RANGERRAB 3,612 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 As I posted yesterday to no reply it's a bizarre rumour when Douglas Park was appointed as a director within hours of the EGM result. Did you point that out to your source? Douglas' group have board representation and while I'd hope there was some healthy competition of ideas with King and Murray, the suggestion they'll have fallen out over less than a million pounds given their solid reasoning for King not being able to commit to the short-term loan seems rather exaggerated to me. Let's be clear: King has yet to be confirmed as fit and proper (apart from an as yet unknown NOMAD). As such if King put money into the club or acted as a director then it may be the case the SFA would hold the club accountable. That's why King hasn't been involved so far which also suggests that corporate governance is now a priority instead of something we play fast and loose with. It's that risk and flouting of rules that ultimately caused AIM to delist us and anyone attempting to say differently is making mischief for reasons only known to themselves. So when will DK be considered F&P by the SFA and be able to sit on the RIFC plc board? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,529 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 So when will DK be considered F&P by the SFA and be able to sit on the RIFC plc board? Well, you'd have to ask the SFA that. I don't know why they're dragging their heels as given the club's financial problems the issue should be fast-tracked. King has also gone to the Court of Session on the issue so that shows how seriously he's taking this issue. One would hope that will happen soonest as well. Personally, like Cantor Fitzgerald it seems, I don't think there will be an issue but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,612 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Well, you'd have to ask the SFA that. I don't know why they're dragging their heels as given the club's financial problems the issue should be fast-tracked. King has also gone to the Court of Session on the issue so that shows how seriously he's taking this issue. One would hope that will happen soonest as well. Personally, like Cantor Fitzgerald it seems, I don't think there will be an issue but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry. Would the SFA apply the same set of rules to King that they applied to Whyte? Or did they sit back,do nothing and allow Whyte to cause the expected carnage to Rangers as it helped Liewell's club get a free run at the CL every year? I'm not King's greatest fan but it would be interesting to see if the SFA tried to prevent him joining the Rangers board. DD over in the East End has a very colourful past over in his native Ireland, especially in his dealings with disgraced former Irish PM's. Was that ever taken into account? Edited April 3, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,529 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Would the SFA apply the same set of rules to King that they applied to Whyte? Or did they sit back,do nothing and allow Whyte to cause the expected carnage to Rangers as it helped Liewell's club get a free run at the CL every year?I'm not King's greatest fan but it would be interesting to see if the SFA tried to prevent him joining the Rangers board. DD over in the East End has a very colourful past over in his native Ireland, especially in his dealings with disgraced former Irish PM's. Was that ever taken into account? Like I say, I think King being declared fit and proper by the SFA (and the CoS) is a formality. However, again, he's right to tread carefully and he should have done the same when discussing our prospects of delisting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I have been reliably informed by a source in the city that there has been no falling out between DK & 3B. I feel really important now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Douglas' group have board representation and while I'd hope there was some healthy competition of ideas with King and Murray, the suggestion they'll have fallen out over less than a million pounds given their solid reasoning for King not being able to commit to the short-term loan seems rather exaggerated to me. Let's be clear: King has yet to be confirmed as fit and proper (apart from an as yet unknown NOMAD). As such if King put money into the club or acted as a director then it may be the case the SFA would hold the club accountable. That's why King hasn't been involved so far which also suggests that corporate governance is now a priority instead of something we play fast and loose with. My understanding is that T3B are unhappy with only one place on the Board and the more so given that they have provided the most recent loan. I see no reason why King lending money to the Club would be seen as adverse by the SFA; on the contrary it might be seen as evidence of good intent. The SFA "fit and proper" rules are clear and he will be judged against those. There is no governance issue here and hence no reason not to lend the Club money. It's just an excuse and a feeble one at that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Like I say, I think King being declared fit and proper by the SFA (and the CoS) is a formality. However, again, he's right to tread carefully and he should have done the same when discussing our prospects of delisting. The SFA's decision on King being fit and proper or otherwise is anything but a formality. One reason they will be very careful this time is precisely because Whyte's lawyers gave them the run around last time until it was too late. Edited April 3, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 DP of the 3B joined the board first later on came the loan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,529 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I agree that Easdale may be in a weaker position than some other investors because of his direct involvement in the Board. What is less clear is the extent to which Dave King and the others had been involved in talks with a NOMAD prior to them being elected to the board and the advice given by that NOMAD with respect to the probability the company would continue to be acceptable to AIM. We also do not know what discussions took place between Rangers, the NOMAD who was willing to take on the role and the regulators themselves. I am unaware of documentary evidence from AIM indicating that the previous regime was so unacceptable to them that it had been intimated to them that delisting was a possibility or was it simply the resigning of the NOMAD was the last straw. We are also not privy to the precise reasons why AIM has determined that Rangers cannot continue to be listed; we have been told by the present Board that it was due to previous Board regimes and this sounds plausible but it might not be the only reason. One might argue that if it was because of the previous regime would AIM not be receptive to the change and welcome a 'clean' board. We also do not know if AIM indicated that if certain criteria were met it might be possible for the listing to be regained. If we knew more about all the discussions that have taken place then we might be in a stronger position to come to the conclusion you seek. Sorry missed this earlier. I think those are fair comments and it may be prudent for Rangers to release more information on the process involved. I've also been critical of King for perhaps being unclear pre-EGM. However, given the problems with AIM and the likelihood of us being relisted on ISDX, I also think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, for some major investors that may be a legal mountain worth climbing but the point I was making was that for those with extra baggage it may be a fool's errand. People should bear that in mind when discussing the issue. For example, did Easdale or Prior consult with the media and their legal teams when the club was being so badly run? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 DP of the 3B joined the board first later on came the loan. And your point is caller.......(they have done the right thing and King has not, perhaps?) 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.