andy steel 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 It boils down to whether you can accept that assets would be safer in the legal hands of fans or ex-players rather than a Laxey type vehicle. If Gough is the figure, I can accept that fine. End of story afaic, I can't see what the beef is. And anyway, it seems unlikely to happen anyway, it's a lever rather than an ambition, surely? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I think the question of security is a fair question to ask. We don't know the answers from UoF yet but I think we will in due course. If not, there's no chance their fund will be a resounding success and I doubt it will be anyway for the most part. Mainly because fans are unsure on renewals anyway - as opposed to completely swallowing the rhetoric of UoF. In the meantime, it's up to the club to persuade us to renew. They're not doing a great job of that unfortunately by continuing their rather strange and opaque efforts at fan engagement. I'm more concerned with that than any fan scheme. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 5,836 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I think the question of security is a fair question to ask. We don't know the answers from UoF yet but I think we will in due course. If not, there's no chance their fund will be a resounding success and I doubt it will be anyway for the most part. Mainly because fans are unsure on renewals anyway - as opposed to completely swallowing the rhetoric of UoF. In the meantime, it's up to the club to persuade us to renew. They're not doing a great job of that unfortunately by continuing their rather strange and opaque efforts at fan engagement. I'm more concerned with that than any fan scheme. There's a weird but moderately interesting choreography continuing. Both the club Board and the media(particularly broadcast) want to, desperately need to engage with the Rangers support. Both want to be 'persuaders'. However, in their deepest, darkest, and most personable moments, they admit, occasionally openly that they do not know how to engage with the Rangers support. I suspect our support are their own dynamic and it's genuinely difficult to keep up, even when they are genuinely interested. Spiers, English, Spence, .... et al have been evoking the Crucible this last week, pointing fingers in unison and screaming 'witch' at Dave King. The support probably arrived at that conclusion, due to any tangible activity, some 4-5 months past. Further, I am of the mind that Cosgrove's recent actions are worthy of a seminar or two of Psychologists. He is asking questions of the Rangers support, then answering for us, often in a contrived conspiratal voice. What voice does Stuart have for a Killie fan? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 There's a weird but moderately interesting choreography continuing. Both the club Board and the media(particularly broadcast) want to, desperately need to engage with the Rangers support. Both want to be 'persuaders'. However, in their deepest, darkest, and most personable moments, they admit, occasionally openly that they do not know how to engage with the Rangers support. I suspect our support are their own dynamic and it's genuinely difficult to keep up, even when they are genuinely interested. Spiers, English, Spence, .... et al have been evoking the Crucible this last week, pointing fingers in unison and screaming 'witch' at Dave King. The support probably arrived at that conclusion, due to any tangible activity, some 4-5 months past. Further, I am of the mind that Cosgrove's recent actions are worthy of a seminar or two of Psychologists. He is asking questions of the Rangers support, then answering for us, often in a contrived conspiratal voice. What voice does Stuart have for a Killie fan? Agreed - the problem is that our support don't even know how to engage with each other. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,173 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 A security does not convey ownership. The security holder only enters into possession on failure to implement the obligation for which the security is granted. Even then the security holder does not become the beneficial owner do do what he likes. Academic really because I can't see it happening . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 It's not a trust (at least it's not a trust at the moment) it's a limited company IBROX 1972 LIMITED with 5 directors: Maclay, Murray and Spens have been the Company Secretary since 16/3/2014 Vindex Ltd and Vindex Services Ltd have been directors since 16/03/2014. Vindex Services is a dormant company with 59 directors. Mr David Cunningham King was appointed on 16/04/2014 and Mr Mr Charles Richard Gough was appointed on 24/04/2014. I'd imagine that the 2 Vindex companies and MMS have resigned as directors and it is only King and Gough who are currently directors. I also presume that King is sole shareholder and there are no links to any trust, if such a thing actually exists, so basically the directors of the club are being asked to grant security to a company that is wholly owned by Dave King. If I was a director of Rangers I couldn't agree to sanction that, as it currently stands. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,141 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I don't think it would matter who holds the security , its who owns it that matters . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I don't think it would matter who holds the security , its who owns it that matters . I think that the rationale is that if security is held by a third party then the directors are unable to do a sale and leaseback scheme, so it would matter. The vehicle that would hold the security requires further thought. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Would a covenant cover this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Would a covenant cover this? Don't know, but it's certainly a principle that the directors should be exploring. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.