forlanssister

The RDSA is but a fig leaf, it would be interesting to see what percentage of Assembly meetings the RDSA representative has attended in the last 12 months.

Interesting news.

When we were in the SPL we had the lowest ratio of wheelchair spaces to capacity than any other club, we still have a lower ratio than most of the SFL. The work will have to be done come what may if we want to play European football again as UEFA rules will mandate better facilities from 2014.

Improving the pathetic wheelchair facilities and ensuring that the intolerable 15+ year long wait for a wheelchair season ticket is no more.

Is my memory playing tricks on me or have the VB's made some quite radical changes to the original article? Could have sworn it had copies of the emails (with names redacted) up earlier.

Of course Whyte has previous with HMRC.

IIRC (it's a few years since I've held convertibles) the holders can convert them annually though it doesn't usually make much sense unless the ordinary shares have shot up in value (certainly not the case in the scums case), they usually have a fixed redemption date (though not always) when the company can force the conversion into ordinary shares. The scum ones carry a coupon of 6% but I don't know the current share price for them so don't know the effective return on them. I once held Kunick (they made fruit machines and owned some granny farms)Cumulative Convertible Preference shares with a nominal coupon of 8% but was actually receiving a return of 42% they eventually got taken over and the shares were redeemed at par so I had a big fat capital gain to compensate for the loss of income. The scum have plenty debt it's just that they like to dress it up differently.

Shouldn't be to many call off's as us and Queens Park have undersoil heating, Annan, Montrose, Clyde and East Stirling have plastic pitches.

For all intents and purposes that's £24m of debt with the Cumulative shares paying out over £0.5m a year in interest.

As I stated, I read the postings in question and have seen far, far worse and potentially more damaging than those that were removed today. Obviously financial matters are not his strong point (as his personal history ably demonstrates) but I doubt any reasonable person who intended to subscribe to the share offer would not have been swayed not to by reading his posts. I can only imagine someone of high enough standing was sufficiently irked to do something about the content, however like yourself I'm unsure of the wisdom of this particular action as there are far more important targets to aim at. But then the powers that be may be party to information than you or I.

Not in the eyes of the law, a libel is a libel whether one person reads it or millions. If truth be told there's much worse on his blog than was removed in relation to the IPO. The "Head of Terms" stuff from that c*&t Brennan was far worse.

Not overly enamoured with that proposal. Can't see the TV companies falling over themselves if there's just two guaranteed us v scum games. Rather have a 14 team league with a spilt and us and them not entered into League Cup but 'Colts' are.

Strange thing is that statistically our best central defensive partnership that season was Hemdani and Svensson. So it didn't really work in spades at all.

It's not a prospectus as such just a power point which will be part of the presentational sales pitch to institutional investors. Still looks amateurish though.

McClelland had an extremely successful business career outside of RFC, he'd be well versed on what was required and would have been well aware that things were not as they should be i.e the absence of board meeting etc.

Point is it was his business to know.

Apologies that should be February 4th 2011 (perhaps a day or so earlier)

McClelland is a very smart cookie, I don't think he performed his duties during the Whyte regime in the manner in which should/could be expected, basically he let us down.

His claim is against Murray not RFC in any shape or form, in fact he did state any monies recovered would go to RFC and not himself (personally I doubt that case will ever proceed but stranger things have happened). Wise words at the time and ones uttered by a lot more than King himself, even McCoist initially urged fans to refrain from parting with their monies for a considerable period of time. A decade or so of prosecution without conviction would suggest (much like the link you posted) that there doesn't seem to be much substance to the prosecutors claims, that certainly was the opinion of the Judge who acquitted him. Every trade has its' tricks, some tradesmen use them others don't. April 2nd 2011 (perhaps a day or so earlier) I'm actually glad you did! King's well known for keeping his cards very close to his chest so I doubt anyone here would be aware of his intentions regarding investing again in RFC, one thing's sure though if he wants 5% this time round he won't have to dig so deep into his pockets!

Of course people can invest later. that's one of the side effects of being listed on a stock market! One of the main ones being the difference between what would be paid in income tax and what will be paid in CGT!

So you now agree he's being rewarded out with his prospective shareholding? Yes it's probably circa half the obscene wedge Bain was lifting but we'll have to wait for the accounts to know for definite (not 100% sure it's a required disclosure in the prospectus but it may well be). Once we see the ratio of remuneration to turnover then we'll know if it's the going rate or not.

He's collecting a wage in the region of £300k per annum isn't he, according to himself or don't you believe Green's own words?

He was being facetious

Physician heal thyself! springs to mind.

Yes his, by the use of the question mark you're insinuating that it's someone else's £20m, pray tell whose if not Kings? I don't think anything said or done by King, Smith or Hart was out of order in any way shape or form for they all undoubtedly have Rangers at heart. Your own link proves that far from being "neck deep in tax trouble" he is now at worst waist deep and at best standing on dry ground, no? I take it that's a typo and you in fact mean not doing their job properly. That's incorrect, he's always had the ability to invest and do business here albeit with the permission of the court as demonstrated by the unwinding of Murray Sports Limited for which King sought and was granted the permission of the court otherwise it could not have been facilitated. Which begs the question why start a thread with it in the first place?