Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

What annoys in all the talk about this loan and that one, securitised or not, and which directors should be sacked and which appointed, is the lack of any mention of sporting integrity. How can it be acceptable for a club to win promotion if they had to borrow millions to do so. IMHO a clubs should NOT be allowed to borrow in-year. If that means they cannot finish a season then so be it. That would be a fairer outcome.

Don't mention sporting integrity.. That's a 'timmy conspiracy' dontcha know.

All rangers enemies collectively commiting financial suicide by refusing the blue pound.

It will be armageddon they tell us..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Fat Mike can't get security over Ibrox and is having to cut his loan then it seems pretty certain that RIFC doesn't own the stadium

I have to say that was my thought. However, if it's a company whose shares are public ally traded surely there are regulations relating to the securities held over the companies assets and surely they would have to be reported in the annual accounts. I may be wrong in that assumption but I wouldn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that was my thought. However, if it's a company whose shares are public ally traded surely there are regulations relating to the securities held over the companies assets and surely they would have to be reported in the annual accounts. I may be wrong in that assumption but I wouldn't think so.

But what if Ibrox isn't a RIFC asset. Would it show up in the annual accounts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if Ibrox isn't a RIFC asset. Would it show up in the annual accounts?

Both Ibrox & Murray Park as shown as freehold assets in the last annual accounts. There is no mention of any charge over either property.

There is however a note on the ongoing Craig Whyte claim, which the Board viewed as "entirely unsubstantiated".

If there are/were any "secret" debts not noted in the accounts then both the directors and the auditors would be risking very severe penalties. I think that is extremely unlikely, especially given the number of people who have come and gone from the board, any one of whom could blow the whistle if there were any substance to these rumours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Ibrox & Murray Park as shown as freehold assets in the last annual accounts. There is no mention of any charge over either property.

There is however a note on the ongoing Craig Whyte claim, which the Board viewed as "entirely unsubstantiated".

If there are/were any "secret" debts not noted in the accounts then both the directors and the auditors would be risking very severe penalties. I think that is extremely unlikely, especially given the number of people who have come and gone from the board, any one of whom could blow the whistle if there were any substance to these rumours.

Thanks that clarifies the situation for me. I agree with your point regarding the unlikelihood of 'secret debts' though I can't understand why a decision on the Craig Whyte claim cannot be made more swiftly. You'd imagine it would be in the interest of all parties to get this clarified asap.

If Ashley's reason then for not looking for security over Ibrox is 'fan pressure' it strikes me as a purely tactical one similar to the naming rights issue, he strikes me as someone who doesn't give a flying f**k about what anyone things of his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuckles now unavailable for comment ...

Interesting to note also that that other media darling Mr McCoist is being Championed as the savior of the titles in that article despite coming through all this to those of us pointing-and-laughing from the outside as being just as much of a joke as Chuckles, indeed the prolonged smoke-and-mirrors routine regarding his contract is pretty much the same as what the piece is ridiculing Charles Green for.

The thought of McCoist being pivotal in discussions about anything when he's shown himself to be out of touch, devious and, well, just a bit thick is a bit of a laugh - although when you consider that being able to play players that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford was not seen as an advantage on the pitch then he probably didn't need to be !

Edited by Ned Nederlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would require research ... cannae be arsed. Google "craig whyte worthington claim rangers ibrox" you may find the answers you seek from the oracle.

Craig Whyte stands to make £8.5m if he wins lawsuit in battle for Rangers' assets The custodians of Rangers – and alarmingly few of their identities are known – will face a legal challenge from a company connected to putative former owner Craig Whyte for the right to claim the club’s assets.

It is a move which could earn discredited venture capitalist Whyte over £8 million, depending on whether or not the forthcoming court action is successful.

Last week Worthington Group plc purchased 26 per cent of Law Financial Ltd, one of Whyte’s companies and one which, crucially, claims to have Sevco 5088 as one of its subsidiaries. Included among Law Financial’s assets is the legal action instigated by Whyte against Charles Green for the claim on Rangers’ assets.

Whyte claims that Green, who resigned as Rangers chief executive on Friday, had acted as a front man for him – through the vehicle of Sevco 5088 – so that he could retain control of Rangers.

The club’s administrators, Duff & Phelps, who were appointed by Whyte in February of last year, revealed in the CVA proposal lodged with the Court of Session in Edinburgh three months later that they had signed an exclusive agreement with Sevco 5088, which would see that firm own the club’s assets – including Ibrox and the Murray Park training complex – should the CVA fail, as it was bound to do.

Whyte recently released documents bearing Green’s signature, confirming Whyte and his associate, Adrian Earley, as directors of Sevco 5088.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...