Member Info for SteadyEddie

"Why did the old board lose the support of the shareholders ? A majority was there to won. Their record and offering was rejected - a stunning failure." Was it a failure? I have long held the view this was a staged "journey" for Rangers: 1) Buy the assets and set up a football club called Rangers 2) Raise cash 3) Burn / pocket the cash 4) End Game. I could never say with any certainty what the end game would be. There were two certainties, those age old certainties - Death and Taxes. Death - speaks for itself - crash it against a wall and let someone else deal with the wreckage. Taxes - those original investors have never gone away. If they are to leave in an orderly fashion then they will want paid. Someone will need deep pockets. Is that person Dave King or any of the others around at the moment? Probably not. You asked a very good question, why indeed did the old Board lose the vote. I don't believe your conclusion is correct.

Stu says, "SoF's like most of the anti-brigade, is blinkered by his biased views, which removes any hope of a reasonable analysis. Hence he will contradict himself to support his biased view. It makes most of his posts look like he is half witted." If Carlsberg did irony ....

"IMHO WH Ireland could and should have managed a transition to a new company. They did not." You are right, though could have managed a transition. The did not, and it was their choice to do so. Whether they "should" is a matter of opinion. You seem to have forgotten about governance. Resignation with immediate effect is a sanction available to a NOMAD if required. WH Ireland clearly felt it was required. "The facts, show WH Ireland resigned days prior to the EGM. Now even you admit that. So you were wrong with your ‘facts’." They resigned after the result was known. The result was known prior to the EGM. Why are you not able to grasp that? Can you get an adult to explain it to you?

"Perhaps a glass of warm milk may provide a soothing tonic ?" Or some champagne tomorrow? Not everyone is driven by hate for Rangers. If you see vomiting into a rant against Rangers, that's a sad place to be. That's a very visual description that says much about your mindset. You are the poster who made frequent reference to Celtic fans as Bheasts. It is an age old tactic in war, to de-humanise your enemy so your soldiers would show no mercy. Such thinking can be the root of feeling superior, having a sense of entitlement. All you seem to have left is to pick people up on grammar and punctuation. I would suggest, as suspected, you have nothing meaningful to add to this board. Just one more thing - you don't need a space between the last letter of a sentence and a "!" or "?". Hopefully that helps. What do they say about people who live in glass houses?

"King was blind-sided by Ashley on this - and spent 30 days trying to find one... and looks like he cant .... or wont ." My money would be on "can't". That's not how it will be spun by the press, of course. As soon as it happens, we will find out it was all part of the master plan that no-one has mentioned yet. And the happy Bears will nod and smile knowingly, their heads filled with Zadok the Priest.

Come on Stu, we are not in the playground any more. Can we have an adult discussion? The result of the vote was made known before the EGM date. It was well publicised, as you know. Are you saying WH Ireland resigned before King was notified and made so much of it in the press? We both know that isn't true. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It is a fact WH Ireland resigned before the EGM. But that's not the whole truth, is it? You do yourself no credit.

Stu, your record in the facts department leaves very much to be desired. You have a history of distorting and torturing facts to the point they are unrecognisable. I have not forgotten your oft repeated cut 'n' paste efforts. You see orchestration in the events. You might be right, but the facts (as reported), is WH Ireland told King & Co they would resign if they got into power. That is exactly what they did. King asked shareholders to vote for him and that he would become Chairman. They did, and he didn't. King told shareholders to vote for him because he had another NOMAD lined up. They did, and he didn't. King promised shareholders transparency. Any explanation on the above, Mr King? King deliberately misled shareholders, encouraged shareholders in a stock that had some value to vote for him. If the stock de-lists, that value will be largely wiped out. Shareholders have been duped by a "glib and shameless liar". The amount of money I will lose wouldn't buy a nice lunch. That's not the point. There are others who have much more invested. Pointing the finger at this stage at L&L is pointless. Today, and what follows, is what matters. Where is the new NOMAD? Where is the £30M promised? Why did the Auditor quit, and when? Where is the transparency? And most important of all, what's the plan?

Predictive text, I blame Apple. I'm sure the message was not lost though. I see you were able to work through my issues, we'll done. I agree on "instructive", would it be more instructive to focus on the share rather than punctuation? Do you have anything meaningful to add?

L&L we're not the reason the NOMAD resigned, why do you keep peddling that lie? The NOMAD resigned, as you we'll know, because King was unacceptable to them. It seems King is unacceptable to every other NOMAD the new Board tried too. Could try dropping your PR puff? There are people on this site who can see right through it. I expect in the final hours this forum will go into agenda overdrive. I hope people can be objective and respectful.

"The previous regime invested nothing what so ever" I thought the previous regime bought the assets when the old Rangers went bust. They subsequently made two further purchases - Edmiston House and the Car Park. Am I wrong? That's real investment - bricks and mortar. Whatever you have to say about the onerous contracts and mismanagement - yes, there are clearly issues. However, compare that with how much the Real Rangers Men have put in. They bought shares from other shareholders. Net benefit to Rangers? £0. Pay Day Loan of £1.5M. No interest and no security - nice - but you still have to pay it back. What next? They are not telling so no way to judge. What happened to the Real Rangers Men when Rangers went bust and the assets were up for grabs? The reason Rangers are where they are today is no-one was willing to step up. Either no-one wanted it enough, or no-one had deep enough pockets. If there has been illegality then I am sure the current Board will pursue the culprits. I suspect it was all kosher, if maybe not the best deal Rangers could have done. The biggest crime is the inaction of the fans. You sat back and watched this happen. "Show liquidation the red card", how did that work out? Wake up! Bickering about the past is pointless. You need to know what is happening now, so you can work out what will happen next.

It is an excellent summary. The Rangers fans have been through so much that many are no longer willing to blindly accept the PR puff that is fed to them by the Club and through their pet media outlets. One of the biggest criticisms of Rangers in the past is the kept their support ignorant, neutered and divided through the use of PR black arts. What did the new board do? Straight into bed with PR and we have had a succession of "ex-player says" and all the usual nonsense. There has been nothing of substance, no answers to the hard questions. In fact, we don't know if the hard questions are even being asked by the toothless media. Fans representation to the Board. Is anyone even asking the question. If not, why not. If questions are being asked but now answered, why not? It is a shambles.

"am confident Auditors resigned in last 3 weeks - due to issues with new board. If it was due to old board PM would have said so - and he did not!" You can't make the assumption, but it ties in with what I was thinking. This has happened recently. Rangers are at "pay day loan" and have provided no details on the short, medium and long term financing plans. Turning down the only confirmed source of funding was likely the final straw for Deloitte.

I think the simplest explanation is Deloitte were only willing to sign off the accounts if the 2nd £5M loan from SD was draw down. On the day it was confirmed that this was not happen, game over for Deloitte. There is a history of this. Previous RIFC accounts were only signed off based on a loan facility being available, which was later withdrawn. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I suspect Deloitte are glad to be rid of this particular client. We are all guessing until someone demonstrates openness and transparency. That's my guess, for what it is worth.

Honest question, if Dave King & Co knew in advance their actions would lead to loss of the NOMAD, if they knew in advance they could not find a replacement, and knew in advance this would wipe out shareholder value, would the Directors be personally liable for the loss? I suspect not, but it would make for an interesting argument in court.

I believe that, one day in the not too distant future, fan ownership will be come the norm. Rangers are doing it the right way, direct debits for regular small contributions. Over the years this will add up. De-listing might be a godsend for the fans groups - the chance to buy up cheap shares going forward. Terrible for other shareholders of course, particularly those unfortunately to invest in the early days at 70p+.

No, they are not worthless. The shares become difficult to trade, but not impossible. I think you will find that fans groups will continue to buy shares from other shareholders, more likely in occasional lumps. They may get them at significantly lower price than previously too. Fans groups have the advantage that profit is of no interest. Growth in ownership will continue.

"What is not to be happy about? Haaaaa." blue7860, do you seriously think this is good news? Another emergency loan, unsecured because there is nothing to secure it against. That's the wages paid and maybe a couple of other bills (I assume the most pressing). What's the long-term plan? Where is the promised NOMAD?

"They also put out an RNS saying the £5m drawdown facility had been exercised. Which it appears was incorrect." I believe the RNS stated the drawdown was agreed, subject to due diligence. That is very different from what you just wrote. What exactly do you think "exercised" means? Can we expect a new RNS fully clarifying the situation?

Are there any on here concerned that there was an RNS saying money will run out in 3rd week March, and we are now in the 4th week with no sign of any cash? Where is the NOMAD, where is the money, and where is the transparency?

"I have to say that I find this whole club/company thing a bit spurious anyway. Everyone knows it is just a legal fiction to try to separate the operations from the debt, but if it is no longer doing that, what purpose does it serve?" Not in this case. In the old Rangers club and company were one and the same. In this case, The Rangers Football Club Ltd are the Club, RIFC are the holding company with 100% stake in the club. The are separate legal entities and I dare say there are some interesting arrangements between the two.