EdinburghBlue Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 He would have to apply and get permission to become a director, even if he was rejected he could always place someone in the boardroom on his behalf. No. There is a concept in company law of a "shadow director". While this is not illegal per se, it is if you are barred from being a director! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirkirk nil Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Big Derek knew But SportTimes columnist Johnstone believes the SFA decision has increased the likelihood of South Africa-based financier King coming in. Johnstone said: "This is probably a chance for Dave King. "I would imagine there have already been meetings and discussions between the eight members of the consortium he fronted. "And I think there is every chance that something could happen on that front in the New Year." He added: "There are only two options for Rangers. One of them is Ashley and the other one is Dave King. "If the SFA have refused Ashley's attempt to increase his stake in the club then I think the only other way to go is King. This could the best chance he has had. "I know that the members of the group haven't gone away. They have been monitoring developments at Ibrox with interest." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 No. There is a concept in company law of a "shadow director". While this is not illegal per se, it is if you are barred from being a director! I'm pretty sure that king is still a director of several companies? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Apart from the players that were TUPED over to the new company/club during the 2012/13 only one player was transferred for a fee and that was David Templeton who joined Rangers from Hearts for aprox £700,000, all other signings were either frees or they were players that were free agents, same goes for 2013/14 and this season. So the problem is not any amount spent on transfer fees, its the wages those players are/were on. I think that is more or less the point the OP was making - that the money needed to get that lot on the park was so high. Vicky just dived in to interpret it one way as if the players played for free once they'd signed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I don't think Sevco will buy/bring in anyone unless a few more are punted /sold. I mean, who in the current squad is actually going to attract a fee?? Lee Wallace?? Maybe. Who else though? Aird?? and that would be it ( and if they can flog those two, they are hardly gonna bring in more than a months wages are they). The BBC has them as having a squad of 48 players. Fortyfuckingeight. ( they have 6, yip SIX signed goalies) If they really want to save cash, that should be trimmed down to a max of 30. That would save them at least £25K a month surely. There was talk was there not, of Gashly organising some loanees from Newcastle. Two points on that. 1. Will Gashly now take the huff and say no fucking chance 2. And if he doesn't, how will they fund it. Surely they would have to pay at least a % of the loanees wedge plus bonuses, etc etc.. Christmas may be over but this abomination of a club, even after 3 years, continues to be the gift that keeps giving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I see that Philip has made his twitter account viewable to the public again, only downside is that he's removed all of last nights rants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think that is more or less the point the OP was making - that the money needed to get that lot on the park was so high. Vicky just dived in to interpret it one way as if the players played for free once they'd signed. There is only one way to do interpret what he posted Norman. rangers managed to buy the second most expensive team in Scottish football" You just can't help yourself when it comes to getting it wrong lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Big Derek knew But SportTimes columnist Johnstone believes the SFA decision has increased the likelihood of South Africa-based financier King coming in. Johnstone said: "This is probably a chance for Dave King. "I would imagine there have already been meetings and discussions between the eight members of the consortium he fronted. "And I think there is every chance that something could happen on that front in the New Year." He added: "There are only two options for Rangers. One of them is Ashley and the other one is Dave King. "If the SFA have refused Ashley's attempt to increase his stake in the club then I think the only other way to go is King. This could the best chance he has had. "I know that the members of the group haven't gone away. They have been monitoring developments at Ibrox with interest." Very insightful, indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 There is only one way to do interpret what he posted Norman. rangers managed to buy the second most expensive team in Scottish football" You just can't help yourself when it comes to getting it wrong lol Sorry, bennett. Maybe obsessing over all the celtic bloggers and twatters is ruining your poor wee brain even further, but to ignore the wages paid to players as you seem to want to do is just stupid. Were the rangers to net some EPL superstar on a free in the January window, where would his wages of up to a million a month come from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Sorry, bennett. Maybe obsessing over all the celtic bloggers and twatters is ruining your poor wee brain even further, but to ignore the wages paid to players as you seem to want to do is just stupid. Were the rangers to net some EPL superstar on a free in the January window, where would his wages of up to a million a month come from? Thin air? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I see that Philip has made his twitter account viewable to the public again, only downside is that he's removed all of last nights rants. Must be screenshots somewhere surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Sorry, bennett. Maybe obsessing over all the celtic bloggers and twatters is ruining your poor wee brain even further, but to ignore the wages paid to players as you seem to want to do is just stupid. Were the rangers to net some EPL superstar on a free in the January window, where would his wages of up to a million a month come from? No one is ignoring anything Norman, just pointing out an error in Leigh Millie's otherwise decent post, so in the words of my generation,................ Wind yer neck in ya fruitbat and calm down ffs. Auto correct had changed leith killies name . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I see that Philip has made his twitter account viewable to the public again, only downside is that he's removed all of last nights rants. Always nice to see you n Tedi constantly going on about a blogger you have no interest in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Always nice to see you n Tedi constantly going on about a blogger you have no interest in. He's a proper journalist you know, not a blogger..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I believe you said "rangers managed to buy the second most expensive team in Scottish football" The emphasis is on the word buy :-) No we won't get any players in this window, will probably lose most of them. Any spacing issues is the tablets fault and not mine. Typical Rangers fan, Benny. Never your fault, always the fault of your board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Typical Rangers fan, Benny. Never your fault, always the fault of your board. Typical me actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 So if rangers spent 700k on Templeton, what team outside Celtic spent more that summer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) So if rangers spent 700k on Templeton, what team outside Celtic spent more that summer?That was going to be my question.Obviously, Bennett was deliberately being awkward by picking up on the word "buy" to imply that the Rangers squad was not expensive, even though the guy was clearly referring to how costly the team was in terms of wages. It was a tactic best observed when Mileson and Alexander indulged in such unsophisticated nonsense at Gretna. Even allowing for this though, I can't imagine that lots of Scottish sides paid more than £700,000 in transfer fees in summer 2012. In fact, was there only one that did, rendering Leith Killie's statement accurate, even in Bennett's deliberately awkward terms? Edited January 3, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Bit of a tough one coming up for the SFA if King ever manages to acquire a controlling share and wants to take a role at the club, I would've thought. Once upon a time, the OldCo's fans were adamant that the authorities should protect clubs from being taken over by people who weren't fit and proper for the role. I wonder if it would be seen the same way, now that there's a potential sugar daddy with a dubious history in the offing? Edited January 3, 2015 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Bit of a tough one coming up for the SFA if King ever manages to acquire a controlling share and wants to take a role at the club, I would've thought. Once upon a time, the OldCo's fans were adamant that the authorities should protect clubs from being taken over by people who weren't fit and proper for the role. I wonder if it would be seen the same way, now that there's a potential sugar daddy with a dubious history in the offing? I don't think it will be a problem - there's probably a "pyoor rainjurs man" clause in the new rules... -1 Quote Link to comment 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.