Mind about 2 years ago when I said Tam Rogic was going to be a cracking player on here and took ****ing pelters for it?
Get it up yies.
Link?
Off Topic Pointless point-scoring thread
- Thread starter RebelBhoy
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Link?
EDGE.
Official POTY 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018 & 2023
We will find out how good St, J are tomorrow. Once we beat them it is only a matter of time before we run into the Spuds, probably have to play them at the Septic pit but they are not impressive.
Had a dream last night that we beat them 2-0 in the next round of the League cup at the Lynx effect stadium too! Just saying like!
Had a dream last night that we beat them 2-0 in the next round of the League cup at the Lynx effect stadium too! Just saying like!
You said "Tam Rogne"Mind about 2 years ago when I said Tam Rogic was going to be a cracking player on here and took ****ing pelters for it?
Get it up yies.
I have first-hand experience of using a firm of PR agents to promote a company. For a fee of £10,000 plus VAT, my words on a recently acquired software suite were duly inserted in a trade magazine, accompanied by an advertisement feature that cost almost double that amount.
Anyone who wishes to view how this works should take a look at the output of Chris ‘Union’ Jack at The Herald. Rangers, the client, instruct Level 5, the agent, to promote season ticket sales. A deal is then struck with The Herald commercial team for what is known as a promotional package. A junior hack, Chris Jack, is then provided with the bullet points as written by James Traynor or Stephen Kerr that he cuts and pastes into an article that gives the impression that it’s a piece of sports reportage, when it’s true purpose is season ticket promotion. Other examples of Level 5’s handiwork can be seen at one of Trinity Mirror’s stable, The Sunday Mail under several by-lines.
However Level 5 can do much more than Trojan Horse promotion. They can create the myth of a corporate Messiah. Dave King’s attempt to convince fans to send their season ticket money, to an escrow account, controlled by King with Richard Gough as de facto curator, flopped spectacularly. The fact that he had to surrender his passport to the Crown Prosecution Authority of South Africa until August 2013 precluded the possibility of a personal appearance.
Armed with a briefcase which was empty save for an A4 plastic folder, King attempted to convince David Somers to provide him with a written guarantee that his back of a *** packet offer of £16m had the support of 75% of shareholders. This is presumably why he brought the folder. However he did not have any proof of funds nor was he willing to name four members in his consortium of eight individuals. It was obvious to David Somers, that King would have used any written proof of acceptance to canvass financial support from third parties without investing anything in the scheme other than his time. King’s scheme was as transparent as his folder.
For his next trick he managed to convince his concert party to buy shares for themselves and in his name, being careful not to disclose his relationship with Taylor as this breached the 30% compulsory equity offer threshold. King then contacts James Traynor, who had engaged in pro-King PR work prior to Level 5, to commission him to create positive media coverage of his bid for control, and simultaneously spread what is known in the dark arts as fear, uncertainty and doubt about the current regime. It is no coincidence that the Rangers supporters portals were inundated with letters from concerned supporters of Newcastle United. Would it surprise anyone to know that the majority of these originated in Glasgow?
Candy-coating a penniless spiv masquerading as a white-collar criminal was Traynor & Kerr’s biggest challenge. Soundbites such as ‘favourable result’ joined a growing lexicon of positive messages about King, that were fed daily to The Daily Record. Keith Jackson was banned from both Ibrox and Celtic Park so anything on Rangers was manna from heaven. This was primarily Stephen Kerr’s handiwork. Press conferences were organised with pre-written questions provided by Level 5 to the hacks to ensure they did not delve into how King could afford to run Rangers. There was talk of a choice of NOMADS and of Mike Ashley being a man ‘one can do business with.’ One lie soon followed another as those who knew that he had been wiped out financially and was lucky to escape an 82 year prison sentence, looked on at the PR revisionism with slack-jawed amazement. Anyone who doubted King was provided with the level of comfort of a sleuth of three benevolent bears that were backing King’s ambitions.
Of course it was all a pack of well-conceived, finely polished, lies. As for Ashley being someone they could do business with, he called an EGM to highlight how underfunded they were and their inability to repay him the money that was loaned to RIFC. He also took them to The High Courts of Justice (Chancery Division) to shut King up. King’s decision to leak details of the confidential Rangers Retail contract to The Daily Record, via Level 5, cost the club a minimum of £400,000.
How much did all this PR cost? Conservative estimates from informed sources suggest a minimum of £600,000 for the lies that delivered King, Murray & Gilligan, not one of whom have any appreciable wealth to add value to Rangers. Of course no-one would expect someone, notorious for his parsimony,to actually pay for his PR. The invoices from Level 5 continue to be sent to Rangers, not King.
Not one of the four hundred companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange would consider King as an non-executive director. Everyone knows he is a crook and his made up qualifications a crock. By portraying King as a Real Rangers Man, we now have a chairman cut from the same cloth as Craig Whyte. Whyte’s path to pre-pack administration was aided and abetted by the positive press coverage of James Traynor.
When you add the cost of the court case to the creation of the Messiah Myth, King’s self-serving decision to be our chairman has cost Rangers a million pounds. He has spent more on PR and court costs than has been spent on the team on the park and it’s beginning to show.
Anyone who wishes to view how this works should take a look at the output of Chris ‘Union’ Jack at The Herald. Rangers, the client, instruct Level 5, the agent, to promote season ticket sales. A deal is then struck with The Herald commercial team for what is known as a promotional package. A junior hack, Chris Jack, is then provided with the bullet points as written by James Traynor or Stephen Kerr that he cuts and pastes into an article that gives the impression that it’s a piece of sports reportage, when it’s true purpose is season ticket promotion. Other examples of Level 5’s handiwork can be seen at one of Trinity Mirror’s stable, The Sunday Mail under several by-lines.
However Level 5 can do much more than Trojan Horse promotion. They can create the myth of a corporate Messiah. Dave King’s attempt to convince fans to send their season ticket money, to an escrow account, controlled by King with Richard Gough as de facto curator, flopped spectacularly. The fact that he had to surrender his passport to the Crown Prosecution Authority of South Africa until August 2013 precluded the possibility of a personal appearance.
Armed with a briefcase which was empty save for an A4 plastic folder, King attempted to convince David Somers to provide him with a written guarantee that his back of a *** packet offer of £16m had the support of 75% of shareholders. This is presumably why he brought the folder. However he did not have any proof of funds nor was he willing to name four members in his consortium of eight individuals. It was obvious to David Somers, that King would have used any written proof of acceptance to canvass financial support from third parties without investing anything in the scheme other than his time. King’s scheme was as transparent as his folder.
For his next trick he managed to convince his concert party to buy shares for themselves and in his name, being careful not to disclose his relationship with Taylor as this breached the 30% compulsory equity offer threshold. King then contacts James Traynor, who had engaged in pro-King PR work prior to Level 5, to commission him to create positive media coverage of his bid for control, and simultaneously spread what is known in the dark arts as fear, uncertainty and doubt about the current regime. It is no coincidence that the Rangers supporters portals were inundated with letters from concerned supporters of Newcastle United. Would it surprise anyone to know that the majority of these originated in Glasgow?
Candy-coating a penniless spiv masquerading as a white-collar criminal was Traynor & Kerr’s biggest challenge. Soundbites such as ‘favourable result’ joined a growing lexicon of positive messages about King, that were fed daily to The Daily Record. Keith Jackson was banned from both Ibrox and Celtic Park so anything on Rangers was manna from heaven. This was primarily Stephen Kerr’s handiwork. Press conferences were organised with pre-written questions provided by Level 5 to the hacks to ensure they did not delve into how King could afford to run Rangers. There was talk of a choice of NOMADS and of Mike Ashley being a man ‘one can do business with.’ One lie soon followed another as those who knew that he had been wiped out financially and was lucky to escape an 82 year prison sentence, looked on at the PR revisionism with slack-jawed amazement. Anyone who doubted King was provided with the level of comfort of a sleuth of three benevolent bears that were backing King’s ambitions.
Of course it was all a pack of well-conceived, finely polished, lies. As for Ashley being someone they could do business with, he called an EGM to highlight how underfunded they were and their inability to repay him the money that was loaned to RIFC. He also took them to The High Courts of Justice (Chancery Division) to shut King up. King’s decision to leak details of the confidential Rangers Retail contract to The Daily Record, via Level 5, cost the club a minimum of £400,000.
How much did all this PR cost? Conservative estimates from informed sources suggest a minimum of £600,000 for the lies that delivered King, Murray & Gilligan, not one of whom have any appreciable wealth to add value to Rangers. Of course no-one would expect someone, notorious for his parsimony,to actually pay for his PR. The invoices from Level 5 continue to be sent to Rangers, not King.
Not one of the four hundred companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange would consider King as an non-executive director. Everyone knows he is a crook and his made up qualifications a crock. By portraying King as a Real Rangers Man, we now have a chairman cut from the same cloth as Craig Whyte. Whyte’s path to pre-pack administration was aided and abetted by the positive press coverage of James Traynor.
When you add the cost of the court case to the creation of the Messiah Myth, King’s self-serving decision to be our chairman has cost Rangers a million pounds. He has spent more on PR and court costs than has been spent on the team on the park and it’s beginning to show.
The Daily Record coverage of the above story:
Wed: Rangers to pay Green's legal fees
Thur: Nah, it's a load of pish says Keef Jackson
Fri: Actually, naw, it's true (apparently)
Wonder what tomorrow will bring?
Wed: Rangers to pay Green's legal fees
Thur: Nah, it's a load of pish says Keef Jackson
Fri: Actually, naw, it's true (apparently)
Wonder what tomorrow will bring?
The clear and present danger of Green’s litigation costs.
“Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid to get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences.BBC Scotland has learned that Mr Green claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge.His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim.It is understood the fees involved could be in excess of £500,000.The court ruling could happen as early as next week.”
The responsibility to cover a director’s legal costs would always revert to the company.This is why companies indemnify against this exposure via insurance. This insurance provides cover during a director’s tenure and, significantly, after tenure. If the alleged corporate malfeasance occurred during his tenure at Sevco Scotland, then one might reasonably conclude that Rangers had no case to answer.
However, we know that Sevco Scotland was listed as a subsidiary of The Rangers Football Club plc So in this instance, responsibility would revert to TRFC and to its holding company RIFC. Director liability insurance would not cover the criminal charges against Green, but it would cover his alleged infractions of The Companies Act of 2006.
The argument of the respondent, Rangers, would be that as Mr Green was instrumental in setting up both RIFC and TRFC then it behoved him to arrange insurance. I don’t see this argument holding up. In my opinion Rangers (RIFC) will be responsible for his litigation costs. If insurance was in place it would not indemnify RIFC against Mr Green’s criminal charges. Therefore whether insurance was in place or not is a moot point
This could not have come at a worse time. Cash flow is so tight that Rangers are attempting to sell 3/4 ST tickets, courtesy of a promotional package with The Herald and Chris ‘Union’ Jack. I have never come across a 3/4 ST initiative.
As for the costs of Mr Green’s defence, £500,000 is conservative. According to Whyte’s counsel, he has 100,000 A4 pages as part of his bundle. Whyte’s counsel takes the view that the trial could last as long as the Lockerbie proceedings. If this were the case, you could multiply this amount by ten and still come up short.
“Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid to get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences.BBC Scotland has learned that Mr Green claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge.His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim.It is understood the fees involved could be in excess of £500,000.The court ruling could happen as early as next week.”
The responsibility to cover a director’s legal costs would always revert to the company.This is why companies indemnify against this exposure via insurance. This insurance provides cover during a director’s tenure and, significantly, after tenure. If the alleged corporate malfeasance occurred during his tenure at Sevco Scotland, then one might reasonably conclude that Rangers had no case to answer.
However, we know that Sevco Scotland was listed as a subsidiary of The Rangers Football Club plc So in this instance, responsibility would revert to TRFC and to its holding company RIFC. Director liability insurance would not cover the criminal charges against Green, but it would cover his alleged infractions of The Companies Act of 2006.
The argument of the respondent, Rangers, would be that as Mr Green was instrumental in setting up both RIFC and TRFC then it behoved him to arrange insurance. I don’t see this argument holding up. In my opinion Rangers (RIFC) will be responsible for his litigation costs. If insurance was in place it would not indemnify RIFC against Mr Green’s criminal charges. Therefore whether insurance was in place or not is a moot point
This could not have come at a worse time. Cash flow is so tight that Rangers are attempting to sell 3/4 ST tickets, courtesy of a promotional package with The Herald and Chris ‘Union’ Jack. I have never come across a 3/4 ST initiative.
As for the costs of Mr Green’s defence, £500,000 is conservative. According to Whyte’s counsel, he has 100,000 A4 pages as part of his bundle. Whyte’s counsel takes the view that the trial could last as long as the Lockerbie proceedings. If this were the case, you could multiply this amount by ten and still come up short.
More ****e in the Record, I suppose we should not be surprised but hey ho.
Green is one of seven people facing criminal charges covering fraud and organised crime over the meltdown of Rangers from 2012. The club went into administration and subsequent forced liquidation by HMRC over a “phantom” £80million tax bill, The club were later cleared of having ever owed the taxman.
ffs
Green is one of seven people facing criminal charges covering fraud and organised crime over the meltdown of Rangers from 2012. The club went into administration and subsequent forced liquidation by HMRC over a “phantom” £80million tax bill, The club were later cleared of having ever owed the taxman.
ffs
I think Hitler said. Tell a lie. Make it big. Keep repeating the lie until everyone believes it as being true.
When I wrote my article yesterday, I started from the assumption that King was lying. This is always the best foundation when positing any position. Within 24 hours the truth emerges, and as is the custom with our mendacious chairman, when caught out in a lie or an illegal leak of confidential information, he attempts to conceal his lies by engaging in vigorous legal action. King threw away £50m of his ill-gotten gains on fighting an unwinnable war against The South African Revenue Service. In his short tenure as our chairman, RIFC have had to pay costs to Sports Direct for his corporate malfeasance. This cost the club £400,000. He now plans to throw more of our season card good money after bad. Perhaps someone should draw his attention to the IPO prospectus. I refer him to the following:
4.1.2.8 Directors’ liabilities
Subject to companies legislation, every director and former director shall be
indemnified by the Company against any liability attaching to him in
connection with:
(a) civil or criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated
company (other than a liability incurred in defending proceedings brought
by the Company or an associated company in which final judgment is given
against the directors);
(b) criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated company
(other than a fine imposed in such proceedings, or a liability incurred in
defending proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction
is final);
(c) regulatory action taken by or a regulatory investigation by a regulatory authority
in relation to the Company or an associated company (unless a sum is payable
to a regulatory authority by way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with
any requirement of a regulatory nature (however arising));
(d) any application for relief:
(i) under sections 144(3) or (4) of the 1985 Act or 661(3) or (4) of the
2006 Act (power of court to grant relief in case of acquisition of shares
by innocent nominee), or
(i) sections 727 of the 1985 Act or 1157 of the 2006 Act (general power
of court to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
unless the court refuses to grant the director relief, and the refusal of relief
is final; or
(e) civil proceedings in relation to an occupational pension scheme of which
the Company is a trustee in respect of liability incurred in connection with
the Company’s activities as a trustee of the scheme (other than a fine
imposed in criminal proceedings, a sum payable to a regulatory authority by
way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with any requirement of a
regulatory nature (however arising) or a liability incurred in defending
proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction is final).
4.1.2.9 Insurance
The directors may purchase and maintain insurance for a person who is, or was at
any time, a director, officer or employee of the Company, any company within the
Group or, any other body in which the Company is or has been interested of the
Company against any liability incurred by such persons in respect of any act or
omission in the actual or purported execution or discharge of their duties or in the
exercise or purported exercise of their powers or otherwise in relation to their
duties, powers or offices in relation to the Company or any such other company,
subsidiary undertaking or pension fund.
———————————————————————————————————-
It is unequivocally stated in 4.1.2.8. in clauses A&B that RIFC must pay for Green’s legal expenses. Furthermore, should Sheikh Imran Ahmad be compelled to face trial, his expenses will also be met by the company. As for insurance, this evidently was not purchased or maintained, and as I pointed out yesterday,any policy would have caveats that clearly stated that serious criminal charges were outwith its purview. Some commentators have inaccurately interpreted 4.1.2.8. (b). This precludes paying the costs of an appeal.
No matter how much money King throws at it, RIFC will have to pay Green’s litigation costs. However there is another legal action that few have had the foresight to recognize. There is the distinct possibility that the IPO was predicated on misappropriated assets. If this is the case, the legal costs of defending Green from an investors’ class action suit would render RIFC insolvent.
4.1.2.8 Directors’ liabilities
Subject to companies legislation, every director and former director shall be
indemnified by the Company against any liability attaching to him in
connection with:
(a) civil or criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated
company (other than a liability incurred in defending proceedings brought
by the Company or an associated company in which final judgment is given
against the directors);
(b) criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated company
(other than a fine imposed in such proceedings, or a liability incurred in
defending proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction
is final);
(c) regulatory action taken by or a regulatory investigation by a regulatory authority
in relation to the Company or an associated company (unless a sum is payable
to a regulatory authority by way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with
any requirement of a regulatory nature (however arising));
(d) any application for relief:
(i) under sections 144(3) or (4) of the 1985 Act or 661(3) or (4) of the
2006 Act (power of court to grant relief in case of acquisition of shares
by innocent nominee), or
(i) sections 727 of the 1985 Act or 1157 of the 2006 Act (general power
of court to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
unless the court refuses to grant the director relief, and the refusal of relief
is final; or
(e) civil proceedings in relation to an occupational pension scheme of which
the Company is a trustee in respect of liability incurred in connection with
the Company’s activities as a trustee of the scheme (other than a fine
imposed in criminal proceedings, a sum payable to a regulatory authority by
way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with any requirement of a
regulatory nature (however arising) or a liability incurred in defending
proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction is final).
4.1.2.9 Insurance
The directors may purchase and maintain insurance for a person who is, or was at
any time, a director, officer or employee of the Company, any company within the
Group or, any other body in which the Company is or has been interested of the
Company against any liability incurred by such persons in respect of any act or
omission in the actual or purported execution or discharge of their duties or in the
exercise or purported exercise of their powers or otherwise in relation to their
duties, powers or offices in relation to the Company or any such other company,
subsidiary undertaking or pension fund.
———————————————————————————————————-
It is unequivocally stated in 4.1.2.8. in clauses A&B that RIFC must pay for Green’s legal expenses. Furthermore, should Sheikh Imran Ahmad be compelled to face trial, his expenses will also be met by the company. As for insurance, this evidently was not purchased or maintained, and as I pointed out yesterday,any policy would have caveats that clearly stated that serious criminal charges were outwith its purview. Some commentators have inaccurately interpreted 4.1.2.8. (b). This precludes paying the costs of an appeal.
No matter how much money King throws at it, RIFC will have to pay Green’s litigation costs. However there is another legal action that few have had the foresight to recognize. There is the distinct possibility that the IPO was predicated on misappropriated assets. If this is the case, the legal costs of defending Green from an investors’ class action suit would render RIFC insolvent.
Warbuton in the paper commenting on celtics transfer budget and giving his opinion on where it's sits in terms of the English championship and how far Celtic are behind premier league !
Obsessed !
No comment on the Rangers budget and how it compares to league one ?
Obsessed !
No comment on the Rangers budget and how it compares to league one ?
Penniless tramps don't have budgets. They survive on the passing kindness of strangers. Unfortunately for Rangers they're the angry, abusive type of tramp who everyone avoids so they don't get any spare change.
Didn't Arsenal go 49 league games unbeaten 10 years ago?