BlueSolace 0 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Could the SFA not actually block the registration of any new players if they have significant concerns over the governance of the club ??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) We have a few more loans to get yet. "Sell Newcastle and buy Rangers. It really should be that simple, but there is nobody willing to take Newcastle off his hands for £250m plus, even if he was, contrary to those he employs to run things at St James’ Park in his absence, willing to sell. There are people willing to pay less. Ashley, though, seems determined to get all of the money back from the £129m worth of interest-free loans still owed to him, on top of an asking price for the business." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/11354647/Premier-League-review-Manchester-City-must-move-to-keep-defender-Martin-Demichelis-at-the-Etihad-Stadium.html There have over the 7 years of Ashley at Newcastle, been numerous occasions when it's been said that he was about to sell Newcastle United. I have no doubt that he'd be prepared to have hints dropped so as to create speculation that might benefit his interests at any given time. Until the club has been sold, I'd ignore all such 'noises'. Edited January 19, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,219 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Dunno whether it was here or over on FF, but someone actually said that it usually is practise that when you hand in this mortgage stuff, the actual deal for it is already been signed and sealed, to be made public a week or so later. As for King being a "convicted 'criminal'", well Sandy Easdale has similar in his CV and it did not stop him to be a director nor the SFA to not object. I would assume that King has by now checked that up with the SFA, even though we all have assumed a lot since all the drama unfolded. Now mortgage or not, if certain people on the board want to get their heads out of the sling for another few months, they could actually accept the 3Bears' loan instead of Ashley's (not that Ashley's men would ever do that). That said, if the facts about the 3Bears loan became public and it would be better for the club (and company), can one not legally ask to remove Llambias et al because of lack of impartiality, conflict of interest and not doing the best for all shareholders of the club - should they still vote for Ashley's loan? Edited January 19, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 As for King being a "convicted 'criminal'", well Sandy Easdale has similar in his CV and it did not stop him to be a director nor the SFA to not object. I would assume that King has by now checked that up with the SFA, even though we all have assumed a lot since all the drama unfolded. Sandy Easdale is not a director of the PLC company - he is chairman of an internal football board. Officially, his position does not have any dealings with RIFC. King on the other hand, want's onto the PLC board - however, I'm sure it is something that he has investigated thoroughly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Well I suppose you can argue the pleas for transparency have been answered as you can see right through today's f*&king statements! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Sandy Easdale is not a director of the PLC company - he is chairman of an internal football board. Officially, his position does not have any dealings with RIFC.King on the other hand, want's onto the PLC board - however, I'm sure it is something that he has investigated thoroughly. However, Sandy Easdale has been acting as a shadow RIFC plc director for quite some time now. That is no more evident than the fact that it is he is the Easdale brother who speaks publically, not least of which was at the RIFC plc AGM in December. Furthermore, as King is already the executive chairman of a company listed in South Africa, for whom LSE have reciprocal listing arrangements, this is very much a moot point, and one which is designed to sling mud and attempt to delay the EGM. Edited January 19, 2015 by stewarty 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Many mocked our attempts during the summer when we tried to secure Ibrox for the fans with season tickets schemes, marches along PRW and epetitions. they claimed it was pointless as the board had declared they wouldn't secure loans against it. They maybe view things differently in light of todays announcement that the board seem to be softening thier opinion and may secure a loan against Ibrox.What can be done and what are the probable outcomes?They could take an offer from the 3 bears and accept their offer to help. The board previously declared they needed £5-6m to see the season out and the 3 bears made an offer based on this only to be told we indeed needed more than this. The reasons or excuse for this wasnt visible until today when the board stated in the statement that they wanted to buy players in the January window. Ashley surprisingly came up with a £10m offer with would require security of Ibrox and Murray Park. Papers submitted to the land registry prevent the stadium or training center from being used as security for anyone else other than Ashley for a period of 35 days. With this in mind, would anyone expect others to lend £10m to counter Ashleys bid without any sort of security? It would then remain that the only type of offer would be to lend £10m but release the money over a period of time for example £500k to allow immediate bills to be paid on a non securitised manner and further monies against Murray Park when it became available and the remainder due once a share issue was announced and the remaining money repaid in shares with the outstanding money against Murray Park repaid or again repaid in shares. This type of offer may make sense but if this is the set up or similar to the 3 bears offer i would still expect it to be refused due to the insertion in the announcement that the board wish to invest in new players this month. They could argue that they require £3m for squad improvements and this would probably exclude any others from providing a multi million pound loan unsecured and leave the door open to Ashley as he is the only one able to take security due to the land registry papers lodged last week. Would you expect anyone to provide an unsecured loan of approx £3-3.5m with the clubs current financial position? Me neither. I would therefore think the more likely outcome would be for the board to accept Ashleys £10m offer and give him the securities that he so eagerly requires. This would leave him with security on Ibrox, Murray Park, the Albion car park and Edmiston House. He would also have all the onerous contracts that he has obtained via the retail partnership with sports direct. Its worth pointing out that he has been trying to obtain 75% of Rangers Retail which is currently in a 49/51% tie in to control merchandise and is separate from RIFC. If RIFC should enter admin then these contracts need not be ripped up. The only possible spanner in the works for the overall control of our club could be a EGM which could remove all those who he controls in the boardroom or the SFA hearing due on the 27th of this month. If either of these look likely to scupper his plans then I wouldnt rule out Administration. This is only now a possibility due to him preventing any outside loans due to the land registry debacle. I wouldnt have seen any judge in the land allow admin before when offers of investment were on the table but his moves could make any offers redundant. This situation has given me sleepless nights since last week. Some dont see how Ashley could benefit from admin, owning all our assets and merchandise deals would make him a tidy penny for a considerable time. How much would Rangers pay to rent the stadium and car park? These would need to be rented as you cant open the first without operating the second and although Edmiston House and Murray Park need not be rented, they would make a tidy coin from selling and please don't use the excuse that Murray Park would be no use to anyone other than Rangers. Ashley will make a tidy profit if he continues to rule our boardroom but even if he feels this is under threat, he can do the unthinkable and still make a coin. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,076 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 To me its simple get one of the three bears to push for an egm . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 over 277000 shares traded today , lets hope its to the good guys 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA 4m4 minutes ago On PA wires: Dave King insists he'll have no problem convincing stock market bosses + football chiefs that he's fit enough to run Rangers 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.