hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 You have more credibility than densboy and the QC. Fcuk even I've got more credibility than those two and I know very little about financial rules and regs. FCUK ME ? you have more credibility ? You are a legend inside your own mind, to the rest of the world you are just a slabbering idiot who regularly makes a kunt out of himself on a public forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) Yesterday I posed a question, and has sparked off some debate whether or not the associations would try to pull off some devious shit in favour to The Rangers. I will cast some minds back to just under 3 years ago when Chucky came out of a meeting with the SFA and claimed "The club is separate from the company and the company who used to run the club is going into liquidation". Remember how we all felt when they pulled off that devious slight of hand ?, it meant we were all robbed off seeing Rangers FC heading into the annuls in history as the games biggest and most corrupt club and finally got what they deserved. But here we have today according to certain quarters the very same club evading most of it's debt and carrying on as if nothing happened and still retains it's ill gotten gains according to those who care. To further the question I posed I am quoting what the Daily Record reported last April that will solidify what I was posting, so get ready to be a bit disappointed if the associations do try to pull this off. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/business-news/rangers-ltd-reports-debts-161m-3396502 The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) has reported an £18.19 million pre-tax loss for the 13 months to June 30, 2013. The company, with operates “a professional football club in Scotland, together with related commercial activities”, reports it owes parent company Rangers International Football Club Plc (RIFC), £16.16 million. TRIFC notes the amounts owed to Rangers International “are unsecured, repayable on demand and do not accrue interest". It adds: "The parent company has indicated that it has no intention to recall the balance in the foreseeable future”. Last October the parent company, RIFC, which describes itself as “the holding company for the Scottish football club 'Rangers'”, reported operating losses of £14 million for the 13 months to June 30 after raising more than £35 million in finance in the year, including a rights issue last December. I have highlighted in red and blue the two separate entities legally recognised by law, in red is the parent company known as the RIFC PLC and in blue is the fabled Clumpany that is to all us the club itself TRFCL. Note how the wording in the quote above views the RIFC PLC as the owner who owns operates the club. And like I posted the Clumpany "TRFCL" appears to the entity the associations will deem and view as the club itself and will see the holding company as the clubs owner. Make what you will from that. The bit in green shows that the debt the club/clumpany/TRFCL owes the parent company is unsecured and can be written off if the holding company goes tits up from a very high height and will be covered to a point if the club/TRFCL was sold off as recovery as much capital as possible towards the holding companies creditors "RIFC PLC". I'm not saying this is actually going to happen but it is something I have thought about in much detail and theoretically could be one possible outcome should things for the bears take a really nasty turn in their crusade to reach the top tier of Scottish football. Edut to add more damning info. Edited April 4, 2015 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlei Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Yesterday I posed a question, and has sparked off some debate whether or not the associations would try to pull off some devious shit in favour to The Rangers. I will cast some minds back to just under 3 years ago when Chucky came out of a meeting with the SFA and claimed "The club is separate from the company and the company who used to run the club is going into liquidation". Remember how we all felt when they pulled off that devious slight of hand ?, it meant we were all robbed off seeing Rangers FC heading into the annuls in history as the games biggest and most corrupt club and finally got what they deserved. But here we have today according to certain quarters the very same club evading most of it's debt and carrying on as if nothing happened and still retains it's ill gotten gains according to those who care. To further the question I posed I am quoting what the Daily Record reported last April that will solidify what I was posting, so get ready to be a bit disappointed if the associations do try to pull this off. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/business-news/rangers-ltd-reports-debts-161m-3396502 I have highlighted in red and blue the two separate entities legally recognised by law, in red is the parent company known as the RIFC PLC and in blue is the fabled Clumpany that is to all us the club itself TRFCL. Note how the wording in the quote above views the RIFC PLC as the owner who owns operates the club. And like I posted the Clumpany "TRFCL" appears to the entity the associations will deem and view as the club itself and will see the holding company as the clubs owner. Make what you will from that. The bit in green shows that the debt the club/clumpany/TRFCL owes the parent company is unsecured and can be written off if the holding company goes tits up from a very high height and will be covered to a point if the club was sold off as recovery as much capital as possible towards the holding companies creditors "RIFC PLC". I'm not saying this is actually going to happen but it is something I have thought about in much detail and theoretically could be one possible outcome should things for the bears take a really nasty turn in their crusade to reach the top tier of Scottish football. -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Valuable input and will be dealt according to it's contribution to the Big Thread. The sum of feck all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Tedi dots his own alias..... Tragic. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I see from my return that the "Polterfhud" has also returned dishing out his demented and deluded brand of revenge. The good guys won, remember ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Tedi dots his own alias..... Tragic. Tedi has reverted back to being The_Polterfhud because he made a rip roaring shiity arse out of himself by backing Klingon, the 3 stooges and mini me at the EGM only to see it completely back fire on him. He even got a ban for pointing out the forum rules ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Tedi dots his own alias..... Tragic. I hope a mod isnt looking in , the racist appologist could get banned again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedandydons Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 A solid reply, Hmmmm, I'm trying to phrase this in way that makes it more simpler using the associations own rules. OK, at this point in time if we take the Clumpany itself "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" a legally recognised separate entity by law, that's the entity the associations will recognise as the club. Looking at the associations view point today they see the clumpany is still solvent just about and competing in the Championship League. This is the entity that the associations will deem as the club and will view RIFC PLC as a different entity altogether and is not the club but is the owner. RIFC PLC the owner itself runs into financial difficulty but the clumpany "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" accounts show the club itself is still financially solvent just about. So it's the owner who has run into financial insolvency but not the club and the owner has to sell the club "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" and the money from the sale of the club goes to service the owners debt, RIFC PLC. So I'm saying that it is the owner that has ran into financial insolvency and the club is an asset that the owner can sell to pay of the owners debts even during an admin event to the owner RIFC PLC. It will be the owner RIFC PLC that will call in the administrators and not the clumpany that is "The Rangers Football Club Ltd". Has that simplified what I am hinting towards ? Is this possible that this club will escape running up debts, ditching the debts by being sold on and avoiding any sanctions at all because RIFC PLC the owner has all the liability for any debts the club ran up because it was the owner of the club.[/just catching up with this today and your idea does sound like a likely scam for sevco to try get out of the position they are in. Surely they would need Ashley to play ball as if he doesn't and the club liquidate will he not own car park etc.quote] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 just catching up with this today and your idea does sound like a likely scam for sevco to try get out of the position they are in. Surely they would need Ashley to play ball as if he doesn't and the club liquidate will he not own car park etc. Ashley can't afford to see the club/clumpany liquidated, although it is in his best interests if the holding company RIFC PLC does for many reasons as he will be the one pulling all the strings at that point ending up as the largest creditor to the holding company RIFC PLC. Ashley could end up with every asset the club owns should RIFC PLC goes tits up and could strike a deal with the next owner of the club to either sell back the assets for a profit or as leaseback to the new clubs owners further fleecing ra peeps out of more of their hard earned giro's. Or Ashley could just out of spite make sure that never again will a team calling itself Rangers FC be playing football at Ibrox ever again just to get one right up the SFA who told him to go do one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I see CooperontheWine didn't last long, another of his short lived aliases. I really feel sorry for the young fella as well, P&B is probably the only social integration he ever gets stuck up in his mums loft posting on a laptop he found in a bin. Well just to be sociable to poor wee Christopher who is probably viewing in as a ghuest, "Hiya buddy, hiya pal, we all miss you n aw rat". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) I said this before and will say it again - one of the most revealing recent events about the death of Rangers was when the chairman of Airdrie United decided to rename his club Airdrieonians. There was no pretence in the announcement - Airdrie United might have played in the same strips and at the same stadium as Airdrieonians, but they didn't kid on that they were the same club. They openly acknowledged that the old club was dead, and that the new one was an imitation. When asked about it though, the chairman was brutally honest in explaining the decision: Chairman Jim Ballantyne, who has been in charge since the new club was formed, explained on the club website how reverting back to the original name was possible. "When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time," he said. "With all the recent changes, however, and subsequent rulings, it paved the way for us to make the move and therefore we set the wheels in motion". http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/22762457 So how come it used to be impossible to use the name of a dead club, but it's now possible? Jimbo says it was "a different football environment" - in what way was it different? What "recent changes" do we think he's referring to? If something "changed", how and why did it do so? Edited April 4, 2015 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Poor Tedi his stupid aliases are being banned faster than he can make them...Jock001, Cooperonthewing, is Vanderlei still active for the racist appologists? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I said this before and will say it again - one of the most revealing recent events about the death of Rangers was when the chairman of Airdrie United decided to rename his club Airdrieonians. There was no pretence in the announcement - Airdrie United might have played in the same strips and at the same stadium as Airdrieonians, but they didn't kid on that they were the same club. They openly acknowledged that the old club was dead, and that the new one was an imitation. When asked about it though, the chairman was brutally honest in explaining the decision: Chairman Jim Ballantyne, who has been in charge since the new club was formed, explained on the club website how reverting back to the original name was possible. "When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time," he said. "With all the recent changes, however, and subsequent rulings, it paved the way for us to make the move and therefore we set the wheels in motion". http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/22762457 So how come it used to be impossible to use the name of a dead club, but it's now possible? Jimbo says it was "a different football environment" - in what way was it different? What "recent changes" do we think he's referring to? If something "changed", how and why did it do so? The associations rewrote their rules & regulations handbooks funnily enough the very season before Rangers went tits up from a very height height to protect it's members from the governments insolvency laws so they claim. They can clone clubs at will these days. They removed the very rule that killed off their member clubs immediately when the administrators bring in the liquidators to wind up the club. What we have nowadays is that if a club gets wound up and liquidated they can issued the dead clubs association memberships to another club funnily enough the almost exact same name of the club before that owned it. The association has members and can say that according to them the cloned club is exactly the very same member they always had because it is still in receipt of their association membership that says it's the same member. In Airdries case it's as simple as if Rangers can still call themselves Rangers then why can't any other reformed club still call itself it's predecessors name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The associations rewrote their rules & regulations handbooks funnily enough the very season before Rangers went tits up from a very height height to protect it's members from the governments insolvency laws so they claim. They can clone clubs at will these days. They removed the very rule that killed off their member clubs immediately when the administrators bring in the liquidators to wind up the club. What we have nowadays is that if a club gets wound up and liquidated they can issued the dead clubs association memberships to another club funnily enough the almost exact same name of the club before that owned it. The association has members and can say that according to them the cloned club is exactly the very same member they always had because it is still in receipt of their association membership that says it's the same member. In Airdries case it's as simple as if Rangers can still call themselves Rangers then why can't any other reformed club still call itself it's predecessors name. Thanks HB. They were rhetorical questions, but thanks anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Thanks HB. They were rhetorical questions, but thanks anyway. You can't fault his keenness I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Thanks HB. They were rhetorical questions, but thanks anyway. No probs FR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 You can't fault his keenness I suppose. How many faults can we make from you ?, first fault was you logged in to P&B, second fault was posting on the forum, and thirdly you thought that what you were posting was the best comedy material ever written and giggled like a wee school girl while you typed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Do Airdrieonians mk 2 claim the history of Airdrieonians mk 1? The honours, trophies and so on? Because that's the real issue when it comes to whether Sevco are the same club or a new one. It's not really about the league membership. It's all about whether they still get to claim all the honours and trophies of the old club, so they can continue their oneupmanship with the Green-Flavoured Bigots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Do Airdrieonians mk 2 claim the history of Airdrieonians mk 1? The honours, trophies and so on? Because that's the real issue when it comes to whether Sevco are the same club or a new one. It's not really about the league membership. It's all about whether they still get to claim all the honours and trophies of the old club, so they can continue their oneupmanship with the Green-Flavoured Bigots. I think they just took the name, although they already have the strips and the stadium. I don't have any problem with them doing so to be honest, and I have no real problem with New Rangers doing the same. It's obvious to everyone that New Rangers are a new club, just as New Airdrieonians are, and I think it's polite to pretend that they're not new clubs. Every Rangers fan I've met recently, I've pretended that they're not a new club. Obviously, we all know that they are new clubs, and we can snigger about it, but it's the nice thing to do to pretend that they're not, so that they don't get upset. 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.