forlanssister

The claim by Murray that Whyte duped him is frankly insulting. The simple truth is he sacrificed Rangers and did so for no other reason than personal gain. He knew full well what fate awaited Rangers when he handed them over to Whyte. That Lloyds let him cherry pick every thing of value out of his companies before liquidating them reeks to high heaven.

Given the potential loss they're sitting on I imagine they think that too!

Not 100% sure if this will have a bearing on Kings offer or not. IIRC the 'Easdale Bloc' shares are/were held via Beaufort Nominees whose ultimate owner is Beaufort Securities. The FCA have frozen the assets of Beaufort Securities and they're being investigated by UK and US authorities for fraud and money laundering. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/failed-city-broker-faces-fraud-charges-dz0lv0btm

Enjoy!

Think the cans been kicked as far as it's possible to kick it. IIRC the offer has to be made within the next 28 days and I would expect the rights issue/placing to come along not far behind that, I'd be surprised if it isn't before the end of the season.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they found in his favour but it was probably the best outcome he could have realistically hoped for.

The offer will be made before any rights issue/placing.

Of course King acted in a cavalier manner and against the advice of his colleagues and the whole thing reeks of farce but it is what is and will be dealt with without much hindrance to RFC. It's not clear whether those who received the S793 notice will be made an offer or whether they could accept one without complying with the notice which could provide to be the most interesting thing in this sorry saga if they are finally forced to reveal who they actually are. Today's notice doesn't mean King has to make the offer it means either King or NOAL has to which may have been the best outcome King could seriously have obtained.

Not sure if that is the actual case because..... Shareholder Information In accordance with S.793 of the Companies Act 2006 (S. 793), RIFC has written to certain parties whom it knows or has reasonable cause to believe are interested in RIFC’s shares requiring information about the nature of those interests. The undernoted parties have not responded to the requests in respect of the holdings shown after their names in brackets: Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000), Putney Holdings Limited (700,000), ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and Norne Anstalt (1,200,000). The total number of shares affected is 8,500,000 (c. 10.4% of RIFC’s total issued share capital). Article 15.5 of RIFC’s Articles of Association states that, where its board of directors (the Board) is satisfied that any person appearing to be interested in shares has been duly served with a notice under s793 of the Companies Act 2006, and is in default of providing RIFC with the information required, the Board can, in its absolute discretion, at any time thereafter by notice to such member direct that: a. the member shall not be entitled to vote at a general meeting either personally or by proxy or to exercise any other right conferred by membership in relation to meetings of RIFC in respect of such shares; b. Except in a liquidation of RIFC , no payment shall be made of any sums due from RIFC for such shares and RIFC shall not meet any liability to pay interest on any such payment; c. No other distribution shall be made on such shares; and d. No transfer of any of the shares held by such member shall be registered unless: (i) The member is not himself in default in supplying the information requested and the transfer when presented for registration is accompanied by a certificate to the effect that the member is satisfied that no person in default as regards supplying such information is interested in any of the shares which are the subject of the transfer; or (ii) The transfer is an approved transfer. In brief, the above restrictions affect the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares. Direction notices have been sent to each of the above parties indicating those parties are in default of their obligations under S. 793 and that the measures noted will be imposed until the Board is satisfied that it has received all of the information required in terms of the S. 793 Notice sent to that party. https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/shareholder-information/

It won't have much if any bearing going forward

I won't lose any sleep if the decision goes against King.

No you're not havering been quite a few sportsmen who massively reduced their injuries by having their wisdom teeth done, I did suggest this to the Club over a year ago but fell on deaf ears. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/feb/16/milan-lab-premier-league

How the f*&k you can make that assumption from that reply is beyond my humble comprehension. If anything it intimates the contrary.

To those whom the Board wish to participate yes.

I seriously doubt disabled facilities are on their mind at all, when they asked for projects to be put forward I submitted improving disabled facilities and all I got was a thank you for your email email and that was that!

Pre-emption rights have been dis-applied.

Oh they absolutely knew but they were far more concerned in keeping their participation from David Murray secret in case that jeopardised the deal and ergo their expected profits than they were in ensuring Whyte's compliance to the extent that he didn't even sign their Directors declaration form. Ticketus were also so aware of the possibility of the transaction being viewed as "Financial Assistance" that they sought outside legal opinion.

Close Brothers are bottom feeders they'll deal with practically anyone for a fee, I would have had a more positive view had our bank (Metro) or any normal High Street bank offered us full banking facilities including an overdraft. Though I concede this facility may well assist in obtaining credit in the future.

I was in Court the day Ross Bryan from Ticketus gave evidence, it was clear that it was no ordinary Ticketus deal they were blinded by greed and ran a coach and horses through their own rules and internal controls. While Whyte played them it didn't take a great deal of effort in order to do so.

They're just spinning the line in that blog, while there is nothing nefarious in the deal for the facility there's nothing to crow about either.

I think he may just know a thing or two about what he's talking about (in this instance anyway!)....

Perfectly normal deal from Close Brothers point of view. I'm inclined to view this deal in isolation, Close Brothers are an expensive option period.

I'n not worried in regards to the longer term. My understanding is that the Albion car park and Edmiston House have been used as security. This is not an "overdraft" and I doubt it's a cheap form of short term finance but our options are extremely limited and it may well have been the least worst option if that makes sense. I won't be losing any sleep over it but it's certainly no cause for any celebration irrespective of how you see it spun.

I don't think it does either of those things at all.

To me it looks like a substitution for the undertaking given by the Chairman to Campbell Dallas. Absolutely.