Jump to content


First Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BlueFrewExile

  • Rank
    New Signing

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

445 profile views
  1. I remember in the 90s being told, as Rangers under achieved in Europe, that what we needed was a strong Celtc. We were nothing without competition. Having seen our best striker and best goalkeeper banned for incidents where players from a certain other team appear to have gotten away with worse. I have to wonder, where are the media pundits making the argument that Celtc need a strong Rangers?
  2. Quite right. Ogilvie and Smith had a wealth of experience within football before taking on their roles. Ogilvie had worked at Hearts as well as us and Smith's only connection to us, at the time he took the SFA role, was that he once played for us. What experience of football administration does Shifty McGifty have? Neither Ogilvie nor Smith were employed in any other of the business interests of major shareholders of Rangers when they worked for the SFA. To accept that there exists no conflict of interest you have to accept that it is entirely coincidental that together they own roughly 45% of Celtc and 45% of INM (effectively controlling both companies). Furthermore, the people who have gone on oath talking about their business relationship are lying. Finally you have to believe that the Moriarty tribunal is a work of fiction. They didn't work together lying and cheating, not to mention bribing the Irish PM. But none of that matters of course, because, well Gordon Smith played for Rangers between 1977 and 1980. Then again in 1982. Then he worked for the SFA between 2007 and 2010. So clearly there can't possibly be a conflict of influence with O'Brien, Desmond and MacLennan
  3. If there was any doubt that Shifty McGifty was a taig, I think the following from the article puts that beyond doubt. 'They claimed INM wanted to be notified so issues could be whittled down before they went to court, because there were "matters it would prefer the public did not hear".' INM and separate entity FC, both.
  4. DD underwrote this Open Offer, when he was just under the 30% threshold. https://www.investegate.co.uk/celtic-plc--ccp-/rns/publication-of-prospectus/200510281729003508T/ The result of the offering took him above the 30% threshold. I couldn't find confirmation that the Takeover Panel did indeed grant him a waiver under rule 9. However since the new shares were offered to all existing shareholders and he bought the shares they did not want to take up the Takeover Panel would almost certainly exempt him from having to make an offer. Unlike most of DD's business dealings, I think he has done things by the book here. What isn't clear, is why he and O'Brien have never been treated as a concert party. The vast majority of O'Brien's holdings were purchased after this share issue. There have now been multiple people, on oath (these 2 are no strangers to courts of law), attesting to their close business relationships. It is probably not that big a deal in the scheme of things, however it is interesting the consistent lack of interest from the Scottish media in the business dealings of these 2. Especially compared to the scrutiny which the business dealings of Dave King attracts.
  5. I have a tendency to sit quietly fuming for a long time, before eventually exploding into a ball of rage. :-) This stuff is the culmination of years of them putting their allies into positions of power within Scottish football. Whether that be compliance officers or Liewell's old mate from Coors becoming chief executive of the SFA. Desmond and O'Brien have had a business relationship stretching back years. You just have to look at the Moriarty Tribunal, for example, to see just how long and how close their business relationships have been. The idea that O'Brien is simply a minor shareholder in Celtc with little to do with the guy who owns well over 30% of things over at the Knew Camp, so therefore O'Brien employing a bitter, bitter Shettleston who just happens to be chairman of the SPFL is just fine. Absolutely no conflicts of interest there at all. Well, it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
  6. I lurk usually, but I can't let this lie. Any small shareholders in listed companies, like Celtc FC, will hold their shares in nominee accounts. What that means is while they are classed as the beneficiary, they are not the real owner. The true owner of the shares is often companies like say, Interactive Investor, IG Group, Spreadex or a bank like say HSBC, Halifax or Barclays. Often companies will have x nominees listed as one of their largest shareholder, where x is a stockbroker. Any nominee account is the aggregate ownership of shares on behalf of others. Some brokers make it possible to vote at company meetings. Most don't. I hold my stocks across 3 brokers and only 1 doesn't charge me for voting at company meetings. In other words, small shareholders are generally disenfranchised when it comes to voting at company meetings. So, why have I spent my Thursday night getting more and more angry with the SPFL statement? The rules are clear. Any party, or a concert party, owning over 30% of a company is considered to be a controlling party. One thing that follows from that is any party or parties that own over 30% of a company, must make a takeover offer. As Rangers shareholders, we know this. I've had 2 letters from Dave about making an offer for my shares. Once anybody goes above 30% shareholders need to be given an option. Sell up or keep your shares. Why? Because somebody now has enough shares to control the company and you need to be able to sell if necessary. TL:DR, start here So, it is clear. Whilst it is true that to be the true majority shareholder you need 50% + 1, UK company law recognises that to be the de facto majority shareholder, you (or you + others) only need greater than 30%. Lots of shareholders are disenfranchised by the nominee system. UK company law takes this into account, even if the SPFL would like to pretend otherwise. Not living in Scotland these days, I might have missed something. I can't see the words "minority shareholder" in this report: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/ Seems clear. Over 30%. Mandatory takeover bid. 45% of a company. Minority shareholders says the SPFL. Perhaps, literally. De facto? We are clearly dealing with lying bastards. Not that I expect the Scottish mhedia to point that out. "Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration". Did their predecessors in the SPL make the same statement when another club made their dissatisfaction with referees known? So much so that the referees felt that the public criticism of them meant they had no option but to strike? By their fruits you will know them, the bible says. I might be a fucking atheist, but by the SPfuckingL's fruit, we Rangers fans certainly know them. Liars from cradle to grave.
  • Create New...