bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How do they argue it's not a footballing debt ... Chuckles signed an agreement for TRFC to pay all footballing debts related to the old club... Somers acknowledged it existed and they were liable? Tis true enough, he was desperate enough to sign anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Back on topic. Do sevco have enough cash to pay wages and keep the lights on for the rest of the month.? And how many times tonight will Bennett and tedi mention wrk(Norman) in a post just to deflect from the clusters£&k of a club/company? Who is deflecting? As far as i can see anything is open for discussion , todays events have been discussed by Rangers fans and will continue to be.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I would have thought the easiest way was to point out what Lord Nimmo said. We fine RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) £250,000 in respect of Issues 1 to 3, and admonish it in respect of Issue 4. in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty." (p33) However against this we have; Wallace apparently admitting liability for the fine. and this apparent extract from the 5 way agreement. Now was Nimmo aware of this when he spelled out that Newco would have no part in paying this fine and will the Five way agreement signed by Charles Green have any relevance if it transpires he bought the club through fraudulent means? I think you need to take a look at what "in practice" means in that context, Ted. You'll notice that it's not an instruction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Just out of interest has the SPL/SFLP or whatever it's called put in a claim to BDO for money from the creditors pot? Some people elsewhere saying they have but i can't find anything offical... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 What it looks like is that Nimmo had not full knowledge of what was written in the 5 way agreement (if this is indeed the agreement) And is there a reason to think that this will negate either the terms of the agreement or the fine itself? I can't see why it would, but it's not exactly my area of expertise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 5 smilies in yet another post devoid of any substance, that's me convinced then. Who was it that was complaining about sniping via a 3rd party again? You can't argue with smilies © The QC, Densboy and Norman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think you need to take a look at what "in practice" means in that context, Ted. You'll notice that it's not an instruction. What it looks like is that Nimmo had not full knowledge of what was written in the 5 way agreement (if this is indeed the agreement) Oh dear , you mean the Rangers hero Lord Nimmo might not have been in possession of all the facts?!..well we'll remember that the next time you quote him . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No, nor am I suggesting there is. At the time I argued that they would never be due for this, Nimmo was fairly clear on this. However at the time the content of the 5 way agreement was not known and our CEO had not admitted liability. It seems the club / newco are due to pay this. Next question is - What about the 250K costs that the SPFL clubs have supposedly already paid out? Looks like your previous owners have proven LNS wrong then, and the fine will be paid. Maybe a tiny measure of justice there, although I'm not confident the SPFL will spend it on e.g. youth development. And, what about this 250k costs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Tell me...who was in charge of gathering all that paperwork again? No idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Surely Rangers are due to pay that too? You'll have to excuse me here. You mean Rangers must be due to pay the SPL's costs for e.g. hiring Lord Nimmo Smith and so on? I'm not sure that's how it works, although I wouldn't weep if it was. Old and New Rangers aren't on the hook for e.g. the millions it's cost the taxpayer to investigate your former owners' rampant financial jiggery-pokery, for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 But but but...he a Lord!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Did the SPL not claim (or at least try to) that Rangers were due to pay for Harper Macloed`s failure in misunderstanding the league bodies own rules? It looks like the low level paper gatherer was deficient in more than one way. £20M is the approx. cost for that fiasco and yes you and me the tax payers will have to foot that particular bill, this figure has not come from HMRC of course, they have refused to cooperate with those trying to establish the cost of this failed exercise in respective punishments. Maybe they have taken a leaf out of that arsehole Murray`s book. I don't remember anything about Harper McLeod, but I doubt it's important. You might find this surprising, but the cops and the Crown don't often publish figures on how much they spend on unsuccessful investigations either, and there's no general clamour for them to do so. It's their job to investigate criminality where they have good reason to suspect that it's going on, just as it's HMRC's. Well, I'm not exactly correct here - every now and then, the odd suspected criminal who's been prosecuted and the charges found unproven makes noises about the taxpayers' expense, but very few people take that seriously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Tis true enough, he was desperate enough to sign anything. Which suggests that, back in 2012, this 'separation of club and company' hogwash wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye. If it had been, Chuckles wouldn't have had to clutch at straws and Rangers (company-in-liquidation-club-in-phoenix-mode) would have waltzed straight into the league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Just out of interest has the SPL/SFLP or whatever it's called put in a claim to BDO for money from the creditors pot? Some people elsewhere saying they have but i can't find anything offical... That prompts another thought. Since TRIFC are being hounded by the authorities for debts incurred by Oldco, shouldn't TRIFC become creditors of Oldco (in liquidation) and see if they can get a few pence in the pound? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Understatement of the year Christ. If you don't want to answer inconvenient points, you could just say "Sorry, don't fancy that one". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Strange behaviour from the SPFL and SFA boards here, we all know that at the time the fine was for oldco and not newco. This was made very clear and the matter was ended and it has to be asked why wait so long before demanding that this money be paid. Some people may also say that either the SPFL is in financial trouble and needs this money badly (and don't care how they get it) or that this is malicious act from them with one purpose in mind (especially when the club is in chaos at the moment). Obviously these are at this moment not my views as i'm still pondering all of this. Not really, Rangers appealed the Telfer money based on being a continuation, so by being a continuation they are liable for the debt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Understatement of the year The years 2 weeks old. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not really, Rangers appealed the Telfer money based on being a continuation, so by being a continuation they are liable for the debt Yeah...but only a continuation if they're OWED money 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not really, Rangers appealed the Telfer money based on being a continuation, so by being a continuation they are liable for the debt Great. That means we are due all that transfer money that went to the oldco and all the prize money that the newco never received. We are going to be quids in 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Great. That means we are due all that transfer money that went to the oldco and all the prize money that the newco never received. We are going to be quids in Then pay the millions owed by the oldco. 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.