stonedsailor Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Sorry Tedi, I'm honestly not trying to be dick here I'm just confused. You said earlier: Tedi, on 21 Apr 2013 - 19:05, said: Now, I read this as Rangers Football Club owning the membership. They then passed this to Sevco Scotland who are the owners of The Rangers Football Club. Are you saying the original Rangers Football Club went into liquidation? Because if you are, then I fully agree with you. Tedi also said a while back that the assets were reformed back into Rangers FC when they changed company, for the second time, he does not know himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I think I made it clear that it was the PLC that owned the membership as in company. Looks like you do not agree with me at all. Serious question - if the PLC owned the membership does this mean that "Rangers Football Club" (in whichever guise you wish to look at them - the club you support) didn't win any trophies? Because if the membership was held by the PLC then surely any trophies won would be attributed to that membership? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I think I made it clear that it was the PLC that owned the membership as in company. Looks like you do not agree with me at all. What do you define as a football club Tedi? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 .............. So as a neutral, what game would you recommend next Saturday? ............... St.Johnstone vs ICT, Dundee v Hearts, or Cowdenbeath vs Dumbarton? Come to the Cowdenbeath v Dumbarton game. Stay afterwards for the Stock Car racing. It'll be enjoyable for you, because you've been watching car crash performances since a year past February. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The PLC did own the membership, they also owned and operated the club who won the trophies, the very club that were subsequently owned and operated by Sevco Scotland Ltd. Looks like we operate very different trains of thought though. Yeh it looks like we do. Cheers for trying to explain it but I'm still quite lost. Maybe I'll understand better this time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The PLC did own the membership, they also owned and operated the club who won the trophies, the very club that were subsequently owned and operated by Sevco Scotland Ltd. Looks like we operate very different trains of thought though. You cannot own a membership, a membership can be subscribed to ie you can pay to maintain your membership of a body or you can pay for the priviledge of membership, but the definition of a membership is the state of being a member or the body of members. When a membership is transferred the reciever of membership does not have anything transferred to them but does have themselves transferred into the membership in place of the outgoing member. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 An entity which can be owned and operated by a company. What do you define a club as? I take my definition from here, a little more descriptive than what you have to offer. http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx According to that the club and the company are the same thing, all that D&P sold were the assets and even their ownership is disputed now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I have no idea if the English definition is different than Scottish, I prefer to take mine from LNS who of course was referring to a case involving my club. Lord Nimmo Smith, 12th September 2012 - “In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner or operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the league.” I would add of course that Middlesborough are a club now operated by a different company after a liquidation event with recognised continuation. This Middlesborough? At least they had the decency to wait nearly a generation before claiming their predecessor's history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Whatever happened to that winding up order which supposed to close us down in Febuary? Remember the one that Ch4's Rangers corrspondent promised was coming in a matter of days. I must have missed some of this weeks back and you seem to be the "font of all knowledge". Can you shed any light on what the final outcome of this little episode was, and what happened about the money demanded by the "whiter than white" far eastern loan sharks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exc...entId=11557259 22 April 2013 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers" or the "Company") Director Declaration In accordance with AIM Rule 17 and further to the Company's admission document dated 7 December 2012, the Company confirms that in addition to the directorships disclosed in the admission document, Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge held directorships in the following companies, each of which is a subsidiary of the Company, at the time of publication of the document: Charles Green Rangers Retail Limited SEVCO 5088 Limited The Rangers Football Club Limited Rangers Financial Services Limited Rangers Matchday Services Limited Rangers Media Investments Limited Rangers Youth Development Limited RANGERS.CO.UK Limited Rangers Media Limited Rangers Security Services Limited The Rangers Shop Limited Brian Stockbridge The Rangers Football Club Limited Rangers Financial Services Limited Rangers Matchday Services Limited Rangers Media Investments Limited Rangers Youth Development Limited RANGERS.CO.UK Limited The Rangers Shop Limited Rangers Retail Limited Rangers Security Services Limited Rangers Media Limited For further information please contact: Rangers International Football Club plc www.rangers.co.uk Brian Stockbridge, CFO Tel: 0141 580 8647 Cenkos Securities plc Stephen Keys, Adrian Hargrave, Max Hartley (Corporate Finance) Russell Kerr (Corporate Broking) Tel: 020 7397 8900 Newgate Threadneedle Graham Herring / John Coles / Roddy Watt / Fiona Conroy Tel: 020 7148 6143 Sevco 5088 was a subsiduary of Rangers International? At the time of the ipo? eh? Lol...they're screwed. Edited April 22, 2013 by wunfellaff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 But cover who's ass tedi...? The important bit isn't green being involved with 5088 (that was a 'given') , but that it was a subsidiary of the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 By the looks Stockbridge and Green, looks like sloppy paperwork, did you not read or understand the AIM rule? A subsidiary that was never used, this does not mean that Whyte has any claim at all on the parent company, he may have claim on part of a subsidiary that never owned anything but as I said the records at co house seem to even dispute this. Oh no! Not again! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 By the looks Stockbridge and Green, looks like sloppy paperwork, did you not read or understand the AIM rule? A subsidiary that was never used, this does not mean that Whyte has any claim at all on the parent company, he may have claim on part of a subsidiary that never owned anything but as I said the records at co house seem to even dispute this. But presumably no advantage was gained on the field of play, that's the main thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 By the looks Stockbridge and Green, looks like sloppy paperwork, did you not read or understand the AIM rule? A subsidiary that was never used, this does not mean that Whyte has any claim at all on the parent company, he may have claim on part of a subsidiary that never owned anything but as I said the records at co house seem to even dispute this. Did you type that with a straight face? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) By the looks Stockbridge and Green, looks like sloppy paperwork, did you not read or understand the AIM rule? A subsidiary that was never used, this does not mean that Whyte has any claim at all on the parent company, he may have claim on part of a subsidiary that never owned anything but as I said the records at co house seem to even dispute this. As I said before, I think the flaw in your comfy argument of SEVCO 5088 not being involved is theat SEVCO 5088 paid the exclusivity fee which started the purchase (the exclusivity fee forming part of the final amount paid). Irrespective of whether Sevco Scotland paid the rest directly, 5088 were involved in the acquisition. Add to that that Green is on tape saying Whyte WAS Sevco, and your can of worms is open. Possibly the claim on assets is valid, possibly not. At a minimum it means Green lied directly to obtain the licence when he said "no" to the question 'Has Craig Whyte been involved in the acquisition in any way'. Edited April 22, 2013 by NotfromFifehonest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Indeed too many unanswered questions that still need answering, not expecting this any time soon, still waiting on any of the court cases involving Shyte to start, this latest bit of paper to be released onto the Bralt looks like it has no bearing on it. Did you get along to the Match on Saturday? excellent result, but you are still up against it. Quite so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 But presumably no advantage was gained on the field of play, that's the main thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Indeed too many unanswered questions that still need answering, not expecting this any time soon, still waiting on any of the court cases involving Shyte to start, this latest bit of paper to be released onto the Bralt looks like it has no bearing on it. Did you get along to the Match on Saturday? excellent result, but you are still up against it. If it was absolutely clear cut that Whyte has no claim on the assets via his involvement in Sevco 5088, or indeed, Whyte had no involvement with Sevco 5088 whatsoever, then I think that this would have been brushed aside long ago. That it is still ongoing seems to give mileage to Whyte's claims. I would assume that talks between both sides are probably taking place at the moment, with a view to "paying off" Whyte to drop his claim on the assets. I doubt the full truth of this farce will ever come out, especially with reference to the murky role played by D & P. The most shameful thing about the whole episode has been the silence and lack of action of any kind by the SFA. Can't say I'm particularly shocked by the lack of any leadership from that bunch of tossers, but surely Scottish football deserves better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 There seems to be one or two wee paperwork mishaps emerging just now. I hope the new regime are not dyslexic too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Sevco . That is all. -1 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.