Comment on Dear Mr Bankier by HirsutePursuit.
14th December 2018 at 22:13
1 27 Rate This
paddy malarkey 21.15
In the interests of balance i feel it should be known that the objects mentioned in the pro Rangers BBC article were in fact scrunched up paper balls from the pre-match display and were aimed at the idiot who entered the field of play in a show of anger at the individual concerned.
As far as i’m aware there was no-one else involved so not sure why the pro Rangers BBC mention “invasions” and “supporters” when only one person was involved.
Sick of their bias towards us.
The BBC report is entirely factual. No opinion or commentary whatsoever was made.
The words you seem to find objectionable are not the BBC’s, they’re in the charges as uefa set them out.
Should the BBC not report on the fine levied against your club?
Or perhaps you would prefer it to use alternative facts to explain why your club is being fined?
If they had tried to downplay the moronic behaviour of those involved – as you have just done – we would quite rightly condemn the writer.
That the writer has not added commentary to condemn those morons, is sad if not completely unsurprising.
That the writer does not report on what the club is doing to identify the perpetrators, might also be wondered at.
Any so called fan of any club who enters the field of play or throws objects within the ground should automatically be condemned.
Read the article again.
Complaining that this particular report – lacking in any critical commentary whatsoever – indicates some sort of bias against your club, simply does you no favours.
HirsutePursuit Also Commented
Dear Mr Bankier
I may be wrong on this…
It now seems unlikely that Mr King will be forced to make an offer to minority shareholders. I think the new reality of the current share distribution means that such an offer would be doomed to fail.
So I think the current proceedings are unlikely to produce a further order to comply with the TOP ruling.
Importantly though, it makes no difference at the moment as the order has already been made. It seems as though it is simply up to the judge in this present case to decide if the failure to comply with the earlier order constitutes an 'offence' – and if so, what the penalty should be.
It should be remembered that there are two distinct elements to 'the new reality'.
- The failure of Mr King to make an offer at a time when it would be likely that a sufficient number of shareholders would accept that offer.
- The later issuance of new shares in the company that diluted the (potentially) disenfranchised shareholders below the threshold that would have seen their shares purchased by Mr King.
Whilst the first part is entirely the responsibility of Mr King, the second – the share placement – was a decision made by the company.
In general terms, the TOP do not have any business interfering in the operation of a company. If the company wishes to raise new capital through a share issue, it is perfectly entitled to do so.
But, if in doing so, the company has prejudiced the interests of some of its shareholders and acted unfairly, those shareholders can apply to the court (Companies Act s.994) for an order.
Did the company prejudice those shareholders?
Did the company act unfairly?
I would imagine that those disgruntled shareholders case would be made stronger if Mr King was shown to have acted with mens rea – a guilty mind – by not making the offer at the correct time.
Is TOP looking to prove mens rea? I believe so.
Could this case help those shareholders in a later case? I believe it could.
If a later court was invited to consider that Mr King represented the controlling mind of the company, the shareholders may feel that they could demonstrate a prejudice and unfairness by the company when launching the new share issue.
In making their case, they may, for example, ask the court for an order that the company should purchase their shares at the price Mr King would have paid.
Just a thought.
If I am correct, it would explain why the club may be prepared to pay Mr King's legal bills – if indeed, they are doing so.
Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit
Ex Ludo 25th July 2019 at 13:23 5 0 Rate This https://twitter.com/saglalbachiara/status/1154328172340682752?s=21 Something to read whilst you’re taking refuge in the shade.
Interesting piece by Roger Mitchell – erstwhile (founding) SPL CEO.
His premise, that Roma should be not be thought of as a football club – more a 'state of mind', has relevance in Scotland too.
It's easy to see how a 'state of mind' can survive all sorts of issues that a football club would find fatal.
An interesting perspective from Mr Mitchell – who can clearly appreciate the ethereal quality of a sporting institution.
I wonder if he had that I'm mind when he started his recent Twitter exchange?
There is some discussion on whether or not the £1m cap on damages still applies. For what it's worth, I see nothing in the judgement that has removed it. As I read it, the reference to the cap was in part of the justification for injunctive relief.
That is not to say that the cap will not be lifted; but at this point, I think it's still in play.
However, I thought it was significant that Mr Persey felt moved to say:
Mr Friar was somewhat defensive in his evidence and appeared reluctant to answer some quite straightforward questions, simply saying that he did not remember. I found some of his answers to be unconvincing. He was, for example, reluctant to accept that Elite appreciated that there was a risk that SDIR would make a claim against Elite if it entered into an agreement with Rangers. The documents showed that Elite was aware that there was such a risk.
Presumably the risk involved SDIR claiming damages from Elite beyond the amount they are able to achieve – because of the contractual cap – directly from Rangers (sic).
There is no cap on any damages SDIR could claim from Elite. As I understand it Rangers (sic) have indemnified Elite against any damages claims arising from their contract.
It would be interesting to know if the contract between Rangers (sic) and Elite also has a damages cap.
The "Old Firm" trademark is now jointly owned by Celtic & Sevco.
The liquidators transferred its interest in the IP to Sevco in Nov 18 – and backdated the effective date to 2012.
I presume Celtic must have agreed to the transfer of ownership.
I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the TV deal.
In commerce of any type, an historic brand has a value. But a brand loses value when its provenance is broken.
What, for example, does the MG marque mean to the average UK motorist today? I suspect a lot less than if the the brand had not been bought out of administration and the original company liquidated.
The provenance of the Rangers FC brand has a direct relationship to its value.
There is no doubt that Sevco purchased the RFC brand, but that doesn't change the fact that the original club – the holder of the historic 'honours' – is no longer operating.
Just as the motor manufacturer MG Rover is no more.
It wasn't so long ago that there were two Lotus teams in F1. Both had claims to the brand. Neither, from memory had any direct link to the Lotus F1 team from the 50's through to the 90's. Each had leased slightly different versions of the brand from different sources.
It's probably no coincidence that the Lotus brand is no longer present in F1. The latest incarnations lacked true provenance and (in F1 terms, at least) are no more.
My point is that the parties to the 5WA have agreed, as a matter of contract, that they would present a single front on the matter of Rangers purported continuation. That lie has been used by two of the parties (now merged into one) to sell a product (the TV deal) at a higher value than is likely to have been achievable if the truth had been told.
Did Duff and Phelps achieve a better sale price because of the lie?
Did Charles Green sell an IPO on the back of the lie? Is Sevco still benefitting from that lie today in season ticket and merchandise sales?
Accountability via Transparency.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48 6 0 Rate This
'HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:39':
The players' registration were held by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. They issued a letter allowing the players to be used by Sevco Scotland, trading as The Rangers Football Club. You can see a copy of the letter at: http://www.thefrontofthebus.com/2014/04/when-spl-ratified-sevco-as-new-club.html
Assuming this is genuine, this is interesting on several levels:
Firstly, as the player registrations were held by the "company", the company has to be regarded as the football club.
Secondly, these players (if still registered with Rangers) could only play for Sevco by way of a temporary transfer. However, there is a problem with that:
123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five, of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.