Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Seems like he's being paid ridiculous amounts of money to pass the buck.

If the others did make a hash of things why not call auditors to tell the truth? He can't have it both ways but that's exactly what he's doing and you're falling for it.

So Deloitte quit last June and this is something that can be used against the old board but you expect them just to come out and say what happened. You have heard the expression about keeping your powder dry. Well never has that been more important than now if they are to have any leverage against Ashley.
Just think Bobby in the couple of weeks before they were voted out they tried to take almost 1m from the club between payoffs and this pathetic loan bonus just think what was hidden for at least the year before it

weldoninhio

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So Deloitte quit last June and this is something that can be used against the old board but you expect them just to come out and say what happened. You have heard the expression about keeping your powder dry. Well never has that been more important than now if they are to have any leverage against Ashley.
Just think Bobby in the couple of weeks before they were voted out they tried to take almost 1m from the club between payoffs and this pathetic loan bonus just think what was hidden for at least the year before it

Where was Deloittes statement when they quit, the one that they are obliged to make, giving their reasons for quitting within a few days.

Easy sound bytes from Murray. Why wasn't the NOMAD, who's ready to go, named?

Will Kings behaviour be investigated? Publically organised a boycott, pushing share price down, then buys up shares at a low price. Tells shareholders that he has a NOMAD lined up, ready to go, before a vote to get his group into power. With 20 hours to go it looks that that was a lie and the club will be delisted, costing institutional investors a lot of money.

He's had a £50m warchest ready to go, downgraded to his children's inheritence of £30m ready to go, downgraded to £10m to invest. Yet it was the 3 bears who had to stump up the most recent £1.5m crisis loan.

And still the heads remain in the sand.

weldoninhio

“We confirmed to the Rangers board in November last year that, following the completion of our duties as statutory auditors for the year ended 30 June 2014, we would not be seeking to be the group’s auditors for the 30 June 2015 year end.

“The audits of all the group’s companies were completed in January 2015. We understand that the board is in the process of appointing new auditors and we will work to ensure a smooth transition to the new firm.”

Statement from Deloitte regarding Mr Murrays statement. They are still working with Rangers* to help transition to a new auditor. Seems at odds with what Paul Murray said!!!

PS. 6 hours to find a nomad.

bobbysands81

It's almost 4 weeks since Dave 'glib and shameless liar' King said the following:

6th March 2015
“I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.

“I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.

“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.

“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.

“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.

“If we succeed [today], and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”

Jelle1880

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's almost 4 weeks since Dave 'glib and shameless liar' King said the following:

6th March 2015
“I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.

“I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.

“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.

“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.

“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.

“If we succeed [today], and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”

The prospective Nomad completed its checks on the "fit and proper" status of the existing and the proposed additional director of the Company and confirmed to the Company that it was satisfied on both fronts.

It then carried out its own assessment of the Company's profile over the last several years and the issues which had been encountered. We understand this process involved discussions with the Exchange. We were advised that, following this process, the prospective Nomad was unable to take up appointment.

So basically they decided not to follow up on it most likely due to what they found out about the club (I read yesterday that the company were quoted as the worst ran company on AIM, or something like that), nothing to do with King.

A Dub in Glasgo

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Just a wee point to consider Charles Green put our club on the AIM listings. I only got this pointed out to me today for me anything that cuts even the slightest tie with Green is a good thing.
I hate to think how much that scumbag made from us.

weldoninhio

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So basically they decided not to follow up on it most likely due to what they found out about the club (I read yesterday that the company were quoted as the worst ran company on AIM, or something like that), nothing to do with King.

I've got some magic Rangers* beans for sale.

Why is Dave so reticent to name the NOMAD?? Why have the NOMAD not released a statement??

It's all too easy to blame the previous regime, until you notice that they had NOMADs throughout their tenure without any hassle. Rangers fans need to get over their Messiah complex and get their heads out of the sand, or this circus is never gonna end.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

weldoninhio wrote: »

I've got some magic Rangers* beans for sale.

Why is Dave so reticent to name the NOMAD?? Why have the NOMAD not released a statement??

It's all too easy to blame the previous regime, until you notice that they had NOMADs throughout their tenure without any hassle. Rangers fans need to get over their Messiah complex and get their heads out of the sand, or this circus is never gonna end.

Yet the previous nomad who agreed to see the transition of it happened suddenly resigned very quickly. If you read what AIM have said it is due to what went on in the previous 12 months nothing to to with the new board

howiya

weldoninhio wrote: »

I've got some magic Rangers* beans for sale.

Why is Dave so reticent to name the NOMAD?? Why have the NOMAD not released a statement??

It's all too easy to blame the previous regime, until you notice that they had NOMADs throughout their tenure without any hassle. Rangers fans need to get over their Messiah complex and get their heads out of the sand, or this circus is never gonna end.

Why would an unappointed company make a statement associating themselves with Rangers?

The potential nomad was only involved in due diligence. It is common practice for such due diligence to be done on basis of confidentiality and anonymity

Nomads are usually long term appointments. This would have been Rangers' fifth nomad since it listed which is unheard of over such a short period of time. To say they had them without any hassle is clearly untrue.

It will be interesting to watch what happens with the institutional investors, some of whom will be limited to only holding shares in listed companies. Will there be a rush to sell which would essentially compete with any planned share offering?

If it weren't for these institutional investors (a lot of whom supported the regime change) King probably would have delisted the company straight away.

One thing I would criticise the new board for is the uncertainty that leaving the delisting until the last minute has created for these investors.

A statement today saying Rangers are moving to such exchange would have been much stronger. The Rangers board new a month ago it would be very unlikely to convince a nomad to join them allowing a return to the AIM.

bobbysands81

howiya wrote: »

Why would an unappointed company make a statement associating themselves with Rangers?

The potential nomad was only involved in due diligence. It is common practice for such due diligence to be done on basis of confidentiality and anonymity

Nomads are usually long term appointments. This would have been Rangers' fifth nomad since it listed which is unheard of over such a short period of time. To say they had them without any hassle is clearly untrue.

It will be interesting to watch what happens with the institutional investors, some of whom will be limited to only holding shares in listed companies. Will there be a rush to sell which would essentially compete with any planned share offering?

If it weren't for these institutional investors (a lot of whom supported the regime change) King probably would have delisted the company straight away.

One thing I would criticise the new board for is the uncertainty that leaving the delisting until the last minute has created for these investors.

A statement today saying Rangers are moving to such exchange would have been much stronger. The Rangers board new a month ago it would be very unlikely to convince a nomad to join them allowing a return to the AIM.

What is it with Rangers fans always trusting their 'superiors'?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What is it with Rangers fans always trusting their 'superiors'?

Superiors Bobby maybe thats what you think of your crowd personally most oRangers fans I know think or board hold the club in trust as it is bigger than all of them

Also you sure howiya s a bear maybe he is but I have never seen him on this thread before

Also is it because this goes against what you want to here Bobby it is clear that AIM dropped the club because of what has went on since Green put us in it has nothing to do with the new board oops

howiya

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What is it with Rangers fans always trusting their 'superiors'?

I'm not a rangers fan so I wouldn't know. Only interested in the whole saga coz I'm interested in the business of sport

Broxi_Bear_Eire

howiya wrote: »

I'm not a rangers fan so I wouldn't know. Only interested in the whole saga coz I'm interested in the business of sport

I didn't think you were mate but fans of a certain club will reckon you must be because you have not attacked like a rottweiler

weldoninhio

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Yet the previous nomad who agreed to see the transition of it happened suddenly resigned very quickly. If you read what AIM have said it is due to what went on in the previous 12 months nothing to to with the new board

Did AIM release a statement?? Did they say in their statement why they (AIM) waited until the last minute that Rangers* could try to find a NOMAD to delist Rangers*, instead of just kicking them off when WH Ireland quit?? Has Paul Murray retracted his statement about Deloitte quitting over a year ago, now that Deloitte have said that they only finished up in Jan 15, and are working with the new board to help the changeover to their new auditors, if they can find one.

I've only seen Rangers* statement, which was extremely vague and basically said, it's someone else's fault.

I can't believe after Murray, Whyte, Green et al, you are still taking lies at face value. It's gone beyond hilarious and is more tragic now.

Jelle1880

I can think of a few other things that are tragic

bobbysands81

I don't get all the blaming the old Board, the old Board were able to get a NOMAD, the new Board can't... but let's blame the old Board.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I don't get all the blaming the old Board, the old Board were able to get a NOMAD, the new Board can't... but let's blame the old Board.

It's simple really the new board cannot tie up a nomad due to dubious actions of the old board. Plus if the old nomad had been true to their word this would of have happened

Jelle1880

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I don't get all the blaming the old Board, the old Board were able to get a NOMAD, the new Board can't... but let's blame the old Board.

They were even able to get 5 NOMAD's, how could you blame such an effective board.

Don't be daft, for months this thread has been full of you laughing about how bad the old board were, and now we shouldn't blame them :pac:

bobmalooka

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They were even able to get 5 NOMAD's, how could you blame such an effective board.

Don't be daft, for months this thread has been full of you laughing about how bad the old board were, and now we shouldn't blame them :pac:

I think you're missing the point, the old board being a shambles shouldnt excuse the new boards failings.

The old board is a convenient excuse for them now but it really looks like things won't improve.

A NOMAD would be looking at how the company will proceed (the future) when deciding on getting on board, yet we are being told that they can't get one now based on past events.

It was well documented that the company is a financial mess yet King told everyone he had all the ducks lined up. What changed?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobmalooka wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, the old board being a shambles shouldnt excuse the new boards failings.

The old board is a convenient excuse for them now but it really looks like things won't improve.

A NOMAD would be looking at how the company will proceed (the future) when deciding on getting on board, yet we are being told that they can't get one now based on past events.

It was well documented that the company is a financial mess yet King told everyone he had all the ducks lined up. What changed?

What changed was they have seen the enormity of thd situation that has been left in the last couple of days we have heard of the debacle with the Newcastle players and a couple of weeks ago Ashley's two puppets were trying to get massive pay offs which would have accounted for just under 1m in no time then you add on the dodgy contracts that the old board signed. And I like many other Bears believe this is just thd tip of the iceberg

Jelle1880

bobmalooka wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, the old board being a shambles shouldnt excuse the new boards failings.

The old board is a convenient excuse for them now but it really looks like things won't improve.

A NOMAD would be looking at how the company will proceed (the future) when deciding on getting on board, yet we are being told that they can't get one now based on past events.

It was well documented that the company is a financial mess yet King told everyone he had all the ducks lined up. What changed?

Not exactly I think.

“Yes but when you say ‘I have a Nomad’ ....I think we’ve addressed the money issue. I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.

“I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.

“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.

“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.

“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.

“If we succeed tomorrow, and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”

That last paragraph was taken out of context I believe, he was probably talking about the process of the appointed NOMAD to start looking into the club as opposed to what was widely reported, namely that they would become the new NOMAD in a few days (which is impossible if you have to do due diligence).

bobbysands81

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They were even able to get 5 NOMAD's, how could you blame such an effective board.

Don't be daft, for months this thread has been full of you laughing about how bad the old board were, and now we shouldn't blame them :pac:

So the bad old Board could get 5 of them, the new Board can get none so that's a sign of how bad the old Board were???!!!

Jelle1880

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So the bad old Board could get 5 of them, the new Board can get none so that's a sign of how bad the old Board were???!!!

Getting 5 Nomad's in a few years is pretty bad actually.

A Nomad is supposed to be a long term financial advisor to a company, not something you throw out every few months.

weldoninhio

Old board in. Club had a NOMAD and an Auditor. New board elected. Club has no NOMAD or Auditor. Only one thing has changed. That's the board.

As for the Newcastle 5, no loan fee and only £500,000 if promoted is not too bad a deal. Vukicic looks like he's dragging you through games single handedly, maybe the others were attached as part of taking him, same as Hazards brother when Chelsea signed Eden, of Fabio when United wanted Rafael.

None of you have commented on Paul Murrays blatant LIE either when he said the club had no auditor for over a year, Deloitte have since rubbished that and said they are still working with the club
to ensure a smooth handover when they find a new auditor. Did the old board make him lie??

Broxi_Bear_Eire

weldoninhio wrote: »

Old board in. Club had a NOMAD and an Auditor. New board elected. Club has no NOMAD or Auditor. Only one thing has changed. That's the board.

As for the Newcastle 5, no loan fee and only £500,000 if promoted is not too bad a deal. Vukicic looks like he's dragging you through games single handedly, maybe the others were attached as part of taking him, same as Hazards brother when Chelsea signed Eden, of Fabio when United wanted Rafael.

None of you have commented on Paul Murrays blatant LIE either when he said the club had no auditor for over a year, Deloitte have since rubbished that and said they are still working with the club
to ensure a smooth handover when they find a new auditor. Did the old board make him lie??

What nonsense Rangers get 342,000 for finishing second and going up so why would anyone agree to pay 500,000 for 5 players three who have never played due to injury /illness one who Mayes less than 45 min before getting injured as for Vickic dragging us through games I take it you have not been watching because you wouldn't be talking nonsense if you had. He has played well but before McCall came in they were all rotten they all have improved including him.
As for the nomads I am aware of fourths club had in three years the reasons being they refused to work with the board and they refused to work with the Easdales.
This Deloitte statement where is it as I cannot find it.

weldoninhio

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

What nonsense Rangers get 342,000 for finishing second and going up so why would anyone agree to pay 500,000 for 5 players three who have never played due to injury /illness one who Mayes less than 45 min before getting injured as for Vickic dragging us through games I take it you have not been watching because you wouldn't be talking nonsense if you had. He has played well but before McCall came in they were all rotten they all have improved including him.
As for the nomads I am aware of fourths club had in three years the reasons being they refused to work with the board and they refused to work with the Easdales.
This Deloitte statement where is it as I cannot find it.

The Deloitte statement I posted about 6 posts up in this thread. You might lose money going up, but the money you make when you get there will make up for that. It's basic economics. Not Rangers* strongpoint I know, but it is what it is.

Could you repost your nomad part again in English?

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

“We confirmed to the Rangers board in November last year that, following the completion of our duties as statutory auditors for the year ended 30 June 2014, we would not be seeking to be the group’s auditors for the 30 June 2015 year end.

“The audits of all the group’s companies were completed in January 2015. We understand that the board is in the process of appointing new auditors and we will work to ensure a smooth transition to the new firm.”

Statement from Deloitte

Broxi_Bear_Eire

weldoninhio wrote: »

The Deloitte statement I posted about 6 posts up in this thread. You might lose money going up, but the money you make when you get there will make up for that. It's basic economics. Not Rangers* strongpoint I know, but it is what it is.

Could you repost your nomad part again in English?

Did you write that statement yourself I have Not seen it anywhere
What nonsense paying all that money for players that were signed without a medical and we are expected to pay the
Plus a nonsensical bonus I hope you are not running your own business
You posted it up very good I will take your word as for the rest of your ****e I do hate smart arsed grammar Nazis
As for the nomads I am aware of four the club had in three years the reasons being they refused to work with the board and they refused to work with the Easdales.

weldoninhio

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Did you write that statement yourself I have Not seen it anywhere
What nonsense paying all that money for players that were signed without a medical and we are expected to pay the
Plus a nonsensical bonus I hope you are not running your own business
You posted it up very good I will take your word as for the rest of your ****e I do hate smart arsed grammar Nazis
As for the nomads I am aware of four the club had in three years the reasons being they refused to work with the board and they refused to work with the Easdales.

I've never seen a statement to the affect that a NOMAD refused to work with the Easdales, only one of them was on the board by the way could you point mr in the way of one?? Its hardly being a nazi grammer when it looks like someone tried to type a sentence with a boxing glove on. It made no sense whatsoever. I did see WH Ireland state that they could not work with convicted tax criminal Dave King.