forever_blue Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The thing about that article is they Keith Jackson doesn't actually ask any questions the fans want to know. How bad is the current position? Why didn't you try trim wage budget? Sell players in transfer window etc. What's the contingency if share issue fails? It's all, you like mike but not Dave, why don't you like Dave? Utter crap journalism. jackson is an arse of a journalist , his credibilty was lost after the "wealth of the radar" article and he has been trying to regain his reputation ever since, as he will always be known as the guy who done tha craig whyte article. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The courts appoint administrators after they receive a petition to do so, the company can put forward a preferred administrator but the court can ignore this and appoint who they want if they feel it is in the best interest of the creditors. Spot on, probably got a better chance of decent ones being appointed if one of the creditors pushes sevco into admin than if the board do it themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I think we can answer a couple of key questions from 2012 now: No, they haven't been punished enough. No, they are not enjoying the journey. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Can the clause not simply be that if the company/club fails to fulfill the terms of the contract the brand and image rights transfer to them ... I'm sure Ashley was smart enough to ensure the contract included the company that owned these rights. Whatever it is it will be aired with the dirty laundry coming out of Ayebrokes in the coming months. Yes, that sounds possible too. However, that would be beyond the realms of "unfavourable" contracts and well into the area of "what the fcuk were you thinking". Although, that could explain why they were, subsequently, so keen to renege on the deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 And we'll hear the Company s defence re imran today , that could be enlightening . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I thought it was the stadium naming rights that had been rumoured to have been sold? Daily record and Daily express. Can you point me to the source of the rumours that the brand and image rights for Rangers have been sold too? No. As far as I know, there are no sources just rumours. Its not about them being sold, its a theory on how the Sports Direct contracts could survive liquidation of the current company. Its not related to todays "announcement" about the naming rights, other than it involves Ashley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Ok where did you hear the rumours about the brand and image rights being sold? (or these contracts) On here, most likely! If you're subtely hinting that the rumours are rubbish, please just say so 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The courts appoint administrators after they receive a petition to do so, the company can put forward a preferred administrator but the court can ignore this and appoint who they want if they feel it is in the best interest of the creditors. D&P were certainly not in the creditors best interest in February 2012. Allowing the overnight hotel stays for games a few miles away and not sacking a single high earner like happens at every other club. Amazing stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 On here? from who? you must surely know or why mention them? The rumours about the stadium naming rights might well be true, they are being mentioned in more than 1 newspaper, however I have not heard anything about 'brand and image' rights until the last few pages. There have been rumours going around for a while that Ashleys Sports Direct contract would "survive liquidation". I dont remember who first mentioned them but they have been mentioned several times, again mainly - possibly only - on here. There are no rumours about brand and image rights. That is pure speculation as to how a contract might "survive" in the event of the company being liquidated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I must admit, I think this notion that there are contracts that survive liquidation are wishful thinking in the extreme. Contracts are agreements between two or more legal personalities (corporate or private individuals). The notion that they are transferable to a third party by default is fanciful (even TUPE law doesn't go that far). Now, had NewRangers SOLD it's brand (not just rights to use the brand) to Sports Direct, then that would be a different kettle of fish, but I don't think anyone believes that NewRangers are using the brand under licence. Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Speculation by who? What? Are you being deliberately obtuse? I must admit, I think this notion that there are contracts that survive liquidation are wishful thinking in the extreme. Contracts are agreements between two or more legal personalities (corporate or private individuals). The notion that they are transferable to a third party by default is fanciful (even TUPE law doesn't go that far). Now, had NewRangers SOLD it's brand (not just rights to use the brand) to Sports Direct, then that would be a different kettle of fish, but I don't think anyone believes that NewRangers are using the brand under licence. Yours aDONis Again, I would tend to agree. However, is it possible that a clause in the current contract states the brand rights transfer to Ashely on an insolvency event? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Not according to rumour ... If the club company continues trading under the THE RANGERS FC and using the brand then the contracts will survive even liquidation. Nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 We Adore The Pound Stadium. Apparently they're shit-scared in Govan that if we vote YES on the 18th, and Scotland disnae get to keep the pound, nobody will be able to invest in their clumpany any more. (How much for that? £1. How much is that? £1. What does that cost? £1) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) Again, I would tend to agree. However, is it possible that a clause in the current contract states the brand rights transfer to Ashely on an insolvency event? In the case of liquidation, I can only think of one very unlikely scenario, and even then I'm not sure of it's veracity. But here goes, if Ashley/Sports Direct specifically has security over the assets (NewRangers brands) (A bit like Whyte's claim over the physical assets of £1brokes or like bank securities against most clubs grounds), then theoretically any default on his contracts with New Rangers, caused by liquidation could cause the asset transfer. HOWEVER, I think that such a contract is almost un-imaginable (especially for a small retail contract). If he's got the brand but no club, then what does he do with it? Does he try to sell it to SevCo 5089 if they've bought the other assets from the liquidators? Does he continue to sell merchandise with the brands even though there is no club? I can't see the value in it, and I certainly can't see why even Charlie Chuckles would sign it (It's not as though it was a massive retail contract). Whilst I'm at it, I suspect that Ashley/Sports Direct don't even have the 'nameing rights' to £1brokes. I suspect the peppercorn value is for the option of first right of refusal, If NewRangers decide to sell nameing rights. I hope this helps, but please don't take any of this as gospel, because I'm just not sure if it's even true. Yours aDONis EDIT: P.S. whilst I'm at it. I think that such a clause would be a material item and as such worth at least an "Item of note" in the accounts. It isn't there, so I'm going to call "bull-shyt" on the whole rumour. Edited September 4, 2014 by aDONisSheep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Apologies if this was the way I came across, certainly was not my intention. I am simply a concerned fan. We have went from rumours about 'stadium naming' rights which have a definite source to speculation about 'brand and image' rights that until today I had not heard of, I simply asked where this speculation had come from, you seem unable / unwilling to say where this speculation came from, 'here' is hardly being specific, in fact it is obtuse. Im not sure how more specific I can be. My main source of info on this whole saga is this thread. I dont go around reading other blogs or even other news sources unless I happen to come across them on here or twitter etc. I dont remember where, or if, I saw the rumour about "liquidation proof" contracts other than it being posted on here. My lack of exact detailed memory is hardly being obtuse! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 In the case of liquidation, I can only think of one very unlikely scenario, and even then I'm not sure of it's veracity. But here goes, if Ashley/Sports Direct specifically has security over the assets (NewRangers brands) (A bit like Whyte's claim over the physical assets of £1brokes or like bank securities against most clubs grounds), then theoretically any default on his contracts with New Rangers, caused by liquidation could cause the asset transfer. HOWEVER, I think that such a contract is almost un-imaginable (especially for a small retail contract). If he's got the brand but no club, then what does he do with it? Does he try to sell it to SevCo 5089 if they've bought the other assets from the liquidators? Does he continue to sell merchandise with the brands even though there is no club? I can't see the value in it, and I certainly can't see why even Charlie Chuckles would sign it (It's not as though it was a massive retail contract). Whilst I'm at it, I suspect that Ashley/Sports Direct don't even have the 'nameing rights' to £1brokes. I suspect the peppercorn value is for the option of first right of refusal, If NewRangers decide to sell nameing rights. I hope this helps, but please don't take any of this as gospel, because I'm just not sure if it's even true. Yours aDONis EDIT: P.S. whilst I'm at it. I think that such a clause would be a material item and as such worth at least an "Item of note" in the accounts. It isn't there, so I'm going to call "bull-shyt" on the whole rumour. Cheers. Again, I tend to agree and said as much previously. Such a clause would be unthinkable in any normal business contract. This is, of course, Rangers we're talking about though! I think you're also right about the naming rights. Im sure I read that somewhere else this morning. Please accept my humble apologies for not being able to remember the exact millisecond and whether or not the typist was left or right handed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Ahmad in third bid to freeze Rangers' account James Mulholland Thursday 4 September 2014 FORMER Rangers commercial director Imran Ahmad has returned to court for a third time in a bid to have £620,000 frozen in the club's account. FORMER Rangers commercial director Imran Ahmad has returned to court for a third time in a bid to have £620,000 frozen in the club's account. Lawyers acting for Mr Ahmad claim he is owed a £500,000 bonus for the time he spent working at the Championship side. And despite failing on two previous occasions to have the money ring fenced, his lawyers returned to the Court of Session on Wednesday to try again. Interesting to see how this pans out, given the falsehoods that were spun last time "Honest, your honour, we're solvent" over the last few weeks all the news out of Ibrox has been an admission of a company on the skids 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Being unable to name a specific poster on a subject 'brand and image' only being discussed in the last few hours is being deliberately obtuse. Given that the posts of the last few hours are easily accessible, I assumed you had already read them and were asking about when the rumours had come up previously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Apologies if already covered. As far as I am aware The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a company owned by RIFC Plc as an asset. The Rangers Football club Ltd would be sold on as an asset if RIFC were to be liquidated. Any contracts attributed to The Rangers Football Club Ltd would continue as that company would not be liquidated with RIFC. Onerous contracts carry on when the Club gets separated from a company again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actonsheep Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Better for who? Do you honestly think that any of these deals have been done with the club being the main beneficiary? It is a simple policy that these crooks operate on, Spivs pocket first, holding company 2nd, club last. This is a shit deal for Rangers, no matter which way you try and gloss over it. Its pretty decent deal for a Scottish 3rd division team with a large support. The Rangers name means nothing. Yeh that's all very well but this was one of the main sources of revenue...now we hand almost of half our profits to Ashley. He makes so much from it he is desperate to keep the club trading!! If Rangers couldn't have done this on their own then why were others desperate to get the club out of the deal? You don't think Sports Direct would stock our merchandise if we didn't have this deal? Yes, they would, under what terms is questionable (its unlikely SD would buy in bulk, so you'd be looking at sale or return, or even worse, paying them to stock them) but Rangers would have then carried all the risk, which they couldn't, and still can't support. Imagine the financial position today if you'd pissed away money on 100k shirts only to be left with 50k of them unsold. The deal is bad for Rangers because the profitability of the brand was overestimated on all sides. 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.