wunfellaff Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 There might be something in that. According to Prof. David Hillier, Green is running a search fund which is ".... an investment vehicle funded by investors to identify a good opportunity. Will delegate running of club to someone else. Search funds normally want money back within 3-5 years and a return via exit. This means value creation for RFC in that time if successful." (@davidhillier) 3-5 years via CVA might make a return. 3-5 via newco probably won't. Isn't that the same as Ticketus? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I can confirm I have a further 50 Christmas Stamps for contribution to our ever evolving P&B consortium quantum. The teddy bears definitely ken. Good god man,Is that a satin bed sheet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsman411971 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) I think it depends on how big any potential pile of cards is. If Rangers exist via CVA then I don't think much is going to change and there isn't going to be much ammunition to fuel change, e.g 11-1 might be likely to stay . There won't be questions of SPL cowardice, clubs at war with elements of their fans, or a loss of legitimacy (being Newco approved scenario)... nor alternatively a huge financial draught in the game and the future being all about massive cost-cutting, and a battle primarily to survive (being Newco not approved > income reduces scenario). It's also clear that there's no consensus among clubs on anything - league size an example... 10? 12? 14? Play-offs? No play-offs? Even if an environment comes into being which enables alterations - you need people to agree on what the alteration should be, to do it. People say "seize the opportunity"... but it's not particularly clear, IMO, that anyone has identified [1] the detail of the opportunity and [2] who'd all agree to seize it. I think in situations like this, the only people who could/would make the change, are the SFA. As someone stated last week, no-one in the SPL should be allowed to make a decision regarding Rangers punishments, because their decision will be totally dependant on their own finances, rather than on the actual crimes commited. As far as reconstruction goes, I think we should follow the English pyramid system, have 2 leagues of 18, a "Conference" of 16-18, 2 up and down with a possible 3rd via play-offs. ps....Rangers would of course start in the Conference. Edited May 14, 2012 by Jagsman411971 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Isn't that the same as Ticketus? Seems like it, doesn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I would like to add this QUANTUM KEEKER to P&B consortium in a very hostile take over bid Dear lord, did junior have a donner kebab for lunch? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Do the 20 "individuals and families" even exist? Sounds like he's preparing the orcs for no CVA, liquidation and a Bill Miller type "incubator" newco with that statement. Y'know that's what I was wondering, there was a statement which I read (on here I think, a no of pages back) that said he was interested in anyone who wanted to put money in and join him, sounded more like an advert and made me think that he might still be trying to get this consortium together, hence the reluctance to name them and the fact this it's pretty clearly a last minute punt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamDFC Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Good god man,Is that a satin bed sheet. I wish. Just the humble leather couch, mein freundlich. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I would like to add this QUANTUM KEEKER to P&B consortium in a very hostile take over bid We are not D&P, we don't need to see evidence of your quantum at present. Thanking you kindly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Nope he seen the state of the books at Ibrox and shat it Dear lord, did junior have a donner kebab for lunch? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I dont think anything will happen prior to the SFA appeal being heard. If they have the same punishment (or greater) i believe that a few of the 20 would walk... Additionally is Green actually saying that the 20 will not commit until the CVA is agreed? Even if this was to happen then that would be weeks away...Rangers only have cash for another couple of weeks...dont they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Do the 20 "individuals and families" even exist? Sounds like he's preparing the orcs for no CVA, liquidation and a Bill Miller type "incubator" newco with that statement. But I suggested above, it can't be likened to Bill Miller's "incubator" idea. That approach specified a newco running in parallel with an attempted CVA by the oldco, then remerger with the old company intact (and it's company number, yada, yada, yada) Green's situation would be the CVA attempt exhausted, followed by the liquidation of oldco, and an entirely separate company (newco via a pre-packaged liquidation). This would be an entirely new entity - and I can't see how it could claim any rights to SPL share or past honours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 It's about as much evidence we've seen from D&P don't ya think ? We are not D&P, we don't need to see evidence of your quantum at present. Thanking you kindly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Seems like it, doesn't it? So for less than half of what Ticketus speculated with they hope to get the whole shebang and not just the tickets? Nice. Wonder if the 20 just happen to be the same investors as backed Ticketus? Now that would be funny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I dont think anything will happen prior to the SFA appeal being heard. If they have the same punishment (or greater) i believe that a few of the 20 would walk... Additionally is Green actually saying that the 20 will not commit until the CVA is agreed? Even if this was to happen then that would be weeks away...Rangers only have cash for another couple of weeks...dont they? I'm sure they sell of some players come June to cover running costs even if the Orcs will object it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) I'm sure they sell of some players come June to cover running costs even if the Orcs will object it. What I don't understand about that is how they can use further sales to fund running costs for the period from June. Green specifically said they creditors would be offered £8.5m + the Jelavic money. How can further sales be spent......shouldn't the proceeds be added to the creditor pot too? How can this different treatment of asset disposals (players) be justified? Edited May 14, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The more you look at it, Green looks to be fronting a 'Webuyanyclub.com' operation. Damn, thats gonna be stuck in my head now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 We should get T Shirts made. Profit to a deserving charity of us diddies choosing. Div? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 What I don't understand about that is how they can use further sales to fund running costs for the period after June. Green specifically said they creditors would be offered £8.5m + the Jelavic money. How can further sales be spent......shouldn't the proceeds be added to the creditor pot too? Assuming Green doesn't do a runner and also they are still in admin so "NUFF n HELPS" will have to acquire capital to keep the club running as I'm sure Greens cash is only for the creditors only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We should get T Shirts made. Profit to a deserving charity of us diddies choosing. Div? That is gifted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 @davidhillier's proclamation that HMRC are likely to agree a CVA on the basis that the regime has changed concerns me greatly: "HMRC CVA policy: when an insolvent firm has new owners, history of nonpayment is not important. New owners are what matters." I am always hearing how HMRC consistently reject CVAs, but the above statement could be significant. 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.