Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Rangers Rumours Member Posts
scarecrow666's Profile
scarecrow666's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To scarecrow666's Posts
To scarecrow666's last 5 banter posts
To scarecrow666's last 5 banter replies
scarecrow666 has no Rumours Posts
scarecrow666's banter posts with other poster's replies to scarecrow666's banter posts
18 Jan 2015 11:11:57
Who here thinks the Rangers board will reject this egm request as void due to the fact that Murray and king were both board members of the old Rangers board less than five years ago & that king has been found guilty of criminal charges recently? I don't know why they decided to make this move, just put people who work for you up as nominations (with clean records obviously!).
1.) 18 Jan 2015 11:45:48
I asked a few questions yesterday of a simillar nature.Everyone who replied says there would be no way King would proceed without doing his homework.I assume King checked out whether he or Murray would be eligible,it would be an embarrasment if he overlooked such a trivial detail.
2.) It won't be up to the Board but the shareholders. If 51% or more of shareholders vote for the resolutions put forward by King, i. e. to remove the Board, these will be binding. The SFA will need to decide whether King passes the fit and proper person criteria, not that anyone in the SFA would pass such a test anyway! lol. There is always the 3 Bears who could be appointed as directors with King perhaps as Chairman.
3.) 18 Jan 2015 12:36:16
I'll take your word that such a rule exists scarecrow(the 5 year one).So the current board can oppose an EGM on those grounds?
4.) Surely shareholders want to see shareholder value and the value of their investment rise. This is not going to happen with an empty Ibrox. The fans hold the real power and it's showing. The downside is we miss out on promotion this year. Pretty despairing thought but one we have to face.
5.) No idea what King's game is here. Ok he might pass a fit and proper person test but I don't see how the SFA can go against the five year rule on directors.
Is this really the way to get the support of as many shareholders as possible?
Would much prefer the 3 Bears calling the EGM and putting forward potential candidates who the SFA can have no problems with. Surely this would have made more sense because as things stand I think it's more likely that King won't win 51% of the vote when the EGM eventually comes around.
6.) 18 Jan 2015 14:05:22
Forget King and T3B. Issue is this. Rangers Board are going to accept the £10 mill from Ashley. No one can prevent that now. Ibrox will be used as security. It's an asset and companies borrow against their assets all the time. Once the loan is accepted, the club will need to issue a new tranch of shares, enough to cover the £13 mill that will be owed to Ashley. The original plan was to raise £8mill now it needs to be £13 mill. I don't think that can be done in one tranch? That means Ashley can not be paid back unless the new Directors ( if the EGM is succesful in removing the existing board)pay him out of their own pockets and then how do they recover or secure their loan? Ashley will defer payment on the loans provided the existing directors are left in place or there will be clauses triggered by a change of directors demanding immediate repayment. Ashley has the Board in his pocket. They are covering their own position. Supporters are powerless to change it. This can only come via shareholders and support from the Board which won't happen. Ashley will win this.
7.) I don't agree Johnnymac. Shareholders hold the real power. The Board will be acting in self interests if they accept Ashley's secured loan but even if they do it is money that the 3 Bears and/or King would have had to spend from day one had they wrested control now. It is a debt and if the EGM produces the result we want, i. e. sacking the Board, Ashley's power base will have gone. He will be the major creditor but at that point the new owners (King, 3 Bears) can pay him off. After all, the 3 Bears have been talking about injecting £10m to match Ashley's offer and King has offered £16m already.
8.) Was Dave King or Paul Murray members of the board when it went into administration? I seem to remember them leaving the board before administration.
9.) 18 Jan 2015 16:39:57
JHW. I think that DK WAS a member, PM was not but had been, but that is where the 5 year rule comes in. Both were members of the board of a company that went into liquidation. I think the rule may be a stock market rule that forbids them from becoming directors of companies with the same or similar name. It's to stop phoenix trading.
10.) 18 Jan 2015 17:38:27
StEddy: Can the current board stop the EGM because of this 5 year jargon? I tried to ask scarecrow,who started this thread, but he has gone AWOL.
11.) None of the old board were kept whyte got rid of them all none were involved in the administration
12.) Quite certan they cannot stop e g m
13.) 18 Jan 2015 18:28:14
King is entitled to call an EGM. Board can not refuse. Let me be really clear here, Ashley had the support of the Board. His £10 mill will be accepted. The share issue will be for £8mill as requested by the Board. Insufficient funds will be available to repay Ashley. He will then convert debt to shares and the SFA will he powerless to stop him as he will only be acting in his companies best interests. You Bears may not like it but that is what is going to happen.
14.) Gkk in re to your post at n 10 I would imagine if this was a problem it would arise after the gem, then mr king could replace himself with another family member, as it was his family trust that bought the shares, though I could be wrong, I think the main aim is to remove the cowboys from the saloon, I hope they do this clint Eastwood style. lol
15.) Steady it amasses me that people are trying to keep these people from getting involved through been part of a company that went into administration, oh oh oh wait ha minuet did one of Ashley's companies not go into admin last week, only to be brought out of admin by eh eh eh mr Ashley, putting company into admin for 10million pound of debt, paid back by penny in the pound, so the debt went fro 10million to 100grand, why would he (Ashley)do this last week, the this week offer to loan rangers 10million pound, yip the rich getting richer by hook or by crook, it's ok for Ashley but not for anybody else, people should maybe waken up.
scarecrow666 has no Rumour Replies
22 Feb 2015 09:15:31
Bigwull, not entirely true. In 2013 after the fir park incident they suspended over 100 people and disbanded the section of the green brigade. Not exactly doing nothing, and I remember it because when it was in the papers the green brigade went mental and I thought for the very first time "well done the celtic board for standing up to trouble fans"
03 Feb 2015 21:46:04
Think I read that he's scored 1 in 20
George, your argument is completely invalid. All those teams were never liquidated, teetered on the brink yes, but never liquidated.
{Ed039's Note - Correct, Fiorentina were right enough, they are still the same club as well, dangerous precendent been set for a few different clubs over the years)
23 Jan 2015 18:57:38
Didn't say anything about a sale & leaseback though(which worries me more!)
22 Jan 2015 12:50:17
Until he's has been officially cleared I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt. I don't want to see that "glib and shameless liar" anywhere near Rangers board.