Why the Rangers Rebels Will Win Monday’s Court Hearing Against the Board

Monday 14th October sees a second “First Hearing” in what is prosaically listed on the court sheets as “P996/13 Pet: Paul Murray &c for orders under Companies Act 1988”. The case is scheduled, according to the list, to go before Lord Tyre.

The case had originally called on 4th October and had led to two Stock Exchange announcements by RIFC PLC, the relevant parts of each being at the foot of this post.

The Board’s position was summed up in the pre-hearing announcement where it was stated:-

Whilst the Company intends to strongly resist the Petition the Board intends to take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary cost and disruption to the Company.

The case first called in court later on 4th October and after that hearing Paul Murray, prime mover in the Rebels and erstwhile Blue Knight, issued the following statement:-

We are delighted with today’s hearing and we look forward to having the opportunity of establishing the validity of our proposed director nominations on Monday 14 October at the full hearing.

In the meantime we would ask shareholders to firstly DO NOTHING until it is clear what they are being asked to vote upon at the AGM and secondly note the actions of this Board of Directors who seem hell bent on putting up every legal and technical blockage to our nominations.

Why are they so scared of a vote if they have all the shareholder support they claim to have? It is ridiculous that we are forced into going to the Court of Session in order to give the shareholders a democratic vote at the AGM.

The stalling tactics of this Board are indicative of why the shareholders felt compelled to make these ‎requisitions in the first place.”

The Board responded with its own “post hearing” announcement, the most relevant part of which said:-

“Whilst the Company considers its legal position on these matters to be robust, the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on 24 October 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting.”

Can we piece together then exactly what is being argued about on Monday?

The starting point is Section 338 of the Companies Act 2006. It is shown in full at the foot of this post. Looking at it closely we see that the company must include a resolution on the agenda for the AGM as long as the following are satisfied:-

  • The resolution will  not be “ineffective” if granted
  • The resolution is not defamatory
  • The resolution is not “vexatious” or “frivolous”
  • The resolution is moved by shareholders representing at least 5% of the voting shares or by at least 100 shareholders each having an average shareholding worth £100 (based on the issue price)
  • The resolution must be authenticated by the people moving it
  • The resolution is received by the company not later than 6 weeks before the AGM or not later than the time at which notice of the AGM is given.

The Board refused to put the resolution, which related to the proposed appointment of 4 new (or re-tread) directors, on the agenda. The Rebels therefore went to court looking for an order to prevent the AGM going ahead on the basis that the Board had failed to abide by the law and had illegally refused to consider the resolution.

The issue is therefore whether or not the conditions detailed above were met or not.

In its initial response on 1st October, copied at the foot of the post, the Board seemed to make its position clear.

As far as its statement went the resolution was ineffective for the following reasons:-

  • The company required the shareholders proposing the resolution to “authenticate” their signatures – did they did not accept that the resolution came from the people who were stated as having framed it?
  • The resolution was vexatious because the EGM Requisition had been dropped and the appointment of the 4 new directors had not been separately mooted until the proposed resolution was sent to RIFC. Some of the shareholders (but not all) of those proposing this resolution were the same as those requisitioning the EGM.
  • The resolution might be ineffective because appointment of new directors might, in some unspecified way, not comply with the Articles of Association or would not have the required “prior regulatory approval”.
  • The resolution might be frivolous for the same reasons.
  • The Notice of the AGM had been sent to the printers on 27th September so, impliedly, this resolution, even if valid, was too late.

What approach will the court take to the issues?

The first thing to note is that Lord Tyre will not be determining the full legal and factual rights and wrongs of the situation. Monday’s hearing is not the forum for that to happen. Instead the Rebels have applied for an interdict to stop the AGM going ahead until the resolution can be put before it. The court is being asked to put a hold on matters just now until either the Rebels get what they want or until a full hearing takes place.

The judge has to decide two things. First of all, is there are prima facie case? Secondly, where lies the “balance of convenience”?

If there is a case which seems to have some merit (and this would be that the resolution was, on the face of it, valid and sent in time but the Board have unlawfully refused to deal with it) then the court can consider the second part. Monday’s hearing is not for witnesses to give evidence although sworn affidavits can be produced on factual matters. If both sides present versions of events which are clearly different and which would require a hearing of evidence to decide, then this would often in itself be enough to get the case from stage 1 to stage 2.

On the face of it the Board seems to have refused a valid resolution, so we then come to the “balance of convenience”. Where there are legal grounds for an interdict, which side is prejudiced more by grant or refusal of an interim order? In this case, if Lord Tyre thinks that the Board has failed to deal correctly with the resolution, but he refuses the interim interdict, then the AGM will go ahead. The Rebels will be forced, if they want to proceed with the vote on 4 new directors, to requisition a new EGM. They will be caused expense and delay as a result. If the interdict is granted, then RIFC PLC will have to cancel the AGM, issue new circulars notifying shareholders of the new date and of the new resolution and fix a new date. This will cost the company money. However, the reason for this would be that the company had acted unlawfully and therefore it would be its own fault.

So, if the judge accepts that, on the face of it, the resolution was validly submitted and has been unlawfully ignored by the Board, I think it is much more likely than not that an interdict would be granted.

(The parties are free to discuss arrangements which might allow the AGM to go ahead as scheduled, and Mr Murray’s statement hints at that.)

Looking at the Board arguments in turn, how might Monday’s hearing deal with them?

Authentication – the 2006 Companies Act changed the former requirement which was that such a document had to be signed. The use of the word “authenticated” is not to require some additional method of proof, but rather to allow electronic submission where a “signature” can be appended by other means. Unless there is some real concern that (a) the shareholders whose names have been used have not actually consented to this or (b) that they do not own the required percentage of shares, this issue seems to be of little use to the Board on Monday. As long as the resolution seems to be in order, at this stage in proceedings the court will not look behind it.

Vexatious – This term is used to describe resolutions which are initiated maliciously by an individual or group not acting in good faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing the company or its Board. The Board might think that this is a vexatious resolution but it is not identical to that which was part of the EGM requisition and it seems that the parties seeking at are not identical. Circumstances have changed since the EGM requisition was dropped. Whilst the resolution might succeed in embarrassing the Board, I think it would be hard to argue convincingly that it has been advanced “maliciously” and in “bad faith”.

Ineffective – this implies that, even if the shareholders vote in favour of the new directors, they cannot be appointed to the Board. The Board have not made clear how the appointment of Rebel directors by a vote at an AGM might not comply with the Articles of Association. Nor have they explained what “prior regulatory approval” is needed – is this a reference to the mythical “fit and proper person test”? In either event one doubts that this argument has much mileage in it.

Frivolous – This falls somewhere on the spectrum between ineffective and vexatious. It refers usually to an issue which is of little or no practical importance. For example, if the resolution was to appoint Barack Obama as a Rangers director, despite him never having heard of Ibrox (for example) this might be seen as frivolous. (I will ignore the issues that would come from trying to appoint a director without his consent). Or, if the famous Mr Custard was nominated, this might too be frivolous. None of the 4 men in line for appointment can be compared however to Mr Custard.

The resolution was received too late – this seems to be, from what has been said and made available publicly, the only substantive ground of argument. But even here it looks as if the Board is fighting a losing battle. The statements produced below are carefully worded. Nowhere does it say that the resolution was received after the notice of the meeting was given. Instead it was received, says the 1st October statement, after it had gone to the printers. If it had arrived after the notice of the AGM had been given, then one suspects that RIFC would have said so. If they were now to say that the resolution was not received until 1st October 2013, when the notice of the AGM was given, then the judge might wonder why the statements to the AIM did not say that.

The Act, as you will see below, makes clear that the cut-off is the giving of notice of the AGM, not the dispatch to the printers.

Therefore, based on the publicly available data, if the matter goes to a decision on Monday I would expect that Lord Tyre would grant the Rebels the interdict they have asked for and thus postpone the AGM.

Reading each side’s statements one could be confused as to the respective strengths of argument, but rarely will someone at the door of the court say that they think their own case is hopeless!

Why then have the Board fought this? The simple answer is that they clearly did not expect that the Rebels would take court action. Their bluff though was called.

What I expect to happen therefore is that, in line with Paul Murray’s statement, there will be an effort to agree to out the resolutions about the new directors on the agenda for the AGM. As this will allow the AGM to go ahead as scheduled, the Board will claim victory on the basis that the Rebels failed to have it cancelled. However what the Rebels want is not postponement of the meeting but consideration given to their resolution.

If matters are not settled by the time the hearing starts in Monday, I suspect they will by the time it ends. The judge might well, after hearing legal argument, say that he is minded to grant the interdict but give parties a few minutes to come to an accommodation.

Either way the Rangers Board has, in my opinion, seen itself out-manoeuvred by the Rebels, and are likely to be ordered to pay the costs of the case as a consequence.

And then we will see what happens at the AGM itself…

Posted by Paul McConville

Addendum

On 1st October the RIFC Board issued the following statement:-

The Board of Rangers confirms that it has received a notice dated 27 September 2013 from certain minority shareholders (“Notifying Shareholders”) under section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 requesting the Company to circulate certain resolutions to shareholders for inclusion in the business at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting of the Company (the “Notice”).  The Notice puts forward resolutions for the appointment of Malcolm Murray, Paul Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson as directors of the Company.

Whilst the Board has requested the Notifying Shareholders to authenticate their signatures on the Notice and their shareholdings as required under section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 in order to validate the Notice, the Board notes that the Notice has been received by certain of the minority shareholders who were involved with the Requisition, the receipt of which by the Company was announced by the Company on 2 August 2013.

The Board further notes that on 12 September 2013 the Company announced that the Requisitioners had agreed the withdrawal of the Requisition including their proposal for the appointment of directors on the condition only that the Company convened and held its Annual General Meeting no later than 31 October 2013.  The Board notes that no variation or amendment to the terms of the withdrawal of the Requisition has been discussed or agreed with the Requisitioners.

The Board considers that the Notice, if authenticated, is unlikely to be properly constituted under s338 of the Companies Act 2006.  Given the basis upon which the Requisitioners had agreed the withdrawal of the Requisition and as the Notifying Shareholders have not requested to discuss this prior to sending the Notice, the Board currently considers the proposed resolutions to be vexatious.  The Board is also concerned that the contents of the proposed resolutions may also be either ineffective or frivolous as any director appointment must comply with the Company’s articles of association and is subject to prior regulatory approval.

The Board further notes that the notice for the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held on 24 October 2013 had in any event been sent to the Company’s printers for printing on Friday 27 September 2013.

On 4th October 2013, at 7 am, RIFC PLC had announced the following to the Stock Exchange:-

The Board further notes that on 4 October 2013 the Company received notice of a petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the “Petition”) by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the “Individual Shareholders”).  The Petition requests an order to be granted by the court, inter alia, to require the Company to circulate the Notices to shareholders and not to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Company for 2013 until such time as the Individual Shareholders have received 21 clear days’ notice of any such Annual General Meeting and the Notices have been circulated.

The Board offered to meet with the Notifying Shareholders to discuss their concerns but had not received a response. The Board then received notice of the Petition. Whilst the Company intends to strongly resist the Petition the Board intends to take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary cost and disruption to the Company.

The Board issued this further statement following the hearing:-

Further to the announcement earlier today on 4 October 2013 regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the “Petition”) by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the “Petitioners”), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Friday 4 October, 2013 by Lord Kinclaven.

The Petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the Annual General Meeting of the Company from taking place on 24 October 2013.  No such orders were granted by the court.

Certain legal arguments in relation to the validity of the section 338 notices have been continued to a new hearing to take place on Monday 14 October 2013 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.  Whilst the Company considers its legal position on these matters to be robust, the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on 24 October 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting.  The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on 24 October 2013.

Companies Act 2006 Section 338

338 Public companies: members’ power to require circulation of resolutions for AGMs

(1)   The members of a public company may require the company to give, to members of the company entitled to receive notice of the next annual general meeting, notice of a resolution which may properly be moved and is intended to be moved at that meeting.

(2)   A resolution may properly be moved at an annual general meeting unless—

(a)   it would, if passed, be ineffective (whether by reason of inconsistency with any enactment or the company’s constitution or otherwise),

(b)   it is defamatory of any person, or

(c)    it is frivolous or vexatious

(3)   A company is required to give notice of a resolution once it has received requests that it do so from—

(a)   members representing at least 5% of the total voting rights of all the members who have a right to vote on the resolution at the annual general meeting to which the requests relate (excluding any voting rights attached to any shares in the company held as treasury shares), or

(b)   at least 100 members who have a right to vote on the resolution at the annual general meeting to which the requests relate and hold shares in the company on which there has been paid up an average sum, per member, of at least £100.

(4)   A request—

(a)   may be in hard copy form or in electronic form,

(b)   must identify the resolution of which notice is to be given,

(c)    must be authenticated by the person or persons making it, and

(d)   must be received by the company not later than—

(i)                 6 weeks before the annual general meeting to which the requests relate, or

(ii)               if later, the time at which notice is given of that meeting.

Advertisements

141 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Companies Act 2006, Rangers

141 responses to “Why the Rangers Rebels Will Win Monday’s Court Hearing Against the Board

  1. cam

    Paul has taken pity on the troops and laid out new bait.
    Best behaviour now bhoys.

  2. Niall Walker

    Hello testing testing.

  3. JimBhoy

    @Nial DK loaning the gers might be a good spot mate… Still think the peter and paul scenario is there..I do not see anything to show me rangers have a long term future…

  4. Niall Walker

    Here is a little whataboutery:

    There was a delay in releasing the accounts, and I believe it was the auditors refusing to sign off the going concern bill of health. The projections accepted by the auditors showed Rangers 2.5 million short in cash terms to see the year out. Suddenly Dave King goes from Rangers bust at Christmas to willing investor, and a 2.5 million UNSECURED loan facility appears out the blue and the accounts are passed. Mather flies over to SA, now there is talk of DK possibly being the new Chairman, Mather needs all the support and good PR he can muster to fight off the rebels at the AGM, the fans votes could be key, and Ally backs DK.

    This is like I Claudius.

    • JimBhoy

      @Niall Aye adds up for sure, hope Kingy has deep pockets..!!! Still if it were my club it would be squeaky bum time…

    • Sevco United

      That makes a lot of sense NW.

    • Monti

      @Niall

      Ally also backed Craig Whyte & Charles Green!

      • Niall Walker

        @Monti,

        I think DK’s commitment to Rangers is beyond question, 20 million for a blazer and a tie says it all about the man’s passion for Rangers.

        • Monti

          @Niall
          His commitment to second Rangers may well be admirable to some, personally I believe the man is a complete crook, I can’t recall the South African Judge’s quote, it was something like ” a pathological liar” DK is clearly an undesirable!

      • hector

        @monti ally also backed Ian Black.

        • Monti

          @Hector

          At what odds?
          🙂

          • Niall, that was refreshingly objective, Two things though, Unless King is going to write a £10 – £20-M cheque ( I believe the hacks like the term “Front Loaded) for sevco, I think he’s going to be more trouble than he’s worth. There is a lot faith (quiet desperation) being placed in a guy who has lost £20M to Rangers & is £40M lighter in the pocket after the South African revenue took what they were due.
            Any other club being “front Loaded” by a convicted Tax Fraudster would have the press all over the story like angry ants,but we know what the Scottish hacks are like, & they will only spot light a sevco disaster after it has happened.
            Mather is part of the CG investment team, who as we all know will eventually be looking for his pound of flesh from the body of Sevco, From where I’m standing it is entirely possible that DK being brought on board is not only good pr for Mather, but will potentially give King the opportunity to recoup his losses. That could keep Sevco afloat, but will ensure on field austerity for the followers of the five stars.
            Also, are you suggesting that it was DK who is providing the £2M credit facility for the club?

  5. hector

    Not sure what it costs for this court case but if the Murray camp wins and the four new directors are added to the agenda for the AGM does that put back the AGM until the shareholders have had the revised agenda for 21 days.This board have been trying to delay the AGM or prevent an EGM by whatever means possible.Is it possible that all this faffing about is another delaying tactic.

    • @hector

      According to the statements paul posted, i think they may come to an accomodation, if the rebels win on Monday and 24th will go ahead.

      I also think that the dream team that NW posted and if occurs will result in disaster, far too many egotists amoung that group and the infighting and backstabbing would continue IMO.

  6. JimBhoy

    @Hector I do not know the ways of the Spiverati..!!

    • Niall Walker

      hector,

      I believe Mather and Stockbridge are fighting for their lives, unfortunately I think Stockbridge will be the compromise sacrifice, amd Mather will dump him to save his position.

      The Dream Team:

      Chairman: Dave King.
      CEO: Craig Mather.
      Finance director: Frank Blin.
      Directors: Easdale Brothers.

  7. Monti

    Evening Paul McConville, & fellow posters.
    I am hereby offering an apology to every single person who has posted & who posts on Paul’s blog, who has been offended by anything I have written on here.
    At the end of the day, I do enjoy it on here & the Craic can be really good, however I’m not happy with some of the things I have posted in the past & although I have had some nasty stuff aimed in my direction, some of it deserved & some of it definitely not, I want to leave it in the past.
    I have no qualms about apologizing to those I have offended, I feel it’s a necessary step in improving this blog, as I have said I do enjoy it on here & wouldn’t want to not be a part of it.
    The last blog for me & I’m sure a lot of others,isn’t what Paul had in mind in terms of how he want’s his blog to go, so Mr.McConville, I sincerely apologize for my comments I have posted at times & as of tonight, will be completely different in my comments. HH!

    • JOE

      @monti
      Good man thats how I feel.
      Sometimes you get caught up in the thick of things and things get out of hand. I wish no ill on anyone and have spent the day with very young grandchildren more honest and more enquiring than we have been on here of late. Tomorror is another day. Good night all.

    • Fra

      Put that joint down Monti, you know it makes you too happy

  8. Niall Walker

    Monti,

    I did not take your insults seriously or personally, I know you love me as your neighbor.

  9. chuckles le vert

    Are you Newco Monti? 🙂

  10. Niall Walker

    I am doing some research on sociopathy and The Iceman( Richard Kuklinski) takes it to the limit:

    • cam

      His comments would not be moderated!

    • Monti

      @Niall
      Why aren’t the the Rangers fans not demanding those in receipt of Ebt’s pay the money to the new club?
      If this happened at Celtic, I would be screaming for every single penny be paid back to the club, IMMEDIATELY, every single penny, from every single beneficiary!
      These so called legends like Barry Ferguson talk the talk in the papers, if you love your club Barry, pay the money back!

      • Niall Walker

        @Monti,

        I think all of us are old enough to realise loyalty begins at home, nobody is going to give up any money to save Rangers, creditors or their credibility.
        I think the Rangers TUPE situation sums up all players attitudes in the modern game, if they were wanted by other clubs then they didn’t want to share their worth with Rangers, and if they were not wanted then they stayed on full wages until an equivalent contract came up or they wanted paid off in full.

        Loyalty in football is now like an old myth.

        Do you think Neil Lennon would knock back the Sunderland job if the money was right?

  11. wastrel

    for the avoidance of doubt:- I haven`t the first clue WTF is going at boardroom level at greyskull, could you all please hurry up & implode!
    this may well be great fun to watch, but I`m grower ever impatient for the ending- thanks, Wastrel.

    • Old Cartha Bhoy

      I sympathise but some of us never want this to end…let them experience purgatory and consider whether they are going to Hell or…..Hell!

  12. notnearlydeadbutreallydead

    well written monti

  13. mick

    if both king and Paul Murray was N.E.D.s how can they hold office at new club is this not against the grain of insolvency law and only just highlights the phoenix taken place also king is a total crook spiv lol

    its king or die lol the hero king lol it just shows how much they are in the gutter and how backwards they are that they think hes ok a tax cheating diamond mine murder any1 profiting via african mines has childrens blood on there hands

  14. jambocol1874

    Can Paul do a blog on why King will pass FFP (which he will) when simplistically it would seem that as a director of Rangers at the time of administration he should be precluded from being involved in any official capacity with a Scottish football team until February 2017.

    Can’t remember if it was Michael Grant or Roddy Forsyth that mentioned on Sportsound that he will appeal any blocking of FFP on the grounds that he was unaware of Rangers financial plight as Whyte held no board meetings and didn’t release management accounts either.

    Now this ignorance of the criticality of where Rangers were going does seem bizarre considering both Jim Traynor and Chick Young professed to knowing that Whyte hadn’t paid any HMRC dues from the day 1 and long before February 2012.

    • Niall Walker

      @jambocoli,

      ” on the grounds that he was unaware of Rangers financial plight as Whyte held no board meetings and didn’t release management accounts either.”
      ========================================================

      I agree with this, and unsupported gossip from journalists is not proof of financial mismanagement.

      • jambocol1874

        “As his evidence progressed it became clear that he has no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie or at least misrepresent the facts if he thinks it will be to his advantage. There can be little doubt that on most occasions King lied as he knew the correct facts and obviously decided to misrepresent these facts.”

        Mmm….

        • jambocol1874
          October 12, 2013 at 7:59 pm

          he will fit right in at Sevco then ,eh

          • jambocol1874

            He’d probably fit in at most clubs because the whole game from the very top of Fifa is bent – and where our nut case Vlad was right – just as, if not even more so than in Scotland. However, on the face of it, it’s a fairly simplistic no to his FFP request – and indeed if he tried to get involved at say Falkirk, we all no whether it would be a yes or no.

            I’m not scared of a new Rangers when they come back to the top, my club will very rarely compete anyway. And survival for us is no way guaranteed. All I want is a clean Rangers, that shows respect for the game as a whole and actually does it rather than tell folk they are doing it. I’ll never forget SDM’s interview with the BBC when he said Rangers will always do the right thing, when the opposite was the case. Mind you in life the people that say they don’t lie, tend to be the biggest liars of them all.

            • coatbrigbhoy

              Mind you in life the people that say they don’t lie, tend to be the biggest liars of them all.

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

              some on here even deny they stole their sick old mothers dinner

            • Fra

              Jambo, Some even said their team didn’t die after liquidation. How fuc**ng sad is that. Grown men as well. Poor bast**ds

  15. hector

    @Mick nice to see you back Mick.All this high brow legal stuff is lost on me after a wander through Mordor this afternoon the orcs are not debating the make up of the board,the ethics of Dave KIng,or getting the spivs out but who put a rubber duck in the megastore and whether Rangers talk is run by a tim.

  16. mick

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Articles%20of%20Association.pdf

    section 10.2 says no but we all know what school did you go to will sort it for him for a few ren in a envelope no dramas there then also he a tax rebel he,ll fit right in hes not as rich as they think either his pile has well diminished and is below100mil£ so hes no that rich

    • Sevco United

      “what school did you go to will sort it for him for a few ren in a envelope” – which reminds me, did anyone actually manage to come up with that huge list of old Rangers officials who have held top jobs in the SFA? Wiggy and Ogilvie apart.

      • mick

        sevco united is that a new team or klumpany sevco united globe trotting with a begging bowl to huns with a few checkles lol

        • Ed Paisley

          That’s right Mick – they should go to Israel and pick up a few shekels. Their fans like to ally themselves with the Israeli regime and they always have the Avi Cohen link. On second thoughts, Israeli investors would ask for a decent return on any investment – and as Dave King said, Rangers will never make a profit.

          • Old Cartha Bhoy

            At least the Israelis could draw om MOSSAD to act as their enforcers…what a hit list they would have!

            • Ed Paisley

              I can see Mossad getting rid of James Traynor when he becomes too much of an embarassment to the club – when James steps out onto the deck of his boat at Largs for a late-night slash, he gets nailed by a poisoned dart straight to the buttock. It worked with Robert Maxwell so why not with his body double Jim Traynor.

        • Hi Mick, nice to see you have your witty humor about you tonight.

          • mick

            thanks OD its lol all weekend at sevco this king drama is a deflection to make them feel good as they know the moneys gone and they need investment lol not again lol king has no quotes on this yet so its not solid and could be heavy spin

            • officer dibble

              King will hedge his bet’s Mick IMO, he may wait until the court case descision is taken on Monday, then choose his running mates.

      • Can we include Rangers shareholders like MR Peat ?

        • Sevco United

          Mr Peat was a Celtic shareholder.***

          *** Please note I have no evidence at all on this but thought i would show how easy it is to make nonsense up just like the above.

  17. Ed Paisley

    Dave King is the man who hands £20m over to Murray without demanding any effective oversight over this “buccaneering businessman”. Is that trust or stupidity.
    Still when you make a fortune from the South African government and manage, through deceit and dishonesty, to evade your tax obligation to the tune of £100m, then £20m is nothing.
    I hope Don King does become the Chairman of Sevco – he deserves it for cheating the nascent majority rule South African state.

  18. mick

    hi hector there quackers lol all this king talk is bluff wheres the quote were you see his mouth move and say am in its a spiv game the Murray team are spinning with king as hero lol the bears are back with war-chest Timmy think of kings ren and the war chest lol

  19. mick

    king has not stated publicly hes in so as far as it gos its msm hot air there doomed either way

  20. Old Cartha Bhoy

    Fine summary, Paul, of a complex piece of legalise which fellow bloggers, not least merlin the magician, will attempt to weave his magic spell!

    The media house website, btw, is a fascinating read…after many attempts I still have no clue as to what they do or for whom…their Edinburgh office indicates to be in Princes Street yet seems to be a tiny office in Rose Street, maybe even an accommodation address? Is Jack Irvine Del Bhoy in disguise, an independent trader….

    • Kerrygirl

      What you are talking about here I s an innocent party caught up in a web of fraud and deceit . The innocent party being the govan loyal, the rangers support, if they have anything about them, they will reject the king and go with Kirsty McColl because there’s a guy works down the chip shop swears he’s Elvis , cause he’s a liar and am not sure about you,,,,, was Elvis not known as the king

  21. mick

    who are you tonight deniall lol 10 faces

  22. hector

    Just back from the sons of struth facebook page where there is a post with a detailed mission statement from Dave King don’t no how to post the link and with one finger typing sevco will be tits up before I am done.Have a look.

    • Ed Paisley

      Dave King Statement
      WRITTEN BY RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB
      Dave King Statement
      DAVE KING made the following statement tonight:

      “I confirm that I held talks with Rangers Chief Executive Craig Mather and Finance Director Brian Stockbridge in South Africa. I wished the discussions to remain confidential until something definite was agreed- one way or another. I have maintained that confidentiality. However, given my awareness of incorrect inferences being drawn in the media I would like to make a limited statement at this time.
      “The discussions were, to my mind, very positive and it was agreed that subject to the normal regulatory approval I would put my name forward to join the Board and to serve as Chairman.
      “Such an appointment is of course subject to the approval of the existing Board members and ultimately the shareholders of the company. There are also mandatory regulatory requirements that must be complied with and take time. I have already submitted all the necessary documentation.
      “News of the meeting has found its way into the public domain and this has unsurprisingly resulted in speculation as to the nature and the outcome of the meeting. In reaction to this speculation and to give some clarity to the club’s fans I would like to address a couple of points at this time.
      “First, my willingness to become part of the future of the football club is based simply on my love for the club and my desire to support the club with a combination of my business expertise and my willingness to make a further investment.
      “In particular I see a present need to utilise the time we have over the next few seasons to be prepared, both financially and on the pitch, to compete with our Glasgow neighbours when we get back to the top League.
      “My involvement is not linked in any way to any other individual, albeit I have my private thoughts as to certain individuals that might add value to the club going forward. Ultimately it is for the shareholders to make such decisions. The recent settlement of my litigation in South Africa removes any impediment to my appointment to the board.
      “I want to make it clear that I agreed to join the Board only after intensive and detailed discussions with the existing executives and because I believe I can help them by playing a significant role in driving Rangers forward and finally putting the past behind us.
      “It is sad that every month of the continued disunity between the fans and other stakeholders is eroding our ability to be ready for the step up to the premier league. We do not have time to waste.
      “It was also made clear by Mr Mather and Mr Stockbridge that Rangers are not in need of an immediate financial injection but we agreed that now is the time to commence a new round of funding to ensure that it is available in an orderly and cost effective manner when required. I wish to lead that fund raising exercise and being on the Board will greatly assist me in that regard.
      “I believe that the timing is right for me to take this step and I look forward to the opportunity to work with the current directors albeit I would have preferred to have my appointment confirmed prior to communicating my further thoughts. Unfortunately the rumour mill necessitated this short statement. If matters proceed as I hope over the next few days then I will be present at the AGM.”

  23. mick

    the sons of shit lol loving the king how dignified lol

  24. Arb urns

    Saturday Nights all right for loving….some weird e-harmonies going on in here…… Confessionals too….. Niall finds out His viable business model idea needs a pillar borrowed from south Africa’s finest society……and then further confesses that his rock solid ‘ auditors going concern’ wasn’t as ‘ in the bag ‘ as he thought…….

    Here is a plan …..add Samuel Clemens to that dream team midfield you have selected Niall and implore your board to listen to his philosophy at board meetings…….

    • Niall Walker

      Good evening Arb,

      Yes the love in continues for now, but it may not last, yes a little bird whispered in my ear, my 800k cash shortage did not include the 1.8 million capital spend commitment, and up popped the magic figure of 2.6 million, rather coincidental I thought.

      ” and implore your board to listen to his philosophy at board meetings…….”
      =====================================================

      Do you mean: ” Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it. “

      • Arb urns

        Abend herr n…. Ho ho ho just a wee foxes paw from the wee birdie whisper then……nah nothing the good mark said his action spoke louder than any of his words……ace to c u admitting being rong… But then u go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like.. I’m wright…….

  25. WELL . WELL, WELL, HUNZ F-CKIN’ HUNZ, WITELSE IS NEW,HOPE YEEZ AW’ GET SCREWED OUT OF YUR SHARES , WHY , COZ YEEZ IS HUNS CLATTY HUNZ

  26. hector

    Dave Kings statement is on the Rangers website followed by a statement by Craig Mather all one big happy family and king would love to work with the Easdales ,Mather and Stockbridge to lead Rangers Intergalactic back to world domination.Aye right.

    • Ed Paisley

      Dave King will bring his business skills, his fundraising skills and presumably his tax mitigation skills to bear in support of Rangers. That’s great Dave, but get your wallet out first – we’ll be near skint by April.

  27. The recent settlement of my litigation in South Africa removes any impediment to my appointment to the board.
    ===========================================

    so all the guilty pleas just like the EBT’s will not get in the way.

  28. “It was also made clear by Mr Mather and Mr Stockbridge that Rangers are not in need of an immediate financial injection but we agreed that now is the time to commence a new round of funding to ensure that it is available in an orderly and cost effective manner when required. I wish to lead that fund raising exercise and being on the Board will greatly assist me in that regard.

    looks like a very big tranche of cheap shares are heading Kings way,

    • Fra

      @Coat, 60 grand will buy you millions. Cheap as chips.

      If I’m reading this correctly, is this what it’s saying……

      “We ain’t skint if anybody asks and we’ve got enough but FFS Dave get some dosh in the account before it’s too late. We don’t have a lot of time.”

      Summing up, why did they have to run to DK when the Easdales are cashed up? Or are they? Maybe only small players after all.

      How can DK pass a fit and proper person test after pleading guilty to criminal acts in a South African court?

      The hierarchy in Scottish football become a bigger joke daily by their inability to implement their own rules and guidelines.

      I have not heard one sevconian say they don’t want DK because he’s a criminal. Not one chaps.

  29. tamtic

    Picture the scene, the “Big Hoose” boardroom,directors { whoever they are} are waiting to interview Big Davie the man who would be King for the top job. The door swings open and he’s there fixing the motley crew with a steely gaze’ “ok ya shower a’ begging bastards, whit dae ye waant tae know” “Ahh listen big man”, Mather trembles, “ur ye gonnae invest any money in the club cause we’re steeped in debt, ehh tradition and we need a good gers man tae gies a few quid, ye up fur it” Big Davie fixed them again with his steely gaze, “Aye” he growled “and it’ll be more than the fiver that McColl wi’ his wan share wis puttin’ in, ah’ll double it” Smiles all round from the directors, “Wan more thing Big Man,,there’s a wee problem wi’ yer past record wi’ tax ‘n that, so a’ must ask ye, huv ye turned over a new leaf n’ gied aw that up”. Big Davie banged his fist on the boardroom table”Fur fucks sake! ah’m a Castlemilk man, wur aw thiefs., you shitebags ur peanuts compared tae me,ah screwed millions oot the taxman n’ ah’ll never stop” The directors heaved a sigh of relief, “thank fuck fur that Davie, we thought ye were gonnae come oot wi’ aw that honesty n’ dignity pish, sign here” Mather said, handing him his Rangers crest embossed gold pen, “yer in Big Man” With this Big Davie donned his striped jersey and black mask, “right, ah’m off, av’e business tae attend tae” “Ahh Davie”, Mather said, “dae’s a favour Big Man, gonnae ‘no wear yer working gear when ye come tae the Big Hoose, it disnae look good, know whit ah mean” “Fuck aff, a blazer won’t change me” and he slammed the door behind him.”Well lads” Mather said,”thats been a successful day,get Ally on the phone, tell him he’s got his bonus ae a dozen pies, naw, fuck it make it two dozen pies, we’re rollin’ in it, champagne all round and nae cheap stuff” The directors made their way to the door, Mather stopped, “Hey! that thieving bastard stole ma gold pen!” Each director in turn nodded his head, “aye” Mather said smiling “ah knew it, we’ve goat the right man”

  30. Dave king explains his case to the SA press part 1

  31. JimBhoy

    “During a breakfast briefing with daily newspaper correspondents, it also emerged that Rangers director Dave King will not be permitted by the SFA to be an official at the Ibrox club post-administration as he was still serving on the board when they entered their current insolvency event under Whyte.” ah rules are flexible right Stu!

    • O D ,who was his audience ?

      listening to this he is a mummies boy, much like Niall Walker, living of his mummies money,

      to be honest, in my opinion, King tried to steal the tax money he owed but got caught
      Nial Walker ,tried to steal his elderly sick mothers dinner and he got caught,

      just tells me,they will stoop to anything to get a free lunch and when they get caught, they blame the people that catch them

  32. JimBhoy

    Going to bed girls and boys been no a bad discussion, just be nice to each other.. Cya..!

  33. @P McConville
    Is this in the public domain?

    King (Respondent) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

    http://taxriskmanagement.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/sa-dave-kings-house-of-lords-judgment.html

  34. LETS NOW SEE HOW FAR S.F.A CORRUPTION GOES!

  35. Pingback: “Black Monday” For Rangers’ CEO Craig Mather | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s