Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dindeleux said:

If Sevco died and no team replaced them what would Hellbhoy do for life?

It would be a breach in the space-time continuum. Although I imagine that HBQC would drag a fair few diddies with him as he hurtles past the event horizon into the black hole that is the manifestation of his utter vacuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It would be a breach in the space-time continuum. Although I imagine that HBQC would drag a fair few diddies with him as he hurtles past the event horizon into the black hole that is the manifestation of his utter vacuity.

You know you could have just posted that I would go insane because Rangers FC no longer existed instead of posting some long winded theoretical pish that contradicted itself.

FYI?, a black hole isn't actually a hole is it? It's just dense matter very much like your posts most days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Also have the soft loans been converted into shares yet? I would think they have been. The holding company isn't listed any more on the stock exchange so they wouldn't necessarily have to publicly say they have been converted yet and would play a key factor in control if the club goes into an admin event as to who has the leverage and most amount of shares.

No, they haven't.

The motion for disapplication of pre-emption rights would have given some scope for converting loans to equity. It would also be feasible with a rights issue, but marginally less so.

The reason that it's only marginally less feasible is that the numbers don't come particularly close to stacking-up in either case, but they are potentially closer with disapplication, assuming some reasonable level of take-up from non-loaners in a rights issue.

In both cases, however, the current loan liability versus the likely total value of the new shares issued means that, to a first approximation, no new funds come in. In fact, this is quite similar in some ways to the Ticketus scam, in that there is a liability that has been taken on apparently in the belief that future revenue, to discharge that liability, will not be needed for more mundane purposes such as running a football club. Of course, with Ticketus, a wee google-eyed boy did it and ran away; whereas King has the club's best interests at heart, from everything that I've read in the papers.

It's a very unorthodox way to look at it, but Dave King would see some of the same effects from a post-disapplication shares issue (or under-writing a rights issue) as he would from obeying the TAB's directive: in either case, he puts in more money, the club sees virtually none of that new money, and he has a higher percentage shareholding at the end. Which makes it a bit strange that Ashley and Ally are seen as baddies for preventing the disapplication motion from passing, while TAB are similarly seen as baddies for telling King he has to make that offer. It's either all very complicated or Dave King is a Glib and Shameless Liar*. Dunno which.

There are many significant differences between the two cases, of course. I just thought it might be amusing to mention the similarities.

But is short, all of the conspiracy theory about surreptitious conversion is just nonsense. King provides plenty examples of real-life chicanery and GASL-ness without resorting to inventing such fantasies.

Rangers don't have their problems to seek. However - and although it's a high bar - I wouldn't hesitate to name King as the biggest problem of all. Completely toxic

* The TAB ruling is the most damning yet understated character assassination that I've seen in a few years, and I read the CAS rulings quite regularly. The simply note all of the things that he said at various times. along with evidence in each of the relevant areas. It makes the SARS comments appears over generous to his trustworthiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

42 senior clubs of which 41 are not Rangers and you still can't work out what a 50% ratio is ffs?

The term "every other" means exactly to you?

You have to be a bear on the wind up....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The DA said:

More level 5 pish it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Derlei said:

This isn't exactly adult debate, though, is it.

More like piss poor wind up the sevco fans patter.

There may be an element of piss-taking from most of us but I'm sure some of us would be prepared to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 10:26, Paralytic Critic said:

Well it didn't take old Pedro long to settle in and adjust to life at ImBroke.

Some moves there Pedro. Welcome to our glorious Club. I know a wee shop where we can get you nice shiny bowler hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Sevco was first formed was there not a lot of chat about needing 5 years full accounting to qualify for entry? With the first/second qualifying draws for europa being middle of June and Rangers accounts appear to show end of June as end of financial year, could there not be a problem? Or am i just spoutin pish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squidger said:

When Sevco was first formed was there not a lot of chat about needing 5 years full accounting to qualify for entry? With the first/second qualifying draws for europa being middle of June and Rangers accounts appear to show end of June as end of financial year, could there not be a problem? Or am i just spoutin pish.

Was it not 3 years' accounts?

I've read some blogs suggesting that Rangers wouldn't qualify for Europe next season under UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules.  I was happy to wind Rangers fans up about it at work but I've had a look and, while I'm no accountant, I think I may have been 'spoutin pish'.

The rules say you can make losses of up to 5M euros over the previous 3 year assessment period.  Rangers are obviously breaking this rule.  But... 

You can make losses of up to 30M euros over 3 years IF the extra 25M euros is covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club's owner(s) or a related party.  Which I think it has.

Also, payments towards training facilities, youth development and the stadium don't count towards overspending in this context.  I suspect Ibrox will have had a massive amount of work done on it, none of it visible of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...