Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

so king says

 

it would have been able to provide immediate proof of funds (why did it not??)

 

they would have revealed the id of the other 5 consortium members had easdale confirmed shareholder support (obviously shareholders would have wanted that info before making a decision to support the proposal)

 

easdale was unable to provide what the consortium had asked for and there was no way forward. (what exactly did the consortium demand for the prosal on offer?)

 

think somers is at it and find kings response unsatisfactory as it leaves questions as to whether it was a proposal that could be accepted or just asking too much for the input.. would like to question somers more on what aspects of Kennedys proposal were unacceptable. maybe 0% interest on the Ashley loan but that neatly sidesteps the fact he got the board "cleansed" to his liking with his men now in place. what price can you put on that part of the deal.

all a bunch of c***s for me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE South African-based businessman brands Ibrox chairman "disingenuous" after being accused of failing to provide proof of funds.

 

DAVE KING has tonight hit back at David Somers’ claims he failed to prove he had the finance to invest in Rangers – and accused the Ibrox chairman of being "disingenuous".

 

Somers had earlier today insisted the South African-based businessman couldn’t provide proof of funds and that made it impossible for the board to accept King’s offer of investment last month.

 

A proposal from King's consortium was considered along with another from former Blue Knight Brian Kennedy before Ibrox directors instead accepted a £2million loan from shareholder Mike Ashley last month.

 

And in an interview with Sky Sports News, Somers said: "We had three people offering us funds and I felt it was very important we do proper due diligence on all three.

 

"In the past Rangers has perhaps done deals it wouldn't have done if it had done proper due diligence.

 

"Where (the King offer) fell down was really at stage one. When I said to all three of these people 'would you show me proof of funds?' two showed me proof of funds. The consortium did not.

 

"The second question for the consortium was, 'I know there are eight of you, I only know three of you. Can I please have the other five names?' And the message I was getting all the time was 'if you agree to do deal, if you persuade 75 per cent of shareholders, then we'll show you funds and you can have the other names'.

 

"When I said to all three of these people 'would you show me proof of funds?' two showed me proof of funds. The consortium did not.

 

"It wasn't meeting the due diligence requirements – they were simple questions. I cannot go to shareholders when I don't know all the names, I can't check the names out and I can't put my hand on my heart and say, 'these guys have the money'.

 

"In the end we had to move on to stage two which left two providers.

 

"Then it was a simple case of which provider was offering the lowest interest rate – Mike Ashley was offering zero interest which is difficult to beat – and which provider wanted least security. 
Again Mike Ashley only wanted a small amount relative to the other deal.

 

"Once we got to that stage it was a no-brainer which one we were going with."

 

But King has claimed Sandy Easdale - chairman of Rangers' football board - agreed proof of funds and individual identities could be provided once the backing of shareholders was confirmed.

 

He insisted Somers was "being disingenuous with his comments".

 

A statement from King read: "We had private discussions with both (former chief executive) Graham Wallace and Sandy Easdale in which we told them that we would immediately provide proof of funding and details of the full make-up of the consortium following confirmation from Sandy Easdale that the shareholders whom he represents were prepared to support the terms of our investment proposal in principle.

 

"Sandy Easdale agreed to proceed on this basis. Unfortunately he was not then able to provide the confirmation we asked for. There was no possibility of proceeding any further without the support of Sandy Easdale's group who had the power to block our proposed investment."

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...s-out-4650192?

Link to post
Share on other sites
so king says it would have been able to provide immediate proof of funds (why did it not??)

 

Because King obviously received no encouragement to suggest he was in the running. He had people who obviously wanted to protect themselves until it was required. I suppose they didn't want the likes of Jack Irvine attacking them to undermine them for no gain. Only a fool would show his hand that early. Somers is treating us like fools here. Zero transparency from Somers camp but he says they pulled the plug on others for that reason. Thats why Somers looks like the fool here.

 

they would have revealed the id of the other 5 consortium members had Easdale confirmed shareholder support (obviously shareholders would have wanted that info before making a decision to support the proposal)
If King had received "prove your sources and you have our support", which he didn't get, then it would have been different. To show your hand before that commitment would be foolhardy - Somers knows that and is treating us like fools.. See above.

 

Easdale was unable to provide what the consortium had asked for and there was no way forward. (what exactly did the consortium demand for the prosal on offer?)
Transparency maybe? See above. You want King to show his hand before he even gets a sniff. But you are happy for him to do that without information HE needs to commit. Yeh - the Easdales have been very open to date haven't they? Unlike them not to provide answers to key questions? I think you are approaching this arse from elbow mate.

 

think somers is at it and find kings response unsatisfactory as it leaves questions as to whether it was a proposal that could be accepted or just asking too much for the input.. would like to question Somers more on what aspects of Kennedy's proposal were unacceptable. maybe 0% interest on the Ashley loan but that neatly sidesteps the fact he got the board "cleansed" to his liking with his men now in place. what price can you put on that part of the deal.

all a bunch of c***s for me...

King wouldn't have approached it foolishly. He may have reacted slower than was needed but foolishly - never. He was guarded for very good reason. If you would have committed to the incumbents for little in return then I'm sorry - more fool you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because King obviously received no encouragement to suggest he was in the running. He had people who obviously wanted to protect themselves until it was required. I suppose they didn't want the likes of Jack Irvine attacking them to undermine them for no gain. Only a fool would show his hand that early. Somers is treating us like fools here. Zero transparency from Somers camp but he says they pulled the plug on others for that reason. Thats why Somers looks like the fool here.

 

If King had received "prove your sources and you have our support", which he didn't get, then it would have been different. To show your hand before that commitment would be foolhardy - Somers knows that and is treating us like fools.. See above.

 

Transparency maybe? See above. You want King to show his hand before he even gets a sniff. But you are happy for him to do that without information HE needs to commit. Yeh - the Easdales have been very open to date haven't they? Unlike them not to provide answers to key questions? I think you are approaching this arse from elbow mate.

 

King wouldn't have approached it foolishly. He may have reacted slower than was needed but foolishly - never. He was guarded for very good reason. If you would have committed to the incumbents for little in return then I'm sorry - more fool you.

 

you say arse from elbow but .. I am not supporting the current mob in any way but I also question kings deals. do you know what he demanded in return for his investment or loan or whatever? please enlighten me then you can call me a fool ...he is not transparent either so that's why I am calling him out on that issue.

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.