forlanssister 3,113 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Members of RFB met with Derek Llambias & Barry Leach on Wednesday evening in Glasgow for 'clear the air' talks related to RFB's motion of no confidence in the current Rangers Board. Not all members of RFB were aware of or participated in the meeting due to a number of mitigating factors, such as: a request for confidentiality by Rangers Board members, the timelines in which the meeting was called, RFB member availability, and communication challenges. The meeting was attended by Tom Clements, Alison Clark-Dick, and William Findlay. The meeting was open, frank and productive and the agreement afterwards was that Mr Llambias and Mr Leach attend the next RFB meeting on February 11th to answer any questions that are posed to them. Further to this meeting both parties will decide on the most appropriate way forward. At this time RFB is NOT retracting the vote of no confidence. We will be polling fans after the Old Firm game to give us the questions that you want and need answered. The following notes were captured during the meeting: - Options open to raise finance: 1. Capital company deal considered: included using Ibrox as security with an initial £1m upfront loan and £15m thereafter with 15% pa interest rate. 2. Joint venture considered: £5m paying MASH Holdings debt off. (MASH is Mike Ashley's personal company). 3. ‘The Three Bears’ deal considered: initially were offering £4m but increased that to £10m. With the £4m initial deal they wanted immediate pay back of full amount after 3 months through equity release. When 'Heads of terms' asked for, three bears reduced £10m offer to £6m with further funds raised through a debenture then a bond. 4. Sports Direct deal considered: initially £5m then a further £5m with no security over Ibrox. Use £3m of the £10m to pay off MASH Holdings. 'Heads of terms' were agreed and deal was accepted. Sports Direct do not own shares in any other professional team in football or any other sport but own the brands. When loan paid off all security etc returns to Rangers. - Retail problems: Charles Green wanted to order 400,000 shirts which were decreased to 200,000 by Sports Direct. 125,000 shirts were sold but with 75,000 left provisions had to be made for obsolete stock. 10 year deal was arranged by Green at Belfast Airport shop which was losing between £60,000 and £100,000PA. 32 Red deal earns Rangers £300,000 PA for 2 years. Because of the late deal with 32 Red as shirt sponsor, Rangers incurred a charge from PUMA of £140,000 for having to print the sponsor after the shirts were manufactured. This amount hopefully will be negotiated down. -No truth in Nacho Novo claims. Novo and Lovenkrands had been invited to train at Murray Park for fitness purposes in preparation for the Ricksen fundraising game. After this Nacho turned up to the training ground this week when Kenny McDowall was preparing his team for the League Cup semi-final and had to concentrate on the first team. Nothing to do with his involvement in Rangers First. - Cost of Board: 2013: £1.6m, 2014: £1.4m, 2015: (projected) £600,000 with no bonuses. Llambias is earning £150,000 with £50,000 expenses allowance. Leach is earning £140,000 with £40,000 expenses allowance. David Somers is earning £60,000 plus expenses, the other directors whist entitled to a salary, haven’t actually taken it so far. Club simply cannot afford Directors' bonuses and feel that bonuses only come with success. Another £2.25m worth of savings have been made this year so far in the club over and above the saving in directors salaries. - EGM: Club has 21 days to notify shareholders that an EGM has been called and a further 28 days to release date for EGM and to hold it. December's AGM was held in a 'tent' on the field because Rangers could not afford scaffolding to be erected at Main Stand. https://www.facebook.com/rangersfansboard 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Jesus wept , an absurd situation , I hope Charles green catches a very nasty disease that causes him pain 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I take it they met the pro board sheep of the RFB and FS wasn't invited. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,183 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Not all members of RFB were aware of or participated in the meeting due to a number of mitigating factors, such as: a request for confidentiality by Rangers Board members If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like it might be the first step to individuals on the RFB getting marginalised or even sent on their way. Edited January 31, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govan_derriere 3 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 "Sports Direct do not own shares in any other professional team in football or any other sport but own the brands." Looks like a crass attempt to distance Mash from Sports Direct. Now let me think? Who owns most of SD? It doesn't really matter what Llambias says, the board have shown themselves to be totally untrustworthy. A possible question for Llambias. How much, in total, did Rangers pay Keith Bishop during their 18 month contract with RFC? What services were actually provided? Did these services and the fees paid represent value for money for Rangers? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,113 Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 I take it they met the pro board sheep of the RFB and FS wasn't invited. I wasn't invited to that meeting and wasn't aware that it was taking place. I'm merely the message boy on this occasion and know little more about the meeting other than is contained in those notes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not all RFB were aware of the meeting!!!! Only 3 members of RFB were able to attend, one reason being "a request of confidentiality by Rangers board members". What does that mean? They don't trust some of their hand picked RFB members? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,113 Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not all RFB were aware of the meeting!!!! Only 3 members of RFB were able to attend, one reason being "a request of confidentiality by Rangers board members". What does that mean? They don't trust some of their hand picked RFB members? I can assure you once again I wasn't hand picked and tbh I don't think anyone else was either. I think AH was proof of that! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I wasn't invited to that meeting and wasn't aware that it was taking place. I'm merely the message boy on this occasion and know little more about the meeting other than is contained in those notes. was that deliberate? if so, it's scandalous. the three that met should have insisted that all members attend. Edited January 31, 2015 by Little General 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,183 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) was that deliberate? if so, it's scandalous. the three that met should have insisted that all members attend. Not all members of RFB were aware of or participated in the meeting due to a number of mitigating factors, such as: - a request for confidentiality by Rangers Board members - the timelines in which the meeting was called - RFB member availability - communication challenges --------------------------------------------------------------- Unless FS was on the moon and 'incommunicado', it would seem as Rangers board members don't trust or want to engage with a Fans Board Member who is clear in his wish for more transparency. This might be considered as an unsubtle push to provoke RFB member(s) into a cycle that leads to them leaving the board. -------------------------------------------------- Rangers Board Members:.... 'Communication and engagement with whom we deem suitable' Now it's some elected representatives that aren't included, never mind other fansgroups. Edited January 31, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.