Dave King and the TAB ruling

Craig said:
Isn't the most that can happen for contempt in a civil case (which this is) a fine as opposed to imprisonment in a criminal case?
Click to expand...
Not sure mate. He'd be in contempt if he didn't comply with the court's order. Is doing that a criminal action?
 
mart22 said:
DK's counsel made it abundantly clear in court today he doesn't have the money. Before the court case King said himself he personally couldn't make an offer but NOAL can. However, NOAL's ability to make an offer wasn't raised by his counsel to Lord Bannatyne ... yet. It almost appeared to me that King's counsel wanted the the court order, if one gets issued, made to DK. Does DK need an excuse to walk away? This case raises a lot of concerns and a lot of questions. I could ignore all of them like a few on here but it wouldn't stop them existing.
Click to expand...

Why would he need an excuse to walk away ? I'm sure if he wanted out he could have engineered an exit without relying on an adverse court ruling and further reputational damage.
 
Reading and hearing a few things, it could be that we are bring softened up for a King departure. A theme seems to be emerging "We needed King to win against the spivs but perhaps others should now take us forward" seems to be a popular line right now.
 
A court cannot make order you to do something, when you're incapable of doing the said order. Anyone who thinks King came and put money into Rangers bia loans etc, without the money required to fund Rangers need their head tested. Just because he says he has no money, doesn't mean he literally has no money. King is no mug, the sports direct deal being evidence of that.

The point I am making is, if King had no money as the mentally challengeds like to think. He'd be nowhere near Rangers. That is a fact. He could have bought shares like any other fan, but he's went further and pourrd millions into Rangers to keep us going. I'm not Kings biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but i am grateful for what hr has done. Let's remember he does not need to do any of this, but he has. His business ways maybe a little shady to the working man. But he knows what he is doing.
 
And people bringing Murray's name into this for a possible comeback. I doubt we'd see him back. But anyone remember those unknown companies that had shares in Rangers and didn't want to be named? I reckon King possibly has another buyer or big investor lined up. It's just a hunch, no real concrete evidence.
 
Willger said:
Why would he need an excuse to walk away ? I'm sure if he wanted out he could have engineered an exit without relying on an adverse court ruling and further reputational damage.
Click to expand...
Why did DK allow it to go to court? He didn't have to. The point I made was this case raises a lot of questions. Some might be more relevant than others but they are still there to be asked. None of them will go away until the case is over and some of the uncertainty is removed.
 
The thing is that DK is no fool and neither are his lawyers. He will have every contingency worked out and costed. The mugs here are the yahoos who think they know better than a multi millionaire and the media who hate him so much they will believe anything negative about him. Maybe it is jealousy that a boy from the Castlemilk scheme made millions and they didn't.I don't know their mindset thank God but I do know that he has poured millions into the Rangers when others stood around with their dicks in their hands.
 
Billy1872 said:
Don't they have to prove he does indeed have the wealth to make such an offer? You can't make an offer when you don't have the money? King obviously doesn't want the spivs getting a penny, till the share issue when their shares get diluted.
Click to expand...
I haven't really been following this nonsense very much because it doesn't vex me one way or the other. Whether he has to make an offer or not won't hurt Rangers. However I forgot about his contempt for those bastards and their millions of fuckiing penny shares. This will be his reason for fighting this.
 
Foddo Foddo said:
I haven't really been following this nonsense very much because it doesn't vex me one way or the other. Whether he has to make an offer or not won't hurt Rangers. However I forgot about his contempt for those bastards and their millions of fuckiing penny shares. This will be his reason for fighting this.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it. If King was to offer 20p a share, the spivs would be over the moon with that since they got their shares for %^*& all.
 
They really should have used 'burners' or other means than traceable emails when arranging this. That said I allude to an above poster as to how these emails were recovered?

In any case I don't see how he gets out of this though I am no law expert.

What really irks me is that Somers being the one to report this gets a last laugh yet the spivs that sat in front of me including he at those AGM's with the latter being the famous 'tent' occasion have not been taken to task in a courtroom, not one!
 
I still cannot see how this will affect Rangers. If the verdict goes against King then so what. It has been said in court that all his money is in family trusts and so could not comply with such an order.

On the other hand the judges may accept that King was wrongly named. Could still go either way.
 
Just an attempt to work this out, possibly cobblers.

DK is claiming that he and NOAL are two separate legal entities and that the shares in Rangers are held by NOAL not DK.

DK claims he is not the legal shareholder but NOAL is, therefore the court should be speaking to NOAL not him.

The court claims NOAL and DK is one and the same, as DK controls NOAL. Is this a new concept?

If DK can separate himself legally from NOAL would the "in concert" allegation fail?

The "common sense" argument arises because it would seem the NOAL and DK are the same on the face of it, but are they the same legally.

Why is DK doing this? Are there shareholders (spivs) who would benefit if DK had to offer, then pay them 20p a share? Obviously he will not want to do this.
At the same time he thwarts the fat slug Somers who brought the case in the first place.

Help, murder, polis!
 
Cyberniv said:
Just an attempt to work this out, possibly cobblers.

DK is claiming that he and NOAL are two separate legal entities and that the shares in Rangers are held by NOAL not DK.

DK claims he is not the legal shareholder but NOAL is, therefore the court should be speaking to NOAL not him.

The court claims NOAL and DK is one and the same, as DK controls NOAL. Is this a new concept?

If DK can separate himself legally from NOAL would the "in concert" allegation fail?

The "common sense" argument arises because it would seem the NOAL and DK are the same on the face of it, but are they the same legally.

Why is DK doing this? Are there shareholders (spivs) who would benefit if DK had to offer, then pay them 20p a share? Obviously he will not want to do this.
At the same time he thwarts the fat slug Somers who brought the case in the first place.

Help, murder, polis!
Click to expand...

From one of the more clued up posters on RM, an EskbankLoyal (an accountant or lawyer??)

NOAL is King’s family trust where all his assets were transferred at the time of the SARS settlement.

NOAL is a shareholder of RIFC, Dave King isn’t.

NOAL have provided the loans (up to 31/6/16 accounts), not Dave King.

Now in reality, NOAL = Dave King but his argument in court is that the finding of the takeover panel that there was a concert party should have been against NOAL, not him personally. The panel argued that whilst NOAL is the shareholder, he is the only person that acts on their behalf hence why the said he, personally, should make the offer.
Click to expand...

And this:

It’s not the set up that’s done him here. It was him ignoring George Letham’s advice to restrict the number of shares he purchased.
Click to expand...
 
Haining84 said:
Irrespective of how this pans out it was a necessary evil that King & the 3 bears had to do to rescue the club.There's a good few supporters/posters who would do well to remember that and show some respect!
Click to expand...


You are correct, and he will always hold respect from me for this, however it's important that we continue to hold them to a high standard on an ongoing basis.

In recent months, the club has shown it's still not performing commercially, in brand marketing or in PR.

Previous AGM's has also shown that the board have failed to adequately reach out to the support to ensure certain resolutions are passed. There's considerable room for improvement and, at times, it feels we're slowly slipping back to the bad old ways of the 90's and 00's where communication with the fans is resented from the club.

We need to learn from the past and always hold the board members accountable, however I agree that this needs to be done with respect. The board have earned that.
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
If this is him playing a blinder I'd hate to see him mess up
Click to expand...

Correct. This is the time we need to be convincing sponsors and advertisers to partner with the club. We need to reassure them to old days have gone forever. Brands do not want to be associated with a club continually in and out of court. We need to move away from this if we want to start moving forward.

Some court cases are inevitable to clean up the mess. It just feels, however, like this one could have been avoided or settled earlier. It's bad for the club and bad for our brand.
 
whitbyontbear said:
The thing is that DK is no fool and neither are his lawyers. He will have every contingency worked out and costed. The mugs here are the yahoos who think they know better than a multi millionaire and the media who hate him so much they will believe anything negative about him. Maybe it is jealousy that a boy from the Castlemilk scheme made millions and they didn't.I don't know their mindset thank God but I do know that he has poured millions into the Rangers when others stood around with their dicks in their hands.
Click to expand...

He has made a fool of himself here to avoid the Tab ruling all he had to do was listen to Letham and not buy the amount that took them over the 30% threshold, he didn't hence why we are where we are now.
It's done now though so all we can do now is wait and see what happens.
 
mart22 said:
You might think I have a negative bias towards all things Rangers. .
Click to expand...

Not at all mart, I think you have misunderstood me. I was referring to the sources of your information because I assumed them to be the same as what we were all reading - STV Grant or the BBC - those with a negative bias towards all things Rangers.
 
Bigbilly2017 said:
I get what you are saying but my point is more if king folds then his grip and lots of other links go with him. It seems Murray is plotting away in the background. Yes, it's unpalatable but if quite a few sources confirming it. Think King and Noal connections and then think how Murray would maneuver
Click to expand...

I think we all know that King has control over all those NOAL shares. His name might not be on the share certificate but he owns them. Never in a month of Sundays will he sell to Murray. You could have every spiv that owns a Rangers share (and there are some - the Easdales for example) all sell up to Murray and he still wouldnt end up with control - he might end up being the biggest shareholder but it wouldn't be enough to take control.
 
This is all over the news as “King doesn’t have the funds” “ acted unlawfully “ etc

It just seems to be more bad news after another with our club.

I honestly thought we had turned the corner but we would or will never know as we just don’t hear from Rangers on anything. And if the bears I know are like most others the words we heard at the takeover like “honesty” and “total transparency “ are beginning to leave a sour taste in the mouth.
 
Is it possible that DK is spinning this out to the AGM and a quick share issue, so the impact of these shares ultimately being offered to hostile groups is diluted immediately?
 
ParagonofVirtue said:
This is all over the news as “King doesn’t have the funds” “ acted unlawfully “ etc

It just seems to be more bad news after another with our club.

I honestly thought we had turned the corner but we would or will never know as we just don’t hear from Rangers on anything. And if the bears I know are like most others the words we heard at the takeover like “honesty” and “total transparency “ are beginning to leave a sour taste in the mouth.
Click to expand...

That’s way OTT. If he’s gone to edge of business law to wrestle control of the club away from asset strippers who were dancing on the same line (and going way over it in the eyes of any reasonable observer) then he’ll have my eternal thanks.

Expecting transparency for some of the stuff that will have had to go on to save the club is deliberately obtuse and incredibly childish.

The original complaint was from Somers. We have seen how company law in this country has basically allowed our club to be pillaged and the culprits walk away Scot free.

And yet the sour taste in YOUR mouth is about someone potentially bending that obscure law so he can save the club and plow his money into it?? A guy who already lost £20m doing the same?

Havers man, havers
 
AnglianBear said:
I think we all know that King has control over all those NOAL shares. His name might not be on the share certificate but he owns them. Never in a month of Sundays will he sell to Murray. You could have every spiv that owns a Rangers share (and there are some - the Easdales for example) all sell up to Murray and he still wouldnt end up with control - he might end up being the biggest shareholder but it wouldn't be enough to take control.
Click to expand...
DK can almost certainly influence what NOAL invests in but he cannot directly control the trust as it has independent directors.
Independent directors have a duty to all beneficiaries and are at risk of being sued if they use the funds improperly.
A huge tax payment could be crystallised if funds from the trust is moved into escrow so I would imagine independent directors would not risk doing this.
I have offshore trusts myself and know this is a strong possibility.
 
giantchelsea said:
Reading and hearing a few things, it could be that we are bring softened up for a King departure. A theme seems to be emerging "We needed King to win against the spivs but perhaps others should now take us forward" seems to be a popular line right now.
Click to expand...
I've said for quite a while that I never thought King would be involved at Rangers in the long term. I think he wanted to do the rescue job - and we are all grateful for that - and then get the club settled and move on. Regardless of the outcome of this I think we will see King departing the scene in the not too distant future. Next summer would be my guess.
 
I did post in Mar-Apr that he would be resigning as chairman in the summer.....my timeline may have been out by a couple of months
 
OrigTommy said:
You are correct, and he will always hold respect from me for this, however it's important that we continue to hold them to a high standard on an ongoing basis.

I'Previous AGM's has also shown that the board have failed to adequately reach out to the support to ensure certain resolutions are passed.' There's considerable room for improvement and, at times, it feels we're slowly slipping back to the bad old ways of the 90's and 00's where communication with the fans is resented from the club.

We need to learn from the past and always hold the board members accountable, however I agree that this needs to be done with respect. The board have earned that.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the case that they board are in hurry to get the resolution passed for a shares issue until this fiasco in court is over?
 
Honestly. a lot of people on FF think they are clever in all things to do with the running of Rangers. Frustrated wannabee lawyers and tramps getting their tuppence worth in. Proper Rangers fans quietly watch on from the sidelines putting their trust in the good people that are running our great club.
 
Hobjo said:
That’s way OTT. If he’s gone to edge of business law to wrestle control of the club away from asset strippers who were dancing on the same line (and going way over it in the eyes of any reasonable observer) then he’ll have my eternal thanks.

Expecting transparency for some of the stuff that will have had to go on to save the club is deliberately obtuse and incredibly childish.

The original complaint was from Somers. We have seen how company law in this country has basically allowed our club to be pillaged and the culprits walk away Scot free.

And yet the sour taste in YOUR mouth is about someone potentially bending that obscure law so he can save the club and plow his money into it?? A guy who already lost £20m doing the same?

Havers man, havers
Click to expand...


Excuses mate, nothing but feckin excuses.

And don’t bother replying because quite clearly you are a Dave King man.

Me? I’m a Rangers man.
 
MoodyBlue1872 said:
I've said for quite a while that I never thought King would be involved at Rangers in the long term. I think he wanted to do the rescue job - and we are all grateful for that - and then get the club settled and move on. Regardless of the outcome of this I think we will see King departing the scene in the not too distant future. Next summer would be my guess.
Click to expand...

Your guess will prove to be wrong.
 
For us mer mortals it's hard to understand the only thing I hope for is that anyone who received the one penny shares does not
benefit now or in the future in fact ever.
 
Hobjo said:
That’s way OTT. If he’s gone to edge of business law to wrestle control of the club away from asset strippers who were dancing on the same line (and going way over it in the eyes of any reasonable observer) then he’ll have my eternal thanks.

Expecting transparency for some of the stuff that will have had to go on to save the club is deliberately obtuse and incredibly childish.

The original complaint was from Somers. We have seen how company law in this country has basically allowed our club to be pillaged and the culprits walk away Scot free.

And yet the sour taste in YOUR mouth is about someone potentially bending that obscure law so he can save the club and plow his money into it?? A guy who already lost £20m doing the same?

Havers man, havers
Click to expand...
Well said and well done.
 
Mufasa said:
Your guess will prove to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Possibly, who knows - and it is just my guess.

But what makes you so sure that King will still be involved as he is beyond next summer ??

It would not surprise me in the slightest if he moved away, having done the job he set out to do and then hand it over to another party. IMO that was always his plan. And that's fair enough. I don't think he ever had intentions of doing this long term.
 
I appreciate what he has done for us. He has taken us for the most part out of the hands of vultures and backed Pedro in the summer.

That said I do not like the shady side to him and I actually wish there was someone out there that is a rich bear but an honest one, sadly there does not seem to be one that is willing to invest to the point of nearly or ownership.

Therefore I would like to see over time fan ownership, we are a decade off that happening imo.
 
MoodyBlue1872 said:
Possibly, who knows - and it is just my guess.

But what makes you so sure that King will still be involved as he is beyond next summer ??

It would not surprise me in the slightest if he moved away, having done the job he set out to do and then hand it over to another party. IMO that was always his plan. And that's fair enough. I don't think he ever had intentions of doing this long term.
Click to expand...


He might not remain chairman longer term, he will however be a major shareholder for a long time to come. Too many are reading things into this and listening to the wrong people in the mhedia and twitter etc a lot of misinformation being put out there for nefarious reasons and our support fall for it time and time again.
 
I think he'll be off the board soon, who he sells his shares to if he does at all, is anyones guess. I'd have The Park's as big favorites but wouldn't be surprised to see Asian Investors come to the table via George Lethams and his contacts.
 
Bring Back Square Posts said:
I appreciate what he has done for us. He has taken us for the most part out of the hands of vultures and backed Pedro in the summer.

That said I do not like the shady side to him and I actually wish there was someone out there that is a rich bear but an honest one, sadly there does not seem to be one that is willing to invest to the point of nearly or ownership.

Therefore I would like to see over time fan ownership, we are a decade off that happening imo.
Click to expand...

14k bears are going to Edinburgh and the price of a ticket is over half the yearly minimum contribution to Club1872 and will no doubt spend the same getting there and other incidentals. If Club1872 had 14k members we could get closer to fan ownership much quicker. Unfortunately its not a priority for most supporters.
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
I think he'll be off the board soon, who he sells his shares to if he does at all, is anyones guess. I'd have The Park's as big favorites but wouldn't be surprised to see Asian Investors come to the table via George Lethams and his contacts.
Click to expand...


George Taylor has the Asian investor contacts. There are no plans for DK to sell his to anyone, I do wish bears would stop listening to the mhedia, tarries on social mhedia and malcontents in our support. If Asian investors come in it will be at the next share issue so the money goes into the club not the spivs and penny shareholders.
 
Mufasa said:
He might not remain chairman longer term, he will however be a major shareholder for a long time to come. Too many are reading things into this and listening to the wrong people in the mhedia and twitter etc a lot of misinformation being put out there for nefarious reasons and our support fall for it time and time again.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying. My thoughts are nothing to do with this current court case. Long before this current court case I said that King would hand over the reigns at some point in the nearish future. I do think that will be the summer of 2018 at the latest - and IMO that's not based on anything to do with what is happening now. He will step down as chairman by then and that's what I'm saying. So, in essence, you are kind of agreeing with me i think.

We'll find out in due course.
 
Mufasa said:
14k bears are going to Edinburgh and the price of a ticket is over half the yearly minimum contribution to Club1872 and will no doubt spend the same getting there and other incidentals. If Club1872 had 14k members we could get closer to fan ownership much quicker. Unfortunately its not a priority for most supporters.
Click to expand...

I don't think outright fan ownership is the way to go. It would be the best thing for the long term stability of the club financially but in a sporting sense we would have a ceiling, probably 2nd place in Scotland, the odd cup and venture in Europa Group Stages every now and again.

Short/Medium Term, the club needs massive investment that fans couldn't facilitate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top