~~~ Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Craig Whyte reappointed to Sevco 5088 today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Welcome back Craig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Does this Tube Strike mean Bennett won't be on today? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Welcome back Craig ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1391606093.267635.jpg You gotta love how that cheeky wee charlatan has played us all for fools 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Mr. Whyte is back to claim what is rightfully his. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's like Deja Vu all over again..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This tube strike - it doesn't appear to be affecting just the Subway Loyal.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITEDSC425159 Registered Address: Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD Type Private limited with Share Capital Age 1 years (Incorporation date 29/05/2012) Company Status Company Status Rating Suspended - Negative Press Event Cash Not Filed Net Worth Not Filed Assets Not Filed Liabilities Not Filed Accounts Not Filed Latest Accounts Accounts not filed. Category Type Not Available No. of EmployeesThis business has not provided employee information. Year end 30th June Next Accounts due 28/02/2014. Country of Registration GB Previous Name SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED Date Changed 31/07/2012 Who owns the shares in the Private Ltd Co. ? I can't remember if it's been detailed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Who owns the shares in the Private Ltd Co. ? I can't remember if it's been detailed. I'm fairly sure it is 100% owned by Rangers International. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Makes some interesting points ... I think this guy could do with some accountancy classes. If he realised that the 'holding company' accounts are actually 'Group' accounts and ergo are the 'trading company' accounts then he could have saved a whole lot of time and effort. Deloitte would not be signing off Group Accounts if there was a Going Concern issue within the part of the business where 95% of the transactions go on. Dhense: you're a fucking moron -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) This confuses the fck out of me. Event History Date Description 04/02/2014 Change of Company Postcode 04/02/2014 Change in Reg.Office 04/02/2014 Mr C.T. Whyte has left the board 04/02/2014 Mr A.C. Earley has left the board 19/11/2013 Annual Returns 19/11/2013 Annual Returns 18/11/2013 Change in Reg.Office 18/11/2013 Change of Company Postcode 18/11/2013 Mr C.A. Green has left the board 05/07/2013 New Board Member Mr A.C. Earley appointed 05/07/2013 New Board Member Mr C.T. Whyte appointed 19/04/2013 Change of Company Postcode 19/04/2013 Change in Reg.Office 18/04/2013 Mr A.C. Earley has left the board 18/04/2013 Mr C.T. Whyte has left the board Edited February 5, 2014 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) I'm fairly sure it is 100% owned by Rangers International. OK thanks , I agree (I think) . I got confused for a minute ETA I see Bing(1) AND Bing(2) are watching. No details if you mouse over the name. What IS that? Edited February 5, 2014 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This confuses the fck out of me. Best give Densboy CA or the QC a shout, they'll explain it all to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/owen-coyle-rangers-shouldnt-second-3112770 Thats another one on the list! Not even 5th favourites to win the Scottish Cup. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/owen-coyle-rangers-shouldnt-second-3112770 Thats another one on the list! Not even 5th favourites to win the Scottish Cup. FAO Densboy this is another example of how to properly post a link. Kudos to Dave. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Welcome back Craig ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1391606093.267635.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 ETA I see Bing(1) AND Bing(2) are watching. No details if you mouse over the name. What IS that? Something to do with the Bing Search Engine trawling the site. Allegedly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Tick. Tock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) I have recently read a news report about a decision taken by the Advertising Standards Authority on advertising activities of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and their claims to history and honours. It includes the following quote referring to advice from the SFA: “We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ‘club’ varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.” I was most unhappy to read this part of the statement. I am yet to see the definition or statement of when you could “sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner”. This is a contradiction to the definition of a football club given by FIFA; a definition which is handed down to the Confederations, and from Confederations to Associations. You may or may not be aware, the application of good governance in football is administered through club licensing. This annual process ensures that minimum standards are maintained, to promote growth and development, and ultimately protects all of football – every club, every player and staff member, the integrity of every competition, suppliers of goods and services, the reputation of sponsors, and most of all the fans. FIFA Club Licensing Regulations state that a license applicant must be a football club, defined as: “Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.” This is a clear and unambiguous definition, which is being ignored by the SFA. Why is this issue so important? Simply, a football club must be held responsible for its commercial activities. For example, an over-ambitious and over-spending Rangers changed the Scottish football landscape forever. Other clubs tried to compete in an unsustainable “Cold War”-like football arms race. I believe Scottish football was damaged. Many clubs have been taken to the brink of death. This could happen in any country, in any league, anywhere in the world. For that reason, a football club and its corporate body must be one and the same, living or dying, inseparably intertwined. The separation of club and company is a myth, a myth dangerous to good governance. Rangers (1872-2012) should be a cautionary tale told to every club owner. The SFA must ensure the integrity of competitions, discourage financial recklessness, and protect football for everyone. This is only possible with a clear, unambiguous statement that confirms club / company are one and the same thing. To suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation is to undermine the definition of what is a football club, one of the cornerstones of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. For the SFA to suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation, or allow this belief to go unchallenged, is a shameful dereliction of duty. It puts all of football in danger. We cannot allow this. There is too much at stake. Now the berrz can adopt their "too long, didn't read" stance - adding an obvious attention span issue to the basic head-in-sand posture. Oh, and I've no doubt the author is wan ae thae tarriers, an'aw. I've done some editing to make it easier for them Edited February 5, 2014 by Apache Don 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 From the BBC website: “Former Rangers player Alex Rae says it is “dire, desperate and not acceptable” that so much money has been taken out of the Ibrox club. ” Paid yer "loan" back yet, Alex? 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.