0
    0

    Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by Homunculus.

    StevieBC 16th March 2019 at 17:36

    They gave him the gig because no-one else wanted it.

    Well no-one who would have been remotely acceptable to the support.

    He was brought in because he was a name, and as you say sold season tickets.

    What he isn't is football manager. 

    Homunculus Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    John Clark 26th March 2019 at 20:28

    ========================================

    That makes sense, the Police have to investigate crime, they have to arrest people, interview them etc.

    So long as there are checks and balances, rules for them to adhere to, oversight of their actions then that's fair enough.

    In a civilized  democratic society we need a Police force capable of investigating crime, however they must also be subject to independent oversight. 


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    John Clark 26th March 2019 at 19:30

    ======================================

    Indeed, if the Police can demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to suspect and were acting in good faith. Would it then be wrongful.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    John Clark 26th March 2019 at 17:21

     

    (Has CG in fact raised an action for wrongful arrest? I must have missed that! At least I don't have a note of it  that I can find?)

    =============================================

    It has certainly been reported that way.

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17479680.ex-rangers-chief-charles-green-sues-police-and-prosecutors-over-wrongful-arrest/

     


    Recent Comments by Homunculus

    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 15th October 2019 at 16:44

    =======================================

    To be fair the club is already struggling to get proper financial institutions to deal with them anyway.

    Metro Bank*, on a cash only basis, no line of credit.

    Loans (overdrafts my arris) from Close Brothers, regularly required, presumably because of cash flow issues.

    The only "external finance" coming from directors, shareholders and their associates, later swapped for pretty much worthless equity.

    It's difficult to see how even King can make things worse.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/metro-fears-big-bill-for-accounts-scandal-x2m5vq5nq#

    *September 19 2019

    Metro Bank has warned it could face a “significant” bill after regulators widened their investigations into a £900 million accounting scandal.

     

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    This is not a rhetorical question, I would appreciate it if someone knew the answer.

    Is the issuing of new shares by an existing PLC covered by the Takeover Code.

    If so would the chairman and largest individual shareholder (albeit through trusts) having been "cold shouldered" by the Takeover Panel cause any problems with further issues to raise funds.

    I suspect the answer is no to both but that's just a guess.


    In Whose Interests
    upthehoops 13th October 2019 at 17:18

    Rules won't matter, and will be bent, broken, or made up to ensure the best possible outcome for Rangers.

    ==========================================

    What the people running Rangers want, and what is the best possible outcome for Rangers are not always the same thing.

    The same is as true for this club is it was the last.

    Letting them do what they want, break as many rules as they want, overspend as much as they want etc is not always the best way. 

    Hearts are still here, in spite of all of the hard times and austerity the club has had to go through. Maybe Rangers would be as well if things had been done properly. 


    In Whose Interests
    Corrupt official 13th October 2019 at 11:42

    ===================================

    It really is a bizarre situation.

    If we decide that you are not a person who is fit to have any role in our sport then we will decide if we are going to do anything about it.

    No-one else will have a say, just us. There will be no fixed penalty, we will decide if we are doing anything, at the time.

    What sort of organisation has rules like that. 

    You can't help but wonder, if Craig Whyte was not "fit and proper" and he wasn't, then why does Dave King not fall into the same category.

    King was actually convicted of his frauds, in fact if memory serves he pled guilty. So we are looking at this latest sanction, on top of that. To say nothing of his other actions, like trying to get the support to give him their season ticket money, in order to destabilise a Scottish football club. Or him breaching contracts with kit suppliers etc.

    What does this man have to do to fail the "fit and proper" test. 


    In Whose Interests
    upthehoops 

    13th October 2019 at 11:14

    =================================

    I will be surprised if there isn't a going concern warning in the accounts. As far as I can see they are still spending more than they are earning. Given that they have done that for every year of their existence and have been surviving on loans and share issues it seems unlikely there won't be.

    I would imagine there will be a comment along the lines that the directors and shareholders have committed to cover any losses. I don't think King personally being "cold shouldered" will change that.

    My personal feeling is that the other shareholders are probably in too deep to back out now. Particularly as the team are competing at both domestic and European level, with a real prospect of winning a proper domestic trophy for the first time in their history.

    If the other shareholders / directors really do want rid of King, and I have my doubts about that, then they will do it in a stage managed way. He will want to be there to pick up at least one trophy with him as chairman of the holding company and de facto chairman of the club.