strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 . reaping the beenfits , white stole millions of pounds from the club, the previous boards have ran up 18 million in debt and destroyed the scouting network, infrastructure etc, we also lost about 30 million pounds worth of players due to the liquidation of oldco and tupe and we are tied into a crap merchandise deal for six and a half more years depriving us of about 15 million quid, which goes straight into fat mikes pocket , what wonderful benefits Proof? Why was the club not allowed to tupe over players? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 TEDI/Nacho having a mare. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 we dont have any external debt + our current debt to rangers international is 18 million we are clearly eligble based on that and thats before you take off money for youth development etc That's where it starts to get complicated - for me, at least. Who is it has to meet the FFP rules? Is it RIFC (the parent company) or TRFCL (the club)? If it's the club, I'm not sure they can claim for Auchenhowie - isn't that owned an operated by the parent company? But, you're right - they've probably not overspent by FFP-testing amounts. If it's the parent company (my guess), haven't they lost more than 30M euros over the last 3 years? They may not owe anyone that much but they must have come close to over-spending by that much - can the share issue money be counted as income in this context? I almost hope they do win the Cup, just to see the answer to these questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 That's where it starts to get complicated - for me, at least. Who is it has to meet the FFP rules? Is it RIFC (the parent company) or TRFCL (the club)?I I thought TRFCL was the company that runs the club. RIFC being the parent company of the company that runs the club. Surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 fair enough, if that is what you want to believe, but I am sure the blatant non payment of tax under CW just pushed the HMRC over the edge. Was almost daring them to pull the plug, which the eventually did. DM surely knew about CW before he sold the club for a quid, and the whole thing stinks of a set up And I wouldn't be too sure about your current people who have the club's best interests at heart either, as why on earth would any of them got involved with Mike Ashley in the first place? Certainly they are better than CW etc, but I would keep an eye on them if I were you. Dave King has that covered... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 the answer to that is 100% no, companies do this all the time in the uk, its common practice, the new company and old company are totally seperate and legally one cannot be held responsible for the other Companies do not do it all the time. That would be illegal. The controlling mind of a company's persona us it's board of directors, if a company becomes defunct and it's brand is bought by another company then the board of directors (the previous company's controlling mind) are banned from taking part in the new company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Companies do not do it all the time. That would be illegal. The controlling mind of a company's persona us it's board of directors, if a company becomes defunct and it's brand is bought by another company then the board of directors (the previous company's controlling mind) are banned from taking part in the new company. Pheonix companies are not illegal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Pheonix companies are not illegal.But they are not the same company as the one which went defunct, as was alluded to.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_company Edited March 24, 2016 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yes, that's about the size of it these days. He's something of a parody of himself now. This thread almost isn't worth going on when The_Kinkunter appears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 But they are not the same company as the one which went defunct, as was alluded to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_company I am not sure who alluded to this, the post from nacho quite clearly stated that they were totally seperate. As I said, your post was incorrect, a new entity can be formed from the assets of the old with new or the same directors and the same name quite legally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 we dont have any external debt + our current debt to rangers international is 18 million we are clearly eligble based on that and thats before you take off money for youth development etc ^^^Admission that the club and the company are synonymous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I am not sure who alluded to this, the post from nacho quite clearly stated that they were totally seperate. As I said, your post was incorrect, a new entity can be formed from the assets of the old with new or the same directors and the same name quite legally. Okay, I am nit picking. It's not the company which does it. His post alluded to when a company dies and another company takes over it's assets it is business as usual, this is not the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Hmmm I wonder what P&b bear Vituoso is? Post 6 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?/topic/293286-sins-of-the-nephew-part-iii/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The current people had nothing to do with Mike Ashley's involvement in the club, none of them were there when he got his claws in As for the white buying the club for a quid stuff, the only reason it was on sale for a quid was the massive imaginary tax bill hanging over it Do you want to explain how a body with no legal personality, which just 'is', can be bought for £1? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Do you want to explain how a body with no legal personality, which just 'is', can be bought for £1?Or maybe TEDI/Nacho could explain why Dave King and his mouthpieces lied about the Ashley deal?http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?/topic/293315-eskbank-any-rst-apology/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 ^^^ actually crying because his club went kaput. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 This is a new club. You know it. We know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 . reaping the beenfits , white stole millions of pounds from the club, the previous boards have ran up 18 million in debt and destroyed the scouting network, infrastructure etc, we also lost about 30 million pounds worth of players due to the liquidation of oldco and tupe and we are tied into a crap merchandise deal for six and a half more years depriving us of about 15 million quid, which goes straight into fat mikes pocket , what wonderful benefits You haven't grasped what liquidation means,eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Point of order. Motherwell et al. Did not just ' drop' a lot of their debt. Their creditors agreed to not having to be repaid the full amount. Something DeadRangers didn't achieve. Hopefully this will help your understanding going forward. Yours aDONis pathetic - not paying the full amount = dropping the debt - hope that helps your understanding going forward 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Proof? Why was the club not allowed to tupe over players? because it was a new company and players have the choice to tupe over or not 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.