rankbadyin

King wants direct hit if he invests DAVE KING insists he won't line the pockets of current Rangers shareholders if he decides to invest in the Ibrox club again. Dave King has settled tax battle in South Africa The Scottish-born businessman last week reached an agreement with the South African Revenue Services over a lengthy tax feud in his adopted homeland. King, who ploughed £20million into Rangers during Sir David Murray's reign at Ibrox, has paid £45million to SARS to settle his tax issues and could make a move to invest more in the Light Blues. Greenock businessman Sandy Easdale, whose brother James is a Gers director, confirmed last week he had finalised a deal to purchase former chief executive Charles Green's majority shareholding in the club while a battle for control at Ibrox is ongoing, spearheaded by former Blue Knights leader Paul Murray and Scottish businessman Jim McColl. King has revealed in recent weeks that he has been offered shares in Rangers but described the asking price as "absurd" and he is determined not to hand over money to current shareholders as he looks to once again help his boyhood heroes. King said: "It is something that is on my mind. I have had discussions, at an early stage, over the last couple of months where it looks like the club will need some more funds. "At this point in time, I would be interested in putting additional funds into the club by way of, say, a rights issue, but what I am not keen to do is to do an acquisition of existing shares where the money goes to the shareholder, not into the club." King has long been seen as a potential saviour of Rangers by supporters, many of whom are backing calls for sweeping changes to be made in the Ibrox boardroom. Murray and McColl put forward a requisition for an EGM to be held in a bid to oust chief executive Craig Mather, finance director Brian Stockbridge and director Bryan Smart from the board. King could now be ready to invest more money into the club after bringing an end to his tax battle. He said: "When this whole thing started in 2002, I adopted a bit of, let's say, a siege mentality. "I thought it was an onslaught, there were criminal charges, there were fraud allegations, there were exchange control issues. I really took this total onslaught approach. "I was genuinely, very pleasantly surprised that when I did engage with SARS, this didn't happen over a couple of weeks, this has been going on probably for a year of serious negotiations. "Make no mistake, SARS were very firm in the negotiations, they were very tough in the negotiations but I did find they were fair, they were open and, if I look back, it is something that I regret that I didn't do sooner."

What banking background does Murray have, he couldn't provide a credit line before his couch burst where will he produce one from now.

There is no presumption, McMurdo stated last week there were doubts as to the signatories of the requisition the SLE announcement today confirms that the club have not had any confirmation as to the authority of any signatory other than Artemis, pretty clear cut. The Company had requested the Requisitioners to authenticate the Requisition in accordance with section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 by providing evidence of the shares held by the Requisitioners and the validity of signatures on the Requisition. The Board has now received authentication for one of the Requisitioners, being Chase Nominees Limited a/c Artemis.

How long until we have a joint announcement from the purveyors of verbal diarrhea.

If any non-authorised person has signed the requisition the sitting board are within their rights to refuse the request as improperly constituted.

It is far from process if non-authorised parties have been found to have signed the requisition it could still be binned even if agreed at this moment, I think the board are playing with the alleged requisitioners

The requisitioner singular could have forced an EGM they didn't, which from everything I have read adds up to them losing the vote.

That depends who you think is the cat and who is the mouse, looks like the mouse agreed to another postponement a sure sign of weakness.

The real truth is that the club had the whole of Scottish football by the short and curlies but failed to use the advantage, many people have said that an interdict in favour of the club even the threat of one would have seen the SFA/SPL fold, not one of Charles's most glorious episodes and now very much academic as there appears no relish from any quarter to mount a challenge to this injustice the RFFF are conspicuous by their silence.

As others have pointed out any contract/agreement signed under duress is or would be voided by any court, you use the emotive word blackmail, blackmail is a criminal offence.

The club did have a choice, for whatever reason they chose the wrong one.

You couldn't make it up because you don't have to, the head of Sars dept dealing with King gets investigated while the former head of HMRC gets a job in the City when any right minded person can see he should have been locked up. The irony of anyone putting the SA corporate world under scrutiny when the UK's is every bit as bad and even worst is not lost. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2013%2Fmay%2F27%2Fdeloitte-appoints-dave-hartnett-tax&ei=AkIkUoP4HofDtQaY8IHwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEWOu28Oh1I7et-xDOv9T2zA-X9tg&bvm=bv.51495398,d.Yms

I have noted that any reference to RFFF on FF is swiftly removed.

There appears no point to the RFFF at all now, accounts need to be published and people given an opportunity to redeem pledges.

Very well put and clearly too.

Nothing in this sorry saga seems odd anymore, any fight will have to be taken on by the RFFF if not they should tell us why not, they are the fans fighting fund.

Malcolm Murray stated we signed under duress what more is there to say, the club won't fight anything the question is will the RFFF.

There is also the possibility that the board discovered the requisition was signed by persons not authorised to do so, if that is indeed the case the timing of the AGM could be some way off as the ball is or would be firmly in the boards court.

No we weren't lied to, this "new" information was in the public domain last year it was accepted by the powers that be as a price worth paying, not for me it wasn't.

They didn't have to.

AS has already been made clear the Board has been in discussions with representatives of the group which requisitioned a General Meeting. One of the aims was to avoid the disruption which would have been the inevitable consequence of such a meeting, as well as the totally unnecessary and massive cost to the Club. Having to convene two meetings, a General Meeting and then the Annual General Meeting, back to back would have caused a huge drain on Club resources. However, the Board is pleased to tell the Club's fans that it has managed to avoid such a damaging scenario. Through negotiations with Jim McColl, who has endorsed the General Meeting requisition, Rangers Chief Executive Craig Mather has managed to persuade this group that it would have been wrong to double the Club's expense, time and effort when the solution was always obvious. The Chief Executive has secured verbal and written commitment from the requisitioners that they accept the validity and logic of Mr Mather’s stance and are now willing to roll the two meetings into one session. It must be stressed this would not have been possible had it not been for the insistence of the Club’s Board and Chief Executive. The requisitioners had originally wanted to press ahead with a separate General Meeting until Mr Mather made it clear this would have been an unnecessary waste of the Club's money. It is disingenuous now of anyone outwith Rangers’ Board to attempt to claim any credit for this initiative. The truth is Rangers would have been spending well in excess of £150,000 to convene a General Meeting and then an Annual General Meeting almost back to back and it is categorically the case that it was only through the determination of the Board which made the requisitioners back down on this issue. The upshot of all of this is that this agreement means it is not necessary to meet the statutory deadline for producing the circular which must be sent out to shareholders to convene a General Meeting. The Club had prepared the document and was ready to send this but common sense prevailed. That was one of the main objectives of Mr Mather and the other Directors, although they are also striving to achieve a positive balance in the Board room. That’s why Mr Mather has made it clear to Mr McColl in their discussions he was open to change and additions which would include Frank Blin along with potential others. It remains the case that only individuals capable of strengthening the Board and the Club should be taken on. So that Rangers fans may be certain on this issue, it is absolutely the case that from the outset the Board has been willing to consider new Directors joining the Board who are capable of enhancing the Club’s strategy and vision. Our supporters should also be aware that after serious and profound discussion with as many fans as possible - both in the UK and abroad - it will be our intention to introduce a proper and modern Membership Scheme. The fans of a club this size should have a greater connection and influence. Fan representation on the Board is not something this Club should fear. Arrangements for the Annual General Meeting will be revealed in due course but the Board has managed to avoid what would have been unnecessary extra expenditure.

Many many said that Scottish football couldn't survive without us myself included, however many also thought that Scottish football was trying to have us sign our own death warrant by refusing the conditions. For what it is worth a solicitor advocate whom I do business with has assured me that even today a court would overturn any such agreement as being enforced through duress, an expression also used by Malcolm Murray.

There is no wonder why acceptance was the price to be paid for a licence to play, those of who pointed it out at the time and suggested fighting blackmail were shouted down as putting the very existence of the club at risk.

There is no doubt of his guilt he admitted to it. King had to pay a fine totalling R3.208 million (R80 000 per count) or face two years in jail. http://tinyurl.com/ne7mnvg

Because if he didn't he was getting two years in jail.