quattro

Lot of ifs buts and maybe in there, I am sure you know the difference between a rights and an open, however not worth the time as Res 8 was voted down by as I said RF and the RST among others.

Facts will do best in the meantime, Ashley is driving the bus so to speak, when we arrive at his chosen destination he will let all know. I enjoyed Mr Houston's well written and cogent piece, how about you.

This is actually true and why it is utterly futile anyone putting their hand in their pocket to buy shares unless you gain 51% and can effect change.

I note that Mr Houston of SoS concurs with your reservations (you should read his contribution very well thought out), always good to see some approach from the angle of truth rather than wishful thinking, there would be less beeling people in the world

Bill has really set a few people on the back foot, after all what has changed except the names on share certs, Laxey via Kingsnorth have all but admitted they were powerless against Ashley, even with 16% shareholding. What will the new share holders be able to enforce against Ashley that the Laxey camp failed to.

There will be no share issue it will be a rights issue if any at all, the share issue was voted down by RF and RST amongst others.

When Ashley decides good or bad we will know.

Haven't seen good buddy RangersRab about, surely not another enforced holiday.

Good fairies only appear in pantomimes, whereas in the real world.

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) has reported an £18.19 million pre-tax loss for the 13 months to June 30, 2013.

The company, with operates “a professional football club in Scotland, together with related commercial activities”, reports it owes parent company Rangers International Football Club Plc (RIFC), £16.16 million.

TRIFC notes the amounts owed to Rangers International “are unsecured, repayable on demand and do not accrue interest".

They will be considering the £16 million owed to the PLC on top of Ashley's £3 million.

.

 

Beelin'.

I would say you certainly are, and with forthcoming good cause.

Chip wrapper one expert here dismissed it as. I would put money on Dave's contribution being at least doubled he did after all admit to his crimes, with jail time thrown in, always darkest before the door slams shut to reveal your new SA cell kapo.

"Billionaire businessman Dave King is the most prominent among high-profile South Africans who could be slapped with far higher tax bills if their deals with the taxman are reviewed.

The findings of the investigation, carried out by a panel headed by Johannesburg advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, largely confirm reports by the Sunday Times over the past few months - and vociferously denied by SARS at the time - that the rogue unit engaged in a wide array of illegal tactics.

It found "prima facie evidence" that SARS operated a covert unit that illegally spied on the taxpayers it was investigating, including some it had cut deals with.

The result is that all deals reached in the past 10 years could be up for review, with potentially damaging consequences for SARS, long regarded as one of the government's "cleanest" and most effective agencies".

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/12/21/tax-u-turns-on-cards-after-probe-into-sars-rogue-unit

The SFA are a national association under UEFA. They have not disregarded anything but introduced a ruling which flies in the face of what UEFA permit.Pozzo owns clubs in Italy, Spain & England but the SFA say Ashley cannot own clubs in England & Scotland.

As someone on RM pointed out the SFA could now find themselves involved in a very costly legal dispute with Ashley which they are unlikely to win.How could they prevent anyone from acquiring shares in a plc ?

I always enjoy reading the Newcastle boards articles who do like to post up the relevant regulations to further their opinions, no doubt the telegraph whom Ashley's people constantly give a bloody nose to will be along shortly with their anti Ashley take on matters.

http://www.nufcblog.com/2014/11/29/uefa-rules-how-rangers-newcastle-can-compete-in-europe/

Obviously many do not understand the structure of UEFA or its clear ruling on dual ownership, which of course the SFA are in direct breach of, as I recall the SFA were also warned of serious sanctions by FIFA/UEFA over the outcome of the transfer embargo affair.

Why would Ashley take on UEFA, he isn't breaching any UEFA articles the SFA are.

Can they legally do this ?

No, as they will undoubtedly find out when court papers are served.

McCoist will be telling us he worked months for nothing next. Wonder how it will be received when he votes with the board on Monday.

I'm not sure why you're so intent to play down the chance of MP getting sold because all it's going to do is make you look even more foolish if you're paymasters do sell it.

Play it down ? you couldn't give it away, a relic of Advocaat and murray's vanity.

Whatever happened to your promulgations, swept away on a floodplain ?

The part of Ibrox you don't see the roof, is said to have major issues however as yet not serious enough to involve building control or any other authoritative body. However left unrepaired it is only a matter of time until things degenerate to a dangerous level.

Issue 8.10 – Flood Risk - East Dunbartonshire Council will tell you all you need to know, and very rough projected costs to alleviate the risks of flooding, at considerable and quite possibly beyond viable cost.

Not since the the law was changed, insurance companies will not insure domestic dwellings on known floodplains and the government won't compensate anyone who builds on a known floodplain.

It is on a designated floodplain, Noah might be interested in it.

Who would buy MP it is of little use to anyone other than as grazing land or a training centre.

McCoist's contract is up for renewal on 15/06/2015, hopefully that situation is rectified on Wednesday by an announcement about a new manager, least said about Friday's game the better also the farce before and after.

Everything flows from Ticketus and at least two others, which coming events will make a lot clearer.

The problem for the Scottish criminal action is that a Law Lord has already ruled that Ticketus under Scots Law bought no tickets, how the PF's office get around that one is something of wonderment, whereas the civil action will be as usual on probability which will also be a problem for Ticketus I.E what led them to believe that the tickets were Whyte's to sell, taking into consideration that they had previously done business with SDM's regime.

Apparently the adjournment is to allow the completion of inquiries, as to the knowledge of Ticketus and at least two others with regard to the contracts and agreements with Whyte in this action.

Some think the Crown Office in Scotland were precipitous in the issuing of warrants, whilst not being in possession of all the evidence, which the English court has adjourned to be presented with.

The smart money is on Ticketus's action being thrown out, not without further ramifications for some involved parties it must be said.

It does appear McCoist is safe for the moment, an alleged decision that is quite unfathomable.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30334338

Having spoken to a couple of people this morning it would appear the status quo will see no immediate change, I personally doubt that doing nothing is an option we can afford.