Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,347

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    I told you, don't personalise it and things have a chance of being more constructive. What is your view on the retail question in post #19 / below ?
  2. buster.
    Sound's better, we can only see how it develops. Subject to the ensuing weeks prior to the meeting, I think that Rangers Retail should be high on the list of general subjects to broach. (encompasses past, present & future). eg. Have TRFC been paid in released cash, a dividend by RR and after two years of trading, if not, why not at a time when the club has cashflow difficulties ? Background You have an Ashely controlled joint venture (Rangers Retail Limited) for whatever reason, appearing not to release cash to the financially distressed TRFC. Then MA, via MASH Holdings Ltd is able to force a disproportinately beneficial deal because of an offer of a 2M unsecured credit facility to help cashflow.
  3. buster.
    Don't get so precious or try and personalise the matter so as it is easier to dismiss. I referred to the fans board and have expressed IMO valid points that reflect the concerns many supporters have regarding the fansboard and it's ongoing effectiveness regards meaningful 'communication & engagement' with the club. This isn't about you or me. It's about using the fansboard to the fans advantage. Those fans want transparency and for the directors to engage as promised on an agenda that looks for answers with regard to past, present and future.
  4. buster.
    Just to continue the story. Barry Leach's directorship with Rangers Retail Ltd. was terminated last week, the day or two before he was appointed as consultant. I not that the regulatory annoucement this morning has Llambias not involved with Keith Bishop Public Relations Limited anymore. I think that must have been another recent termination, will have to look into it. Both would be another wee piece for the jigsaw.........
  5. buster.
    I understand your suggestion but cannot agree with it. It is a bad precedent to set for the fansboard and harks of a timid approach that doesn't look for responsibility or accountability but is prepared to listen about future plans. What I am saying is until X can trust Y then listening to Y talk of future is of limited value. At the same time I wouldn't expect the Spanish inquisition. I would expect carefully formed questions that look to hold the board accountable and search for answers to make up for the void of information the ordinary supporter has to suffer. In short, a willingness to engage meaningfully, the support have had enough of what will happen and often never does. We need reasonable transparency and if the fansboard don't even want to look for it, then it will be laughed out of court.
  6. buster.
    This is an edited version of the post I made that touches on the same issues. It adds a couple of things to the article wrt document and links. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It appears MASH Holdings Limted has provided a credit facility of 2M to The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFC), secured on assets and gaining considerable influence in the boardrooms of both TRFC and RIFC. This whilst Rangers Retail Limited (RR)* does not release cumulative profits that show up in the RIFC group accounts, of which TRFC are a wholly owned subsidiary. * Background In late July 2012, a joint venture was entered into by Sports Direct and Rangers, it became known as Rangers Retail Ltd. Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge represented Rangers on the RR board of directors. SD have 49% in 'A' class shares which count double in any votes regarding financial matters. Rangers (TRFC) have 51%, in 'B' class shares (companies house document SH01 (Return of Allotment of Shares) dated 27/11/12) That gives Sports Direct de facto complete and utter control of Rangers Retail's entire operation. ------------------------------------------------------ For some reason Rangers Retail (under Sports Direct financial control) have withheld cashflow from Rangers (RIFC). The numbers below have appeared in the accounts and appear to be cumulating. This money hasn't since been released to TRFC or the (RIFC) group as a whole. 30 June 2013:............................................. ........... £946,000 http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/stat...Report2013.pdf (16. Cash & Balances) 31 December 2013:............................................. £1,669,000 http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regula...ws_article/375 (Condensed consolidated Statement of Cash Flows) 30 June 2014.............................................. .........£2,720,000: http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regula...ws_article/388 (The Company had an unaudited cash balance of £4.258 million at 30 June 2014. Included in this unaudited cash balance is £2.72 million relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole.) Today: If pattern stays the same I'd estimate ...... 3,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment "This isn't money owed to the parent co, it is the bank balance of the retail company. It falls within the assets of the group collectively, but in order for the funds to go up to the parent co or across to the football club, it would have to pay dividends (to parent co only) or loan the cash (to either)." Within the companies house document SH01 (Return of Allotment of Shares) dated 27/11/12, it states: "the company may, by unanimous consent of the directors declare dividends on A shares and B shares" * So back at the end of June this year: - you have Rangers scrambling around looking for money with Graham Wallace and Philip Nash at the forefront. - you had a balance of 2,720,000 sitting in the accounts but unreleased that related to Rangers Retail Ltd. - Rangers hold 51% of the Rangers Retail joint venture, Sports Direct 49% * - Graham Wallace and Phillip Nash represented Rangers on the Rangers Retail board of directors. So you have GW and PN, directors of the retail operation unable to source funds from joint venture that would correspond with our 51% stakeholding. Suggests that other Rangers Retail director(s) (from Sports Direct) didn't want to release it. You could take it back to Feburary with nearly the same situation when we needed to take out a short term loan financed against assets. Only that Nash wasn't yet on the Rangers Retail board and the total figure sitting in the accounts but unreleased was around 1,850,000 pounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Look at it all and consider if the main goal of Mike Ashely isn't control but to tie up the retail along with IP rights in such a way that his lawyers ensure contracts can't be broken by an insolvency event. The MO being find a distressed club, finance through loans, acquire retail and IP rights with contract that can survive insolvency event. Now read the relevant page from the IPO prospectus from the start of the paragraph that contains highlighted line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You have an Ashely controlled joint venture (Rangers Retail Limited)* for whatever reason, not releasing cash to the financially distressed TRFC. Then MA, via MASH Holdings Ltd is able to force a disproportinately beneficial deal because of an offer of a 2M unsecured credit facility to help cashflow.
  7. buster.
    Very interesting set of links those FS ! They help form a picture of Ashely. Mainly in the background, likes the game/intrigue/a punt. Will be ruthless and is prepared to play things in a less than straightforward way so as to get a hold of X or X PLC by the baws. In short, the type of profile that might fit with who has been pulling the strings over Ibrox for the last 2 years plus.
  8. buster.
    There is no doubt about that, eg. requisitioners leading up to AGM 2013. There wasn't enough professionalism in the way they engaged and by that I mean more than anything the PR which was often of the home made variety and not strategically thought out, it was more fire fighting. Then there was disagreements and disconects between those with the institutional (where mandate came from) and individuals who were on the frontline. eg. agreement for a 9 man board made by individuals with club board but Ko'd later by institutions. The there was McColl who lets say had a dissappointing December. The board had it easy. All that said the support have to recognize their continued failure to get to grips/comunicate what has been going on. Whilst you can't expect miracles, repeating the same mistake X times reflects badly on us. All in all it has been a collective failure at Rangers which has led to this point.
  9. buster.
    Mike Ashely might have his company sponser one conglomerate where his 5% counts as 51% in any votes. 'The Sports Direct Fans Group'
  10. buster.
    Barry Leach has had his directorship with Rangers Retail terminated. As per Companies House document (29/10/14).
  11. buster.
    The old Divide and Conquer (or at least get less organised grief). We in many ways, are our own worst enemies. Modern Society is generally ever more stupid and supine at heart.
  12. buster.
    You speak of opinion. As to outcomes you seek (to engineer), that depends on what the motivation is. The various sp.ivs over the last few years have all been interested in nuturing the divide within the support. Their success here, has made it much easier for them to get away with what they have. What we have now is a degree of 'blowback'. In that this division has partly morphed into lost revenue. The balancing act for them now, is to engage and bring back the 'middle ground' and leave the 'hardliners' so as there is a confrontational situation. This breeds emotion and when you invest emotion, tunnel vision becomes near blindness. Blind Loyalty means money and getting away with daylight robbery.
  13. buster.
    Faceless but hairless ?
  14. buster.
    Any proposals that seek to, or that would lead to inflaming the 'situation' and further dividing the support would not reflect well on the proposer.
  15. buster.
    Just like he knew about the "investment" talked of in the 2013 AGM ? Sorry, a chairman should qualify (where necessary) and use the apropriate tense when making public statements.
  16. buster.
    Aye ! David will soon be looking for more investment so as to pay back this investment.
  17. buster.
    If you recall the AGM of 2013 and what followed........"Investment" is obviously sp.ivspeak for 'secured credit facility'. Somers knows exactly what he saying though, unlike Easdale who might trip himself up because he's simply not very articulate. If he had used future tense or said "looking forward to getting....." ok, but he didn't. He's trying to mislead and create a more favourable impression of the MA involvement by misrepresenting the facts as they stand. It's consistant with the general message that is coming from Ibrox and their spin machine.
  18. buster.
    You know you are getting a good deal when your 49% (Sports Direct) trumps the 51% (Rangers) in any votes on financial matters. Green and Ashely have set that up as,....... as you'd imagine them to have. Rangers continue to be a scud book being passed round the vultures.
  19. buster.
    It's all very muddy. The credit facility gives MA the chance for two directors on both TRFC and RIFC boards. Leach is already on the Rangers Retail board representing Sports Direct, would it be allowed for him to sit on the board of TRFC/RIFC aswell. If SD were to buy-out the Rangers 51% of the Retail operation things may change.
  20. buster.
    But given who is involved, their advisors, their track record, you know that such engagement will not be sincere.
  21. buster.
    Would you call a SugarDaddy, someone that has his men in Rangers Retail retain money due to the club at times of critical financial hardship ? And then takes advantage to grab power for buttons, that he'll want back. ?
  22. buster.
    He's also a director of Rangers Retail Ltd (RR) and has been since the outset (August 2012). He's one of the directors that have decided not to declare a dividend and release monies (profit) from the retail operation to the 51% that Rangers have in RR. Thus making it easier for Ashely to grab power in return for....not a lot.
  23. buster.
    In 2011, MM didn't have any direct connection with Rangers / CW. There are many people who don't go public with their thoughts because their knowledge is limited (pieces of a large jigsaw), is often without hard evidence and as you know very well....you must tread warily. First thing that comes to mind is that Ashely wouldn't have anything to do with guys like CW. But then you think SDM/CW and MA/CGreen and the pursuit of 'deals'. Not forgetting that CW at that time was owner of Rangers, a retail brand that Ashely would be getting control of 8 months later.
  24. buster.
    From link in OP. Circumstancial, could be coincidental but still curious. - Has Mike Ashely a connection with this charity ? - Does MA often come up to Scotland ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to add. In the Sevco 5088/CW 'letter before the claim' from 2012 that still indirectly occupies a place in our accounts regards 'contingent liability' there was the following line. 7 (e). [i]“Introduced Jim Park as a consultant in order to introduce Mike Ashley, owner of Newcastle United, as both a key investor and developer of the RFC retail arm”[/i]....................There were widespread allegations of a commission being paid by Rangers to Jim Park but I don't have any proof. Jim Park was a "lifelong friend" of Craig Whyte's Dad. The Daily Record ran the following story "Craig Whyte's pal hired by Charles Green to find investors for Rangers" http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/twice-bankrupt-jim-park-has-been-taken-1220783 Anyone got anything to add ?
  25. buster.
    Just to add......... - Think about a business model that didn't work previously - add a spi.v tax (onerous contracts) - consider little or no retail money - consider relatively little broadcast revenue - consider the money needed to be spent on Ibrox - consider the money needed spent on infrastructure to football operation Now tell me how realistic the line about Ashely looking for "CL exposure" for SD ?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.