Bluedell 5,346 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 AS in previous years I take the opportunity at the commencement of a new season to provide our supporters with an update on where the Club stands against our stated objectives. Three years ago, the Board committed to a programme of significantly increased investment in all areas to ensure that we get our team and facilities to the standard that we all expect and demand. We have had to invest more than we committed to for two main reasons...... https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-supporter-update/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted July 18, 2018 Author Share Posted July 18, 2018 Doesn't say much that we didn't already know. “The initial TP ruling was strange in targeting me personally when I have never held any shares in my personal capacity.” – This is disingenuous at best and appears to be deliberately misleading. It’s trying to suggest that Takeover rules can be ignored as long as you do it through a company. The 30% rule would have been known by everyone involved and is a longstanding rullke, and it's just arrogance that King thinks it shouldn't apply to him. “the TP changed its mind and asked that the funds be placed in an account in the UK.” Did the TP really agree to have the funds in SA was satisfactory and then change their minds or is he being misleading again? I tend to think that it’s the latter. It’s also noticeable that he doesn’t say that the UK bank account has now been set up and the cash transferred. It’s been 11 weeks so I’m not sure why he hasn’t just had it all done in the mean time. Would it have taken this long for the shareholders to get their cash if the cash had remained in Sa and they had accepted his offer? “July 18, 2021” – does nobody from the club proof-read these articles? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 1,675 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 I don't have any problems with King regarding his commitment to return our club to it's rightful place. He has done everything within our limited means to achieve that. It hasn't all worked out as we would wish but it's not due to lack of commitment and effort from Dave King. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 13,688 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bluedell said: Doesn't say much that we didn't already know. That pretty much sums it up. We have our problems but hopefully the board can get these sorted and we can FINALLY focus on the football. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,255 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bluedell said: ... “July 18, 2021” – does nobody from the club proof-read these articles? Didn't take long though ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 23 minutes ago, Bluedell said: Doesn't say much that we didn't already know. “The initial TP ruling was strange in targeting me personally when I have never held any shares in my personal capacity.” – This is disingenuous at best and appears to be deliberately misleading. It’s trying to suggest that Takeover rules can be ignored as long as you do it through a company. The 30% rule would have been known by everyone involved and is a longstanding rullke, and it's just arrogance that King thinks it shouldn't apply to him. “the TP changed its mind and asked that the funds be placed in an account in the UK.” Did the TP really agree to have the funds in SA was satisfactory and then change their minds or is he being misleading again? I tend to think that it’s the latter. It’s also noticeable that he doesn’t say that the UK bank account has now been set up and the cash transferred. It’s been 11 weeks so I’m not sure why he hasn’t just had it all done in the mean time. Would it have taken this long for the shareholders to get their cash if the cash had remained in Sa and they had accepted his offer? “July 18, 2021” – does nobody from the club proof-read these articles? It's been corrected 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,316 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 35 minutes ago, Bluedell said: Doesn't say much that we didn't already know. “The initial TP ruling was strange in targeting me personally when I have never held any shares in my personal capacity.” – This is disingenuous at best and appears to be deliberately misleading. It’s trying to suggest that Takeover rules can be ignored as long as you do it through a company. The 30% rule would have been known by everyone involved and is a longstanding rullke, and it's just arrogance that King thinks it shouldn't apply to him. “the TP changed its mind and asked that the funds be placed in an account in the UK.” Did the TP really agree to have the funds in SA was satisfactory and then change their minds or is he being misleading again? I tend to think that it’s the latter. It’s also noticeable that he doesn’t say that the UK bank account has now been set up and the cash transferred. It’s been 11 weeks so I’m not sure why he hasn’t just had it all done in the mean time. Would it have taken this long for the shareholders to get their cash if the cash had remained in Sa and they had accepted his offer? “July 18, 2021” – does nobody from the club proof-read these articles? BD, does King not mean that the TP ruling should have been addressed to his company, rather than to him personally, as his shares and therefore the concert were done through the company (New Wave I think?) It's probably a moot point and a bit of a distraction from the point the TP were making. I imagine if the TP said one thing (about the funds being ok to be held in SA) and then changed their mind, then there will be a paper trail for that, it's fairly black and white so someone is at it somewhere! The statement as a whole is just a bit of chest-thumping and offers little new information. Re-read last years statement and it feels the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 15 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said: The statement as a whole is just a bit of chest-thumping and offers little new information. Re-read last years statement and it feels the same. He's limited as to what he can say about the ongoing legal matters with SDI and TP. He doesn't mention the two SFA charges and the ongoing process. He hopes, like the rest of us that SG can be successful but it's football and we have to wait and see. What's important is how the above actually end-up and that would need someone with the predictory prowess of Craig to tell us ... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted July 18, 2018 Author Share Posted July 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said: BD, does King not mean that the TP ruling should have been addressed to his company, rather than to him personally, as his shares and therefore the concert were done through the company (New Wave I think?) Given the nature of the arrangement of a concert party, it would be more effective to go to a person rather than a company...which King was claiming he had no involvement with at one point, IIRC, It's these sorts of claims that mean that the TP go with the reality of the situation (who controls the shares) rather than whose name is on the certificates (his granny.daughter.wife...). However that notwithstanding, I take your point. (New Oasis Asset Limited, I believe). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,158 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Grateful for having worked with Caixinha ,good maybe he will recognise a tit in future. 1 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.