Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[bennett]

1 minute ago, Drew Brees said:

Quite right, ignore the point of the post and concentrate on my choice of adjective.

The point wasn't ignored tho...

[Drew Brees]

 

The point wasn't ignored tho...

 

Why is it when Mike Ashley gave sevco an interest free loan while using a load of their assets as security, he was chased out the door, yet now when this company are giving sevco a loan charging interest and using their assets as security, namely edminson house and the famous Albion car park you have nothing to say on the matter?

[bennett]

9 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

 

 

 

Why is it when Mike Ashley gave sevco an interest free loan while using a load of their assets as security, he was chased out the door, yet now when this company are giving sevco a loan charging interest and using their assets as security, namely edminson house and the famous Albion car park you have nothing to say on the matter?

I'm pretty sure that I have posted about it.

[Forest of Dean]

What's your team for Saturday?

The only part of the team that could really be changed is at centre half - not convinced that Martin and Bates is the answer but there isn't an obvious pairing otherwise.

[bennett]

Stick with our current line up or pair up Morelos and Cummings?

 

[The_Kincardine]

29 minutes ago, Forest of Dean said:

What's your team for Saturday?

The only part of the team that could really be changed is at centre half - not convinced that Martin and Bates is the answer but there isn't an obvious pairing otherwise.

What's the alternative, FoD?  Bruno is fit (apparently) so put him in for Martin?  Not sure it'll make that much of a difference.  I think midfield is our real problem and we're hurting through the absence of Jack and McCrorie.

[happyaccie]

3 hours ago, BobWilliamson said:

He has made mistakes such as Pedro but he backed him with decent money.

He has shown he is willing to spend his money to benefit the club.

He got rid of Ashley and also helped to rid the club of the crippling contracts.

He has helped finance the recent signings which have seen the club make huge strides on  the park 

After having the club run by those whose sole intention was to bleed the club dry it makes a refreshing change  to have supporters now in charge of the club and people who put the clubs best interest first.

 

 

What recent signings has he helped finance ?

[BobWilliamson]

The concern shown by the supporters of other clubs is touching. 

 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

3 hours ago, BobWilliamson said:

He has made mistakes such as Pedro but he backed him with decent money.

He has shown he is willing to spend his money to benefit the club.

He got rid of Ashley and also helped to rid the club of the crippling contracts.

He has helped finance the recent signings which have seen the club make huge strides on  the park 

After having the club run by those whose sole intention was to bleed the club dry it makes a refreshing change  to have supporters now in charge of the club and people who put the clubs best interest first.

 

 

On 12/10/2017 at 16:09, sugna said:

Two brief observations on the CoS case involving King and the Takeover Panel case:

1. King's counsel appears to be making points that don't directly relate to the facts of the case; but instead to whys, wherefores and the consequences (rather than the fact) of a CoD order. Appears to have been closely instructed in the preferred DK modus operandi [does that Chewin' the Fat thing, with fingers wagging at the throat]: legal argument from the Aldridge Prior school of obfuscation.

2. Lord Bannatyne is immediately nipping every such excursion in the bud, not allowing irrelevancies any air time. Quite surprised at how unequivocally he's doing this.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Bannatyne seems to be pretty focused on the facts of the case and has already given some primacy to the Takeover Panel's code. Since no one has ever been taken to court for ignoring this instruction before, the code might conceivably have been a weak point: there is no precedent testing and establishing it for this purpose. But Lord B appears to be taking it as read, and is rejecting points from King's counsel that contravene it entirely on that basis.

Relevance to a Finances topic? Well, King's counsel is making great play of the fact that King is (relatively) on his uppers, and can't source around £11m to assure an offer for the remaining 70% of shares. This is the man who said:

"Would I be willing to invest £30m...? Of course. Sure."

On 06/11/2017 at 12:00, sugna said:

Some thoughts on recent events, prompted by the Rangers accounts (which I've just had a brief look at), and how they might link to past and future events.

This brings in information from a few sources, so it's necessarily quite long.

Takeover Panel

1. According to Alasdair's Lamont's tweets from the CoS, King asked in May if NOAL could make the compulsory share offer, and was told that they could. He said that NOAL may be in a position to make an offer.

2. However, his counsel told Lord Bannantyne that it was futile to make an offer, as King wouldn't be able to fulfill it and so would end up being in contempt of court.

Those two positions can't really be held simultaneously, unless NOAL may have been able to make the offer in June, but can't make it now. Fair enough, not necessarily glib and shamelessly disingenuous, and NOAL's assets could easily have depleted to below the necessary £11m or so; unless, of course, Rangers were to rely on NOAL - and only NOAL - as their stated guaranteed lender in relation to the going concern emphasis of matter. Which they do.

Sports Direct

After the absolute slaughtering handed out to King in Richard Millett's judgement, it was no surprise to see King publicly backing fans starting to buy strips: some of the preliminary remarks in that judgement made it very clear that it was heading towards a highly adverse judgment at full trial, and that Millett considered King to have been disingenuous and not to have acted in the way that a reasonable director of RRL would have acted (which seemed to me at the time to be a hint that he hadn't fulfilled his fiduciary duties). So when King claimed a greatly improved deal - while somewhat hilariously providing as evidence of the improvement some details that were documented to be the same as the existing deal - it seemed like a sensible way of protecting his hide. I wasn't astonished that the Rangers fans appeared to buy this; I was more surprised than perhaps I should have been in the way that it was reported in the news. The story should have been "man claims that 50% is much more than 50%", because they were the "known existing" and"claimed new" deals.

It was also interesting to see the volte face on promotion of sales at any cost: shirts reduced from £55 to £20, then a quick depletion of stock, then no new stock for months. Almost as though the sales push had just shifted stock that had been lying around to Ashley's inconvenience.

So I read this as a bit of glib-shamelessness, to get out of some legal bother: no material change, but a bit of heavy topspin to get it over the line with the fans and save DK from another punishing day in court.

The reality appears to be that King not only had to endorse the sales (his tacit encouragement of the boycott was a point brought up repeatedly by Millett); he also had to pay £3M for the privilege of doing so. Probably still a bargain, especially, as it was paid by Rangers (NOAL can always loan them the money... for equity), and it removes any scrutiny of behaviour as a director of RRL. Given King's actions, it will be interesting to see how appealing the post-SDI deal will appear to prospective new partners, when it concludes. I wouldn't be astonished to see SDI picking up the new contract.

Investment

Not sure what to call this part. I really mean the way in which continued over-spend can be managed, through the availability of some sort of external (to the operation) funding.

There was a lot of talk in the media around the time of the last Rangers AGM on raising funds through shares issues; subsequently, there was a narrative that uncooperative shareholders had blocked this (esp. Super Ally). In fact, there are two possible share issues on the table: a rights issue (motion passed at AGM) and a non-rights issue, based upon the disapplication of pre-emption rights (not passed). The latter is the one that allows more control, and the "debt for equity" swap that we hear about.

The problems with the non-rights issue are:

1. The board can take a lot of control from loans that only they were "allowed" to give.
2. Little if any new money comes in to Rangers.

I don't see any form of shares issue as bringing in money with the current model, and in the foreseeable future. It looks like the only source of funds - indeed the accounts state as much - is NOAL loans. How can these be sold as "to be converted to equity", once the equity has all gone? Continuous dilution, more loans, more conversion, welcome to the NOALStadium.

 

On 22/12/2017 at 12:40, sugna said:

King has lost another case, this time in the CoS, and will be obliged to make the "concert party" offer.

On a brief reading, the judgement is as withering as all of the others that he has been involved in. Ripped to shreds from around para 87. Para 92 is a particular highlight on the smoking gun front, and 102 sums up "the impecuniosity argument" nicely: to paraphrase, "It's irrelevant; but even if it were relevant, it wouldn't succeed."

Para 114 bears a bit of quoting:

As Mr McNeill pointed out, on two occasions the Trusts have been willing to provide money for the purchase of Rangers shares when the respondent wished them to do so. Now, suddenly, when the respondent does not wish to comply with the terms of Rule 9 the Trusts no longer are willing to provide any money. This tends, as Mr McNeill submitted to show actual de facto control over the trusts by the respondent rather than the opposite. I believe that Mr McNeill is correct in his submission that the respondent has de facto control over the trusts.

"He's a big liar."

The audited accounts required the promise of funds from King NOAL, for Rangers to be seen as a going concern. The judgement uses the term "alleged" 8 times, when referring to King's claimed lack of funds. It will be interesting to see how those funds appear or don't appear, to satisfy both the Rangers going-concern criterion and King's concert party reparation costs.

 

On 24/11/2017 at 11:37, sugna said:

It seems very easy to turn misinformation into "facts", with a suitably receptive audience.

Almost every doubt on the board's performance that is expressed by fans or media includes some disclaimer such as this. But looking at the uncontested facts without allowing for spin (such as "these loans are not real loans", or "the retail deal is much better"), the position now compared to pre-coup appears to me to be:

• No NOMAD
  • As predicted by Llambias
  • Despite a clear lie claim by King that he had one lined-up and it wasn't a problem.
• No listing on AIM
  • Not even a listing on AIM-lite ISDX .
• Increased debt in the form of loans
• Same retail detail
  • But costing £3M to get back to that position
    • Which happens to be the entire Sports Direct share of profits for the remainder of the "renegotiated" 7-year deal, at the current annual rate; and
    • Which happens to remove an unwinnable legal battle from the Chairman's horizon.
• A Chairman who has 41 criminal convictions, each carrying a tariff of 2 years' imprisonment.
• A Chairman who has become the first person ever to have been taken to court for not complying with a Takeover Panel ruling on making an offer following concert-party action.

So the only thing that appears better nowadays is that the people in the boardroom say that they are Rangers fans. That's it, the sum total of being saviours. On any objective measure, the club is being run more poorly that it was before it was saved; and of course, it is chaired by that inveterate criminal guy.

As David Brent once said, "No! Judge me on my results!"

[The_Kincardine]

Oh dear.  I guess the grey and green dross getting pumped tonight has impelled their diddy acolytes to go in to full BRALT mode. 

More pish incoming.

[Forest of Dean]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

What's the alternative, FoD?  Bruno is fit (apparently) so put him in for Martin?  Not sure it'll make that much of a difference.  I think midfield is our real problem and we're hurting through the absence of Jack and McCrorie.

Yeah you're right - chucking Alves in after his injury would be a risky move.

Cardoso potentially? To be fair he hasn't shown a whole lot so far either. Perhaps too weak aerially for this league.

In which case it seems that we should just come the starting 11 the same.

I wouldn't start Cummings with Murphy and Windass playing like they have. I hope he starts the cup game however.

[The_Kincardine]

11 minutes ago, Forest of Dean said:

Yeah you're right - chucking Alves in after his injury would be a risky move.

Cardoso potentially? To be fair he hasn't shown a whole lot so far either. Perhaps too weak aerially for this league.

In which case it seems that we should just come the starting 11 the same.

I wouldn't start Cummings with Murphy and Windass playing like they have. I hope he starts the cup game however.

I can header a ball better than Cardoso even with my specs on.  Bruno CAN header a ball but he's slower than me running for a bus whilst hefting Saturday's carry-out.

I'd go with the same 11.

[JakeSAFC]

To any *** laughing at ra sellik.

Its like us laughing at Falkirk, which we do, but we know we're a lot shiter.

[The_Kincardine]

26 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said:

To any *** laughing at ra sellik.

Not on this thread, buddy.  I know we're over-run by the dross and their diddy fluffers but we leave their European frailties to be laughed at elsewhere.

We're here to talk about The Rangers - and so is everyone else.

Edited February 23, 2018 by The_Kincardine

[sjc]

7 hours ago, BobWilliamson said:

He has made mistakes such as Pedro but he backed him with decent money.

He has shown he is willing to spend his money to benefit the club.

He got rid of Ashley and also helped to rid the club of the crippling contracts.

He has helped finance the recent signings which have seen the club make huge strides on  the park 

After having the club run by those whose sole intention was to bleed the club dry it makes a refreshing change  to have supporters now in charge of the club and people who put the clubs best interest first.

 

 

Do you genuinely believe everything you're told without objectively scrutinising it? Disagreeing with how your Club is being run doesn't make you disloyal but in rational.

Dave King has spent other people's money, namely Parks. He's also had your shares delisted and has zero chance of getting them re-listed on any for of platform. Which crippling contracts has he ripped up? Ashley got his money! He also still has the merchandise contract with the Club!

I'm no champion of Ashley but he'd run your Club at a profit and for Rangers* that has to be the first step before even contemplating closing any gap. King has ramped up your debt to circa £20m (don't say "it's ok, it's not external debt".......some Hearts fans used to say exactly that about Romanov) and is currently pawning various assets.

King has 40+ counts of tax evasion convictions, only buying his way out of a prison sentence and let's not forget he actually voted down the CVA and condemned Rangers to liquidation. I'd say your trust in King is misguided.

 

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, sjc said:

King has 40+ counts of tax evasion convictions, only buying his way out of a prison sentence and let's not forget he actually voted down the CVA and condemned Rangers to liquidation. I'd say your trust in King is misguided.

This is the usual tripe that gets posted on here time and again.  Why do you bother?  

[sjc]

34 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is the usual tripe that gets posted on here time and again.  Why do you bother?  

Please point to which part is inaccurate. 

[BobWilliamson]

7 hours ago, sjc said:

Do you genuinely believe everything you're told without objectively scrutinising it? Disagreeing with how your Club is being run doesn't make you disloyal but in rational.

Dave King has spent other people's money, namely Parks. He's also had your shares delisted and has zero chance of getting them re-listed on any for of platform. Which crippling contracts has he ripped up? Ashley got his money! He also still has the merchandise contract with the Club!

I'm no champion of Ashley but he'd run your Club at a profit and for Rangers* that has to be the first step before even contemplating closing any gap. King has ramped up your debt to circa £20m (don't say "it's ok, it's not external debt".......some Hearts fans used to say exactly that about Romanov) and is currently pawning various assets.

King has 40+ counts of tax evasion convictions, only buying his way out of a prison sentence and let's not forget he actually voted down the CVA and condemned Rangers to liquidation. I'd say your trust in King is misguided.

 

To answer the bit in bold. No i don't blindly believe everything i am told. 

The rest of your post was absolutely wasted on me TBH.  You should save that Ill Phil drivel for the more gullible like those on Rangers Media. They lap up all the Anti King propaganda. 

Anybody and i mean absolutely anybody who tries to defend Ashley and his cronies is simply not worth listening to. 

Your concern while touching is misplaced. 

[BobWilliamson]

7 hours ago, sjc said:

Please point to which part is inaccurate. 

Ashley would run the club at a profit.

How many tens of millions did Rangers waste coming up through the leagues? £70 million? £100 million? 

[kildog]

He has made mistakes such as Pedro but he backed him with decent money.
He has shown he is willing to spend his money to benefit the club.
He got rid of Ashley and also helped to rid the club of the crippling contracts.
He has helped finance the recent signings which have seen the club make huge strides on  the park 
After having the club run by those whose sole intention was to bleed the club dry it makes a refreshing change  to have supporters now in charge of the club and people who put the clubs best interest first.
 
 

You sound like a Trump supporter. [emoji38]