Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

OK then chump, which parts of my posts come from any other blogs, websites or other ?.

I take it you have seen my post earlier yesterday on how bad The Rangers accounts really are, then tell which internet page or other I pulled that from ?

Maybe you and yer fanny fans that gave you a greenie for that pile of triumphalistic pish can post links to various websites containing content that I have posted since yesterday.

I won't hold my breath because there won't be any and you've made an utter arse out of yourself for claiming I am posting material from other websites without any evidence.

Wouldn't be the first time you've made an arse out of yourself either would it AWRA. :1eye

I'm clearly not going to look all over the internet to piece together your stolen ( or should i say copy and paste job) shit ;)

There you go talking about dots, do they really bother you that much? If that's what gets to you then you are even more fucked up in the head than first thought.

Harsh. He's one of the less braindead Sevconians around here.

Bennetts a good poster, always has the P&Ds rattled.

Edited by CooperOnTheWing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm clearly not going to look all over the internet to piece together your stolen ( or should i say copy and paste job) shit ;)

There you go talking about dots, do they really bother you that much? If that's what gets to you then you are even more fucked up in the head than first thought.

Bennetts a good poster, always has the P&Ds rattled.

Have you had a good look around for your brain, it must be somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm clearly not going to look all over the internet to piece together your stolen ( or should i say copy and paste job) shit ;)

There you go talking about dots, do they really bother you that much? If that's what gets to you then you are even more fucked up in the head than first thought.

If you aren't willing to back up your claim that I copy n paste material from other websites and have in your post admitted that you yourself don't even know if I have copied material from other websites, doesn't that make you look stupid and make you out a liar by accusing me of something that you yourself can't even proof. :1eye

As for dots, I was asking the fuds that gave you them dots to back up your claims especially Tedi who visits more websites than anyone else looking for material to discredit everyone who isn't a bear because he loves to point out where posters have got it wrong.

You really are a terrible poster who contributes the sum total of feck all and just likes to wind folk up but usually you make an arse out of yourself most times for all us P&D's to point and laugh at. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was putting across is that the SFA might view the holding company to be a completely separate entity from the clumpany. If the SFA were to look at the clubs accounts and not the holding companies accounts you will find that the clumpany itself is at this time still solvent and paying it's debts.

On the other hand if the SFA were to look at the holding companies accounts it paints a completely different picture.

Will the SFA should the holding company go into financial meltdown deem the club a separate entity from the holding company ?, will the SFA blindly and blatantly try to pull off a fast one so that their demented brainchild suffers nothing at all if the holding company goes tits up ?, or if the club goes up for sale before the holding company goes tits up should the clumpany suffer an insolvency event even though it was sold to new owner/s ?

As DB said, the rules are pretty clear that the club would be punished if any associated company has an insolvency event. The rules were changed exactly for the scenario you describe.

The second possibility though, that the club is sold before the holding company has an insolvency event, isnt as clear, certainly not in my reading of the rules. Again, Im no expert, but are there not corporate laws to prevent that kind of thing ie asset stripping/transfer of an insolvent company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't willing to back up your claim that I copy n paste material from other websites and have in your post admitted that you yourself don't even know if I have copied material from other websites, doesn't that make you look stupid and make you out a liar by accusing me of something that you yourself can't even proof. :1eye

As for dots, I was asking the fuds that gave you them dots to back up your claims especially Tedi who visits more websites than anyone else looking for material to discredit everyone who isn't a bear because he loves to point out where posters have got it wrong.

You really are a terrible poster who contributes the sum total of feck all and just likes to wind folk up but usually you make an arse out of yourself most times for all us P&D's to point and laugh at. :)

Haymakers flying around all over the place and continually missing.

It's like you never left lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As DB said, the rules are pretty clear that the club would be punished if any associated company has an insolvency event. The rules were changed exactly for the scenario you describe.

The second possibility though, that the club is sold before the holding company has an insolvency event, isnt as clear, certainly not in my reading of the rules. Again, Im no expert, but are there not corporate laws to prevent that kind of thing ie asset stripping/transfer of an insolvent company?

Yes I do get the insolvency rules Mr X, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the associations rules where they can in certain cases circumvent their own rules and there is also the "referral to a panel". So instead of implementing penalties immediately for breaching the rules it gets referred to a panel where they decide what the punishment or whatever should be meted out.

It wouldn't even surprise me in any way what so ever for the associations to refer any Sevco insolvency event to be sent to a panel where they can ignore their own rules in favour of the club.

As for selling the club before the holding company goes tits up, it is common in the business world for a company in admin to liquidation to sell it's assets onto a new owner. Doesn't the death of the oldco Rangers ring a bell ?. The legally known entity "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" is the only asset of the holding company and will be sold off upon the holding companies demise.

I posed a question, could the Clumpany who's own accounts are in order and has paid it's bills and at the time and appears solvent on paper be able to avoid RIFC PLC's own insolvency problems with the associations ?

The reason I posed this if we go back to 2011 and back then IF just IF !, Murray International Holdings PLC went into liquidation who was the owner of the club at the time, would the club then be in an insolvency event because MIH went into liquidation ?, the answer would be a resounding no because the club as a whole could be sold off to a new owner as a going concern.

Something isn't adding up quite right, the clumpany/club on paper appears to be solvent and is funded by the holding company by loans and the holding company appears to be heading into financial difficulty. So the club isn't showing financial trauma even if the holding company is suffering from from lack of funds and accruing debt.

If the club was owned by a single person and not a holding company and the person runs the club/company into financial peril then I could see that the club was suffering from an insolvency event.

Hope you see my point ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't willing to back up your claim that I copy n paste material from other websites and have in your post admitted that you yourself don't even know if I have copied material from other websites, doesn't that make you look stupid and make you out a liar by accusing me of something that you yourself can't even proof. :1eye

As for dots, I was asking the fuds that gave you them dots to back up your claims especially Tedi who visits more websites than anyone else looking for material to discredit everyone who isn't a bear because he loves to point out where posters have got it wrong.

You really are a terrible poster who contributes the sum total of feck all and just likes to wind folk up but usually you make an arse out of yourself most times for all us P&D's to point and laugh at. :)

Are you that stupid? You mentioned your previous post #1693 on Rangers ( Im being generous on that number btw) and if i could prove you stole it from elsewhere, i was clearly talking about other and most of your posts.

No i wont provide proof as no one on here deals in facts ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you that stupid? You mentioned your previous post #1693 on Rangers ( Im being generous on that number btw) and if i could prove you stole it from elsewhere, i was clearly talking about other and most of your posts. No i wont provide proof as no one on here deals in facts ;)

Do you even understand what your trying to type, as that reads like an exert from bennett's diary on one of the days Tedi forgot to give him his meds :1eye

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...