Dear Mr Bankier


Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment.  Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)

The following is the text of that communication;

Mr I Bankier,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE


Dear Mr Bankier,

“Resolution 12”

You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.

I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).

As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.

Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]

In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.

In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.

In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]

This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.

To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.

It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:

  1. Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
  2. If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
  3. If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
  4. If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
  5. If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
  6. Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?

The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.

In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.

There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.

In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.

However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

name and address


  1. easyJambo 

    9th December 2018 at 15:44


    That's pretty much how I see it, they have what they wanted out of the situation.


  2. Portbhoy,

         "I'm more surprised than frustrated" (40 secs).

         It's very very frustrating, at the moment, (1:20)


         Bugger me that must have been some surprise then !   angry

  3. CO, did you see the Celtic fans being interviewed after the Killie game straight after Gerrards piece? ….. excellent!

  4. I'm hearing one of our players is a rank bad yin, and , if the reports are true , I hope he gets what he deserves .

  5. Graham Spiers is giving it the old nod and a wink that the BBC and Rangers are about to patch up their differences.  This raises serious questions for me in that for any dispute in any walk of life to be resolved there has to be a bit of come and go from both sides. What are the BBC offering Rangers, which is fair to assume is not on offer to any other club? Whatever you think of Dave King he has shown himself to be an intransigent man who is willing to dour out situations for the long haul, and in my view there would be no patch up without concessions being secured. It's one to watch out for, although at times it's hard to wonder how much more sycophantic BBC could be towards them anyway. It's as if they are almost begging for Rangers to love them. 

  6. UptheHoops@07.24

    Chris McLaughlin about to get promoted and thereby clearing the way for the national broadcasters return? 

    I’d like to think that if the BBC return, Michael Stewart would be allowed to comment on the sectarian singing which is still evident among the supporters. 

  7. Ex Ludo 08.32

    Has he ever commented on the sectarian singing by the Celtic support?.

    If not then why should he mention Rangers?.


  8. slimjim 10th December 2018 at 09:26






    Rate This



    Ex Ludo 08.32

    Has he ever commented on the sectarian singing by the Celtic support?.

    If not then why should he mention Rangers?.




    You can never resist the whatabootery.


  9. slimjim

    10th December 2018 at 09:26


    I would hope that if the supporters of any club indulged in sectarian singing then the national broadcaster would not only be allowed to discuss it, they would be encouraged to do so.

    By everyone.                   

  10. shug 10.05

    A simple no would have sufficed.


    Homunculus 10.30

    Totally agree.

    There are however some on here who can’t resist the temptation to single out Rangers whilst ignoring others.

  11. Slimjim@09.26

    Forgive my paranoia however I remain eternally suspicious of the BBC’s impartiality in such matters. In recent weeks elements within the Aberdeen and Hearts support have done their respective clubs no favours and it is clearly not just a two club problem. What I am suggesting is that the BBC might view avoiding criticism of *Rangers as the price of any reconciliation.

  12. Ex Ludo 12.26.

    No idea what the Aberdeen support have done but i am well aware of the recent problems at Tynecastle regarding the throwing of coins, assaults on players,fans fighting on the park and racist abuse aimed at an opposition player. Imagine the outcry on here had these events taken place at Ibrox.angel

    The reconciliation you refer to was of course mentioned by GS and was immediately dismissed by a Rangers forum with close links to the club so make of that what you want.

  13. slimjim 10th December 2018 at 12:42

    Scott Brown attacked on the field of play, Scott Sinclair racially abused and coins and lighter batteries thrown at Leigh Griffiths – not a mention in the papers, on the telly, or more worryingly no mention from the SFA or Police Scotland and hee haw done about it. People in Glass houses SJ laugh

  14. A Dons fan spewed out some racist stuff at Scott Sinclair.  Roundly condemned across the board including, of course, Dons players, management and fans.  A no brainer that this kind of low life exists all over the place.  It should always be called out, as it was and as the Hertz thing was.  Not sure why this might affect the non calling out of sectarian singing en masse?  If it was my club… well it wouldn't be my club, I'd leave it to the scum if they couldn't be cleared out.


  15. borderman67  @12.55


    You forgot about the "split heid" the linesman at the Livie v r game received.


  16. Borderman 67.

    I could of have mentioned historical events at Celtic park involving Rangers players including each and every type of moronic behaviour you refer to but decided not to. 



  17. A previous SPL CEO Andy Mitchell is quoted as complaining that fellow CFC supporters are obsessed with Rangers, 2012, etc, and we should "move on".

    He's entitled to his own opinion. Absolutely.


    But, you would think that he would also be very keen to know what the SFA has learned – and changed / improved – since 2012?

    Personally, I would gladly move on… but only if the SFA can satisfactorily answer 2 simple questions;

    1) Is the SFA actively monitoring the current financial situation at Ibrox – on behalf of all clubs and their supporters – to avoid a repeat of 2012?


    2) If TRFC was to go bust etc. can the SFA guarantee that -unlike in 2012 – the club would be treated in a totally fair and transparent manner?

    If the SFA can't , [or won't], answer both questions -in the affirmative – then I will continue to be "obsessed" with unpunished, massive cheats blighting Scottish football.

    …and I ain't "moving on" for anybody!

  18. ‘….slimjim 10th December 2018 at 10:32

    '…some on here who can’t resist the temptation to single out Rangers .'

    There are many on here who know that the defunct Rangers of SDM/CW were deserving of every possible condemnation by, and the  angry contempt of, honest football clubs , football supporters, and sports people generally for the outrageous cheating indulged in for a decade by its 'owners': 

    and there are many who also believe that the new club is living a lie, and is governed by men whom  I personally would not want to be nearer to than ,say, the distance between the dock and the public benches in a court of law!

    There is an abiding stench, a stench that  all the pages of SMSM and Ibrox PR spin , if made into a gigantic fan, could not waft away, even if it were powered by the megawatts used by BBC Scotland transmitters.

    The sheer enormity of what SDM/CW/CG/DCK/the SFA  have done/ are continuing to do to the Truth of Scottish Football is incalculable.

    It is not to be wondered at that any other stones that may be thrown against both deceitful 'Rangers' clubs are thrown!

    Both the 'Rangers'es singled themselves out by being 'sports'  cheats.

    There is no defending them, or the SFA, on that score

    Which, of course, is not to say that other clubs may not be guilty of  non-sports crimes ,such as sectarian/political "hate crimes".

    And I am no defender of such as perpetrate such crimes.







  19. Well, from the evidence of my ears at least I don't believe that there is any sectarian singing at Celtic Park. There are plenty of idiots who belt out songs supporting a proscribed terror group but I don't believe that could be classed as sectarian. I know plenty of Celtic fans who are ashamed of these idiots and have complained to the club as for the most part it originates in the section of the ground that the club have given to the green brigade. I am also aware that the club will be taking steps to stamp it out.

  20. It's a funny old game. 

    I'm sure the name 'Cruz Azul' is not one that’s familiar to us all. 

    And why should it: they are, after all, merely a Mexican football club that hasn't won the Mexican Premier Division in 21 years.

    Yet here they are, on the brink of a wee bit of history. (See:

    'So what?'  says you.

    Well, who should their manager be other than our old pal, the much maligned, Pedro Caixinha.

    Go, Pedro … !

  21. Sorry about the twitter link in my last comment – it wasn't meant to be there . It should have been replying to Stevie BC . I'd never seen it before and don't know how I managed to acquire it . Should mibbes start reading what I'm about to post before I post it !

  22. borderman67 10th December 2018 at 12:55


    Not sure on no coverage or "hee haw done about it" is true. I remember the Sinclair incident being a lead story for the sports section on the news and follow-ups over the following e.g. the 'Love Celtic, Hate Racism' t-shirt, Foderingham spoke out on it etc.

    Re: Police Scotland. The individuals responsible for the Sinclair and Brown incidents both ended up in court. Similarly, there's someone due in court this month for the Livingston coin incident Higgy's Shoes mentioned. 

    This trip down memory lane looks to have been brought on by claims of pro-RFC BBC bias/sycophancy. Could someone let me know of another media organisation that is bias in favour of something and simultaneously boycotting it?

  23. It looks like the SMSM will be cranking up the pressure and negative news on CFC, in the run up to the game at Ibrox on the 29th, [and with no respect given to Killie or other clubs].


    TRFC dropping points, entering their annual search for a crisis loan to keep the lights on, a manager looking for new players whilst the Board is looking to offload any players to raise cash, etc.  All sounds boringly familiar.

    But, this time King is on the back foot, IMO.

    Gerrard has done well to achieve Europa qualification.  His stock maybe falling locally just now as his team remains erratic in the League.

    And the irony is that the vastly over rated Morelos could be the tug-of-war catalyst which kicks off open warfare via the Scottish and English media: armed by King and Gerrard respectively.

    Gerrard doesn't have to back down as he has nothing to lose, IMO.  He may have done enough already to secure a Championship gig?

    I'm sure his advisors are already putting out their feelers discreetly, to hedge his bets.

    January could be popcorn time for any Ibrox 'obsessives'.


  24. Shug 16.29

    He could just have regurgitated any one of his blogs from recent years as they all contain the same narrative.


  25. Dr Mo 10th December 2018 at 17:15

    Could you post a link to where the BBC said it was boycotting TRFC (RFC being IL) . 

    TRFC banned a reporter as it took issue with his coverage of stories about them . The BBC then declined to cover events from inside Ibrox until the ban was lifted and the reporters access reinstated (my understanding) .

  26. At the recent TOP v King hearing, I joked with Chris McLauglin, asking if he was allowed to ask Dave King a few questions outside the court room. He responded by saying "I'm not sure if he is allowed to speak to me".

  27. Dr Mo 10th December 2018 at 19:55


    THE BBC have once again decided to boycott Rangers after the club reimposed a ban on sports reporter Chris McLaughlin, according to The Herald.

    Read more at:

    As stated , according to the Herald .

    The BBC statement doesn't mention "boycott" .

    “We will continue to report on Rangers both on and off the pitch and will feature match action where appropriate but, until this issue is resolved, we will not be sending journalists to Ibrox or attending Rangers’ press conferences.”

    So ill looking for a link where the BBC say they are boycotting Ibrox/TRFC .


  28. "People knock on the door,people shake their head when they are not in the team. People are disappointed.

    But when you are given a chance,go and back it up.

    There will be less knocks at the door,if players are honest with themselves and watch that performance back, i don't think they have a leg to stand on.

    But i would welcome the knocks because i have all the evidence and ammunition to show them why they are not in the team.


    Mr Gerrard we would like to buy one of your players you value him at £2million. We believe this is too high and will offer 50k.

    But he is worth £2mill.

    Mr Gerrard go have a look at your evidence and ammunition that shows why this player is  in the first team, then come back to us with a figure that is not £2 mill


    Transfer business the steven Gerrard way.

    Slag players in the media and state that you have evidence and ammunition to show them why they are not good enough to get a game, then try and flog them for top dollar in the transfer window.

  29. "The BBC will not be sending journalists to I brox  or attending Rangers (sic) press conferences"


    they may not have mentioned the word boycott, but if the above is not a boycott then what is it?


  30. I watched the highlights of the Rangers game on the BBC the other night.

    I then listened to the presenter and two pundits discussing the game.

    If you want to see the highlights of the Dundee v Rangers 1-1 draw you can get them here.

    Ten-man Dundee moved off the bottom of the Scottish Premiership as they held out for a draw against Rangers.

    The BBC are really bad at doing boycotts.


  31. Higgy's Shoes 

    10th December 2018 at 21:05

    … but if the above is not a boycott then what is it?


    I think I can answer that.

    Its the BBC telling a club "You don't tell us who we get to cover stories about you, we make that decision"

    The BBC are not "boycotting Rangers" that is patent nonsense. 

  32. Higgy's Shoes 10th December 2018 at 21:05

    "The BBC will not be sending journalists to I brox  or attending Rangers (sic) press conferences"

    they may not have mentioned the word boycott, but if the above is not a boycott then what is it?



    I suppose you could call it a withdrawal of reporting in protest at Rangers' decision, though at that stage you're just splitting hairs. I think there's some confusion either that boycott is pejorative or means pretending something doesn't exist. For brevity, I'll stick to boycott. 

    Semantics aside, I'm just genuinely puzzled by the idea that pursuing a boycott and being favourably biased could work together. Seems straightforward to me that if the BBC wanted to show favour to RFC they might have just voluntarily stopped sending McLaughlin the first or second time he was banned. Or made some move to resolve the third time over the last 3 years or so. 

    I'll clarify this isn't a claim that the BBC is anti-Rangers. I think the BBC stance is consistent with indifference around the issue, but seems a real stretch to argue for positive bias.  

  33. Dunderheid 10th December 2018 at 14:57

    It's a funny old game. Cruz Azul managed by Caixinha on the brink of a wee bit of history. (See:

    Was in Cuba for 2 weeks holiday (I know, you were all wondering where I was…) – lousy web access but wall to wall Pedro interviews. Though it does look like CF America are the form team… Good luck Pedro.

    As for the recent racism shown to Scott Sinclair, the traditional silence from the SP(F)L on contentious matters is in stark contrast to the authorities' backing given to Raheem Sterling in light of recent racial abuse. Plus ca change.

  34. Interesting to see a wee spat re the word 'boycott' and how the Ibrox/BBC fall out was reported by the SMSM as opposed to what both T'Rangers and the BBC have said.

    If only some folk had been so willing to understand and agree with the terms used by the SMSM in relation to Liquidation,  Rangers RIP etc etc 

  35. I think the allegations of a BBC pro-Rangers bias is based mainly on their failure to report the truth about Rangers, and the authorities. Less than on the situation surrounding Chris McLaughlin.

  36. Big Pink 11th December 2018 at 11:05

    '…I think the allegations of a BBC pro-Rangers bias is based mainly on their failure to report the truth about Rangers, and the authorities. Less than on the situation surrounding Chris McLaughlin'

    I agree.

    McLaughlin was banned only in 2015!

    But it was in June of 2013 that BBC Scotland had, disgracefully and cravenly, given in to the[thank God, now abolished] Editorial Standards Committee  when that Committee [of, of course, the 'great and the good' in the eyes of the Establishment ]  invented ,or capitalised on ,the nonsense that it was the company that was liquidated, not the 'club'  .

    Thereafter, the BBC settled for the quiet life, stifling all on-air / on-screen questioning into  the whole murky, rotten years of SDM's perversion of our 'sport' and the ready acceptance of that perversion by our Football Governance bodies.

    But of course, not even the [ happily now defunct] Editorial Standards Committee could have lived with the idea that any particular business, or organisation or individual should be able to overtly dictate to them , whatever might be the nods and winks  in private.

    In the larger scheme, a piddling little football club cannot, any more than a Hitler/ Putin/Trump/May, be allowed to be seen to have the 'BBC'  at their beck and call in the way that they have had, and continue to have, individual salaried employees of the BBC bending every effort to try to convince us that The Rangers FC of 2012 origin is the Rangers Football Club founded in 1872.
    So,they have to resist pressure to field only ‘chosen’ reporters.





  37. Dr Mo

    11th December 2018 at 08:23


    I suppose you could call it a withdrawal of reporting in protest at Rangers' decision, though at that stage you're just splitting hairs.


    Would it be splitting hairs to say that is just wrong.

    The BBC are reporting on Rangers on TV, Radio and On-Line, on a regular basis.

    Here is the part of their website dedicated to Rangers.

    There has been no "withdrawal of reporting" you just made that up.

  38. Homunculus 11th December 2018 at 14:38

    '  Here is the part of their website dedicated to Rangers.

    There has been no "withdrawal of reporting" you just made that up.'


    Not only is the BBC reporting, but reporting in propagation of the lie that TRFC Ltd of 2012 is the same Rangers that went into Liquidation!

    Some folk are never happy, even when people throw away their personal integrity to support untruth.


  39. Homunculus 11th December 2018 at 14:38 3 0 Rate This Dr Mo 11th December 2018 at 08:23 I suppose you could call it a withdrawal of reporting in protest at Rangers' decision, though at that stage you're just splitting hairs. ========================================== Would it be splitting hairs to say that is just wrong. The BBC are reporting on Rangers on TV, Radio and On-Line, on a regular basis. Here is the part of their website dedicated to Rangers. There has been no "withdrawal of reporting" you just made that up.


    thanks Homunculus that’s what I was thinking. I was beginning to fear I was hearing things from the radio when Chic and Steven Thomson seem to be looking at TV pictures from Ibrox and providing updates to Sportsound

  40. Who is responsible for no radio commentary / live TV action from Ibrox?

    Have rangers told the BBC to stay away or have the BBC decided to stay away?

    1 honestly don't  remember who instigated this.


  41. Higgy's Shoes 11th December 2018 at 15:58


    IIRC there was a previous dispute between BBC and Rangers which was resolved. Not very long after Chris McLaughlin of BBC reported the fact that some Rangers fans had been arrested for sectarian offences at a game at Easter Road. Rangers took exception to this fact being reported and said McLaughlin was no longer welcome at Ibrox which in turn led to the current dispute.  

    The BBC very often now simply lift sugar coated coverage directly from the Rangers website, while other clubs are subjected to critical analysis.

  42. Higgy's Shoes 

    11th December 2018 at 15:58


    Who is responsible for no radio commentary / live TV action from Ibrox?


    Forgive my ignorance.

    Do the BBC provide live tv coverage from any SPFL Premiership ground.

    I genuinely don't know either way.

  43. The Crown office confirmed that king's ban from dealing in” realisable property” in scotland has been in force since 2006.

    Realisable property is a legal catch-all term for property or cash assets of any description, so the order effectively prevents king from investing in any takeover of rangers. He would require the permission of the court of session to move or transfer assets in scotland to fund any takeover.

     A  Crown office spokesman said "we can confirm that David Cunningham king is the subject of a restraint order. It would not be appropriate to comment further on an ongoing case.


    I take it he is not barred now.


  44. Well McGregor is back having walked away, Lafferty is back having walked away.

    Why not Davis as well.

    Its good to see such a new club developing youth and looking to the future. 

  45. Homunculus 11th December 2018 at 21:27
    Southampton paid £800,000 for him,Could be spun, we got a fee for him that stopped people losing their jobs. And he was glad an ibrox club got some money for him.

  46. Homunculus 11th December 2018 at 14:38

    Would it be splitting hairs to say that is just wrong.

    The BBC are reporting on Rangers on TV, Radio and On-Line, on a regular basis.

    Here is the part of their website dedicated to Rangers.

    There has been no "withdrawal of reporting" you just made that up.


    No, that wouldn't be splitting hairs. It would be applying some faulty logic. The Sun have a web page for Liverpool FC and write match reports etc. Wouldn't a similar argument to yours conclude that LFC haven't banned them? 

    The strange thing is you realise there's a reporting impact e.g. your initial take on why it wasn't a boycott was 

    Its the BBC telling a club  "You don't tell us who we get to cover stories about you, we make that decision"

    So McLaughlin's credentials being removed prevented him from covering stories. Which contradicts your more recent take that no one at the BBC using press access to Rangers represents intact reporting. 

    For clarity, the BBC "boycotting" doesn't mean pretending something doesn't exist. I think BBC (or media) blackout would be the term for that. 

    To give an example that people might be less emotionally invested in: there was some discussion around a White House boycott when CNN's Jim Acosta had his press pass pulled last month.
    I don't think anyone who knows what the word boycott means would think that the suggestion was news organisations would stop discussing anything to do with the President. 

    Hopefully the above (or a dictionary) resolves the boycott confusion. Making another at the substantive issue here. Could someone explain the tension between 

    (i) the idea that the BBC are predisposed to give Rangers ongoing favourable treatment
    (ii) the BBC are boycotting

    I think the only response on this is that the BBC continue to follow a five and a half year old decision from the BBC Trust around RFC's continuity.

    I'm not sure to what extent that represents ongoing. That said, given that BBC Scotland argued against the Trust decision on RFC reporting would suggest the boots on the ground are 'new club', but operating under editorial constraints. Something like that recent Douglas Fraser piece springs to mind. 

    More simply: wouldn't a pro-RFC BBC have started reporting RFC continuity before a complaints procedure made them?

  47. Each time I read the word "boycott" I think the user should be obliged to reference the origin of the word and compare the facts then with the current case to show an equivalence.

    The word comes from Charles Cunningham Boycott; an English Land Agent in Ireland who acted in a certain way and those affected acted in a certain way.

    Following Sevconian genealogy, in which ancestry can be traced through your middle name, David Cunningham King has described the historical treatment of Boycott as Romish running dog lies, Chris Cunningham Graham has Ze List of haters and James Cunningham Traynor knows where we all live.

    Whether there is a boycott by the BBC or not I neither know nor care.

    What I do know is there is a Mo by me.


  48. Ex Ludo 13.22

    Even Allan McGregor couldn’t save her.

    Just been told the news regarding Leigh Griffiths and genuinely hope he gets the help and support he obviously needs.

  49. Dave King is just a couple of days away from the next deadline imposed by his undertaking to the Court of Session, to appoint an acceptable "cash confirmer" with a UK presence and a "legal advisor", by close of business on Friday.

    Here's what the undertaking said:

    Take all such steps as are required to instruct a third party cash confirmer in the United Kingdom (the “Cash Confirmer”) that is considered appropriate by the Panel and confirmed as such by the Panel in writing, as soon as practicable and in any event by no later than 17:30GMT on 14 December 2018, being the date that is two weeks from the date of this undertaking, to do all such things as are required in order to provide a public cash confirmation statement for the purpose of assisting Laird Investments (Pty) Limited (“Laird”) to make an offer for the entire issued share capital of Rangers International Football Club Plc (“Rangers”) on a fully diluted basis (or on such other basis as is agreed in writing by the Panel and the Cash Confirmer) (“the Offer”) including, if required, transferring all such funds as are required into the United Kingdom.

    …… and

    To appoint a legal advisor by 17:30GMT on 14 December 2018 to undertake all such matters as are required to ensure that the documentation complies with the Code and to liaise with the Panel in relation thereto.

    I fully expect that King will comply with these deadlines, but we may have to wait a bit longer to see how much he is being asked to put up in cash. I'd anticipate that the "not willing to sell" letters of undertaking he has obtained from shareholders who participated in the September share placing will significantly reduce the funds required, down from the headline £19m figure to maybe half of that. 

  50. EJ, thanks for update.

    Guess King will have no problem retaining a lawyer, as he throws so much business their way.

    But, a 'cash confirmer'?

    If it is relevant, we saw that King couldn't attract a NOMAD when he took control at RIFC.  [OK, he probably didn't really want one anyway.]

    If a cash confirmer organisation is bound by similar restrictions and/or are particular about who they accept as a customer, then will King have a problem.

    What would happen if nobody wanted to touch King with a long, smelly stick?


Comments are closed.