Davie P

When was the last time we scored direct from a free kick? It was a regular occurrence when we had Albertz, but I cant recall too many in the recent past?

Were Hearts ever fined for going into Administration? Genuine question.

So what happened to his supposed 6% shareholding, or am I getting confused? What % of shareholding guarantee you a seat on the board?

“But in the meantime I have a budget that’s a fraction of the size it once was and I need to get in a striker who can complement Jon Daly by playing slightly behind him.

If I was Nicky Clark, I would be really disappointed to read this. Where is Ally going to play him, if at all, and secondly, is he viewed as one of the youngsters who haven't earned the right to be called first team players?

Thanks, I'm banned on FF for reasons unknown!

Rumours abound that both Ian Black and Dean Shiels have been told that they are surplus to requirements. I think that Dean Shiels is a talented footballer, and I would love to see him come good, but just can't see where he would fit in, given Ally's signings.

As for Ian Black, would be delighted to see the back of him but there is no chance that any club is going to be offering him the wages he is currently on, meaning that we will need to pay up his contract (ala Goian and Boca).

Should Hearts survive, does this mean an automatic points deduction next season and a fine?

Call me cynical, but I will guarantee that it is only being put on hold until after season ticket sales!

He won't have an endless supply of cash, he'll have a budget in mind for buying shares and investing in the club, but the share price is still artificially high.

 

If he plans to buy up enough shares to take control, he'll also want to be in a position where he can invest some cash in the club without chunks of it getting trousered by other investors on the take.

Good point Zappa, important to remember that every penny that DK spends on buying the club goes to the faceless investors, and is not being reinvested into Rangers. If the shareprice can be driven down, the balance in his budget can be spent on the footballing side of the business. I would imagine that the current turmoil can only spook investors and you would hope that they quickly sell on to someone with a blue heart (and deep pockets). I am not advocating the old SDM business model so beloved by WS and AMc but I do think that we are probably at the point of needing someone willing to invest long term and is not in for quick profits. In my opinion the current business model is seriously flawed, but accept that if the listing had not taken place when it did, we would almost be back at the pre-admin postion with the uncertainty and unhappiness that that created for all of us. I just hope that DK doesnt leave it too long!

I suppose we've just had too much good news lately, nothing like a reminder of boardroom strife to burst the 'feel good'bubble!

This has come as a big surprise as I honestly expected that he would sit tight to see if McCall got the Sheffield Utd job and then decide, but as mentioned earlier delighted that we conducted our affairs privately.

Why cant we use that 'Lion rampant' badge on our shirts? Anyone know the reason? Is it purely to avoid confusion with the National team?

I think that the existing SPL clubs must be shitting themselves about this approach from the SFL 1 clubs. This was always a bully boy tactic to force the SFL to agree to be incorporated into the greater SPFL so that the financially and morally corrupt SPL can get control over the Rangers TV money. No Rangers, no interest, no TV money, but SPL will still need to find the cash to accommodate the SFL 1 clubs. They also presumably still have a binding contract whereby payment needs to be made to the SFL, so now they have a situation whereby they inherit the SFL 1 clubs (no major support or creation of interest iro additional derbies/intense rivalries - therefore minimal income generated), have no title sponsorship, have only the mysterious TV deal (which is so fantastic that they darent show this to anyone, just have to take our word on this lads!) and will still be compelled to pay a contractual amount to the remaining SFL 2 and SFL 3 clubs. Lets just forget about the stadium requirements and waive all of those additional costs that the current SFL 1 clubs would need to make in order to fit into the 'elite' SPL league. As long as Rangers are in the SFL, the SFL hold all the Aces. Let's just hope they dont fold for a pair of deuces!

I am not sure what is more embarrassing, MM's behaviour or BS recording it (which could only ever have been intended for use as blackmail/leveraging purposes). Whether this is IA/CG releasing it for payback for MM or even BS, I am not sure, but I have to say that the Chairman of Rangers has to be like Caesar's wife i.e. above reproach. If you know that you have a problem with balance and that drinking exacerbates the problem, the answer is quite simple, don't drink. There is no doubt that it is the end days for MM as Chairman even before the release of the video, but his clinging on is not helping the in-fighting on the board. For the good of Rangers he should announce that he is going to step down. Once this has happened I would hope that the Ibrox boardroom leaks become a thing of the past and we can again focus on the football club.

I should make it clear that I hold no candle for King, but I do think that he ticks the boxes

1. Passionate about Rangers

2. Hugely succesful businessman

3. Independently wealthy.

4. Has indicated an interest in acquiring a majority stake in Rangers

I submitted the above article as there seems to be suggestions that he is shady character. I have no doubt that he would take all legitimate short cuts to achieve his end goals, but to attempt to suggest that he is an "Al Capone" type gangster is just ludicrous. He has been intimidated by the authorities with threats of criminal actions in order to get him to accept the SARS demands. I have not met a single South African who actually thinks he is guilty of anything, but back home, primarily by CG supporters, he is viewed in the same light as convicted VAT fraudsters. I suppose its true what they say, 'a prophet is never appreciated in his own country'!

Thought you might be interested in reading an article from a respect financial journalist in South Africa about Dave King and his on-going prosecution by SARS and the National Prosecutions Authority.

"TWO years ago, prosecutions boss Menzi Simelane told me that he didnâ??t care if the state spent R1bn sending Dave King to jail for breaking the tax laws â?? it would be money well spent.

It was a curious statement, first because it implied Simelane was a man of high principle while at the same time suggesting the Scottish-born King was something of a fiendish Al Capone character, on whom all the might of the state should be expended.

The truth, on both counts, is very different. Simelane, as we know, was booted from his position by the Constitutional Court last October, essentially for not being a fit and proper person.

But his high-handed statement had come months after the NPA vetoed a â??settlementâ? in 2009 that would have seen King pay R636m to close the book on a tax dispute dating back to 2002.

No, Simelane said, weâ??ll put that fiendish King in jail before we do any dirty backroom deal.

So, news this week that King has, in fact, reached some settlement over certain assets in the long-running soap opera that has become his tax dispute was a welcome sign. Letâ??s hope this thaw in the relationship is a precursor to a larger settlement of the entire sorry mess.

Because, letâ??s face it, governmentâ??s ham-fisted pursuit of King hasnâ??t reflected well on its ability to nail those who it believes have wronged it.

In particular, the National Prosecuting Authority has been embarrassed by King in a way that ought to provide a fillip to anyone plotting any halfway well-constructed white-collar con.

Last August â?? more than a decade after the event â?? the NPA finally took King to court over 37 counts of fraud for supposedly defrauding companies like Old Mutual and lying to the JSE when he made R1bn by selling shares in a company called Specialised Outsourcing in 1999.

It would have been one of the countryâ??s most important corporate fraud cases. Ignore the fact that Specialised Outsourcing does not exist any more, ignore the fact that witnesses would be hard-pressed to remember what happened 12 years before.

No matter, the cocky NPA assured us: it had spent the last decade firming up a cast-iron case, it had impeccable witnesses, nothing could go wrong.

So, it was a surprise to these witnesses when the NPA simply closed its case last September after calling only five of its 71 expert witnesses.

Judge Margaret Victor acquitted King, slamming the NPA for failing to put up a case.

One witness called the NPAâ??s bungling â??astoundingâ? and â??incomprehensibleâ?.

The bottom line remains: if a guy is really guilty of what you say he is, and you canâ??t prove it in a decade, you really have no business being in the law-enforcement game.

For King, this only suggested his claims of being victimised and hounded by the NPA in order to settle his tax case were justified.

Now, there are some good, solid professionals at the NPA, who do know what theyâ??re doing. Not all of them have been suspended, like Glynnis Breytenbach.

But there are others â?? usually in management â?? for whom a weekly fitting of red noses and oversized shoes wouldnâ??t be an entirely inappropriate use of money.

Partly thanks to their blundering, King almost has government over a barrel.

In recent weeks, King has -rightly -used the judgment to travel overseas to â??unfreezeâ? cash that had been seized in Jersey and Guernsey.

By all accounts, the overseas courts werenâ??t amused that all this cash had been frozen more than a decade earlier, yet King hadnâ??t pleaded to the numerous criminal charges he faced.

Simelaneâ??s sentiment was that a conviction would send a message of â??no toleranceâ? to South Africaâ??s businessmen. So this is why government has thrown vast sums of money -estimated at more than R400m â?? on this principle. Along the way, it turned down R636m from King.

Altogether, thatâ??s hundreds of millions at which the government has turned up its nose.

Disregarding the merits of the actual charges against King, the really worrying thing is the message that this decade-long circus act will send to the real Al Capones of South Africaâ??s corporate sector.

Do your worst, it says, and if youâ??re really, really unlucky, youâ??ll face a trial in about a decade or so.

The best thing for the state agencies would be to settle this sorry mess, bank a settlement from King, and sit in a dark room until the red cheeks fade.

* This article was first published in Sunday Times: Business Times

Good to hear that the only people having a problem with this potential transfer are those from the East end of Glasgow!

Being based in South Africa, I can confirm that the case against Dave King was ridiculous and exclusively motivated by greed on the part of SARS and the SA government. DK had exploited a hole in the tax laws and used this to his own benefit. He and his companies paid what was due, nothing more and nothing less. SARS then attempted to apply amended laws retrospectively which DK fought vigorously against and rightly so. Dave King is a huge blue nose and I genuinely believe that if he were to obtain majority control that we would be restored to our place of pride very quickly. He is no Charles Green in the sense of bluntness/rudeness but you can guarantee that he will not bend over for the SFA etc. If there is a God in heaven, please let Dave King do the deal and take over the club!

King had a lot of talking to do around this time last year as well I recall. Lets hope he's serious this time and the resolution of his tax troubles is good news for us. I must say a have a nagging feeling the sfa will have their say about him and it won't be good for us.

Why could he not just do a Romanov i.e. buy the club, put a puppet in charge and pull the strings from behind the scenes?

There is a rumour (yes another one) on RM stating that Sandy Easdale may be about to acquire 29% of the shares in RIFC.

I am trying (and no doubt failing dismally) to make sense of all of this from a distance. Could anyone enlighten me on the following queries:

a. If Sevco 5088 was established as the CVA vehicle, surely this became irrelevant when the CVA was rejected?

b. If Sevco 5088 had exclusivity on purchasing the assets of Oldco, and D&P then sold these to Sevco Scotland, then CW should be suing D&P (provided it is proven that he does have a financial interest in Sevco 5088) for breach of contract?

c. How can Sevco 5088 have any bearing on the ownership of Ibrox and Auchenhowie? When RIFC was listed, these were included as assets and formed part of the shareprice (in fact probably underpinned it) and as such would now be owned by the shareholders in RIFC.

d. In terms of control, what percentage would a high net worth Rangers fan need to purchase? 50.1%?

e. At current share price how much would this equate to?

As fans, we have lived in absolute hell since the 14th of February 2012. Every day seems to bring new revelations, all designed to cut us off at the knees. We are a house divided amongst pro and anti CG camps, pro and anti AMc/WS camps and while it is necessary to avoid a huge love-in where we all have the same opinions, it is equally necessary for us to be pulling in the same general direction. I know that the single owner model has been a disaster for us in the past, but I do need to know that however owns us has the best interests of the club at heart.

Sorry for the rambling!

challenged ? do you mean blackmailed ? you do know who was running LBG's Scottish business division at that time don't you?

MIM had debts of £700m yet they seemed more concerned with Rangers' £18m debt. Wonder why?

Probably because the potential fall out of the EBT's which had grown from a potential debt of £40m to £140m if you believed the Scottish Mhedia. Any prudent business would want to reduce it's exposure to this additional potential debt. I am not saying that there wasn't the added bonus of the LBG decision makers screwing us over, but if you could get back your £18m in one go and remove your potential tax debt, you would jump at the opportunity.

Is it an admission of guilt (i.e. association with Whyte)?

Hope we slaughter them (in a football sense of course!)

Clearly the main issue here is sponsorship and specifically that of a TV deal.

 

It appears that without RFC and in the absence of decent viewing figures, the oft-talked about (but never revealed) 5 year SKY TV deal will end as it was actually for only for one year with a variety of clauses.

 

Ergo, unless the SPL can deliver RFC's involvement (humble pie anyone?) they will have to accept a vastly reduced TV deal (probably from BT) which means already struggling clubs (e.g. Killie, Dundee Utd, Motherwell and Aberdeen) will have to cut costs substantially making them even less than competitive.

 

Is it any wonder the more fiscally secure clubs didn't want to subsidise these chancers?

Cue the remaining SPL clubs holding out the olive branch (via the compliant media of course!) Watch this space!