der Berliner 3,246 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Reading that ET article all clicks in nicely, unless you look a bit deeper. Anyway, at the end of the day you have to ask: - what is Ashley looking for here: removing Wallace and Nash only from their directors roles, or any job they do at the club in general. - who will finance this it they are send away?* - who will finance any EGM ahead of the AGM, Ashley?* - who would be their replacements (apart from being Ashley's men) - will Ashley do anything to stabilize the finances (despite not being able to buy more shares)? - can Wallace and Nash put something in place ahead of any AGM? It looks like the Triumvirate has to act quickly in getting Laxey and Co. on their sides or we might watch another failure on their part in any sort of power struggle for Rangers. *I harbour some doubts 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 As always, the commentary from Richard Wilson is probably the most accurate: Ashley makes move in Ibrox chess game http://bbc.in/1pQYJWz Not for the first time, the situation at Rangers is being portrayed as a contest between individuals: who is stronger? Who will prevail? The reality, as it has always been, is financial: who will fund the club? Mike Ashley - the Newcastle owner who has a 9% stake in the Ibrox outfit - operates strategically, and his move to call an extraordinary general meeting ahead of the annual meeting, with resolutions to remove Graham Wallace and Philip Nash, is about his own interests. He has, through Rangers Retail - the company he set up after striking a deal with former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green - control of a significant portion of the club's commercial income. Before the open offer of shares that raised £3.1m last month, Ashley was prepared to loan the club money, which would have prevented the need for short-term fundraising. At one stage, late in negotiations, he wanted control of the Rangers trademark. At that point, the board felt other options were preferable to the club's interests. Ashley then declined to participate in the open offer, but spent more than £800,000 - money which would have gone directly to the club had he taken up his option - buying Hargreave Hale's shares. This is typical Ashley: blunt, aggressive financial muscle flexing. But does he want a controlling stake in Rangers? That would be fraught with difficulties, since a prior agreement with the Scottish Football Association limits him to a stake of no more than 10% while he still owns Newcastle. The Premier League in England has no rules on dual ownership, but the Football League does, which would present a problem should Newcastle be relegated. Uefa would also not allow Newcastle and Rangers to compete in the same European competition if they are effectively owned by the same person. There might be mutually beneficial trade-offs to Sports Direct, the company Ashley owns, should he acquire a controlling stake in Rangers. Certainty, Newcastle fans believe that Ashley's ownership of their club is better for Sports Direct than it is for their team. Even so, Ashley currently receives the commercial uplift from sales of Rangers merchandise, which leaves the club's board needing to find additional revenue to compensate. There would, then, be little logic to Ashley being the beneficiary of the joint commercial vehicle, Rangers Retail, while also owning the club. Others do, though, want a controlling stake in Rangers. They are prepared to provide a multi-million pound investment in return. Dave King, the South African-based former Rangers director, has been adamant for months that he wishes to invest directly in the club, while other like-minded Rangers fans wish to do the same. Wallace and Nash have been exploring their funding options, since the club is unlikely to be able to meet December's wage obligations without an injection of cash. Ashley's targeting of the two executives is at the very least a clip on their wings - although there is nothing to stop the board agreeing an investment plan in return for equity before Ashley's EGM. Removing them, though, might make it more likely that alternative sources of funding are agreed to. The Newcastle owner needs the backing of 50% of shareholders for his resolutions, a figure he would reach if Sandy Easdale's voting bloc of 26% and Laxey Partners, who own more than 16%, were to join forces. Yet the latter are represented on the board by Norman Crichton, who has appeared supportive of the executives in recent times. Sandy Easdale and Graham Wallace Wallace (right) is under pressure from Ashley and the vote of Easdale (left) could prove crucial at an EGM Laxey have also stressed that they consider their association with the club to be long term. Rangers fans will recall that Laxey said they would vote with them ahead of last year's AGM but then changed their mind supported the incumbent board. The reality is that Laxey will do what they consider to be best for their interests. So what is best for Rangers? All those involved would agree that it is a period of stability and sound finances. But who provides that? King and other Rangers fans who invest in return for equity? Ashley loaning the club money on his terms? Another option? A combination? For all concerned, consensus is the best option. For Ashley's commercial deal to thrive, he ultimately needs fans to buy merchandise. The Rangers support is fragmented, but a committed group will agitate against any deal they consider to not be in the club's favour. Ashley's interests might be best served by a strong, revived club, whose supporters return to buying season tickets in the same numbers as they did before this summer, when 15,000 chose not to renew. Rangers remain a fundamentally damaged institution. Some directors and shareholders may not want King and other fans to buy a controlling stake, since it would end their influence. But to block that means alternative funding would need to be sourced. Any deal that the board strikes would be subject to shareholder approval, since 75% support is required to approve the issuing of new shares to non-shareholders. Easdale alone controls 26%, although he only owns 5.21% himself. King and others have been clear about their wish to invest. The board has previously decided that the terms of Ashley's loan offer at that time were not acceptable. Wallace and Nash are caught in the middle, certainly, and events are difficult to predict. The situation is clear, though. Rangers need money and an ownership regime that the fans will trust in enough numbers to underpin the rebuilding process, and its attendant commercial revenue streams. By the end of December, there will be an outcome. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Could our resident football administration anorak please decipher this from the Premier League Rules 2014/15. Does 'club' specifically refer to another Premier League club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 and again we have rangers fans desperate to invest and not being allowed to do so. a terrible state of affairs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 and again we have rangers fans desperate to invest and not being allowed to do so. a terrible state of affairs. Quite. Some on the board would rather gift Ashley even more of the club's assets than allow this to happen. Is this down to hubris or has Ashley had some sort of hold over them all along? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Is it possible for the Board to agree to King etc. investment before an AGM or EGM ? If so, do they need Shareholder approval ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 Is it possible for the Board to agree to King etc. investment before an AGM or EGM ? If so, do they need Shareholder approval ? I'd say anything is possible but if it comes to shares then I think a resolution needs to be passed at the AGM/EGM (rule 10 from last year IIRC). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 Quite. Some on the board would rather gift Ashley even more of the club's assets than allow this to happen. Is this down to hubris or has Ashley had some sort of hold over them all along? Some on the board appear to be there as place-men for investors. Ergo, they'll act how they're told. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 You once said you would be finished with the ****s if they got rid of Wallace. You were his biggest fan at one time. Wallace has been a let down, although I don't think he deserves to be a scapegoat, and the Easdales still seem to have an awful lot of power. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Is it possible for the Board to agree to King etc. investment before an AGM or EGM ? If so, do they need Shareholder approval ? Investment would be no problem for the board to accept. What those investors would want in return is where they would be shown up to be the puppets that they are. Every single one of them is in place to do a job, directly or indirectly, for those who are in control. 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.