aDONisSheep

Aye, I noticed that as well. Sandy, it's dead easy. The club is some ethereal being that is not of this world. It can exist as the SAME entity under two guises at one and the same time (see RIFC2012(IL) and Sevco Scotland/5088 Ltd trading as The Rangers Football Club). It is not encumbered by the machinations of law or legal status. Although it can it seems, have legal personality (when being discussed by the Union of Fans wishing to hold security over the 'club's'(sic) assets) but does not hold legal personality when having to pay debts due to face-painters etc. It has a separable history which can be bought for less than £1 (courtesy of Charlie 'Chuckles' Green) but that history does not include liquidation or the racking up of massive debts (that is the old companies history and not to be confused with the other-worldly club)! I think we can now close the thread. Yours aDONis

Assuming they can get past the likes of Dundee Utd first. They've had two stabs at it in their history, and I believe they've won neither. Yours aDONis

If you're going to do it on an industrial scale, it would still be problematic. Banks have a duty to notify the authorities if they suspect some of the actions their customers undertake (see Shah v HSBC). In addition, the law holds the senior management and directors (for both companies and auditors etc) now have an oversight role, for detecting things such as money laundering and are held accountable (See Habib bank). As for bookies, well small time owner-operated entities may find it relatively easy to conceal cash transactions, but larger entities would fall foul Anti-Money Laundering regs as well as gaming board controls. Yours aDONis

Not only that, you get a bulk discount, and other privileges (first option on tickets for euro games for example...... stop laughing at the back).

Is appears to me, that the UoFs don't realise that it is the company that owns the assets, the club is (as all Sevconians opine) some un-dead, ethereal spirit that hovers around the company, but is most definitely NOT the company when it comes to matters of profit/loss/assets and LIABILITIES. To claim that the club owns the assets would be to suggest that it had some form of corporate structure and legal personality (such as say an incorporated company). Surely no-one would ever suggest such a thing! I hope the erm.......... Union of Fans is sending itself an admonishing letter, and I hope to see a redaction soon! Yours aDONisSheep

Just to clarify, administration would be deemed as an insolvency event. Yours aDONisSheep

Hi Bennett That is one way to go about it, but I'm not sure that the fans or King have a strong enough hand to play the 'confrontation' game. If you're asking for my opinion (which you probably aren't), from a financial perspective (as far as I've understood it), the subsidiary has the brand, the properties and the onerous running costs. Confrontation may lead to an even quicker 'clearing of the decks' (i.e. the holding company either shifts or secures the remaining assets against the current loan), leaving the club/subsidiary with nothing but the 'brand' and a pile of loss making/onerous contracts. Of course, this could be just my speculation, but it's certainly what I'd be thinking of doing if it were my cash and I was in it for the money. I think 'sabre rattling' is a dangerous game to play just now. Yours aDONis

Whilst I agree with what you are saying. If backed into a corner, then the outcome is more likely to be acrimonious. The Spivs have separated the 'football club' aka the subsidiary from the 'non-trading' parent company already. If they move the assets, then they can sell the subsidiary knowing that whoever buys it, has little or no option other than to pay a rental for the stadium. It's a dangerous game, is all I'm saying. Yours aDONis

To be quite honest, I think what Dave King is suggesting, will accelerate any sale and leaseback arrangement for the remaining assets. If there is a further funding gap and slow season ticket sales make that gap wider, then shareholders of TRIFC Plc would be mad not to protect their position (IMHO). Yours aDONis

Legally my erse! They are not obliged to respond to some hacks questions and certainly not in any legal sense. Their obligation is to their shareholders and they should not be disclosing financial information that could affect their share price (either way) to a third party before they inform the stock exchange. It is completely disengenuous for Phil Macgiolla Bhain to pretend otherwise. It undermines credible argument, to pretend that they have such an obligation. He can ask all he likes, but he has no right to a response. Yours aDONisSheep

I agree, and in addition would say; He has no right to a response. NewCo are a listed company, they can't give out financial info just because some hack asks a question. It is almost dishonest that he has led his readership to believe that they can. I have no doubt that NewCo have cash issues, but this is not the way to get to the bottom of it. Yours aDONisSheep

You're in danger of confusing balance sheet items with P&L items. Now both affect cash, but one has a significantly lower P&L impact than the other. The Chuckles investigation £600k was not part of the £14.35m operating loss. Balance sheet items are also not passed directly through the P&L (only the depreciation and amortisation charges are), of which these figures do not include a full years charge. As far as cash is concerned NewClub has probably chunked through circa £35m (excluding the costs of running the IPO). But as you pointed out a good £11.5m was spent on Assets. If you think that your ongoing losses have dropped from £1.1m pm to £0.6m pm then I think you're being optimistic. But even if that is the case, that is still an operating loss of £7.2m p.a. and you've probably got another two years of that coming. Yours aDONis

Aye, but that was for 13months and included a bonus for £200k which he says, he's not taking this year. Or as Brian STockbridge would say (as he often does) "If you think of it this way", I've raped the club, but I promise to be more romantic next time. Yours aDONis

What I can't believe is that he doesn't know his own accounts! He repeated three times that in the £14m loss were £4m of non-recurring items. No they weren't. The £4m of non-recurring items were in addition to the £33m spunked on running the company. It's also a complete fallacy to say that the 93% wages to turnover is not a key figure, but that people should focus on the 43% for players. Should they fvk! A high cost base is a high cost base, it matters not a jot, what the split between playing and other staff. To think SevCo are paying him £150k+ in salary for this shyte.

To be fair, it's a step on from "what school did you go to?"

They're not bigots you know. Well maybe just the odd one........

I am that sad lad that works from home so can listen to it. Nothing controversial IMHO, only stuff we knew; Sandy Jardine "couldn't run a bath", and was laughed at for marching on an empty Hampden. Ally McCoist is a "crap" manager, who should have been emptied, but who's probably only kept his job, because the shyt hit the fan. Paul Murray is a waste of oxygen, and the Blue Knights were as much use as a chocolate teapot. The SFA and SPL boards were desperate to keep some sort of "Rangers" in the mix, and "shat it" when Bill Miller told them their concessions hadn't gone far enough. Dead Rangers were fvkked before Nookie Bear even got in the front door. Ticketus fvkked up their contract because it was written under English law, so what they deemed as low risk, meant they lost the lot. Fudd & Phlaps had a hotline to the Scottish Government. Yours aDONis

There's no need to exagerate, I believe it's only circa 310 to 320 criminal charges.

The Murray Rangers is dead! This latest fiasco, is about who owns the assets purchased from the dead-club, and whether there was a fraud perpetuated in that asset purchase. Yours aDONis

I'm not sure what ASA can say. SevCo bought the rights to trade under the name of Rangers and the other chattels that went with it. They paid about £1 (or £3 if you throw in the fact that they claimed to have bought the SPL share and SFA membership IIRC). The ASA aren't going to look into the underlying process of the dead club to SevCo debate. They are simply going to say, SevCo bought the rights and as such, can use them. Yours aDONis