Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

I hope Dave King knows he's not allowed to use the S word when talking about a certain director.....

 

Reminds me of a time over 30 years ago, at the end of the Falklands Conflict.

 

Service personnel had picked up the habit of referring to the locals as, 'Bennys'. As the continuing attire was wellies, overalls, check jacket, and woolly hat, there was an uncanny resemblance to the Crossroads soap opera favourite, Benny. The GOC issues a part one order stating that Benny was a derogatory term and was banned, the terms, 'islanders', kelpers', 'Falklanders', .... etc were all acceptable.

 

The same afternoon, I heard a couple of soldiers referring to, 'stills'. Alarmed and intrigued that such initiative had produced alcohol in the bare-arsed landscape, was quickly extinguished. The Bennys were now 'stills' ie still Bennys.

 

Sincerely, I hope dearest Sandy's solicitors are prepared?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely he didn't expect anything different?

 

So what is plan B or how is he going to make plan A work without the board's cooperation? That is what he should be coming out with now,

Apparently he's saying he wants more talks after the 120 days and to let the board get on with their commitments, sounds like a bit of a ceasefire to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the stills story.

 

Sincerely, I hope dearest Sandy's solicitors are prepared?

 

As for their lawyers, based on FF it looks like people are just going to refer to his factual true previous conviction instead of the S word, so not sure what they can do about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Clyde via FF

 

RANGERS BOARD REJECT KING PROPOSAL

 

The Rangers board have rejected Dave King's plan to ring-fence season-ticket cash, the former director claims.

 

King met with the ruling Ibrox regime on Friday for showdown talks about the club's worrying financial state.

 

The club responded 24 hours later with a statement describing the meetings as a "helpful, open and honest discussion".

 

But the South Africa-based businessman's proposed scheme - that would have protected season-ticket cash from being used to repay a controversial £1.5million loan handed to the new League One champions by investors Sandy Easdale and Laxey partners - was knocked-back by the board.

 

The loan agreement is secured against the Albion car park and Edmiston House facility and will earn Laxey a £150,000 profit in either cash or shares when it is repaid next year.

 

King says the board have addressed many of his concerns about the fallen Glasgow giants' future but revealed the two sides could not find common ground on the topic of season-ticket revenue.

 

In a statement, the Castlemilk-born multi-millionaire said: "The only significant issue that I discussed with the board that is not contained in the board statement is the Laxey loan facility.

 

"Mr [Norman] Crighton, on behalf of the board, made a forcible argument as to why the board considered and approved the terms of the Laxey loan.

 

"The board considered that a combination of legal risk and the current financial position justified the loan terms.

 

"I replied that a consequence of the board's view of the high risk to anyone advancing funds to the club is the board's fiduciary responsibility to ring fence any season-ticket money that is received (even if fans don't request this) unless sufficient committed financing is in place at that time.

 

"The board did not agree with me on this logical consequence but I believe that my observation is correct."

 

King looked set to go to war with the board when he advised fans to withhold season-ticket cash and instead pay it into a trust fund which would then drip feed the money to the club.

 

He made his original call after complaining about a lack of transparency about the club's financial state following last year's £14.4million loss and rumours of downsizing to boss Ally McCoist's squad, which King feared would allow Celtic to rack up "10 in a row".

 

On top of his concerns about season-ticket cash, the former director - who lost a £20million investment when the club was liquidated in 2012 - also expressed fears that the board would mortgage off Ibrox and Murray Park to secure fresh finance.

 

But he added: "The board has now publicly dealt with each of the above. The board has affirmed that it regards competition with Celtic and in Europe as being its continued aim and that this outlook will be reflected in the business review that will be published within the next month.

 

"Crucially, that will allow fans sufficient time to consider the review prior to investing in season tickets but it is also important that the board has now confirmed categorically that they will not use Ibrox or Murray Park as security for any form of fund raising.

 

"No one should be in any doubt that this public statement and commitment is significant and should be appreciated as such.

 

"Statements from a public company board are intended to be relied upon so in a couple of weeks we can expect a business review that will reflect the board's ambition and a funding plan to achieve this.

 

"We can also rely on the fact that if circumstances change the board would be bound to advise the public in advance of this."

 

He added: "The board has now communicated with the fans and has committed to do so in more detail within a month.

 

"Let us give the board time to comply with its commitment.

 

"I advised the board that I would wish to be a part of the required fund-raising as a component of a united fan group investment vehicle. This will require further discussion after release of the review in the next month."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently he's saying he wants more talks after the 120 days and to let the board get on with their commitments, sounds like a bit of a ceasefire to me.

 

Sounds like it but again seems strange. Why is the 120 days now relevant when it wasn't prior to the talks and prior to the card display at the w/e?

 

I hope that the directors realise that they don't have to wait until the end of the 120 days before they implement stuff. They can do it at any point. The lack of apparent progress suggests that they aren't getting on too well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • 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.