Latest From Exposing The Rhats.

[Dennistoun Rangers 426]

Ok then. Who pays for King's pissing highest contest given Ashley will have the most expensive legal team in the land?

If the contract was as bad as they occasionally make out terminate it.

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

More propaganda from paid hands.

I looked over this blog and there seems to be inconsistencies in writing style. I think the use of "hands" is more apt versus one person.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Ok then. Who pays for King's pissing highest contest given Ashley will have the most expensive legal team in the land?

If the contract was as bad as they occasionally make out terminate it.

The board just can't terminate it like that.

It's water tight, the only way we can have details revealed is through court, if a judge lifts any gagging orders.

[Dubaijim 44]

More propaganda from paid hands. A load of shite. Ashley isn't a wee boy. King is antagonising one of the most ruthless men in UK business and its OUR club that funds it and suffers. Pay him his money from your £30m pot. You have invested fuck all. If this was a previous board so blatantly lying there would be bedsheets galore. He promised money and its our money he wants. I get that. But stop fucking about with Ashley when you don't have a leg to stand on . Pay his £5m with a soft loan. But either way pay it.

What exactly is the benefit of paying him his £5M - he will not walk away and contracts will still be in place, as will be his shareholding.

[Dennistoun Rangers 426]

The board just can't terminate it like that.

It's water tight, the only way we can have details revealed is through court, if a judge lifts any gagging orders.

They can give 7 years notice. Start the ball rolling. If anyone seriously thinks Dave King has a masterplan and is being smart here then seek help. I don't like King but have given him.my full support but bot on this. Pay Ashley and stop antagonising him. And stop with the propaganda transparency was promised.

[Dennistoun Rangers 426]

What exactly is the benefit of paying him his £5M - he will not walk away and contracts will still be in place, as will be his shareholding.

Are you being serious? We fucking owe him it. We aldo get back security over assets,% of retail and our IP for badges. And stop the. circus

[cumnockbear 2,446]

They can give 7 years notice. Start the ball rolling. If anyone seriously thinks Dave King has a masterplan and is being smart here then seek help. I don't like King but have given him.my full support but bot on this. Pay Ashley and stop antagonising him. And stop with the propaganda transparency was promised.

Why pay the 5m and give notice when these contracts could become void in court ?

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Are you being serious? We fucking owe him it. We aldo get back security over assets,% of retail and our IP for badges. And stop the. circus

We don't owe him it, the old board owe him it, they can pay it back.

[Dennistoun Rangers 426]

[Dennistoun Rangers 426]

We don't owe him it, the old board owe him it, they can pay it back.

Are you for real? Hands down the most moronic thing I have read on the internet. Deary me.

[cushynumber 25,178]

We don't owe him it, the old board owe him it, they can pay it back.

yes thats the way this works.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Are you for real? Hands down the most moronic thing I have read on the internet. Deary me.

Why ? the old board were the ones who accepted the 5m loan, not King and the new regime, why should they pay it ? it's a loan we never needed in the first place the old board took it out in spite knowing they were for the boot out the door.

[mabawsa 888]

We dictate when it is paid back. I say leave all as is in terms of loans and contracts, just nice and timely for the Fraud court cases coming up. These could be vital parts of the evidence.

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

Why ? the old board were the ones who accepted the 5m loan, not King and the new regime, why should they pay it ? it's a loan we never needed in the first place the old board took it out in spite knowing they were for the boot out the door.

Its a debt of the corporation...regardless of when and who incurred the debt.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

We dictate when it is paid back. I say leave all as is in terms of loans and contracts, just nice and timely for the Fraud court cases coming up. These could be vital parts of the evidence.

Exactly, but some numb nuts on here want it paid back.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Its a debt of the corporation...regardless of when and who incurred the debt.

It's a set up and a half, that's what it is, it won't be paid back imo.

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

Exactly, but some numb nuts on here want it paid back.

Given the profits from the Retail JV (per our audited financial statements), Sports Direct will make an additional 500-600K in dividends as a result of the loan not being paid off. That is well over 10% on the original 5M loaned. In addition, our IP is currently in the hands of SD as well as the revenue from next season's shirt sponsorship. Would rather that money stay with the club especially with deep pockets on the Board.

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

It's a set up and a half, that's what it is, it won't be paid back imo.

Not sure I follow you.

The most recent audited financial statements disclose this debt as a legal obligation of the company. These statements were signed off by Dave King as Director. The 5M quid loan is a legal debt owed by the Club to Sports Direct.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Not sure I follow you.

The most recent audited financial statements disclose this debt as a legal obligation of the company. These statements were signed off by Dave King as Director. The 5M quid loan is a legal debt owed by the Club to Sports Direct.

What i meant was that as stated in a previous post we never needed the loan, it was accepted by the last lot just to be cunts as they knew they were being ousted.

King would never accepted that loan.

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

What i meant was that as stated in a previous post we never needed the loan, it was accepted by the last lot just to be cunts as they knew they were being ousted.

King would never accepted that loan.

But he has legally accepted the loan as Director.

[cushynumber 25,178]

What i meant was that as stated in a previous post we never needed the loan, it was accepted by the last lot just to be cunts as they knew they were being ousted.

King would never accepted that loan.

its a company issue not a board issue - you cant simply have companies reneging on loans based on the personalities involved. Its a corporate responsibility which King has taken on.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Why has he taken this on ? it was stated he never need this loan, the 5m is still sitting untouched to the best of my knowledge.

[lanarkshire_bear 83]

An interesting read tbh and not too far from the sort of conversations I've had with my mates over a few beers but it's all conjecture and may in the end, prove to be total fantasy.

What I'd like to know, from a legal point of view as it were, is this.

I'm thinking that as a director, Green was governed (or at least is supposed to be), by his fiduciary duties towards the company, i.e. that he is to act in the best interests of Rangers at all times.

Are the sports direct contracts signed by Green so unfair towards Rangers that it could be successfully argued that they be set aside, as CG breached his fiduciary duties when he signed them?

While we don't know what's in the contracts, King does but he's been gagged.

My best guess is that both King and Ashley are marking time, waiting to see what happens to Green and the rest in court.

Then, if Green is convicted, can Rangers then use this to have the contracts with Sports Direct voided? Would Ashley then be told to whistle for his £5 Mill? Would the clubs IP then be back in our hands? Is that why King won't pay the £5 Mill, as he knows there is a good chance he won't have to?

Too many questions, thank feck the fitba is back on Saturday.

[cushynumber 25,178]

Why has he taken this on ? it was stated he never need this loan, the 5m is still sitting untouched to the best of my knowledge.

he has no option - the company took it on - and he is now Chairman of that company. Whether its used is immaterial. If i get a loan from the bank and dont actually buy anything with it - you think the bank cares?

[Hoosier Ranger 1,554]

An interesting read tbh and not too far from the sort of conversations I've had with my mates over a few beers but it's all conjecture and may in the end, prove to be total fantasy.

What I'd like to know, from a legal point of view as it were, is this.

I'm thinking that as a director, Green was governed (or at least is supposed to be), by his fiduciary duties towards the company, i.e. that he is to act in the best interests of Rangers at all times.

Are the sports direct contracts signed by Green so unfair towards Rangers that it could be successfully argued that they be set aside, as CG breached his fiduciary duties when he signed them?

While we don't know what's in the contracts, King does but he's been gagged.

My best guess is that both King and Ashley are marking time, waiting to see what happens to Green and the rest in court.

Then, if Green is convicted, can Rangers then use this to have the contracts with Sports Direct voided? Would Ashley then be told to whistle for his £5 Mill? Would the clubs IP then be back in our hands? Is that why King won't pay the £5 Mill, as he knows there is a good chance he won't have to?

Too many questions, thank feck the fitba is back on Saturday.

Unless Sports Direct did something illegal in securing the retail contract, the retail deal cannot be voided just because Green is an unethical POS or was a total buffoon in signing the deal.