+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - El Car - 07-02-2015
Coop, it's possibly going to do more harm than good if they do. The EGM could be cancelled if there's a fuss at the time about people wanting access and being denied, or if it goes ahead the results of the resolutions could be called into question and a re-vote mandated. And it won't be the Board that suffer for it, it'll be the company. And the whole merry-go-round will start again.
Larry, this is one of my concerns if King and Murray get on the Board. The 2 problems being raised are that it might result in regulatory problems for the company, and the SFA might not tolerate them being there. I see no reason why these aren't questions we could have the answers to immediately, but King has never been able to provide guarantees over this beyond a vague hand waving to say everything's fine. I don't know if that means he's genuinely received assurances that it won't be an issue or that he knows it might be but doesn't want to jeopardise his chances of getting rid of the existing Board.
RE: RIFC - Larry-AV - 07-02-2015
El Car, Re : "I don't know if that means he's genuinely received assurances that it won't be an issue or that he knows it might be but doesn't want to jeopardise his chances of getting rid of the existing Board.'
If Dave King has received assurances that he will not be deemed to be 'not a fit and proper person', then he should make those assurances public, in the interests of transparency.
If Dave King has not received assurances, then it displays a Panglossian attitude on his part, with complete disregard to the interests of the Football Club.
Rangers' current problems stem from historical financial mismanagement and tax avoidance (EBTs, in dispute and Whyte - no dispute).
Dave King is a free man because the Law in South Africa allows payment of a fine in lieu of custody for non-payment of taxes. Do folks really want a man with his record 'on board' ?
Just in case : Panglossian is from Voltaire's book Candide, Dr Pangloss, a fantasist, who constantly believed that everything was for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 07-02-2015
Is it not the case that its a place on the football club lts board that is the remit of the SFA and King and Murray can sit on the International Plc board?
Certainly that is what is indicated in the stock exchange statement:
"The Board has also had legal advice that the "fit and proper" person requirement of article 10 of the Scottish Football Association's articles of association would be likely to preclude both Paul Murray and David King from becoming a director of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (were they to seek to be elected to the board of that company)"
This issue appears to be a bit of a red herring as its the Plc board who conduct all of the actual business, make the decisions etc.
I would imagine that the structure now in place suits King and Murray quite nicely as they can call the shots with out the need to sit on the board of the Club Ltd.
I would also imagine that answers re suitability can't/won't be answered now because the regulatory authorities - be they footballing or financial - don't want to be dealing with the hypothetical. Which seems fair enough. Rangers have been hypothetically tried and punished on a number of occasions in the past few years with all of the "judgements" turning out be tripe.
Larry. Technically, since he reached a settlement c.£40m, its late payment of taxes he was fined for.
And no criminal offence was committed. Even if the media like to say it was. From what I can make out its either a civil offence - like speeding - or a 'misdemeanor' as designated in places like the USA: below the level of criminal intent.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 07-02-2015
That for me El is the whole point of the venue! To create the scenario of possibly having to reschedule to buy time...
As i have said we all want a solvent well run Rangers for us to support for many many years.
RE: RIFC - El Car - 07-02-2015
(07-02-2015, 22:11)Larry-AV Wrote: Just in case : Panglossian is from Voltaire's book Candide, Dr Pangloss, a fantasist, who constantly believed that everything was for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Didn't Panglossian play for France in the 90s too?
(07-02-2015, 23:24)supercooper Wrote: That for me El is the whole point of the venue! To create the scenario of possibly having to reschedule to buy time...
As i have said we all want a solvent well run Rangers for us to support for many many years.
You could be right and they've certainly delayed it as long as they could. I'm not sure what a bit of additional time buys them, but then I'm not sure about most of what's going on there these days.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 07-02-2015
Only time will tell.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 09-02-2015
I think there's been far too much talk about who's going to 'win' this EGM, when the reality is that neither side can win outright. Both sides will still have their +25% shareholdings, and both sides will be able use that to stop the other from doing exactly what they want, if they want to.
King will have to dance carefully if he wants to raise funds through a new share issue, as Ashley & Co could stop that dead in its tracks, and I think he would do exactly that while offering more loans. Like he has recently.
Unless Ashley's shareholding is diluted somehow - SFA perhaps - then King will just be a shareholder's puppet, doing their bidding while being unable to fully implement his 'grand master plan'. Again, if the SFA allow him on board.
---------
I see many of the supporters' groups are now calling for postal voting and proxying over mass EGM attendance. It's a good thing they read the Sons of Truth warning on twitter and FB. If the Sons of Struth group don't pay sufficient heed to the warnings, they'll be the sole reason for the EGM being re-scheduled to a later date. Is the lure of faces on TV and a chance to make LOUD NOISES! too much for them to resist?
Sons of Truth Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sons-of-Truth/633884633356656
And their warning post -
Sons of Truth Wrote:7 February at 14:28 ·
I've had a read at Sons of Struth page and it appears that the vast majority dont want people to travel to London, however i fear it will fall on deaf ears in relation to the fans spokespersons who smell an ideal opportunity.
Here is why, in my opinion, no-one should go.
"The chairman of the meeting may adjourn a general meeting at which a quorum is present if-
(2) it appears to the chairman of the meeting that an adjournment is necessary to protect the safety of any person attending the meeting or ensure that the business of the meeting is conducted in an orderly manner.
(3) The chairman of the meeting must adjourn a general meeting if directed to do so by the meeting.
(4) When adjourning a general meeting, the chairman of the meeting must-
(a) either specify the time and place to which it is adjourned or state that it is to continue at a time and place to be fixed by the directors, and
(b) have regard to any directions as to the time and place of any adjournment which have been given by the meeting.
(5) If the continuation of an adjourned meeting is to take place more than 14 days after it was adjourned, the company must give at least 7 clear days' notice of it (that is, excluding the day of the adjourned meeting and the day on which the notice is given)-
(a) to the same persons to whom notice of the company's general meetings is required to be given, and
(b) containing the same information which such notice is required to contain.
(6) No business may be transacted at an adjourned general meeting which could not properly have been transacted at the meeting if the adjournment had not taken place."
Dont anyone dare say, you havent been warned.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 09-02-2015
Here's hoping that, along with the decent Rangers supporting shareholders, the majority forming hordes of "shiftless dedicated dole scroungers" that EC insists are in possession of shares and the right to attend are literate enough to know how to proxy a vote.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 09-02-2015
I think EC was referring to people like Chris Graham, Mark Dingwall and Craig Houston, to be fair. You know, dole-scrounging rabble-rousers who don't have a share between them, yet still managed to attend AGMs on the coat-tails of their supporters' groups and still go about telling proper, true shareholders what and who to vote for.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 09-02-2015
I've no idea what any those you named do for a living or whether they are indeed in receipt of benefits.
What I do believe is that those fans who bought shares did so with the good of the club at the forefront of their minds and, whether they were attending the AGM of an engineering firm, a newsagents or Rangers, their shares - whether by proxy or not - gave them the right to speak. Or protest even.
I've seen enough negative generalisations regarding our fan base to recognise one that I object to.