Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'funding'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. By Chris McLaughlin & Richard Wilson BBC Scotland Rangers were 48 hours from going into administration until a £2m loan was agreed with Mike Ashley, according to one senior Ibrox source. Prospective administrators had been contacted by the Ibrox club. Newcastle owner Ashley put forward a financial package, which includes the option of a new share issue, on Friday and it was agreed on Saturday morning. And, as part of the agreement, chief executive Graham Wallace will follow director Philip Nash in stepping down. The arrangement could be finalised early next week. English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer. Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%. But his possible underwriting of a share issue could take his stake above that threshold if there is not enough buy-in from other investors. An alternative option could be further loans. The SFA plan to write Rangers next week seeking clarification on the loan agreement with Ashley. Rangers need a financial injection to cover wages beyond November and Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy became a surprise latecomer in the battle for control with a funding package offer of his own. In response to the news that Ashley's offer had been accepted by the board, Kennedy said he was "disappointed for Rangers" but would not be commenting further. Former director Dave King had also offered fresh funding to Rangers but could not agree a deal following talks with key shareholder Sandy Easdale and the board. Before returning to his South African business base on Thursday, King issued a statement saying that his group's offer remained on the table and that he was hopeful it would be accepted. Ashley, who already has control of Rangers' shirt sales and retail division and owns the naming rights for Ibrox Stadium, refused to back King's proposal. Sandy Easdale, who controls a 26% block of shares, also declined to agree to King's proposals. While Ashley is demanding two representatives on the board, King also wanted to choose its chairman. Nash, the former Arsenal and Liverpool executive, had been employed as a financial consultant by Rangers before joining the board in July. Wallace, currently on a family holiday in Greece, and Nash had been supportive of the bid by King's group, which includes fellow Scottish businessmen George Letham and Paul Murray. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29761396
  2. Mike Ashley moves into pole position to take control at Ibrox as Dave King bid fails http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-power-battle-mike-ashley-4499365
  3. I have been asked to make a personal comment on the rumour that the Rangers board is considering a loan from Mr Ashley. I don't see the offer of a short term loan by Mr Ashley affecting me in any way. Our offer is for a long term permanent solution that can take the club forward and unite the fans and the board for the first time in many years. The board is in the final stages of reviewing our offer and I expect a definitive answer early next week. Frankly, it doesn't seem possible that the board can do anything other than recommend it to shareholders given the dire financial circumstances and the fact that no other long term solution is on offer. Mr Ashley's involvement (and recently announced continued commitment) with Newcastle precludes him from making a similar offer of long term permanent equity. What Mr Ashley can do is attempt to increase his vice-like grip on the Rangers brand by improving his retail position as a condition for supplying short term debt to tide the club over until our permanent funding is in place. But I know that there are other investors also willing to provide bridging finance. The board will therefore not have to accept punitive terms even if Ashley attempts to oppose them. We must remember that the board is ethically and legally bound to act in the best interest of the company and all shareholders. Ashley can not expect preferential treatment and will not get it. I am confident that Graham Wallace and Philip Nash have enough integrity and commercial experience to do the right thing. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sdec2h
  4. Ashley's deal has been apparently accepted by the club. So with a game today will we see a reaction from bears or the usual muted response we're accustomed to seeing? Wallace is away, the Easdales don't travel away, so who's representing the club from an executive capacity? Andy fucking Cameron?
  5. ...after forcing out Philip Nash with emergency loan offer. By Roddy Forsyth 10:36PM BST 24 Oct 2014 Newcastle United owner tightens "vice-like grip" on Scottish Championship club as finance director resigns over prospect of working with the Sports Direct tycoon. Mike Ashley tightened his grip on Rangers and claimed his first victim on the club’s plc board with the resignation of finance director Philip Nash – a departure that could clear the way for the Newcastle United owner to rename Ibrox after his Sports Direct brand, perhaps as soon as next month, The Telegraph can reveal. Nash had also approached Brian Kennedy, owner of the Sale Sharks rugby union club, to provide backup emergency funding to see Rangers through to the end of the season if necessary. Kennedy tabled an offer of just over £3 million late on Friday, compared to a similar £2 million offer from Ashley, although the details remain unclear. Nash’s decision to quit the Rangers plc board was revealed in a statement on the club’s official website. Nash’s departure was the latest development in the battle for control of Rangers between Ashley and Dave King, the former Ibrox director, who flew into Glasgow from his base in South Africa on Oct 14 to meet the plc board. King’s proposed takeover consisted of a £16 million package, half from him and the rest from other wealthy Rangers supporters including Paul Murray and George Letham. As King confirmed on Thursday, he had been willing to co-operate with a board proposal that the investment be provided as a mixture of loan funding and equity, with guarantees were to protect existing shareholders’ investments from over-dilution. King was willing to do so in return for two seats on the plc board and the right to choose the chair of the board. Related Articles Ally McCoist would welcome Mike Ashley involvement at Rangers Mike Ashley wins Rangers victory as finance chief steps down 24 Oct 2014 King makes dig at 'power behind Ibrox throne' 23 Oct 2014 King speaks with Easdale as clock ticks 22 Oct 2014 King to reveal status of £16m Rangers takeover 21 Oct 2014 For his proposal to succeed, King required 75 per cent shareholder approval, a target he could not reach without the co-operation of Sandy Easdale, chairman of Rangers’ football board, who – with his own stock and as proxy for others – controls 26 per cent of existing shares. However, Ashley’s subsequent offer of emergency funding confirmed the belief that Easdale would not ensure the reduction of his own influence at Ibrox by accepting King’s package. Ashley had already targeted Nash and Rangers’ chief executive, Graham Wallace, because they had blocked his attempt to provide emergency funding last month in return for the rights to the club’s trademark and crest. The pair believed that the package, said to be worth up to £10 million but with only £2 million offered up front, was not good value for the surrender of such assets. Ashley’s response was to call for an extraordinary meeting to have Wallace and Nash removed from their posts. It can also be revealed that although Ashley bought the naming rights for Ibrox for £1 from Charles Green in 2012, Nash negotiated an additional clause with him earlier this year to the effect that they would not be activated this season. If, however, Ashley succeeds in getting two of his own people on to the plc board, the clause can be scrapped. It is understood that Ashley was prepared to keep Nash in place as finance director, but not as a board member. Nash – in the belief that the Ashley deal would do little more than keep the lights on at Ibrox – chose to quit. In a further twist, Rangers’ accounts to June 30, 2014, are expected to reveal that Nash had reduced operating losses from £14.4 million in the 2013 accounts to under £9 million. The accounts, as The Telegraph revealed on Thursday, are ready to be sent to Deloitte, the club’s auditors, in the next two weeks, but cannot be signed off until there is proof that Rangers can be run as a going concern for the rest of the season. King, meanwhile, responded to news of Ashley’s latest offer with a defiant statement to the effect that it was the duty of the plc board to recommend acceptance of the proposal of greatest benefit to Rangers as a business. The statement read: “I have been asked to make a personal comment on the rumour that the Rangers board is considering a loan from Mr Ashley. I don’t see the offer of a short-term loan by Mr Ashley affecting me in any way. Our offer is for a long-term permanent solution that can take the club forward and unite the fans and the board for the first time in many years. “The board is in the final stages of reviewing our offer and I expect a definitive answer early next week. Frankly, it doesn’t seem possible that the board can do anything other than recommend it to shareholders given the dire financial circumstances and the fact that no other long term solution is on offer. Mr Ashley’s involvement (and recently announced continued commitment) with Newcastle precludes him from making a similar offer of long-term permanent equity. “What Mr Ashley can do is attempt to increase his vice-like grip on the Rangers brand by improving his retail position as a condition for supplying short-term debt to tide the club over until our permanent funding is in place. But I know that there are other investors also willing to provide bridging finance. “The board will therefore not have to accept punitive terms even if Ashley attempts to oppose them. We must remember that the board is ethically and legally bound to act in the best interest of the company and all shareholders. “Ashley cannot expect preferential treatment and will not get it. I am confident that Graham Wallace and Philip Nash have enough integrity and commercial experience to do the right thing.” That, though, was before the news of Nash’s departure. In response to Nash’s resignation, King told The Telegraph: “It reinforces the need for a change at the club to get a proper board with good governance.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11186814/Mike-Ashley-edges-closer-to-Rangers-takeover-after-forcing-out-Philip-Nash-with-emergency-loan-offer.html
  6. Dave King Statement re Rangers FC It is appropriate that I give feedback to the Rangers fans before departing for South Africa. Over the last few weeks Paul Murray, George Letham and myself have constructively engaged the Rangers board and (at the request of the board) Sandy Easdale regarding our proposal to invest 16 million into the club as soon as is practically possible. When investing in any public company there are numerous regulatory and compliance requirements that have to be dealt with. There are also SFA compliance issues that arise when investing in a football club in Scotland. An obvious further complication in Rangers case is the seeming lack of authority of the Rangers board to make decisions without reference to key shareholders who appear to be “the power behind the throne”. Prior to commencing the implementation issues referred to above it is necessary to reach an in-principle agreement with the board that can then be put to shareholders. In this regard it is important to recogniser hat the so-called Easdale Block represents more than 25% of the shares in issue and could therefore block the implementation of our proposal even if recommended by the board. Likewise, a combination of other shareholders could veto our proposal. I attempted to meet with Mr Ashley on my visit but neither he, nor his colleague, Mr Bishop, acknowledged my request for a meeting. This is their right but is unfortunate given the present concerns from supporters that Mr Ashley is using his shareholder status to put pressure on the board to alienate the rights and trade mark of the club in favour of his personal interest. I will make a separate announcement and appeal to fans on this topic at the appropriate time. Our initial proposal to the board was to invest the full 16m by way of equity at 20p per share. The board requested that we consider a debt/equity mix that would reduce dilution for existing shareholders and allow the debt component to be advanced prior to the extended time frame required for the approval of additional equity. We are amenable to this and to working with the board on the mechanics necessary to ensure that this is achieved provided that the full investment is recognised by way of board representation. We wish to appoint an equal number of members to the board and have the key say regarding the appointment of the Chairperson. We will not invest funds and let the existing board determine how these funds are spent. That has not worked well in the past. In any transaction of this nature there are a number of interests to be consulted and considered. The board has apparently engaged constructively on our proposal while advancing its own points as to what it believes is in the best interest of the club and its shareholders. Sandy Easdale has similarly apparently engaged constructively including highlighting some concerns. I have today responded to these concerns in writing. He will now consult with his co-shareholders and hopefully revert soonest so that we can proceed to agreement and the earliest possible implementation thereof. Unfortunately, I have to again deal with a point that I have covered previously. Despite our agreement with the board on confidentiality (that we have strictly complied with) we were faced with the inevitable combination of truth, half-truth and fallacies peddled by Mr Irvine on behalf of his employers. He states in particular that he is voicing Sandy Easdale’s directly communicated thoughts. Sandy has assured me that this is not the case regarding his recent nonsensical utterings. On that point, I have recently had the amusement of reviewing over 100 email communications between MrIrvine and Craig Whyte during the period that Mr Irvine was attempting to advance Mr Whyte’s business interests. My review of these emails indicates to me that he carefully identifies journalists that he believes lack journalistic integrity and ability and can therefore be fed by him for the benefit of whoever pays him. I urge fans to continue to ignore the nonsense that comes from these sources. We have a lot of work to do over the next few months to regain the club. I would not be here without the support of the fans and neither would my co-investors. We are going to need to draw on your support again over the coming months.
  7. Mike Ashley has been energised by the battle for Ibrox in a way that he never has by challenge of making Newcastle United competitive. On Saturday afternoon Newcastle United have their eighth crack at winning a Premier League match this season. If they swing and miss, it will be their longest winless run in the Premier League era: worse than the ill-starred 2008/9 relegation season and more desperate than the year that brought Sir Bobby Robson to Tyneside. Throw into the mix an undercooked team light on experience of a relegation battle and there can be little doubt that this is a time for minds to be focused. Even at this early stage survival appears the priority, but that cannot be taken for granted. And where is Mike Ashley? The owner’s scrutiny is not trained on the lame duck manager who is only ever one defeat away from losing further ground with a sceptical support but instead it is in a messy, protracted and potentially long-running takeover of Rangers. The Newcastle owner blew his own cover on Ibrox weeks, months or even a year or so ago. By dodging the share issue and banning a journalist who had speculated on his intentions towards Rangers, he tried the owner’s equivalent of an Ali shuffle – but the knockout punch has not yet been delivered. Rangers is going to be a slow burner for Ashley. Unlike Newcastle – where he found an owner willing to make a quick sale – there are messy and protracted battles to be fought at Ibrox with groups who are not going to relinquish their grip on a potential goldmine anytime soon. The motivation for investing in a fallen club that needs plenty of work is the promise of a potential route into the Champions League. Ashley’s mistakes have made that path impossible for Newcastle for a generation or so, but Rangers’ size and the impoverished standard of the competition give him a chance north of the border. And the Champions League gives him even greater profile than the Premier League in a sportswear market that he fancies a crack at: Europe. There are obstacles to be vaulted, of course: not least rules that state he cannot own majority stakes in clubs in both Scotland and England. But that is a hurdle to be clambered over when the time comes: the important thing is to elbow out the other prospectors sifting through the wreckage at Ibrox. Rangers is time-consuming for Ashley. It has caused him to take his eye off the ball at Newcastle and the consequences of that could yet be catastrophic for a club that appears rudderless, leaderless and entirely without hope at the moment. Ashley gutted Newcastle of people who would answer back to him. Managing director Lee Charnley owes his career to Ashley, and is hardly likely to stand up to him. We all know that Pardew will acquiesce if required. That is the way the owner wanted it – him dipping in and out of Newcastle when it suited him. Ever since Rangers became a serious interest for him, the dynamic has changed. Ashley may be more visible at Newcastle – naming himself as chairman over the course of this year – but he has not been as involved as he was before. A source I spoke to said his greatest hope was that people would run it for him, keeping it ticking along for a while. He simply doesn’t have time for Newcastle anymore. There is a shiny new toy north of the border and the fight for control at Ibrox has energised him much more than the battle to make Newcastle United competitive has. And what is unfolding north of the border is very, very messy indeed. For those still in any doubt, it is worth taking a quick journey through the coverage of Ashley’s actions north of the border. Festering worry about his intentions has given way to outright disgust at the way he has operated in the last couple of months. Just like he has with Tesco and Debenhams, Ashley has struck at a moment of weakness. That is savvy strategy from a sharp businessman, but it doesn’t mean that Rangers fans should be happy about what is happening. Not that many are, despite claims from a couple of Old Firm icons this week that Ashley might be the man to return the club to its perch. The Daily Record’s Michael Gannon wrote a withering editorial two weeks ago challenging that belief: capturing the scorched earth policy of Ashley and his unquestioning acolytes perfectly. Warning that sometimes the devil you know can be worse than the devil you don’t, he wrote: “He is simply out to bag a quick buck at Rangers.” It is a familiar theme when the subject of Ashley and the Ibrox club are brought up: money is the reason he is hanging around. Not necessarily money that will be made directly off the club’s success but more the reflected perks of owning an institution that can reasonably challenge for the Champions League in a couple of seasons with pretty minimal investment. Gannon summed up his latest power play in a couple of damning sentences. “He could have sunk in money at last month’s share issue and it would have gone to the club,” he wrote. “Instead he waited and bought out Hargreave Hale. It strengthened his position and rubbed the board’s face in it after they refused to cave in to strict demands in return for a loan.” It is Ashley to a tee. Stubborn, obstinate and looking entirely after number one. The worry is that Newcastle United’s Premier League status will become collateral in the battle for Newcastle United. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-united-become-collateral-damage-7943767
  8. With the next 24 hours likely to be important in terms of this issue, this article from Richard Wilson is a good appraisal ahead of a new thread on boardroom events. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29717979
  9. Talking to Rangersitis (nice meeting you btw.) on Saturday afternoon we both debated whether it can be stopped via Sandy Easdale's proxy bloc and Ashley's holdings. Few things: 1. Will it be considered a resolution or just a simple loan authorised by the board? 2. Or will Ashley and Easdale bloc this through their voting rights on special resolutions? 3. By blocking the loan if it is seen as a resolution will concert party rights be triggered 4. By calling the EGM it looks to me as though the voting percentages won't matter here and that's why Ashley's calling the EGM in an effort to prevent the vote going through at a typical board meeting Would any of our more informed Gersnetters like to set us right?
  10. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/7812-notice-under-section-303-of-the-companies-act-2006
  11. keith jackson @tedermeatballs · 9s 10 seconds ago OK bed time. Back page will be up soon. Suffice to say a multi million pound bailout offer has been made by a three man consortium. https://twitter.com/tedermeatballs/with_replies
  12. Should they not have been published by now? Not that I'm expecting good news, however getting it out of the way and having the AGM where we vote through the share issue is quite important? Another example of poor corporate governance or am I too impatient?
  13. Wee Eck trying to keep his new recruits, maybe? ... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/518145/Salmond-slammed-for-tax-dodger-s-charter Salmond slammed for ‘tax dodger’s charter’ over chasing votes ALEX Salmond was last night on a collision course with cash-strapped councils over plans to ban them from chasing poll tax cheats. By: Paul Gilbride Published: Fri, October 3, 2014 New laws will stop officials using the voting records of millions of Scots from the independence referendum to recover debts. His announcement comes after councils began combing through the recently updated electoral roll looking for people in arrears. Opposition MSPs branded the First Minister’s proposals “a tax dodger’s charter” as it was revealed a staggering £425million is still owed. And local government body Cosla said the plans were “one of the oddest decisions ever” to come from the Scottish Government and hit out at the lack of consultation. The controversial Community Charge was introduced north of the Border by Margaret Thatcher in 1989 – a year before England. It was scrapped and replaced by the council tax in 1993 following a mass civil disobedience campaign. Mr Salmond yesterday told MSPs it was misguided for town halls to use current records to chase debts from decades ago. He said: “After 25 years it is about time that the poll tax was finally dead and buried.” Last month’s vote on Scotland’s future saw voter registrations soar to more than 4.2 million. Council chiefs believe some were returning to the electoral roll for the first time in a quarter of a century after dropping off to avoid paying poll tax. Although councils cannot pursue debts that are more than 20 years old, the period is extended by a further two decades if efforts have been made to chase up the payments. Mr Salmond said the total collected in 2013 from poll tax debt in Scotland was £396,000. He added: “It is, of course, within the law for councils to use current information to assess council tax liability and, given the council tax reduction scheme protects 500,000 of our poorest citizens, the tax is being applied in a proper and fair way. "However, the relevance of information from the current electoral register to the position of debts from 25 years ago is difficult to fathom, except through some misguided political intention. “It is the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation to ensure that councils can take forward no further action to recover ancient poll tax debts.” This is a move geared towards winning a few extra votes, and is nothing but a tax dodger’s charter Tory welfare reform spokesman Alex Johnstone Aberdeenshire Council, which covers Mr Salmond’s constituency, is among the authorities which is using the records to go after outstanding tax. Tory welfare reform spokesman Alex Johnstone said many Scots paid the tax in good faith, subsidising those who could afford to pay but chose not to. He said: “Are those hard-working people going to be reimbursed too under this initiative? If this is the Scottish Government’s approach on tax collection, why should anyone bother paying any tax at all? This is a move geared towards winning a few extra votes, and is nothing but a tax dodger’s charter.” Over the four years of the tax’s existence, councils billed Scots households for £3.678billion and it was previously estimated £325million was still to be collected. Cosla president David O’Neill said the arrears now stood at £425million. He said authorities had been under “a very strict obligation to collect every penny of outstanding debt owed”. “Indeed, we’ve been told in the past that until we did this, we should not be asking for any additional money from government. “It seems very odd that now we have an improved tool at our disposal in the form of an expanded electoral register that may help us maximise collection rates, it is the self-same Government that tells us they are going to legislate immediately to prevent us from using it.”
  14. A judge who banned former Rangers owner Craig Whyte from being a company director for 15 years said his conduct of the business was "characterised by dishonesty". Lord Tyre gave a decision to impose the maximum ban on Whyte from the bench earlier in the week at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after Business Secretary Vince Cable brought a petition. His written opinion was issued today. Whyte, 43, became a director at Rangers in 2011 but it went into administration the following year before being wound up. Lord Tyre said: "Immediately upon his appointment as a director or Rangers the respondent (Whyte) caused Rangers to enter into the Ticketus agreement, for the sole or main purpose of facilitating his acquisition of Rangers by providing finance which was lent by Rangers to Wavetower, which in turn used it to repay Rangers' external debt, notably to Lloyds Banking Group." "In effect, a significant proportion to Rangers' prospective income for the next three years was used to pay the bank and thus to fund the respondent's acquisition of the club." "On the basis of the material placed before me, it seems to me that there is a strongly arguable case that this amounted to financial assistance prohibited by section 678 of the Companies Act 2006, and accordingly constituted an offence," said the judge. Lord Tyre added: "In any event I am satisfied that the Ticketus agreement was entered into by Rangers, under the direction of the respondent, for the benefit of the respondent and not the company, and accordingly constituted a deliberate breach of his fiduciary duty as a director." "The fact that this was done, knowingly, in breach of the express terms of the share purchase agreement enhances the reprehensible nature of the respondent's actings," he said. It was argued that Whyte deliberately and dishonestly concealed the Ticketus deal, under which it got the right to sell three years season tickets for £24m, from other board members until its existence was found out by the company's financial controller from an independent source. Lord Tyre said: "I am satisfied on the evidence that the allegation of dishonesty is established." Whyte had told the independent board committee at Rangers that funding of the deal would come from him and an email was sent indicating that a British Vigin Island company owned by him, Liberty Capital, was a source of funding, the court was told. He said Whyte held no board meetings and provided no information to other directors over the company's financial affairs, making it impossible for them to carry out their own duties as directors. It was also alleged that there was a failure by Whyte to exercise rights, granted by Wavetower to Rangers at the time of the share purchase, to receive payment on demand of sums to meet playing squad costs and a sum due to HM Revenue and Customs, dubbed the Small Tax Case. Lord Tyre said: "In connection with this aspect there is again an element of dishonesty on the part of the respondent, in that a letter sent on his behalf in January 2012 contained certain untrue statements concerning funds available to Rangers." A further issue was the failure of Rangers under Whyte's ownership to meet its obligations to HMRC over PAYE, national insurance and VAT. Lord Tyre said: "Acting to the exclusion of other directors, the respondent caused Rangers to stop making payment when due in respect of these liabilities from September 7 2011." The commercial court judge: "By February 2012, when HMRC presented its petition for an administration order, a sum of around £10.5m had accrued in respect of unpaid tax and unapplied interest." "Through his actings at the time of and after acquisition of Rangers, the respondent demonstrated a reckless disregard for the interests of the company to which he owed fiduciary duties," he said. "His conduct of the business was characterised by dishonesty, in relation to disclosure of the true source of the funds used to purchase the company and repay the bank debt, and by wilful disregard for his duties to the company and to the other members of the board," said the judge. He said that in acquiring Rangers and a subsequent sale of shares in Arsenal "he placed his own interests before those of the company". "He knowingly permitted the company to trade using money owed to HMRC, " said Lord Tyre. The judge said that Whyte has had also shown "a wilful disregard" for the duties of a director over record keeping and co-operation with the liquidator of a second company Tixway. Lord Tyre said that little was known about Tixway, which went into liquidation in 2012, where Whyte was appointed as a director in 2008 following the ending of a previous seven-year ban as a director. "It is clear from Tixway's bank statements that the company held funds. Entries in those statements strongly suggest that some of those funds were applied to meet personal expenditure of the respondent," he said "Tixway is estimated to have a deficiency of liabilities over assets of around £3m. In the absence of adequate records it is impossible to know how this deficit accumulated," he said. Payments from a bank account included £395,991 to American Express and £414 to a butcher in Grantown on Spey, in Morayshire. Lord Tyre said: "In my assessment, the conduct of the respondent in the present case consists of a combination of dishonesty, disregard for the interests of companies to which he owed duties and of the creditors of those companies, use of Crown debts to finance trade, misappropriation of company funds (at least in the case of Tixway) for private purposes, and wilful breach of a director's administrative duties, the effect of all of which is that the case can be regarded as quite out of the ordinary." Whyte, formerly of Castle Grant, Grantown on Spey, and RueDe Tenao, Monaco, was not represented at the hearing where he was banned. An amendment to the court document was granted to state that his current place of residence is unknown. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u/judge-craig-whyte-was-characterised-by-dishonesty-at-rangers.1412337598
  15. A huge day ahead of every Scots person and I make no apology for posting about the referendum in the main forum today. I hope everyone takes another few minutes to fully consider the implications of their vote. Our decision will impact fully on the rest of our and our children's lives. This should not be a decision easily taken or based on hubris. I'd contend the overall quality of debate has been poor and I doubt any of us can say either side has won it. Nevertheless you must vote with a clear conscience and I'm glad that this website has people of opposing opinions while remaining neutral and, well independent, of trying to influence anyone. It's going to be one of the most important 24 hours in Scottish and UK history. Good luck to all.
  16. Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been banned from being a company director for 15 years. The 43-year-old was handed the maximum ban possible after a judge heard his conduct in dealing with Rangers was "shocking and reprehensible". Whyte was previously banned from being a director for seven years. A second ban was sought by UK Business Secretary Vince Cable after Rangers' liquidation in 2012 and the subsequent liquidation of Whyte's firm, Tixway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29429752#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
  17. ...that is the question facing Sons of Struth members as Rangers woes continue The Sons of Struth protest group this week polled its 1,500 members over whether to stage a boycott of Rangers. The controversial move has divided opinion among followers of the Ibrox club. Many believe it is the only way to achieve change at the troubled Glasgow instutition. Others are of the opinion that it will do further damage to a club facing serious financial problems. Matthew Lindsay of SportTimes spoke to Craig Houston of SoS and asked him about their plans... ST: Why are you polling your members about a potential boycott of Rangers? CH: It's quite simple. In the year the Sons of Struth have been in existence, a lot of people have asked us: "Do you want to boycott?" But we have always been of the opinion that it is a big ask to say to a fan they can or cannot go to watch their team. So we haven't spoken about it in any great detail. But over the last two weeks that has changed with the stories about Rafat Rizvi and the stadium naming rights being sold to Mike Ashley for just £1 coming out. The number of people who are asking us, both online and in person, if we would have a boycott, has multiplied. More and more folk have been raising the issue. There are a lot of angry Bears out there. In the last few weeks we have set up a Sons of Struth membership scheme and we now have over 1,500 members. With the feedback we have been receiving, we thought it was fair and democratic to ask our members their views. We have not told anybody to boycott. We are simply asking their views on it. But, unlike the club, we will listen to what they have to say. ST: What are you asking Sons of Struth members? CH: We are asking them three things. Do they think there should be no boycott? Do they think there should be a one-game boycott? Or do they think there should be a boycott for the rest of the season until change is made? We have also asked them about the prospect of boycotting Sports Direct and McGill's Buses. ST: What change would you like to see? CH: We believe if Sandy Easdale leaves Rangers Football Club we would be better placed to attract investment. In an ideal world we would like the entire board to change. But in reality that is not going to happen. It is a big ask to get rid of every director in one fell swoop. We are aware of people who are willing to invest money in the club. We believe the only people stopping them from doing so are Sandy Easdale and those investors whose proxy votes he holds. ST: But Sandy Easdale lent Rangers £500,000 last year to keep them afloat. And he hasn't called in the debt. Where would the Ibrox club be now without him? CH: Probably in exactly the same situation. I am quite sure if he wasn't involved that somebody else would have put up the money. Certainly, he isn't the first director to do so since we went into administration. One ex-director put his own money in to pay the electricity bills when we were waiting for funding to come through. It is not a new thing. But Sandy Easdale is the first person to have loaned Rangers money at a time of need who has required security on his loan. ST: Why are you targeting Sports Direct? CH: Mike Ashley took a deal that any businessman who does not care about Rangers Football Club would have taken. But we do not want Ibrox to be renamed - for a pound or any other sum of money. Ashley could exercise his right to name the stadium the Sports Direct Arena or he could sell the rights to another company in the years ahead. Rather than wait until that happens we will, if it is the wish of our members, be proactive. We will hit him in the pocket. We will give him £2 if he makes the agreement disappear. He will double his money. ST: You have just over 1,500 members. But the Rangers support is hundreds of thousands strong. Who cares what you think? CH: Nobody in the boardroom, anyway! Seriously, though, if you put all of the Rangers supporters' groups together they would still be in a minority. The vast majority of fans are not part of any official organisation. But the Sons of Struth have members who are different types of people and who are different types of personality. So they represent a broad cross section of the Rangers support. If the majority of them want to take action and boycott I think it is fair to presume the majority of supporters want to. When the Sons of Struth was just two people strong we still managed to get over 30,000 people to take part in red and blue card displays at Ibrox. If the consensus among our members is to boycott then we will put it out to the wider fan base. ST: So if you do decide to stage a boycott what exactly will you do? CH: You are putting the cart before the horse there. Our members might come back and say we shouldn't take any action. But it would be foolish to think we have not discussed what to do in the event that the majority of our members back a boycott. We have a few ideas kicking about. ST: Ally McCoist has stated his Rangers team will perform better with a full support behind them. Aren't you concerned a boycott will harm the side on the park? CH: Unlike a lot of Rangers supporters, I was at the League Cup game against Inverness Caledonian Thistle at Ibrox on Tuesday night. There were just over 15,000 in the stadium. So it was at a third of its total capacity. But that didn't seem to affect the players too much. I certainly respect Ally McCoist's view. It would be far better to have a full stadium behind his side. But I don't think fans boycotting games will impact upon the players too much, if at all. ST: Rangers are in a precarious position financially. Won't a boycott do further damage to a club you say you love? CH: If we do decide on a boycott it would not surprise me the club said investors had been put off getting involved due to the actions of the fans. But we have been told that investment is lined up by two separate directors in the last year and we only started talking a boycott in the last couple of weeks. Everything gets blamed on the fans. It is scandalous for anybody to suggest the actions of Rangers fans are detrimental to the club. In the last two years we have filled stadiums week in, week out. We have bought approximately 100,000 season tickets. To suggest we have put the club in peril is laughable. Certain people within the club should have a long, hard look at themselves for suggesting that and questioning the loyalty of fans. If our members feel a boycott is the best course of action to take then it will send a message to the board. It will underline they are not happy with the conduct of a certain individual at the club or with the naming rights to the stadium being sold for £1. We will talk to them in pounds, shillings and pence. Hopefully, they will then take action. ST: What has the reaction to a potential boycott been so far? CH: It has been a mixed bag. A lot of Rangers fans are already boycotting Ibrox of their own freewill. You only have to look at attendances to see that. They are the "not a penny more" camp. They made the decision we are asking our members to consider now before this season kicked off. Others have not gone to games for two or even three years. They want more people to take their stance. They are telling us: "Great. We hope you do this." But some Rangers fans want to go and see their team regardless of who is running the club and what is going on. No matter what the result of our survey is, I would not dictate to any Rangers fan not to go to a game. ST: Why don't you protest in a way that won't damage the club or the team? CH: If somebody can tell me of a protest that is guaranteed to work we will do it. No matter how crazy or bizarre. We have staged marches, have put postcards addressed to the chief executive through the door of Ibrox, have had John Brown hand in an online petition, have held red card protests and blue card protests. If somebody can suggest something else we can do that will have positive results then we will do that. When you go to a game as a football fan you are entitled to air your view. If the right-back has a shocker and scores an own goal then you can have a pop at him. I reserve the right to criticise the board if I think they are not having a good game. Many people feel that giving more money to Rangers just now is akin to giving an alcoholic you love a bottle of gin. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/to-boycott-or-not-to-boycottthat-is-the-question-facing-sons-of-struth-180991n.25356637
  18. ...until assurances over club's direction are given. The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund set up in 2012 after administration Group has raised more than £600,000 in donations to date RFFF will only give £500,000 to Rangers if assurances are given Ibrox board must be able to prove they have long-term project set up The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund will not pass on their £500,000 kitty to the Ibrox board until they receive assurances about the club’s future direction. The organisation was set up in the wake of the descent into administration in 2012 and raked in more than £600,000 in donations. Money was used to settle football debts owed to Falkirk and Dunfermline, as well as helping pay for the relaying of the Ibrox pitch. The Fighting Fund is now ready to disband and it’s thought they would prefer the money still in their account to be used for a long-term project at Rangers, such as youth development or the establishment of a club museum. Chairman Andrew McCormick wrote a recent letter to chief executive Graham Wallace detailing 13 questions about current and future policy within the club. Wallace responded by asking to postpone any further discussions until after the completion of the share issue which last week raised £3.13million to stave off an immediate financial crisis. The Fighting Fund have grown increasingly frustrated about the lack of progress in terms of communication and released a statement on Wednesday evening to confirm their position. ‘Mindful of its obligations to the Rangers Family and the money we hold in trust, the RFFF has sought information from the board of Rangers International Football Club plc to enable us to make decisions regarding the future of the RFFF and the disbursement of funds,’ it said. ‘We had a meeting on May 5 this year with Graham Wallace, chief executive of the club. Unfortunately, as he was not accompanied by another member of the board, he felt unable to make any statement on areas of policy which we could communicate to supporters. ‘Since then, we have attempted to engage in dialogue but this has run its course and no further meetings have taken place or have been scheduled. ‘With the passage of time, our chairman, Andrew McCormick, wrote to Mr Wallace on August 28 and received a reply on September 2. ‘Having considered the content of Mr Wallace’s reply at our most recent meeting, the RFFF has decided to retain the funds donated to our safekeeping until we are satisfied that the club is financially stable.’ The stop-gap share issue has removed any doubt about Rangers meeting this month’s payroll and will also enable the repayment of £1.5m in loans to shareholders George Letham and Sandy Easdale. However, the club will need to raise further significant funds to make it through this season, most likely via a wider share issue. The distrust that exists between fans and the current regime has caused damaging falls in matchday income, with just 15,208 turning out for Tuesday night’s League Cup win over Inverness. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2760388/Rangers-Fans-Fighting-Fund-not-500-000-Ibrox-assurances-given.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  19. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/salmond-pressured-irish-head-of-st-andrews-to-drop-warnings-over-yes-vote-1.1931277 Salmond pressured Irish head of St Andrews to drop warnings over Yes vote Salmond tried to force Waterford-born Prof Louise Richardson to withdraw warnings Louise Richardson, principal of the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Photograph: Robert Ormerod/The New York Times First published: Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 01:01 Scottish first minister Alex Salmond tried to force the Waterford-born head of one of Scotland’s oldest universities to withdraw warnings that independence could hit research funding. In March, Professor Louise Richardson, head of St Andrew’s University, gave an interview to the London Times which deeply angered Mr Salmond. In it, she said: “If we were cut off from national research councils it would be catastrophic for this institution . . . We would lose our top academics, we would fail to attract serious academics [from other countries].” Her interview prompted Mr Salmond’s chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, to press for a clarification which Ms Richardson refused to issue. Heated conversation However, it also prompted a heated 10-minute telephone conversation – separately confirmed by The Irish Times – between Mr Salmond and Ms Richardson. Ms Richardson, an internationally-recognised academic, has not sought to attract publicity for the confrontation, though it is known that she was deeply angered by it. In an effort to maintain peace between St Andrews and the Scottish government, she eventually agreed to publish a one-line statement saying that she acknowledged Mr Salmond’s government was “working hard to resolve this issue” of research funding. The disclosure of the clash comes in the wake of a series of increasingly unpleasant scenes of street barracking by Yes supporters of the No campaign. Labour leader Ed Miliband yesterday was forced to abandon a Glasgow street event, following the arrival within minutes of Yes supporters, some of whom issued foul-mouthed taunts. Mr Miliband accused the pro-independence campaign of “ugly” tactics after campaigners hurled abuse at him in chaotic scenes during a visit to Edinburgh.
  20. For all you guys who refuse to support your club,shame on you all. Watching the game over here with a few of my Canadian friends, So this is the mighty Rangers you're always braging about asks one buddy. I'm lost for words,and I am truely embarrassed.(okay we won tonight) but the stadium is practically empty,with no atmosphere. On our recent north American tour,we had sell out crowds,and way more atmosphere(noise buzzing for 90 mins.) I'm not sure what's holding you guys back from picking up your season tickets, but I am sure that you are killing our club.as I said before,SHAME ON YOU ALL.
  21. RANGERS still need to secure substantial additional investment to get them through to the end of the season - despite raising over £3million last week. And further off-field unrest at the Ibrox club, where disgruntled fans are considering a mass boycott, could impact greatly on dwindling resources. That was the stark message from financial expert Neil Patey today as he assessed the situation at the troubled Glasgow institution. The SPFL Championship club announced last Friday that £3.13m worth of shares had been purchased at a share offering. But Patey, a partner with accountancy firm Ernst and Young, believes Rangers will only be left with around £1m of that to use for running costs. And he stressed that Gers directors will have to bring in fresh funding to stave off the threat of a second administration in three years. Speculation is rife that Sports Direct magnate Mike Ashley will increase his involvement - or club assets like Murray Park will be sold off. Patey said: "The club themselves stated that if 15 million shares were taken up it would take them through to the end of the current year. "What they raised was just marginally over the minimum so it will probably see them up to just past Christmas. "Of the £3million they have raised, around £500,000 of it will go on expenses leaving them with £2.5million. "If they repay the loans to Sandy Easdale and George Letham in full, they will be left with about £1million. "If they are saying that £1million will get them to the end of the year, that suggests they have succeeded in getting the monthly cash burn down to a fairly low figure. "Broadly speaking, going on the figures the club has given, they will then need to bring in at least £2million to get them through to the end of the season. "Towards the end of the season, the club are going to start selling season tickets once again and money will be coming in." Patey added: "But, again, that is dependent on the fans coming out and buying season tickets. The big thing for the club is fan support. "The club may only have sold 23,000 season tickets, but they are still taking in money from ticket sales on match days. "But if the supporters stop turning up for matches then it will make the situation worse. Fans have a big say in how things go at Rangers." Patey stressed the financial situation at Rangers would improve significantly when they rejoin Old Firm rivals Celtic in the top flight. He said: "Getting back into the Premiership does two things. In the first instance, they get more money from games. "Secondly, it helps them to attract investors if they are a Premiership club." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/financial-experts-rangers-warning-180534n.25322293
  22. Not sure exactly when we'll get confirmation of the outcome of this today but we can use this thread for updates. First one is this: Sandy and James Easdale increase Rangers shareholding by £500,000 http://t.co/eumq4fMPGC
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.