wabashcannonball

CLUB OWNERSHIP "Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis." Donald Muir is a member of the Rangers board, why would he be withholding details of any negotiations from his fellow board members, he is specifically barred from the steering committee that would recommend or reject any offer, nothing more nothing less. At the very least withholding relevant information, if at all true, is being less than open, or open to other interpretation, or as I suspect the "committee" is in Murray's eyes a necessary irrelevance. The Independent Directors exclude Mike McGill and Donald Muir who are connected to MIH, and so have a potential conflict of interest, and Dave King and Paul Murray about whose intentions there has been past speculation that could lead to a perception of a possible conflict of interest.

My thoughts exactly.

I take it Kerr and his cohorts will be taking Jordan to task for blatant misrepresentation, unless of course AJ and Bain are so far out of the loop they do not know what is going on, Jordans article is the direct opposite of what kerr claims, so which one is pulling our chain..... "On the matter of the Andrew Ellis takeover, the fans’ delegation were told that proof of funding had still to be shown, and left the meeting with the impression that deal was going nowhere fast".

At least we agree that the bank cannot act arbitrarily, but where I come from being in someones back pocket only has one meaning.

If you have a mortgage or a loan the bank any bank has a keen interest, especially if you default, I wasn't aware the club had defaulted on anything, because they/we haven't defaulted on anything. Once again, and this appears not to register, the bank cannot change binding agreements at their whim, it is illegal and a breach of any contract, on the other hand defaulting on payments gives any bank the thin end of a very big wedge. People should stop scaremongering and blowing the circumstances up out of all recognition, to that which they really are. The club is in no danger from any bank.

What a crock, the bank has the club in its back pocket, obviously facts in any financial sense have passed you by, by a long way. Get a grip on reality.

Some braw strips here, hope they adhere to the same standards of our illustrious forebears.. http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Scottish_Football_League/Rangers/Rangers.htm

I never accept what anyone prints, it helps to have grandsons in high places.....

On a serious note Frankie, you are well aware of my dislike of the Mints methods, but I am realistic enough to realise that at this moment in time, as for the last twenty odd years he is all we have got. The Mint love him or loath him is to cute by half to ever require a pardon by me or royalty. Like I said I don't see any change any time soon to the ownership of the club.

I don't think Joe Beltrami was there Frankie, but he should have been...:fish:

Is there some part of "King's assets are frozen world-wide by SARS facilitated by the South African courts" that some parts of the Scottish press do not understand.

That's more or less the point I was making here Frankie, any chance of you ferreting out who was at the Sunday meet and what the outcome was... http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=203570&postcount=5

Sorry Amo, will try to do better, that is the first one that came up on uncle google.....:devil:

The plot thinneth.... http://www.football.co.uk/rangers/who_is_andrew_ellis_rss775096.shtml

It must have slipped their minds Frankie, 24 hours later and not a peep, mibees it was supposed to be secret like the previous one that caused such a stooshie ower on RM. Kingmakers at work, beware of low flying bullshit....time this whole fekin mess was put on view for the fans consumption...it is our club.

Who were the group who met with AJ and Bain yesterday, isn't it their duty to inform ALL Rangers supporters of the meetings outcome, or are we lowly foot soldiers excluded from such information. Exclusive by Thomas Jordan Share 0 comments 10 May 2010 Sasa Papac today urged the Rangers powerbrokers not to break up Walter Smithââ?¬â?¢s double-winning side. The future of the Ibrox manager has been cast in doubt amid fears funds wonââ?¬â?¢t be made available for him to strengthen the squad during the summer despite winning the SPL and the Co-operative Insurance Cup. And there are also six players out of contract with leading scorer Kris Boyd, captain Davie Weir, Nacho Novo, Kirk Broadfoot, Stevie Smith and DaMarcus Beasley waiting to discover if they will be offered new deals. Major steps will be made in determining what happens next at Rangers later today when chairman Alastair Johnston, chief executive Martin Bain and manager Walter Smith meet with Lloyds Bank in Edinburgh. Johnston and Bain met with a delegation of fans before yesterdayââ?¬â?¢s final SPL game ââ?¬â?? a 3-3 home draw with Motherwell ââ?¬â?? and told them they expected to thrash out plans for spending next season that would hand the manager a kitty of around Ã?£5million. That figure would be to re-sign the out-of-contract players, and also for fees and wages for new players. Given that Smithââ?¬â?¢s preference is to maintain a first-team squad of 24 players, that sum doesnââ?¬â?¢t leave the manager much room to manoeuvre and he is expected to ask for more. The reply he is given will go a long to determine what the summer holds for Rangers. On the matter of the Andrew Ellis takeover, the fansââ?¬â?¢ delegation were told that proof of funding had still to be shown, and left the meeting with the impression that deal was going nowhere fast. But Papac, however, is hoping Smith will still be at the helm next season. He said: ââ?¬Å?Everyone wants the manager to stay. He is the most important person at the football club because he has the respect of everyone and he has just managed to lead us to a second successive league championship. ââ?¬Å?I donââ?¬â?¢t know what decision he will make. However, all the players and also the fans want him to stay on. I know there are other things happening off the field and I just hope it all works out well for the club. ââ?¬Å?We also have a lot of players who are coming out of contract and hopefully they can be offered new deals and stay. When you win the title, and also the League Cup, you want to keep a successful team and build on it. ââ?¬Å?So Iââ?¬â?¢m keeping my fingers crossed that turns out to be the case and we can come back bigger and stronger.ââ?¬Â Papac reckons Rangersââ?¬â?¢ fabulous run in December was the turning point in their season and believes their form since then more than proves they are deserving champions. He said: ââ?¬Å?We really put a good run of results together at that time and we remained consistent from then on. For us, that was an extremely important period in the season as we opened up a good lead over Celtic. ââ?¬Å?After that, it was simply a case of making sure our form remained the same and it did for most of the run-in until we won the league against Hibs at Easter Road. It is never easy to win a championship ââ?¬â?? it is a difficult thing to achieve. ââ?¬Å?But we have all worked so hard and remained focused, even when we were having a difficult time in the Champions League. We just kept going out and gaining results and that is why we have won the league. ââ?¬Å?You can see how much the title means to the supporters and also to the players.ââ?¬Â

Bluedell help me out here, "On the matter of the Andrew Ellis takeover, the fans� delegation were told that proof of funding had still to be shown, and left the meeting with the impression that deal was going nowhere fast." Do you still need "the question" answered, or are we to believe that a guy, who allegedly has not provided any proof of funding was handed Rangers books, for the mysterious due diligence, which has never been confirmed by any authoritive source to have taken place..... http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks-ignore/sasa-papac-don-t-tear-us-apart-1.1026634

I haven't seen Ellis say anything, but a spokesman claimed on the 14th of March that Ellis would likely complete in 3 weeks..i.e. about April 7th. I think he may have meant April 1st. http://www.goal.com/en/news/1549/rest-of-europe/2010/03/14/1832506/property-tycoon-andrew-ellis-claims-he-expects-to-buy

Furfuxsake he's for the broth pot.....:fish: Contrary to popular belief- the thumbs up gesture did not spare a gladiator's life in Ancient Rome. A plebeian's pointed thumb or pollice verso (whether the thumb was pointed up, down, or somewhere in between we don't know) meant the combatant was to be slain. A hidden thumb, folded out of sight, or the pollice compresso meant he was to be spared. The famous scene in "Spartacus", where the Emperor signals a warriors life would be spared by the upturned thumb, was flawed by mistranslation through the ages. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=203504&postcount=14 PS have aread of the part in front of unable....

IRREVOCABLE COMMITMENTS AND LETTERS OF INTENT 9 (a) During an offer period, if any party to the offer or any person acting in concert with it procures an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent, the relevant party to the offer must publicly disclose the details in accordance with the Notes on this Rule 2.11. (b) If a party to the offer or any person acting in concert with it has procured an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent prior to the commencement of the offer period and/or prior to midnight on the day before an Opening Position Disclosure is made under Rule 8.1(a) or 8.2(a), the details must be disclosed in the Opening Position Disclosure made by the relevant party to the offer (see Note 5(a) on Rule 8 and the Notes on this Rule 2.11). © If, during the offer period and prior to midnight on the day before an Opening Position Disclosure is made under Rule 8.1(a) or 8.2(a), a party to the offer or any person acting in concert with it procures an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent and the details are disclosed in accordance with Rule 2.11(a), that disclosure must also include details of any other commitments or letters which have been procured prior to the date of the disclosure and which have not previously been disclosed. (d) If a person who has given an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent either becomes aware that he will not be able to comply with the terms of that commitment or letter or no longer intends to do so, that person must: (i) promptly announce an update of the position together with all relevant details; or (ii) promptly notify the relevant party to the offer and the Panel of the up-to-date position. Upon receipt of such a notification, the relevant party to the offer must promptly make an appropriate announcement of the information notified to it together with all relevant details. (e) See also Note 9 on the definition of acting in concert.NOTES ON RULE 2.11 1. Timing of disclosure A disclosure required by Rule 2.11(a) must be made by no later than 12 noon on the business day following the date of the transaction. No separate disclosure by an offeror is required under Rule 2.11(a) where the relevant information is included in an announcement made under Rule 2.5 which is published no later than 12 noon on the business day following the date on which the irrevocable commitment or letter of intent is procured. 10 2. Method of disclosure Disclosure under this Rule 2.11 should be made in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2.9. 3. Contents of disclosure A disclosure of the procuring of an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent must provide full details of the nature of the commitment or letter including:(a) the number of relevant securities of each class to which the irrevocable commitment or letter of intent relates; (b) the identity of the person from whom the irrevocable commitment or letter of intent has been procured. For this purpose, the information which should be disclosed is that which would be required by Note 5 on Rule 8 if the person concerned were disclosing a dealing in relevant securities; © in respect of an irrevocable commitment, the circumstances (if any) in which it will cease to be binding; and (d) in the case of an irrevocable commitment or a letter of intent procured prior to the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer under Rule 2.5, the value (and any other material terms) of the possible offer in respect of which the commitment or letter has been procured. (See Rule 2.4©.) 4. Letters of intent procured prior to the commencement of the offer period Where a party to the offer has procured a letter of intent prior to the commencement of the offer period, it must be verified that the letter of intent continues to represent the intentions of the shareholder or other person concerned at the time that the relevant details are publicly disclosed. This will normally include the shareholder or other person concerned providing an up-to-date written confirmation to the relevant party to the offer or its adviser. If you need any further help in ascertaining the crock of shit that masquerades as an interest from Ellis do not hesitate to let me know, or you could have a further update from NL after all you can vouch for him. Ellis will be wiping his arse with sandpaper before he produces a letter of intent from anyone, and Murray in particular.

http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/instrument-2007-1.pdf http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Instrument-2009-6.pdf PS I have been getting into trouble for not cutting and pasting, only giving the link as a reference, reminds me of an old saying, but we won't go into that now. :devil:

More to the point Ellis appears to be unable to meet the new takeover panel criteria, regards "irrevocable letters of intent". There is no excuse for anyone to stall, the league and europe are secure, HMRC is a crock, only reason to stall is bullshit walter mitty nonsense.

Daniel Benedict Wilson will eventually end up at the selik.... it's all that praying to Mary..... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEx7ib9EFdc]YouTube- Danny Wilson - Mary's Prayer[/ame]

Nae probs son, happy to educate you.....

There should be a moratorium on the amount of bullshit papers can make up and print, all of it rehashed crap.