Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card. Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.
Magico Gonzalez wrote: » If I was a Ranger's fan I would want them to have the balls to develop their playing style. Get in a young coach with some idea about playing attractive football. Focus on the underage players and developing a footballing identity. Out of all of the chaos there should be an opportunity to start developing young footballers. That said, I'm not a fan and it won't surprise me if they miss the opportunity through being short sighted and not having a real "football" man in charge. Ashley is poison as any geordie will testify, Dave King sounds like the least likely saviour around.
weldoninhio wrote: » Racially abused?? Where have you pulled that from?? I've read nothing to say that there was any racist abuse towards him. I even googled it when I read this and there is nothing??
Savage Tyrant wrote: » I was drunk as a Lord when I was reading and posting about it... I'm full sure I read something about "the lad used a word I wouldn't want to repeat" with the implication it was racist in nature... But like that I can't find the reference now either so quite possible I was mistaken or confusing another story. Apologies if so.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Looks like King is refusing to put in his own cash - Rangers are knocking back paying back Mike Ashley
Directors’ recommendation to the Company’s shareholders on Ordinary Resolutions 1 and 2 to be put to the General Meeting of the Company on Friday 12th June 2015 Shareholders will be aware that MASH Holdings Limited (MASH) has requisitioned a General Meeting of the Company (GM) which is to take place at Ibrox Stadium at 10.30 a.m. on Friday 12 June 2015. Two Resolutions will be put to the GM. Ordinary Resolution 1 The first Resolution has been suggested by MASH. It seeks shareholders’ support for the principle that the Rangers Football Club Limited (Club), a subsidiary of the Company, is released from the Facility arrangements between the Club and Retail Limited (Sports Direct) through the Directors of the Company (Directors) resolving to procure the repayment in full of the loan of £5 million (Facility) owed by the Club to Sports Direct as soon as possible after the passing of this Resolution. The Company has taken advice from Senior Queen’s Counsel on the terms of this Resolution and been advised that it would not, in any way, oblige the Directors legally. Given that is the case, the Directors are puzzled why MASH has insisted on the Company incurring the expense of calling and holding the GM. The Directors do not consider that this approach is in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole. The Directors have asked MASH if it wants to be represented at the GM to explain its position. The Directors understand MASH is considering whether to send a statement to shareholders. MASH is the ultimate parent company of Sports Direct. It seems to the Directors that Sports Direct no longer wishes to make the Facility available to the Club and that MASH has put ordinary resolution 1 to the GM to assist Sports Direct in this regard. It is not clear to the Directors why this would be in the Company or its shareholders’ interests. MASH’s resolution does set out certain effects that would occur on the release of the securities granted pursuant to the Facility. These will occur whenever the Facility is repaid and the Directors do not consider that, at this time, the repayment of £5 million to Sports Direct is the best use of the Company’s resources. The Directors are restricted in what they can say about Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) and have been cautioned about breaching confidentiality provisions. The Directors do not believe the transfer back to the Club of a 26% interest in RRL will serve to resolve the issues which the Directors consider have to be addressed. There are a number of steps required to rebuild the Company and the Club and all of these require resource. The Directors will keep these issues under continuous review and if, exercising their skill, care and judgement, the Directors determine that it is desirable for the Club to repay the Facility and this will assist with the overall arrangements between the Club, MASH and Sports Direct the Directors will take appropriate action. Such a decision will, however, be based solely on what is in the best interests of the Company and the Club and will not be unduly influenced by the interests of a single shareholder. The MASH facility is just one element of a series of contracts which have been put in place between MASH, Sports Direct and related entities and the Club. The Directors believe that all of these arrangements require to be addressed collectively. It would be disadvantageous for the Club and the Company to be dealing with such arrangements piecemeal and on terms dictated by MASH. The Directors accordingly recommend voting Against Resolution 1. Ordinary Resolution 2 The second Resolution has been suggested by your Board. It has been suggested because a meeting has been requisitioned and a Resolution tabled by MASH. There is therefore no perceptible increase in costs to the Company in your Board also putting forward a Resolution to the GM. The Directors are concerned with the continued and dramatic reduction in income generated by retail operations. The Directors are aware that many supporters of the Club will not purchase Club merchandise from Sports Direct because they do not believe the current contractual arrangements between the Club and Sports Direct adequately reward the Club. The Directors understand the strength of feeling on this issue and the adverse impact it has had on sales of merchandise. The Directors are firmly of the view that the best interests of both the Club and Sports Direct require them to engage with supporters and to restructure the existing contractual engagements in a manner which is clear, transparent and fully accountable to those who will be the purchasers of the Club’s merchandise. In that way, sales will be maximised and both the Club and Sports Direct will benefit. The Directors very much want to improve relations with Sports Direct and have made that clear to Sports Direct’s senior executives, however, this has to proceed on the basis of mutual understanding, respect and reward. In the Director’s view, if matters continue as they stand, this will not be to the commercial advantage of either the Club or Sports Direct. The Directors therefore ask shareholders to indicate their support for the Directors’ analysis of what will deliver best value for Sports Direct and the Club by voting For Resolution 2.
The_Kew_Tour wrote: » Do ye ever get up for some air in here ??
Jelle1880 wrote: » Typical that you turn this into King refusing to put in money Ashley wants that £5m back but keep all the deals in place, that's not gonna happen and rightly so.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » So King & Co want to hold onto Ashley's money to try and force him to give up his retail contracts that are not related to the loan? This is going to end well
Jelle1880 wrote: » Yes, because paying something back you don't need to do right away sounds like a fantastic business move. Especially if money is tight. Since the club don't need to pay back the loan right away it gives them a bargaining chip to possibly renegotiate the retail deal. It all makes sense really, if you'd look at it from a Rangers perspective.
Directors do not consider that, at this time, the repayment of £5 million to Sports Direct is the best use of the Company’s resources.
PauloMN wrote: » Gotta love board-speak: Roughly translated: we're fookin' skint! Will be interesting to see how this pans out with Ashley. I always wondered why he put money into Rangers in the first place to be honest, it was never going to end well for him.
Dempsey wrote: » Ashley wont walk quietly into the night and I wouldnt expect King to accept that resolution no matter how deep his pockets are. Ashley is digging his heels in though, could be a few bloody noses by the end of this one. This could end up all being about ego between the two
weldoninhio wrote: » Dave King put in a penny of his own money yet??
Dempsey wrote: » The deal gives with one had and takes with the other. Seems king and co have limits to what they are willing to do compared to the grandstanding done to get into this position. Surprise surprise and ashley has gone about showing them up quite easily
bobbysands81 wrote: » For a mere 5 million he can get rid of the onerous contracts with Ashley so why won't he do it??? I'd be worried about this if I was a Rangers fan.
Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: » Really Hhhhhmmm so the seven year deal is imaginary so the retail deal just dissapears. Nah fraid not
weldoninhio wrote: » 7 years getting 50% is a lot better than 7 years getting 25%.
Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: » Yeah so the club should roll over for a rat like Ashley. The man is scum treats his workers like dirt no thanks I will be supporting the board on this vote
weldoninhio wrote: » Hahahaha, Sevconomics at its best. Paying back a loan is rolling over Hahahaha. Edit: Also, when the club goes looking for their next few payday loans, what are they planning on using as collateral?? There's only so much that people will give as unsecured loans. Who will invest in a club/company/investment vehicle that has control over zero assets??
bobbysands81 wrote: » You had to give him 26% of Rangers Retail Ltd, you get it back when you pay him back. Doesn't he also have all your assets (bar Ibrox obviously cos you don't have that either) including Trade Marks... How is it good that you guys don't control these things anymore?
