash and will have to go to his investors for more

2. Green's business plan has been derailed by Div 3 and sanctions meaning that it will be a lot longer before his investors can see the promised return

3. Because of the above, Green's investors may be looking for a way out which leaves their capital intact and no loss.

It all hinges on whether Green's investors are in for the long haul and how deep their pockets are.

Whichever way you look at it, a number of teams in Scotland as well as the SFA and SPL have done their level best to damage us. You can call it revenge if you like but I do not think that their actions should be without consequences. For those teams in the SPL who threw us out and then tried to steal our media rights, we should absolutely refuse to support them commercially and that means boycotting their grounds. For the SFA, I would love to see a savvy lawyer (please not Di Stefano) go after them for negligence in their regulatory role, conflict of interest, etc.

If we do nothing - which has been our modus operandi for the last 20 years - we are just sending a signal that we are, and continue to be, an easy target. The best way to deal with bullies is to knock them down. We should be actively looking to do that.

Agreed.

Although, I do wonder if us small shareholders might have a case against the SFA for gross negligence in their role as regulator.

My guess is that it was Zeus who brought in Celano and BPH. I also suspect that Zeus and BPH are the investors who have the deepest pockets. If that is the case then getting them onside might be sufficient to bring the rest over.

That may be so, but the death blow to the share value was the sale to Whyte and if Murray and the IBC were forced to sell to Whyte by Lloyds, then would you have a case against Murray or against Lloyds?

I think we could show a pattern of mismanagement which has cause the share price to decline from over three pounds in 1999 to pennies before Murray's sale.

If the administrators manage to get a CVA approved and exit administration that way, then you'll still have your shareholding in tact so to speak though, right? I thought the shareholders would only lose their shareholding if Duff & Phelps go with a newco plan.

Yes, the shareholding would still be intact. But shareholders may still have a case for financial harm through mismanagement.

If there are any legal eagles out there who think small shareholders have a case against Murray then I would certainly be willing to be part of a group action where we could share in the legal costs.

I certainly hope he does consider his legal options.

As a shareholder myself, I wonder if I myself might have legal recourse against the 'custodian'. Murray taking legal action might flush that out. Especially if he loses.

Green's outfit is an object lesson in how to do a deal. No flash, no press statement, just get in there with enough money to make it happen.

As of 5pm tonight, D&P were going to sell to Green et al. I'm told we've managed to change that - either via pressure on D&P or pressure on other bidders to match their £8.5million

Why would Green et al. purchase without doing due diligence and especially after Miller pulled out? Do they know something we don't know? Have they been afforded preferential access by D&P?

kenny probably didn't get rich paying over the odds for failed businesses when he's the only real bidder.

 

that may have changed now.

Like I said earlier, it all comes down to how much money they have and how badly they want Rangers.

I'm a simple kind of person and I like to try to get down to basics. When I look at the BKs, I see two simple issues:

1. How much money do they have, and

2. How badly do they want to buy the club.

With Kennedy on board we know that there is plenty of cash around because the guy is seriously rich. So, we really have to ask question No. 2. .... how badly do they want to buy the club? Because we are not talking about a ton of cash here. We are talking about £2 or £3 million pounds.

I have a decent amount of experience of takeovers although that experience tends to be with large businesses where a million here or a million there is just a rounding error. But the point remains. You either want to do the deal or you do not.

Quite incredible!

 

Squeaky bum time for Duff & Phelps!!

Yep ... and just imagine if someone came in with an improved offer over the weekend. The relief would be palpable for D&P. At last .... a way out.

Looks like there's still hope for TBK - but it's getting bloody dirty!!!

Yep, looks like Kennedy has the gloves off.

If the BKs are serious then they need to pull their cheque books out of their pockets and come in with a substantial hard-cash bid that sidelines the other bidders.

Haha - not at all!

 

Just wanting to be helpful before Boss writes a nasty poaching article about me.

Does he have access to you accounts?

While I don't know anything ....... I could see Joe Lewis being interested.

Having been stiffed by David Murray, I could see him a) wanting to get his money back and b) wanting to get even. What better way than buying Rangers, turning us around, winning the CL and renaming Auchenhowie 'Lewis Park".

We can but dream :smile:

d&p have been telling lies galore about the blue knights. I have no idea why but its sinister looking.

The problem is that we don't actually know who has been telling porkies. It is all 'he said she said'.

If the BKs believe it is D&P then the best way to counter it is to go public with everything.

Kennedy and the BKs need to do everything in the blinding glare of publicity. Best way to counter the 'he said she said' war of statements.

He was banned for 7 years in 2000. Therefore he was still banned in 2007. Taking over 4 years later in 2011 is within 5 years and there is his problem. That is the rules as explained to me in person by Stewart Regan, and one can only assume he knows his own rules surely? I mean he had the rulebook with wee sticky pages marking out the well thumbed page right in front of us for goodness sake, it must be accurate!!

Article 10.2, section g ....

(g) he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years;

Craig Whyte was not disqualified within 5 years. His disqualification came in 2000. The rule refers to the act of disqualification and not to the serving of the ban. Semantics? Yes, but semantics matter in law.

Regan might think he is right but would a court of law?

Slightly different as Whyte is being charged as unfit because he had a Directorship ban within 5 years of his appointment. That alone breaks the fit and proper test. My argument is who should carry out that check. CW himself, or the SFA?

My understanding was that his ban was outwith the 5 years (I heard it was 7 years prior) and that, by the letter of the SFA rules, he gave an honest (if incomplete) response. There was no SFA requirement to report 'spent' bans beyond the 5 years.

The SFA have argued that it is the responsibility of the clubs to police the 'fit and proper' test. But, if you read the SFA rules, the formal responsibility resides with the SFA Board. The fact that they have informally outsourced policing does not absolve them from the responsibility.

Edit: the date of his disqualification was more than five years prior but his ban was actually over until inside the five years. But, in terms of the loosely worded SFA rule (heard that before?) Whyte was in compliance.