nijmegen bairn Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Hope you're right, though if Whyte loses his secured creditor status because it wasn't his money that paid off Lloyds and he hasn't put any of the money he promised into the club, then he would lose all influence over what happens. Thats correct but how would Rangers be able to trade out of this possition. Answer is they couldnt. HMRC would have to put them under. If you look at the ticketus statement theve been duped as they are very nervous. They know what comes next as they play these games themselves. If Whyte does get away with it then the only thing scuppering his plan is the SFA and the SPl rules. Its then akin to buying a piece of land with no planning consent Rangers 2012 being the land and the SFA SPL deciding on the planing consent. That has been I think his plan from the start. Thing is you always get more for your land if you have the consent. He thought they were to big to fail to have the consent granted Sky tv deal ect. He is not interested in runing it only interest he has is turning it over. However fly in the ointment time. 11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered. Looks to me like Article 11 is setting a condition of Board consent to the registration process. 13. The Board shall refuse to register the transfer of a Share:-. Looks to me like Article 13 sets conditions on the Board registering a share. The Article goes on to list reasons why the Board may not register a share 14. If:- (i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or (ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation; then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. Looks to me like article 14 is the one which would apply to the transfer of a share from the oldco to a newco either following Administration or Liquidation. This was nicked from another forum thanks for the good work Easy Jambo and Magic Circle on the Rangers tax case blog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 This is my favourite so far: No doubt a carnival of folk songs being suggested by the original poster but the Children in Need comment takes the biscuit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijmegen bairn Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Another quick one bill so far for Duff and Phelps after 18 days roughly 576,000 thats a few bob theres your million a month they need to save this taken over a 30 day period is 960,000 Edited March 3, 2012 by nijmegen bairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Ain't that the truth. The Whyte take-over for a quid. Him saying he paid the Lloyds 18 million from his own funds, then we find out it .... Thank you for the write up. This is a TV series I'd watch! ADDED LATER: I don't mind the lack of paragraphs - it comes across as a sort of excited breathless running of mouth Looks to me like Article 13 sets conditions on the Board registering ashare. The Article goes on to list reasons why the Board may notregister a share 14. If:- (i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or (ii)a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrativereceiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of aMember, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Memberor any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effectiveresolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for thepurpose of reconstruction or amalgamation; then that Member orits manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator orliquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, onreceiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company inGeneral Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice shouldbe issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposedtransferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shalldirect at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by suchMember shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Clubowned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of theLeague in its place. Looks to me like article 14is the one which would apply to the transfer of a share from the oldcoto a newco either following Administration or Liquidation. This was nicked from another forum thanks for the good work Easy Jambo and Magic Circle on the Rangers tax case blog Me head hurts ... Does this mean that if a club is administration, then it is not the Board, but the AGM (by some qualified majority) which decides the transfer of share? Borys Edited March 3, 2012 by Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Another quick one bill so far for Duff and Phelps after 18 days roughly 576,000 thats a few bob theres your million a month they need to save this taken over a 30 day period is 960,000 That's familiar. When KPMG were at Airdrie, they charged £x for their services. The asked for much the same amount to be raised each week to save the club. Being Airdrie we told them to stick it.........that showed them! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijmegen bairn Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Thank you for the write up. This is a TV series I'd watch! ADDED LATER: I don't mind the lack of paragraphs - it comes across as a sort of excited breathless running of mouth Me head hurts ... Does this mean that if a club is administration, then it is not the Board, but the AGM (by some qualified majority) which decides the transfer of share? Borys This means under the rules they are not members of the SPL if they go into liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff14 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I'd just like to thank this thread for bringing rangers media into my life. It's hilarious and scary in equal measures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I'd just like to thank this thread for bringing rangers media into my life. It's hilarious and scary in equal measures. I don't know how I got by without it, frankly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 This means under the rules they are not members of the SPL if they go into liquidation Thank you. Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Are you suggesting all of the current players are in receipt of payments from illegal EBTs? I'll maybe give you a bit of a concession if you mean players who were with them back in 2010 but there's a number who weren't, why should they feel guilty? They earn their living by working for, promoting and helping an employer that makes it money by exploiting sectarianism, bigotry and hatred. That's what they should really feel guilty about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) John Hartson in the Sun has his say on player pay cuts at Rangers - My link Edited March 3, 2012 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 They earn their living by working for, promoting and helping an employer that makes it money by exploiting sectarianism, bigotry and hatred. That's what they should really feel guilty about. Quite. It's exactly why i have zero sympathy with the "tea ladies and groundstaff" that are going to be out of work. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves that they worked for Rangers in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Quite. It's exactly why i have zero sympathy with the "tea ladies and groundstaff" that are going to be out of work. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves that they worked for Rangers in the first place. The tea ladies are oiling the wheels of sectarianism in Scottish society. They need to take a good long hard look at themselves in the mirror. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 And that includes the tea lady !!! Cow. Indeed. Sluts! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Quite. It's exactly why i have zero sympathy with the "tea ladies and groundstaff" that are going to be out of work. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves that they worked for Rangers in the first place. This reminds me of the film 'Clerks' with the question over when the Death Star was blown up, 'what about all those construction workers?'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No-one ever thinks about the evil henchman's family. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Yeah they died. Well if they had morals they would have refused to work on such an instrument of death, they must have known what they were building, even if refusal to work meant possible execution at the hands of the Empire. But maybe they loved their jobs just as much as the tea lady, the cleaners or the cattering staff at Ibrox and will be perfectly aware of the fact that the success of Rangers has been built on decades of bigotry and as we now know greed and the need to be more powerful than their rivals across the city as it now seems at all cost. Both evil empires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No-one ever thinks about the evil henchman's family. Life Insurance?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I'm certainly not disputing that's they're some low human beings. Just that the full wrath of the types we've been reading on rangers media turning on a group of players who're not responsible for the collapse of their beloved club would be pretty stupid and potentially sinister. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Just flicked overt to SSN and there were Fire Engines outside Ibrox just before it went to break. This just gets madder and madder. 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.