union

No it was rhetorical so a period is allowed.

Do you have any idea what this end could be,or are you just speculating without any real end product.

If we can produce the 2nd half performance for 90 mins against the fhilth we have nothing to fear,they are no world beaters.

Sorry you have lost me,such a plot as you suggest and the duplicitous nature of such a plot has only and can only result in a bad outcome for King and perhaps us. Are you suggesting he is intent on self harm.

The use of prima facie by the Judge is not encouraging. https://www.thelawyer.com/sports-direct-gets-green-light-continue-derivative-claim-rangers-fc/

Saw this elsewhere,doesn't make for good reading taken along with all else. http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf

He denied any involvement or any sway with NOAL, he suggested that the TOP contact them for information as he could not provide any as NOAL were the benefactors and owners of the shares, the TOP dismissed his version of ownership.

King told the TOP or rather the Committee that he didn't own any shares.

TOP have instructed proceedings against king in the court of session as of a few minutes ago.

Whatever next indeed,is there no upside to anything involving the boardroom.

Not if Chelski or the like have anything to do with it,at least not for us.

After the high of Sunday I was hoping for good news re investment,sadly I was wrong.

Has Louden Greg got the fans liaison job,as rumoured ?

Only a few days to the meet and stories of deliberate smearing of Laura one of the resigners surfacing,complete with cropped photos,leaves a real bad taste.

Who we sign in the summer will of course depend on the funds available to the manager,either through selling or board investment.

Several places touted major investment in the club by the end of March 2017,can we now attribute this investment to the fake news generator.

Bemused to say the least.

Need to stop looking back our future is in front of us not behind, hopefully another strong step forward today by destroying Motherwell convincinglt.

Several readings of the TOP opinion on the Hearings Committee's Ruling doesn't make things look any better,specifically the hypocrisy over using Ibrox/Auchenhowie as security for loans. I now outline our high level proposal: 1. We will provide a minimum of GBP 16m as permanent capital to the club. 50% of the total will come from me and the other 50% on a combined basis from Paul, George, and other high net worth individuals. The fan groups will wish to make some contribution but I believe it will be symbolic rather than significant. 2. We are happy to consider 50% debt at a market rate and 50% equity at 20p per share. The debt will be for a minimum of 5 years. The debt should be secured against Ibrox and Murray Park with some flexibility for future funding if required. We will ensure that the fan groups support the security over Ibrox and do not task the board with a breach of prior commitments. 3. I am happy to commit to all the debt and ensure that, if required, it is in place prior to the AGM. For this to happen we would require irrevocable undertakings that the share issue will proceed and that the board appointments will be ratified. 4. The board would be restructured to incorporate 4 of the existing board and we would make 4 nominations of which Paul and I would be 2. We 13 would have the chair and I will be the nomination for that position. Due to other business interests George is not available for a board appointment. 5. There would be an immediate call to fans to support the club in all ways possible and we undertake to get vocal public support from key Rangers legends. 6. We will call on all fans to oppose Ashley’s call for the removal of the executive. I confirm that Paul and George have approved the content of this email.”

On reading it again it would appear that the answer lies in the very first paragraph, This Panel Statement sets out the Hearings Committee's Ruling of 5 December 2016 which was appealed to the Takeover Appeal Board ("TAB") and which is the subject of TAB Statement 2017/1 issued on 13 March 2017. It is now being published in accordance with paragraphs 6.5 and 6.8 of the Hearings Committee's Rules of Procedure.

I am afraid I can't help you as to the wording of the TOP ruling,as far as I can see it is the official TOP ruling document,I am open to correction of course.

I don't know who he is,however his blog is borne out by the TOP ruling concerning King,it makes for very uncomfortable reading and is scathing about King's conduct with particular regard to NOAL and the contradictions.Not good at all.

Page 36 sub 108.

After reading the ruling of the takeover panel I can't see anything untrue in the blog,irrespective of who wrote it. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwir6Pm2p_nSAhXmJMAKHSxuCpIQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk%2Fpublication%2Fview%2F20174-rangers-international-football-club-plc&usg=AFQjCNEaCslg3B3n1D9mrQwlYkDU9ttqHA

I am shocked by the allegations in the link given as they are said to be fact from the TOP investigation,if indeed the allegation that fans groups knew of these circumstances and had been interviewed in relation to such and kept it from members is totally unacceptable. https://t.co/4CAMX4bKvC