The Elephant in the Room

1315
16874

A Guest blog by @heavidor:       

Given The Takeover Panel’s success in procuring a Court of Session order to compel Dave King to make an offer for all Rangers International Football Club Plc shares not owned by the Concert Party it would be impossible for King to remain a director unless he complies with that Order.

The co-option of Barry Scott to the board and the elevation of Alistair Johnston as a person with significant control could be construed as repositioning, however it will be whether King makes an offer of 20 pence per share to all the shareholders not included in the Concert Party or not that will determine what happens next and we shall know later this month.

(King resigning) is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred. Instead, Rangers financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association.

Irrespective of whether King complies with the Court Order or not this story is far from over, and it will continue to hamper Rangers’ prospects until it is conclusively resolved. A King resignation as a director of RIFC would reduce the prospect of contaminating the club, its directors and advisors from the full effect of cold shouldering should he decline to make an offer.

That would mean that King, as distinct from RIFC, had financial pariah status and not the club. That is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred but, instead, Rangers’ financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association with King.

What should not be underestimated is the reality of cold-shouldering, not for just the offending party, but for those involved in business with the offending party. The consequences are dire for the individual or organisation who falls foul of the rules, making it impossible to carry out normal business activities within the sphere of influence of The Panel, and the same consequences face those who shelter the cold shouldered.

It should be appreciated that there are members of the RIFC that are members of regulated financial professions who would be further prejudiced through association with a cold shouldered non-resident King.

Perhaps unfortunately for a large slug of the mainstream media and football authorities, financial pariah status pursuant to cold shouldering in the UK coming on top of criminal convictions in SA would be impossible to spin in any positive way or to maintain continued fit and proper status. I mean, we could have the SFA cold shouldered, couldn’t we? All said though, the cognitively dissonant will carry on regardless.

If King does the right thing by resigning from the board, it is still important to appreciate that the ‘4 Bear’ Concert Party as determined by The Panel will continue to exist irrespective of how Kings deals with the instruction to make an offer for the shares. This is the elephant in the room that remains.

The Concert Party via their shares and loans will retain the same level of control they currently have, and therefore remain compelled to abide by The Panel’s rules.

King’s resignation would not remove that impediment.

It doesn’t end there. By challenging the authority and insulting the intelligence of The Panel and the Court, King has ensured all large share transactions in RIFC will be scrutinised and questioned and could additionally determine, for example, that the Concert Party is increased to include Club 1872 and Barry Scott on the basis they are working in concert with King and/or other concert party members.

There are some who think that The Panel has been slow to respond and impose sanctions and that they are all bark and no bite. It would be wrong to think so. The reality is that King has moved the whole dispute into uncharted territory. There has been no precedent for such continued brazen and naïve flouting of Panel rules. Accordingly, The Panel has chosen to move at its own pace, dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s and I suggest they’re being methodical rather than indecisive in dealing with the estimable Mr King.

The true value of RIFC shares was a key point in the recent court case with all kinds of claims being made. Some think that the lack of significant arm’s-length trades makes it impossible to arrive at a correct price, and others say that the price paid to Mike Ashley in recent trades is the benchmark. In my opinion, neither is correct. Current and prospective shareholders have the financial figures in the accounts to work with, and can determine the real worth from there. On that basis it is clear to me the shares are not worth anything like the last alleged trading price on Jenkins. Rather it seems that the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business.

Any subsequent share issue – even with King gone – could muddy the waters further; The Concert Party members may expose themselves to another Panel instruction to make another offer should any of its members acquire more shares without coming to an arrangement with The Panel beforehand.

To illustrate such an arrangement, Dermot Desmond got Panel permission to increase his shareholding above 29.9% the last time Celtic had a share issue. This is preferable to trying to hoodwink the financial authorities with tall tales.

It should be clear to all followers of RIFC’s financial travails that the status quo is unsustainable. So, the question is ‘what’s next’? The chairman’s statement that accompanied the annual accounts once more talked about loan to equity conversion without reference to the impact of the existence of a Concert Party amongst the RIFC Board of directors and providers of loans. This is remarkable any such conversion cannot take place without the permission of The Panel and/or without dragging the other directors and lenders in the quagmire with another possible offer for the shares not owned by the Concert Party.

.. the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business

So, what should happen and what is required for RIFC to rid itself of this terrible yoke? The answers are pretty obvious; King should make an offer of 20 pence per share to all those shareholders not included in the Concert Party. He has said the shares are worth more than that and that no one would accept. If he’s correct he has nothing to worry about and he would create a clear path forward for Rangers. He would also resolve the dispute with The Panel, creating the conditions for a debt to equity conversion.

So, why might that not happen? Because if the shares are worth 27 pence as the directors have suggested that means the loan to equity conversion would have to be at the same price and, of course, if the shares not worth anything like that there would be a rush to accept 27 pence and the ball would be on the slates, so to speak.

It appears to me the board is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that King will resign, and that there will be no offer.

If this happens the position would be precarious. The current board doesn’t have the credibility, money or experience to take Rangers forward. Being a true blue should not be the defining characteristic of what’s required to make Rangers competitive but it appears to be the preferred qualification of most of their customers.

I believe Rangers need a need owner with a controlling shareholding and deep pockets to sort out this mess, and I have reason to believe this view is shared by some of those with influence.

That is not to say that a solution is imminent, but the reality check is at least a start.

1315 COMMENTS


  1. bigboab1916January 9, 2018 at 18:10
    ‘…John Clark you been upsetting folk again?’
    __________
    Quoi? Moi? Jamais! 19
    It’s the Truth that upsets certain people, to the point of losing any kind of grip on  reality.
    To paraphrase old Galileo, when he muttered ” aye, ok, but it (the earth)  still moves”, I say, “eppure, TRFC Ltd non e il club fc Rangers del anno 1872”.
    And no sane person can say anything true to the contrary.
    (Has my wee koala got a dirty beard,btw? or was the Company Finance expert referring to someone else?)
    I quite fancy a shot across my ‘brows’. Expert finance man he may be, but he certainly ain’t no sailor (or he is unfamiliar with the proper expression. Or, in my charity, maybe I’ll put that down to a typo!)

    View Comment

  2. jimboJanuary 9, 2018 at 22:26
    ‘…John C is still in USA.’
    _____________
    Jimbo, in the words of whoever it was “I’m back!’19
    I’ll look forward to listening to Gary-who I think is as  wonderfully self-deprecatory as Robbie was, and much more interested, as Robbie was,  in his guest bands and their doings than in himself and his doings.

    If anyone could follow Robbie, Gary can.No question ,in my mind.
    (and do keep up! I described my Norwegian Airlines/Stewart-Newburgh airport  experience yesterday!)13

    View Comment

  3. Apologies if already discussed, can admin negate the take over panel enforcement by the COS, it may influence whether to take up the offer but surely not to make the offer, I think also in legal terms this is virgin territory, any thoughts?

    View Comment

  4. It’s an angle I hadn’t thought of course.  If you were died blue in the wool would you be more or less likely to accept an offer for your shares if said offer caused administration as evidenced by the fact that the DR told you it would. Financial logic of course tells you that more should.  But since when did that come into it.  And he’s to make the offer first!

    View Comment

  5. martin cJanuary 9, 2018 at 23:42
    ‘…….can admin negate the take over panel enforcement by the COS,…’
    _________
    Well, we just have to ask those who might know.!

    I have sent this email to the Takeover Panel:

    “To:supportgroup@thetakeoverpanel.org.uk
    ‎10‎ ‎Jan at ‎00‎:‎20

    Dear support group,
    There has been earlier this evening one of those ill-informed,  (basically ignorant!) discussions among some us, with(in my personal case) the odd glass of beer as lubricant, about the whole force of the ‘mandatory offer’ that is required to be made by ‘concert parties’

    We know that the Court of Session has added the weight of the Courts to the Takeover Appeal Board’s recent insistence that the lead member of a concert party is obliged to make an offer for all the shares in a particular company that the concert party does not already own.

    Prescinding entirely from that particular case ( the decision in which may yet be appealed ) are you able in general terms to say whether  the ‘entering into Administration’ of a company of which one director was the subject of an order from  the Takeover Panel, reinforced by the Courts, would remove from that director, or that concert party, any obligation to heed the Court’s order? 

    Or would the fact that the company was in Administration present particular difficulties? Insuperable difficulties? Such as to nullify any order of the courts or of the Takeover Panel?

    I appreciate that the Takeover Panel has never been presented with this kind of situation before. And has probably never expected having  to deal with such a situation.

    But if you can provide any kind of general kind of idea as to underlying principles, I might win the pub argument!

    Yours in good-humoured enquiry,
    (me, known to them as a previous correspondent)

    View Comment

  6. EASYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 21:32
    =================================

    I could not agree more.

    In other  considerations … Sevco 5089 was incorporated on 29/03/2012 and dissolved on 15/07/2014.

    It was an English “off the shelf” company, as was Sevco 5088. 

    Sevco Scotland is a Scottish Company. It does not look like an “off the shelf” company to me.

    It’s almost as if someone created a company and named it to look like one which already existed. Which only had the name Sevco because it was a name company formation agents used to create “off the shelf” companies. 

    View Comment

  7. SMUGAS, what I am angling at is this, for oursake a company goes into admin tomorrow and a shareholder is legally bound to make an offer a week later from a court decision decided previously, surely the court decision doesn’t become extinct since shareholders still have legal rights and I would be expected those to be upheld? 
    I don’t think crashing the bus should negate that judgement.

    View Comment

  8. easyJamboJanuary 9, 2018 at 21:32
    ‘… If those “lenders” weren’t expecting their money back, then why not just write it off now.’
    ________
    The one certain fact is that King believes with a passion that he is ‘owed’ £20M from ‘Rangers’.

    He has never got over the fact that ( essentially) SDM’s sporting dishonesty led to him (king) losing money.

    From being a £20M (supposedly) investor in a successful club, and a director, King was bumped out by SDM’s pawn, Whyte, and lost his £20M by the death of the club.

    He is, it would seem, obsessed with clawing back that loss.

    it is against that background , that deeply personal background, that we should perhaps be looking at the situation.

    King is in pole position vis-a-vis the others.He has engineered it well.

    He has his eye on the ‘assets’, not the future of the football club.

    TRFC Ltd can go belly-up, RIFC plc can go hang, but King will get his £20M back, whatever.

    The other chancers on the board have no chance.King holds all the aces.

    [Or is that fantasy land speculation on my part? Early in the morning because I slept until about 1.30 pm on Tuesday!]

    View Comment

  9. If a club goes into administration and the administrator decides to raise cash by selling a player or two do the players not have the right and indeed the final say to turn down any such move unless it suits them?

    If so as an agent my advice might be to sit tight and see what might happen. 

    View Comment

  10. martin c January 10, 2018 at 00:40
    Thanks JC, we await the reply. 
    ====================
    I can’t see the TOP enforcing a share offer in an insolvent company.  The insolvency itself renders the shares worthless, and takeover rules redundant. 

    I think that even King could persuade a judge of the futility of an order in those circumstances. If an order was enforced, then every shareholder would (should) take up the offer of 20p in the knowledge that the shares were worthless. King would be left with around 80% of the shares in the company with a total value of SFA.

    Talking of which, I wonder what discussions TRFC has had with the SFA re the upcoming Licensing round, or has the SFA once again just adopted the default position of accepting whatever their love child says to them.

    View Comment

  11. Finloch January 10, 2018 at 01:16
    If a club goes into administration and the administrator decides to raise cash by selling a player or two do the players not have the right and indeed the final say to turn down any such move unless it suits them?
    If so as an agent my advice might be to sit tight and see what might happen. 
    =======================
    Sitting tight in that scenario is not a good option.  The administrator can just make you redundant, leaving you with just the statutory redundancy pay which is based of a capped figure of £489 a week.

    You’d get:
    * half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
    * one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
    Given that footballers tend not to have long term employment, the severance pay is pretty negligible.

    If I recall correctly, John Sutton (one of Hearts higher paid players at the time) was one of four players made redundant when Hearts went into administration.

    View Comment

  12. FinlochJanuary 10, 2018 at 01:16
    ‘….do the players not have the right and indeed the final say to turn down any such move unless it suits them?’
    ________
    And happy new year to you, Finloch.

    View Comment

  13. A number of “internet ballots” suggested at the very start that this was a long drawn out plan for which SDM acquires the club back again debt free at a future date. With his cohorts Murray and Johnston effectively now calling the shots with Kings ‘cold shoulder’, this scenario doesn’t seem quite as far fetched as people once thought. 

    I for one would not be happy with such a scenario for my club, but I bet with the right PR, and as some suggest some famous faces backing it such as Souness, Gough and Smith that the majority of my fellow fans would welcome it with open arms. Has the last 3 years since T3B came on the scene actually been a long term plan all along? 

    View Comment

  14. Thanks John C (welcome back) and EasyJambo.
    Please help me with this one, one more time 
    – if I am one of the Ibrox players who is good enough to get a better team then I should hold tight, be positively and selectively obstructive and wait/ get redundancy even at such bad terms and agree my own contract going forward  like the non tupeing players in 2012. 
    The key thing I’m asking is if I’m of a mind can I refuse to be sold and effectively call the administrators bluff?

    View Comment

  15. Darkbeforedawn
    January 10, 2018 at 04:39
    ===========================================

    Can you think of one good reason, professional or personal, why David Murray would want to own Rangers.

    Five years old, making losses every year, with a fanbase who for the most part from what I can see blame him for killing off the club they used to support.

    I just can’t see it.

    View Comment

  16. DarkBeforeDawn

    I wouldn’t rule it out. If there is a split in the boardroom currently (and I don’t see how there can’t be given the ToP stuff), administration would be a mechanism whereby King can be marginalised.

    That requires someone to underwrite the administration and the losses. Someone with deeper pockets than T3B

    View Comment

  17. DARKBEFOREDAWNJANUARY 10, 2018 at 04:39
    A number of “internet ballots” suggested at the very start that this was a long drawn out plan for which SDM acquires the club back again debt free at a future date. With his cohorts Murray and Johnston effectively now calling the shots with Kings ‘cold shoulder’, this scenario doesn’t seem quite as far fetched as people once thought. 
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I suggested on here back in 2012 that SDM was still lurking in the background pending a return, and got pelters for my trouble. Probably rightly. 
    However 2012 is a long time ago. Would he have had the patience to sit it out that long, while watching the dismal saga of “the journey” unfold? 
    He does have the money to buy out King. But why would he? He’s not a Real Rangers Man in the usual sense. Maybe he wants to make amends for what he sees as a stain on his reputation? Do very rich people even think like that?
    Whatever his intentions, the current Board lineup at Ibrox bears an uncanny resemblance to the old regime. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing would surprise me now.
    I see JJ is blogging this morning (on Phil’s coat tails as usual) regarding an imminent pre-pack administration, aimed at getting King out. I just can’t see how that works. Apart from anything else, surely King could block such a move? I’ve never heard of a pre-pack being implemented in the face of opposition from the largest shareholder. And isn’t club 1872 in the King camp?
    This has the look of a classic stand-off between King and the rest of the Board. Money is urgently needed to keep the club going, so who will blink first? And what happens if no one blinks? In that case it has to be an unplanned administration. That would be a disaster. On the face of it, such an administration would be unfunded, and the administrator would have no choice but to cease trading, lock up the premises and put everything up for sale. 
    I can’t see that happening, personally. Someone will blink, and cough up just enough to keep things going for now. But that’s hardly a business plan.
    As for the horrors of the cold shoulder? We must wait and see. I’m not sure that it will be the game changer that many seem to think. King may have to resign, and he might be found in contempt of court, but his shareholding will remain, which is the real block to progress.  
    The best answer for the club is for someone to buy King out, probably as part of an agreed pre-pack administration. That surely must happen soon, or the club is going to go backwards. Who has the inclination, and more importantly the money? SDM? Ashley? Kennedy? A.N. Other? Not the current Board, though, that seems pretty certain.

    View Comment

  18. DarkbeforedawnJanuary 10, 2018 at 04:39 
    A number of “internet ballots” suggested at the very start that this was a long drawn out plan for which SDM acquires the club back again debt free at a future date. With his cohorts Murray and Johnston effectively now calling the shots with Kings ‘cold shoulder’, this scenario doesn’t seem quite as far fetched as people once thought. I for one would not be happy with such a scenario for my club, but I bet with the right PR, and as some suggest some famous faces backing it such as Souness, Gough and Smith that the majority of my fellow fans would welcome it with open arms. Has the last 3 years since T3B came on the scene actually been a long term plan all along?
    ________________

    I am absolutely certain that the majority of supporters, in particular the loudest section with the basest of leaders, would welcome him back, shoulder high. But what evidence is there that he wants to return to the football club (as he might choose to see it) that had so much to do with leading him into tax tribunals and courtrooms? What’s more, that section would only remain onside if the spending of yore returned unfettered.

    Owning Rangers made him famous, and opened doors – by creating his own myth of endless wealth –  that might otherwise have remained shut. He doesn’t need doors opening now, and would probably prefer to carry out his get-rich-quicker schemes with a minimum of publicity.

    His personal bank is no more (it was a subsidiary of Bank of Scotland), and he doesn’t like using his own money.

    View Comment

  19. Finloch January 10, 2018 at 01:16If a club goes into administration and the administrator decides to raise cash by selling a player or two do the players not have the right and indeed the final say to turn down any such move unless it suits them?If so as an agent my advice might be to sit tight and see what might happen.

    I do not believe it is possible to sell a player on in your scenario without breaching a contract. A player is contracted to the company until his terms end or the player and club decide to transfer he is not an assett to be bought and sold.This would become human trafficking.
    If the club wishes him off the wage bill he will be made redundant but only if the criteria for redundancy is filled, if they wish to sell him they would have to have the players permission to end his contract in this way.
    However are there not transfer windows that would require timing if they wished to sell in agreement?

    View Comment

  20. HOMUNCULUS, I like to see myself as one of the more enlightened of Rangers fans. I would not accept him back, but then I never accepted King. But I bet a few months of red tops publishing stories about how he was duped, how he was forced to sell by the banks, how sorry he is and many reappearances of star players from the 9iar years and I would guarantee 80% of the support would buy it. Just imagine the headlines “David Murray back to win 9 in a row again” “David Murray says: The days of Gazza and Laudrup can commence again”. It doesn’t take much for the media to turn the fans. Murray gets the limelight he longs for and comes back as the white night who rode into town to bring the good times back. I won’t buy it, you won’t buy it, no-one on this site would buy it but I bet followfollow would 

    View Comment

  21. Big PinkJanuary 10, 2018 at 09:31 
    Martin C. Admin would vindicate ToP requirement to make offer since Concert Party taking small shareholders down a dark road. So no difference.
    _______________

    This is how I tend to see it, but with no precedent to go on, we are all just guessing, but I cannot imagine that any regulatory body’s order, or court ruling, could possibly be avoided, by, quite literally in a metaphorical sense16, crashing the bus.

    As you say, an administration of RIFC/TRFC would be a perfect example of why a concert party, or single shareholder, reaching 30% of the total shares, must make an offer to purchase all the remaining shares. The order, itself, was to protect the small shareholders’ interests, enforcing the ruling would certainly do that! Some, or all, of the small shareholders might prefer to keep their shares for sentimental value, but that is not a consideration of the TOP, or the CoS, as every situation has to be treated the same, regardless of the nature of the company.

    If King was to try to appeal the ruling on that basis, then I am certain the response would be, ‘tough, you’ve had plenty of time to comply with the panel’s ruling, and are more than complicit in bringing about the insolvency, itself’.

    I’d also suggest that should there be the possibility that the administration was manufactured to avoid the effect of the panel’s ruling, that criminal charges might well follow!

    View Comment

  22. DarkbeforedawnJanuary 10, 2018 at 10:44 
    HOMUNCULUS, I like to see myself as one of the more enlightened of Rangers fans. I would not accept him back, but then I never accepted King. But I bet a few months of red tops publishing stories about how he was duped, how he was forced to sell by the banks, how sorry he is and many reappearances of star players from the 9iar years and I would guarantee 80% of the support would buy it. Just imagine the headlines “David Murray back to win 9 in a row again” “David Murray says: The days of Gazza and Laudrup can commence again”. It doesn’t take much for the media to turn the fans. Murray gets the limelight he longs for and comes back as the white night who rode into town to bring the good times back. I won’t buy it, you won’t buy it, no-one on this site would buy it but I bet followfollow would
    ______________________

    Again, I must ask, what is it that makes you think Murray would want to return to the site of his nemesis? Isn’t his desire to return a greater requirement to his return than the acceptance of the support? I am sure that since the breaking of the EBT scandal his preferred business methods have changed, and that, as he grows older, he prefers a quieter life. It may even be that he has found it easier to accomplish his goals now he is out of the limelight, and he certainly won’t find value in reminding the people he mixes with in high commerce of his less than clean past by re-entering it!

    I’d imagine he has greater concerns over the impact to his businesses of Brexit than he has for the future of a football club, no matter how he views it’s history. Concerns that might lead him to feel that it would be better to keep his reserves as reserves, rather than to turn them into inevitable losses.

    I, of course, have no evidence to back up what I am saying, but I’ve read nothing to suggest I am wrong, other than people presuming he will want to ‘return’ because…well, just because!

    View Comment

  23. Allyjambo
    January 10, 2018 at 11:38
    ======================================

    That’s pretty much my thinking.

    Maybe they would want him back, however why would he want to do it.

    He is a 66 year old multi-millionaire with ongoing business concerns who apparently spends a lot of his time at his vineyard in France. As you say he has been through it all before, been through the EBT disgrace, appeared as a witness in a fraud case and been pilloried by a large number of the people who used to lionise him.

    What’s in it from him.

    View Comment

  24. Who holds the shares in the original Rangers , RFC(IL) ? I remember Charlie stating that he didn’t need to buy them after the switcheroo . Are they with Craigy, or maybe the guys he sold his claim to ?

    View Comment

  25. Finloch January 10, 2018 at 04:48
    Thanks John C (welcome back) and EasyJambo. Please help me with this one, one more time  – if I am one of the Ibrox players who is good enough to get a better team then I should hold tight, be positively and selectively obstructive and wait/ get redundancy even at such bad terms and agree my own contract going forward  like the non tupeing players in 2012.  The key thing I’m asking is if I’m of a mind can I refuse to be sold and effectively call the administrators bluff?
    ======================
    It’s back to the CVA or Liquidation scenarios.

    If a CVA is agreed, and you haven’t been made redundant by the administrator, then both the company and your contract survives.  If you were unhappy with the new owners and wanted to get out of your contract, then you would have to negotiate your exit, otherwise you could be in breach of contract.

    Should the administrator seek to reduce costs by having you take a 50% cut in your wages, you are entitled to say no, but you increase the risk being made redundant.

    If the club is liquidated, then you are free to walk away from your contract obligations, even if there is a “Sevco” situation with contracts TUPE’d to a Newco.

    View Comment

  26. paddy malarkey January 10, 2018 at 13:20
    Who holds the shares in the original Rangers , RFC(IL) ? I remember Charlie stating that he didn’t need to buy them after the switcheroo . Are they with Craigy, or maybe the guys he sold his claim to ?
    =========================
    They are still 85.34% owned by TRFCG (Wavetower), 5.33% by Metlika (Dave King) and thousands of other small shareholders, including Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John McClelland, John Greig etc.

    View Comment

  27. Big PinkJanuary 10, 2018 at 09:31
    Martin C. Admin would vindicate ToP requirement to make offer since Concert Party taking small shareholders down a dark road. So no difference.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    That has to be right. The TOP ruling reflects the fact that at that specific point in time King had the legal obligation to make an offer of 20p per share to the non concert party shareholders. Admin doesn’t change that. The obligation still exists and rightly so.

    View Comment

  28. No statement from TRIFC/TRFC debunking the potential admin stories that have appeared this week.  Given that these stories have been in the MSM not just “Bampot” sites you think there would have been reassurances offered to the support that all is OK!!!

    Quite simply if the usual suspects who have been keeping the show on the road are tapped out and/or unwilling to keep funding the losses and if the glib and shameless one doesn’t have access or is unwilling to access his promised millions (see the accounts) then admin is inevitable.

    No point running up external debt with suppliers or HMRC as someone else pulling the trigger means you lose whatever tiny bit of control of you might have had by doing it voluntarily + you would risk charges of knowingly trading whilst insolvent. 

    Given the TOP panel complications I can’t see how admin doesn’t almost inevitably become liquidation.  So far as I can see DCK has landed Rangers in a mess so complex and intractable that a CVA might very well be impossible to construct and get passed.  This is just a case of those who are on the hook for unsecured loans saying “No more”, there is very little chance of getting anything meaningful back. 

    Given all that has happened the best solution I can see for Rangers fans is the sale of the assets to a non “Real Rangers Man” – Kennedy, Ashley or someone similar who is clear from the outset that there is definitive break from the past with the new club to be run on a sustainable basis going forward with no more moonbeams.  It might take three to five years to find it’s feet but such club could eventually compete at the upper reaches of the league and provide long term competition to Celtic, Aberdeen et al. 

    View Comment

  29. My take on the admin rumours has been that it is highly unlikely given King’s influence with other shareholder groups and his status as major creditor. 

    There is also the little problem that it would mean NO European football next year and the real possibility of a bottom six finish.

    However the admin story has featured in at least two MSM outlets as a non-denial denial (“bookies suspend betting but Rangers fans have nothing to worry about”), whilst completely ignoring the substantive issue – and no question being put to TRFC.

    Pause for thought time, although I remain sceptical. To bring in administrators, there would have to be a majority on the board for that. Of course if the lenders wanted to call in the debt, that could lead to either King settling it himself, or a winding-up situation – but which lender has the cajones to be the one who triggers admin?

    Also, who is going to underwrite;

    a) the administrator’s fees, or

    b) the ongoing structural defecit

    To force an admin which can get rid of King, there needs to be some other money man in the background who is actively working against King, and consequently swimming against the tide of popularity.

    And even then with no certainty of success.

     

    View Comment

  30. TincksJanuary 10, 2018 at 14:49 
    No statement from TRIFC/TRFC debunking the potential admin stories that have appeared this week. Given that these stories have been in the MSM not just “Bampot” sites you think there would have been reassurances offered to the support that all is OK!!!Quite simply if the usual suspects who have been keeping the show on the road are tapped out and/or unwilling to keep funding the losses and if the glib and shameless one doesn’t have access or is unwilling to access his promised millions (see the accounts) then admin is inevitable.No point running up external debt with suppliers or HMRC as someone else pulling the trigger means you lose whatever tiny bit of control of you might have had by doing it voluntarily + you would risk charges of knowingly trading whilst insolvent. Given the TOP panel complications I can’t see how admin doesn’t almost inevitably become liquidation. So far as I can see DCK has landed Rangers in a mess so complex and intractable that a CVA might very well be impossible to construct and get passed. This is just a case of those who are on the hook for unsecured loans saying “No more”, there is very little chance of getting anything meaningful back. Given all that has happened the best solution I can see for Rangers fans is the sale of the assets to a non “Real Rangers Man” – Kennedy, Ashley or someone similar who is clear from the outset that there is definitive break from the past with the new club to be run on a sustainable basis going forward with no more moonbeams. It might take three to five years to find it’s feet but such club could eventually compete at the upper reaches of the league and provide long term competition to Celtic, Aberdeen et al.
    _________________________

    I cannot find fault with your logic, but we have to temper it with the fact that we do not know with any certainty what is going on at Ibrox, or in the minds of the main people in the saga. But what we do know is that the published accounts stated, quite emphatically, that loans were required to see the club through the current financial year. It’s loans, a buyer, or bust, now or at some point in the not too distant future.

    Something to consider, something that goes very much against the supporters’ wishes. Should administrators be called in, they will have complete authority to do whatever they consider necessary to save the business of RIFC/TRFC, and should the only way to access a loan, or a buyer, be to grant security over all the assets of TRFC, then that is what they will do, including Ibrox. Maybe that is the plan. Maybe that is what makes calling in the administrators advantageous to the board (perhaps including King), by leaving it up to the administrators to do what they, themselves, dare not do.

    Taking that a step further, there could be someone waiting in the wings who will lend the club the money required by way of a secured loan, and, taking it another step further, be prepared to pay the board 20p per share and make an offer to all shareholders for the same amount. It would still require a great deal of money, but at least the buyer would end up with control and the club would be rid of the incompetents and charlatans that have blighted it’s existence for most of it’s six years of being.

    That is, of course, pure conjecture on my part, of a quite extreme nature, but administration is, perhaps, the only way security over the hitherto sacred assets can safely (from the hordes) be granted.

    View Comment

  31. Great to see the site so active.
    SDM?How could he possibly pass FAP requirements?(then again…)
    In the main I’m with Big Pink here.
    There may,however,be a very simple explanation.
    “We Are Truly Poor”abbreviate if you wish.
    ie;they just might be out of dosh.
    Losses can’t go on and on.
    Who knows…. 

    View Comment

  32. AJ,

    Likewise, I cannot find fault with your logic.  

    As you say we are in the realms of pure speculation as to how an insolvency event might pan out but it does seem increasingly likely that one might occur.  PMG called it right back in 2011 and I suspect he might be on the money this time too.

    My bit of wild speculation as to who might be lurking in the background to take advantage of the sort of scenario you outline.  Big Bad Mike Ashley – oh how we would love to humiliate DCK and the SFA in the most public possible way.  And yes, I do believe the SFA would be craven enough to fold if it would keep the lights on at Ibrox.  After all, NFC is up for sale 14

    View Comment

  33. Big PinkJanuary 10, 2018 at 15:28 
    My take on the admin rumours has been that it is highly unlikely given King’s influence with other shareholder groups and his status as major creditor. There is also the little problem that it would mean NO European football next year and the real possibility of a bottom six finish.However the admin story has featured in at least two MSM outlets as a non-denial denial (“bookies suspend betting but Rangers fans have nothing to worry about”), whilst completely ignoring the substantive issue – and no question being put to TRFC.Pause for thought time, although I remain sceptical. To bring in administrators, there would have to be a majority on the board for that. Of course if the lenders wanted to call in the debt, that could lead to either King settling it himself, or a winding-up situation – but which lender has the cajones to be the one who triggers admin?Also, who is going to underwrite;a) the administrator’s fees, orb) the ongoing structural defecitTo force an admin which can get rid of King, there needs to be some other money man in the background who is actively working against King, and consequently swimming against the tide of popularity.And even then with no certainty of success.
    ___________________

    Sorry, BP, but I just can’t get my head round why so many people seem to assume that any administration will be as part of a plan bestowing some benefit to the board. I don’t see what evidence there is to assume so.

    Everything you say is correct, as long as the (rumoured) administration isn’t because the club has run out of money, which is the most common reason for calling in the administrators. Even if they haven’t run out of money, yet, but the directors know/suspect/fear they will before ST time, then this is, perhaps, the time (transfer window) to bite the bullet and call them in.

    In my previous post I’ve made a suggestion of the only benefit, I can imagine, to the board that administration might bring – leaving it to the administrators to grant security over Ibrox etc. If it’s not that, I cannot imagine, but the benefit might just be to avoid charges of trading whilst insolvent.

    In the end, of course, the rumours may be groundless, but my point is just that I don’t see why some are viewing it as something that has to be voluntary, while writing off the possibility of ‘no choice’.

    View Comment

  34. As stated above by Tincks it is illegal for Directors to trade whilst insolvent so maybe they are lining up a controlled administration in the event that the glib one does not come through on his promise of funding as stated in the last accounts then they are clearly laying such an accusation from the court’s at his door and at the same time protecting their own reputations and outside business interests – the Cold Shoulder when it comes is surely going to impact them enough without adding to it.

    View Comment

  35. StevieBC
    January 10, 2018 at 02:12 “A certain blogger “
    ——————————————–
     
    Trade Descriptions Act 1968 ?
     Customer Protection Act 1987 ?
    ———————————————-
    1515

    View Comment

  36. I was thinking about the possibility of Hampden Park being no longer used as the National (Football) Stadium.  By both the SFA & SPFL.

    I wouldn’t give money to Scottish Rugby.  No offence meant but we need to keep the revenue in-house.

    In terms of likely demand I might go with:

    Cup Finals – Celtic Park
    Semi Finals – Ibrox
    Internations & friendlies – Tynecastle, Easter Road, Pittodrie, Tannadice, Dens Park.

    What do you think? is that fair?

    ps in this case I’m afraid size matters.

    View Comment

  37. STEVIEBC
    JANUARY 10, 2018 at 02:12

    Looks very similar – virtually verbatim – from linked site below.  

    I know he’s been accused of plagiarism before but, wow. As you say, virtually verbatim. Not anything new though

    View Comment

  38. NTDEALJANUARY 10, 2018 at 15:56
    8
    0 Rate This
    Great to see the site so active.SDM?How could he possibly pass FAP requirements?(then again…)
    —————-
    Would the SMSM begin to call it murray park again?
    we could get a bingo card going to see whitch journalist is first to buckle and call it murray park if DM ever did get his nose in the door21

    View Comment

  39. STEVIEBCJANUARY 10, 2018 at 02:12
    26
    2 Rate This
    OT.
    A certain blogger had posted some eye-popping stuff yesterday about Blair, Brown, etc.Hadn’t heard it before so checked for other sources on internet.
    Looks very similar – virtually verbatim – from linked site below.  
    http://www.thetruthnews.info/Tony_Blair_as_Miranda.html
    —————–
    He hasn’t picked up on an initative and passed it off as his own.
    Second hand news at A certain blogger. It was ever thus.06 

    View Comment

  40. I read a James Forrest piece earlier, saying that Cruz Azul were rubbishing TRFC’s claims over the loan deal for Pena. Looks like the SMSM, well the Scotsman, at least, has caught up.

    The Scotsman doesn’t give much about the figures, but I doubt it means Pena’s Ibrox sojourn has not cost TRFC much, contrary to what they want their supporters to believe last week.

    I wonder why TRFC feel the need to misinform their supporters, ad everybody else at the same time, so often?

    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/cruz-azul-chief-we-re-not-paying-carlos-pena-s-salary-in-full-1-4657706

    View Comment

  41. Allyjambo
    January 10, 2018 at 18:30  
    “I wonder why TRFC feel the need ….
    ——————————–
    The scorpion and the frog.
     
    A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

    19 ?

    View Comment

  42. woodsteinJanuary 10, 2018 at 18:48 
    AllyjamboJanuary 10, 2018 at 18:30 “I wonder why TRFC feel the need ….——————————–The scorpion and the frog. A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so. ?
    ____________________

    Probably very close to the answer, Woodstein. 

    I was once told by someone whose job made them fairly knowledgeable in such matters, that some continuous liars, ‘keep the truth in reserve’, and quite often the truth was less ‘bad’ than the lie they told. Quite what the benefit could be in this most recent bare faced lie from Ibrox, is very hard to fathom, particularly when gauged against the likelihood of the truth coming out.

    They must surely hold the Ibrox support in great contempt.

    View Comment

  43. JIMBOJANUARY 10, 2018 at 17:25

    I was thinking about the possibility of Hampden Park being no longer used as the National (Football) Stadium.  By both the SFA & SPFL.
    I wouldn’t give money to Scottish Rugby.  No offence meant but we need to keep the revenue in-house.
    In terms of likely demand I might go with:
    Cup Finals – Celtic ParkSemi Finals – IbroxInternations & friendlies – Tynecastle, Easter Road, Pittodrie, Tannadice, Dens Park.
    What do you think? is that fair?
    ps in this case I’m afraid size matters.

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

    Personally I wouldn’t give Celtic Park to the SFA for any purpose, ever. 

    View Comment

Comments are closed.