Mike Ashley calls for EGM

[chilledbear 16]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/after-five-years-silence-newcastle-4197405

 

Mike Ashley shuffled in his seat, rubbed his chin, and paused as he pondered his first question from a reporter, possibly ever.

 

Being charitable, you might say the Newcastle United owner and billionaire was thinking carefully.

 

Others might have concluded he was squirming in his deputy chairman seat at the Sports Direct AGM on Wednesday afternoon.

 

The pause, the embarrassing silence, lasted 27 awkward seconds.

 

Fellow board members glanced his way, concerned. But none of his executives jumped in to bail him out.

 

Was he going to walk out of his own AGM, or stay and do what he loathes the most... speak to a journalist?

 

There was no possibility of a quick banning order, like some reporters have suffered at St James’ Park. No chance to negotiate a cash for questions deal, the likes of which he has tried to strike with newspapers for access to interviews with the Magpies' players.

 

Reluctantly Ashley, wearing a Sports Direct polo shirt and jeans among the FTSE 100 suits, spoke.

 

He said: “Other than to say that it’s been beneficial to Sports Direct and therefore its shareholders, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment.”

 

It was a start.

 

These were his first words on Newcastle United since a 1,600 word written statement following relegation in 2009.

 

I’ve tried to talk to him in the past. First at a pre-season friendly in Majorca in 2008, when he was ushered away. The second time was last year, also in Auditorium D of Sports Direct’s 1 million square metre HQ on Shirebrook, but questions were blocked to non shareholders.

 

This time, I was armed with a magical shareholders’ yellow card, ensuring rights to question the board, and of course, Ashley.

 

This was unusual territory for Ashley, one of the most enigmatic, private, publicity-shunning, successful figures in business.

 

He’s built up Sports Direct from one shop to 24,000 employees and a £2.7 billion turnover. With his spare cash he bought Newcastle, for £134million and gave a £129m interest free loan, while turning it into a profitable club.

 

He’s also bought into Scottish giants Rangers, who are desperate for cash.

 

Newcastle fans, and supporters of Rangers, where he has a 10 per cent stake and secured the naming rights to Ibrox for £1, want questions answered.

 

Like, 'Why do Sports Direct not pay Newcastle United for the dozens of their adverts around St James’ Park?' And, 'How much would that advertising worth if it was sold to another company?'

 

Ashley’s response?

 

“I think I summed it all up in my previous statement. Those relationships are very beneficial to Sports Direct and its shareholders. And I think that nothing else needs to be said.”

 

Will Ibrox be renamed the Sports Direct Arena, like St James’ Park was temporarily?

 

“I’ll only answer the same answer that I answered before,” said Ashley.

 

At one point, Chair Keith Hellawell intervened: “This is really isn’t for the Annual General Meeting of this company. I think in relation to what Manchester United, sorry Newcastle United, and Rangers gain, you’d have to ask them. There’s no-one from the board of those companies here.”

 

Actually, as was then pointed out, there was a board member available... Mike Ashley, the owner.

 

MirrorFootball: “We are talking about a massive company and two of the largest football clubs in Britain. It’s an interesting relationship that’s being forged. As I shareholder I’m exploring the relationship between two very large football institutions and Sports Direct, a very large and successful company. That’s why I’m asking these questions...

 

Hellawell: “I do understand that and I understand your frustration. Please accept we’re trying to be as helpful as we can...”

 

Some detail eventually came from an aide when the AGM has finished.

 

Newcastle’s retail arm, which has been taken over by Sports Direct is worth £3.4m of business the company. That’s £3.4m off Newcastle’s turnover, including whatever profit it brings.

 

Rangers retail business, now in the hands of Sports Direct, is worth £3.8m in turnover.

 

So Ashley has, at last, faced some questions. But more answers are needed to satisfy the supporters of Newcastle and Rangers...

 

Q: "I’d like to address a question to Mr Ashley, please. I wonder if he could explain the benefits to Sports Direct in its relationship with Newcastle United and Rangers."

 

Pause of 27 seconds

 

A: “Other than to say than it's been beneficial to Sports Direct and therefore its shareholders, I don't think it’s appropriate to comment.”

 

Q: "Newcastle have said publicly, for example, that Sports Direct don’t pay for any stadium advertising or perimeter advertising at St James' Park - and there’s obviously a lot of it - and I wonder what the benefit is to you and whether you could give a rough estimate of what it’s worth in financial terms please."

 

A: “I think I summed it all up in my previous statement. Those relationships are very beneficial to Sports Direct and its shareholders. And I think that nothing else needs to be said."

 

Q “With due respect, can I then reverse the question? What is the benefit to the relationship they have with Sports Direct for Newcastle United, in which you are the owner, and Rangers, in which you have a shareholding? What is the benefit to those institutions?"

 

Keith Hallawell intervenes:

 

“This is really… That isn’t for the Annual General Meeting of this company. The first question was, in relation to what benefit the company gain from that. I think in relation to what Manchester United, sorry Newcastle United, and Rangers gain, you’d have to ask them. There’s no-one from the board of those companies here. It’s not to do with this company."

 

Q: "Well, there is one member on the board (Ashley)."

 

Another director: “Yes, but this is a Sports Direct annual general meeting."

 

Q: “I know. I’m aware of that. I was just correcting that error. Can I direct a question to Mr Ashley? Sports Direct now process and profit from the shirt sales and merchandising through Newcastle United, the website and the club shop. Can you explain how much this trade is worth? Is it a significant part of the business to Sports Direct and do you, Newcastle, share in that profit?

 

Ashley: “I’ll only answer the same answer as I gave before."

 

Q. "Okay. A follow-up question. A Rangers director stated last week that Mr Ashley had bought the naming rights to Ibrox two years ago for £1. First question, is this true? Second question, St James’ Park was once named Sports Direct Arena and the suggestion is the same could happen to Ibrox. Could he comment on that?

 

A: “I’ll only answer the same answer that I answered before.”

 

Q: “Okay, thank you."

 

 

Hellawell: “We are really straying beyond the AGM. We’re trying to be helpful."

 

Q: "I would just say the questions are relevant to resolution one in the company accounts and how the company accounts are being boosted by Sports Direct’s very close relationship with Newcastle United and Rangers. That's why we’re exploring this issue."

 

Hellawell: "I think you used the word ‘significant’ didn’t you?"

 

Q: “So are you saying that’s an insignificant relationship between the two?"

 

Hellawell: “If you read the company’s accounts, you can perhaps realise the size of the company and the size of that contribution. That’s all I’ll say."

 

Q: "Perhaps I can ask a follow up? Does Mr Ashley have any plans to increase his shareholding in Rangers to the possible benefit of Sports Direct and its shareholders?"

 

Answer indistinguishable.

 

Q: "We are talking about a massive company and two of the largest football clubs in Britain. It’s an interesting relationship that's being forged. As I shareholder I’m exploring the relationship between two very large football institutions and Sports Direct, a very large and successful company. That’s why I’m asking these questions.

 

Hellawell: “I do understand that and I understand your frustration. Please accept we’re trying to be as helpful as we can, but those are not issues for the Sports Direct board. I think you need to take those up with Newcastle and with… I mean, Mike is an individual but as part of this corporate board now, it’s really not something we can answer."

 

Q: "One not related to football: Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrisons are among the companies who say they don’t use zero hour contracts. Should Sports Direct follow their lead?"

 

A: “I think I’ve answered that in terms of not being able to talk about our employment policy, other than to say we hold them in the highest regard and believe the success of this company is largely based on the contribution they’ve made and we will look out for them as best we can."

[Frankie 8,182]

In relation to that CB, I was quite frankly amazed when the main architect of RFC's media policy since the days of SDM says things will change under Mike Ashley (via Irvine being channelled through McMurdo's blog today).

 

Our fans may want an improved media strategy but I'd suggest the increased lack of transparency under Mike Ashley won't deliver that. Things may well change: mainly that Ashley won't speak to the press at all, never mind engage with the fans. Ask Newcastle supporters and the English press.

 

Anyone who thinks transparency would improve under Ashley is living in another world.

[Hildy 0]

In relation to that CB, I was quite frankly amazed when the main architect of RFC's media policy since the days of SDM says things will change under Mike Ashley (via Irvine being channelled through McMurdo's blog today).

 

Our fans may want an improved media strategy but I'd suggest the increased lack of transparency under Mike Ashley won't deliver that. Things may well change: mainly that Ashley won't speak to the press at all, never mind engage with the fans. Ask Newcastle supporters and the English press.

 

Anyone who thinks transparency would improve under Ashley is living in another world.

Transparency cannot improve under anyone.

 

To improve, it would first have to exist.

[Rangersitis 0]

Those relationships are very beneficial to Sports Direct and its shareholders. And I think that nothing else needs to be said.”

 

Indeed, Mr Ashley.

 

Those words should be on every banner, flyer and press statement that SoS or the UoF put out.

[chilledbear 16]

I haven't seen McMurdos Blog today, but it has to be emphasised Ashley would be a disaster.

[Frankie 8,182]

Transparency cannot improve under anyone.

 

To improve, it would first have to exist.

 

I'm not saying it would be any better under King or AN Other but just pointing out that anyone claiming it would improve under Ashley is being economical with the truth.

[Rangersitis 0]

In relation to that CB, I was quite frankly amazed when the main architect of RFC's media policy since the days of SDM says things will change under Mike Ashley (via Irvine being channelled through McMurdo's blog today).

 

Our fans may want an improved media strategy but I'd suggest the increased lack of transparency under Mike Ashley won't deliver that. Things may well change: mainly that Ashley won't speak to the press at all, never mind engage with the fans. Ask Newcastle supporters and the English press.

 

Anyone who thinks transparency would improve under Ashley is living in another world.

 

Stability appears to be the other new watchword being given to Ashley among those serially opposed to the King camp. I can only presume that is in reference to the inevitable loan never seeming to get any smaller despite the club's income.

[der Berliner 3,279]

Ashley, if getting a foothold or even ownership of the club, will make sure that the club is being run prudently and according to his wishes. One can say anything about you like, but as a business he runs Newcastle rather shrewdly (and backs that up with constant a 130m-loan, IIRC). That is the stability he would and can provide right now. That his main aim has not much to do with anything we would like to see is obvious. You would expect though that his main aim would be getting this club to Europe and he knows exactly that he would have to invest first.

 

I doubt that anyone on here is actuall against King and Co.. The problem with them is that people have lost faith (and in abundance), because words and promisses have not been kept in a way to save our club. Matter of fact, we haven't had any "promisses" at all from official sources for ages from those quarters.

[scott12003 0]

Ashley looks to be trying to absorb another brand name under his umbrella.

 

Why would you set up a company called rangers retail rights limited on 9th sept 2014 and not put money into a struggling business in a share offering if your end game wasn't to force that business into handing over your most precious asset.

 

He should be chased.

[chilledbear 16]

http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-articles/mike-ashley-cuckoo-nest-rangers-newcastle-united/#.VDXHwq3OUGs.twitter

 

I sometimes wonder about the full catalogue of qualities necessary to become rich. Which, you will be unsurprised to hear, I am not.

 

Then I think about the necessary secondary qualities for possessing the first lot annd I’m so glad I’m poor…

 

What can it really be like in the nightmarish world of Mike Ashley?

 

You’ve become reviled by a series of jaw-droppingly bonkers decisions at Newcastle United but you still have the appetite to become reviled at Rangers and thereby becoming a bit richer.

 

He is a man at ease with being hated. He has the sociopath’s capacity for revelling in adversity.

 

Then I think: well, he won’t have the appetite to be truly hated and scorned at both Rangers and Newcastle, because that would be so uncomfortable, so he will plainly be selling Newcastle soon. And then my experience of the dreadful, horrid, cynical oaf tells me that I can’t even be sure about that.

 

 

But then I reflect that basing my thinking on normal emotions is not going to lead me to any proper conclusions in the case of a sociopath. So I resort to facts, and I find to my relief that I am surer today than I have ever been (and I fully and humbly acknowledge I have made some incorrect predictions about the timing of Ashley’s plans to sell up in the past) that we will soon be free of Ashley.

 

Judge for yourselves. Here are those facts:

 

1) Ashley, through MASH, the company of his that owns his personal shareholdings, has issued a notice to require the board of Rangers to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting of all shareholders under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006.

 

2) The stated purpose of the meeting will be to compel the resignation of the chief executive of Rangers and the club’s financial controller. He will need a simple majority of the shareholders’ votes to do this and must think he has a good chance.

 

3) The directors of Rangers really don’t like this idea at all.

 

They have stated that they will challenge the validity of the notice from MASH, and if unsuccessful at this will resist the motion that Ashley will put to the meeting, and claim the board of directors of Rangers is totally supportive of the two directors concerned.

 

4) Ashley has targeted the two directors most relevant to his self- evident and transparent plan to mount a takeover at Rangers. He has named Graham Wallace, the chief executive, and Philip Nash, the finance director. Wallace has been hopeless at dealing with Ashley and has lost the support of the board in terms of day-to-day policy.

 

Meanwhile it’s been Nash who’s taken up the running of the club, and commands the loyalty of the other directors, whom Ashley rightly judges to be irrelevant to his takeover. So Ashley is getting rid of the true main man, and at the same time is shafting the nowhere man who calls himself the boss, who would address any meeting on behalf of the club.

 

5) Ashley, in his misleading statement recently about his intentions at Rangers, he said, quite correctly, that he was not going to participate in the ‘current’ offer to buy shares at Rangers (to help pay the club wages), while shortly afterwards spending £850,000 on shares from Hargreave Hale. Ashley has also declared that he isn’t going to sell Newcastle until, at the earliest, the end of next season. But I don’t think the date of a sale of Newcastle United is within his control any more.

 

6) The most pressing problem at Rangers, a club plainly on the up in terms of league placings, is that they are spending more than they can afford. The snag is that the amount they can afford is not enough to maintain the club. Guess what Ashley thinks about that?

 

And guess who Ashley thinks is just the guy to sort this out?

 

7) The new urgent issue at Rangers is the December payroll. The recent share issue, in which Rangers were humiliated by having to issue shares to raise money to pay wages, was not completely successful. Now the club needs more money. It’s almost as if Ashley deliberately wounded Rangers by not helping last time, but now is coming along to apply the coup de grace. He was first the picador, and now he’s the matador. Ole!

 

8) Ashley is up to the maximum shareholding that the Scottish FA’s Articles of Association permit. If he raises his shareholding from the current nine per cent, he will need the permission of the SFA under Article 13. He must be aware that this permission would be denied. He must in the recent past have investigated what the SFA’s reaction was likely to be. He would love to help Rangers out by becoming more powerful and gaining more shares. In this way he can continue to ride two horses at once – Newcastle and Rangers. But he can’t. He would have to stop one of them ever getting into Europe if he owned both.

 

9) Equally, Ashley cannot possibly allow Rangers to default on the December payroll. This would disrupt the players just when he needs their support to perform well in the league and to get Rangers promoted again. But, at the same time, he is not going to lend the club money when he is not yet the owner. Lending the club money when he is the owner, as we know, will not be a problem. He is, above all else, a control freak. He hates borrowing unless it leads to a tax benefit for himself.

 

10) Now is the time to make his move, perhaps at an earlier moment than he had envisaged. He is going to put in two placemen (he never uses women in executive positions) of his own choosing on the Rangers board to do his bidding. He will then put in train a series of decisions arrogating power to himself that the old Rangers board cannot possibly agree with. That, in my view, will be the moment when Ashley jettisons Newcastle and takes over at Rangers completely. That moment is certainly getting nearer.

 

There will be those who disagree with the analysis I have made of the above facts. What is unarguable, surely, is that Rangers is now in a chronically destabilised condition. And it’s Mike Ashley who has destabilised that great club.

 

He doesn’t care. He loves being the cuckoo in the nest. As Rangers are shortly going to find out, the cuckoo is dropping their club out of the tree. Mike Ashley, the man who has to be in control, is reverting to type.