SFA block Ashley from increasing Rangers stake

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think you're onto something. Sadly it won't be to Rangers' liking.

 

 

Dude, though you may not be aware of it, and you could be an innocent in your own head, you go out your way to piss people off. I believe you to be a true Bluenose, I just think you've an awfully fucked up way of expressing it.

 

Your sanctimonious attitude is what goes against you. Being kicked off the RFB for example.

 

Embrace people's feelings!!!

 

I am confident that a lot of people will AGREE with your comments but if you know why I was "removed" from the RFB please let me and everyone else know.

 

My thought process has never been "mainstream" and I am certainly not prepared to meekly agree with folk just to get an easy ride here or elsewhere.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Please stop peddling such rubbish.

 

As is clear from the chairman's emails to Ashley, the KIng offer of funds was very real - as was Kennedy's.

 

That's two options right there. Up to the board to choose one.

 

 

I think you'd have to reapprise that Frankie - cant see them going for King's given their reasons for its initial rejection (evidence of funding/named investors etc) unless King adjusts it to ensure the reasons for the board's initial refusal are fulfilled.

 

Furthermore I cant see shareholders accepting the subsequent dilution of shares even if the board were to propose it, can you ?

 

(Then again given the way this board conduct themselves anything is possible - but it seems untenable they would accept an offer whch they had rejected having detailed the reasons for such rejection)

 

Which of course leaves Kennedy's proposal - perhaps in the interests of the club and the fan base this may well be the most productive offer.

 

PS as per our discussion on twitter - the rejection of Ashley's proposal by the SFA came as no suprise, I said a few weeks ago he was going to have to choose between the black or the blue.

Edited December 26, 2014 by D'Artagnan

[BEARGER 1,829]

Most of Kings fellow investors have been named have they not? FS named 6 or 7 somewhere on here the other day in answer to a post.

[ian1964 10,409]

Paul Murray hits out at Rangers chairman David Somers and tells him to RESIGN over leaked email scandal.

 

FORMER director calls upon Ibrox chief to do the honourable thing as shareholders ask Stock Exchange for a probe into his conduct.

 

PAUL MURRAY has urged David Somers to finally show some honour – and resign as chairman of Rangers.

 

The former Ibrox director, a leading light in the attempt to revamp the present boardroom, is appalled at an email from Somers that appears to show his own self-interest is placed above concerns for the club.

 

The pressure is mounting on the beleaguered Rangers board after the SFA knocked back a plan by Mike Ashley to increase his stake in the club. A number of Rangers shareholders have now written to Stock Exchange regulators urging a probe into Somers’ actions.

 

On Wednesday Record Sport revealed details of an email, leaked to fan group Sons of Struth, that showed Somers feared he’d be axed if Newcastle chief Ashley lost his power struggle in Govan with ex-Ibrox director Dave King.

 

Leaked email shows Rangers chairman feared axe if Mike Ashley lost power struggle

 

He urged Ashley associate Justin Barnes not to mess up a deal to bail out the cash-strapped club as King put together a rival £16million investment offer with the help of allies, including Murray.

 

Somers wrote: “King’s proposal includes board seats, which means (Easdale brothers) Sandy, James and I will not survive on this board very much longer.”

 

Murray said: “If the email is legitimate then the position of Somers is untenable. He has clearly acted, not in the interest of Rangers, but in his own.

 

“Somers made a big play at the AGM of the fact he sits on the board of two banks. If he is as big on corporate governance as he claims he should consider his position. He should do the honourable thing and step down.

 

“This email indicates to shareholders that Somers did not act in their best interests. He acted in his own interests and the interests of only a small number of shareholders.”

 

Rangers accepted an emergency £3m loan from Ashley in October as bids from King and another financial player, Brian Kennedy, were rejected.

 

King said: “His actions could be considered a breach of the Companies Act.”

 

Somers was unavailable for comment last night.

 

However, the SFA piled the pressure on the Ibrox board on Wednesday by rejecting a plea from chief executive Derek Llambias to allow Sports Direct tycoon Ashley to increase his stake in Rangers from nine to 29.9 per cent.

 

The club responded by stating: “The board of Rangers FC are very disappointed with the SFA’s decision and will now consider all our options.”

 

However, Union of Fans spokesman Chris Graham said: “We welcome the decision by the SFA and have always made clear our wish for them to block further Ashley influence.

 

“The controversial email from Somers proves there are alternative funding streams available out there, not just from Ashley.

 

“He is only interested in commercial aspects and his retail relationship with Rangers and all his funding to date has come in the form of loans.”

 

The Ibrox board may now be forced to go back to King for finance after initially claiming they frowned on his proposal because of a lack of transparency over the names of those willing to invest with him.

 

Murray added: “Dave King is still very much in the picture. His offer has never been withdrawn. Actually, it still stands.”

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/paul-murray-hits-out-rangers-4875303

[der Berliner 3,231]

Former Rangers director Dave King faces tax probe

 

FORMER Ibrox director Dave King could have his hopes of taking over at Rangers scuppered by renewed investigations into his tax affairs.

 

The government of South Africa - where King is based - have ordered that all tax settlements from the last 10 years be re-investigated after they found a rogue unit of South African Revenue Services (SARS) had been illegally spying on targets.

 

Just last year King reached a settlement with SARS where he paid £44 million of the £149 million it was claimed that he owed, and in return money laundering and tax evasions charges against him were dropped.

 

However, it is now possible that such a decision could be reversed following this latest investigation.

 

Scotsman

 

In "plain English", I assume the Scotsman wants to say that the settlement between SARS and King MIGHT be reversed AND the investigation against him MIGHT be renewed. Hence, he MIGHT face another tax investigation. What the article actually seems to say is that SARS apparently spied upon certain people illegally and hence their first investigation might go out of the window. Whether another investigation follows that, well, we'll see.

 

In any case, we certainly are never short of such stories these last 3 years. Come on press folk, there must be some ancient skeletons buried somewhere in Kennedy's cellar too ...

Edited December 26, 2014 by der Berliner

[Anchorman 0]

Scotsman

 

In "plain English", I assume the Scotsman wants to say that the settlement between SARS and King MIGHT be reversed AND the investigation against him MIGHT be renewed. Hence, he MIGHT face another tax investigation. What the article actually seems to say is that SARS apparently spied upon certain people illegally and hence their first investigation might go out of the window. Whether another investigation follows that, well, we'll see.

 

In any case, we certainly are never short of such stories these last 3 years. Come on press folk, there must be some ancient skeletons buried somewhere in Kennedy's cellar too ...

 

As I read this case, it appears that the SA Sunday Times started an investigation of their own regarding a 'rogue unit' within SARS that acted in an 'illegal' manner when investigating certain tax cases. An independent panel was set up to investigate the Sunday Times' claims and they came to the conclusion that there was a case needing investigated officially. Now here is where 'others' put their spin on it. Dave King and other high profile tax case protagonists have done nothing wrong here. and are not under any new legal investigation at this point.

[As I read it] in the articles I've read, this panel have urged high ranking SARS officials to set up a unit to investigate themselves. But furthermore evidence seems to be appearing that the SA Government have been aware of this unit for quite some time and may actually have sanctioned it.

Bottom line for me is that Dave King (and others) will not lose any sleep over this whatsoever, and there is absolutely no chance of Dave King being restricted either in his movements or business while this rumbles on (if it does!). It will take years and years for this to come to a head, or it will just go away.

There is no story at the moment regarding Dave King and this issue. Unless of course you want there to be (Jack?).

[pete 2,494]

I've been insulted 3 times in the past 24 hours or so on here and only one such has been deleted by you but two of my retorts responding to accusations of lack of sincerity, lack of honour and insanity have been deleted, whilst the last two accusations remain untouched.

 

I think it is a bit much to think we are going to check back 24 hours of posts. If you send a complaint to Admin with a copy of any insults we will handle it when we are on-line. I deleted your posts because the insults were on it as a quote. If the insults are deleted then your answer becomes irrelevant to the thread. Apologies for that. I have warned SBR to stop insulting people if he or anyone else continues then he\they will face the consequences. We do not take action very often but we do ask everyone to be respectful even if they don't agree with what has been said.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

As jhunter points out in terms of the SFA Articles it does not matter a jot because it is clear that by getting agreement to appoint two people to the Board, one of whom has now beaten off all competion to become the CEO, he already exerts control.

And if he increases his shareholding that influence will only increase and it will be harder to get rid him of him.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

King needs to prove he is genuine. Acquire shares. To date all we've had is soundbites & boycotts and a bag-of-a-fag-packet offer.

I maintain what I said about the other two. Self-important blazer-chasers

You have some apologising to do.

[Whosthedado 1,487]

You have some apologising to do.

 

Rab's not the only one to be fair