akredz Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 His other example was £300,000 for the EGM. Does he mean the one in London that didn't take place? That cost £300,000 did it aye?To be fair, he didn't actually say it was the EGM, just a "needless" General Meeting. However, seeing as they are a publicly traded company, they are legally required to hold general meetings, so it was hardly needless. Unless , of course, following legal guidelines are not that important to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 To be fair, he didn't actually say it was the EGM, just a "needless" General Meeting. However, seeing as they are a publicly traded company, they are legally required to hold general meetings, so it was hardly needless. Unless , of course, following legal guidelines are not that important to you. But wasn't it those affiliated to Murray who forced the EGM ? Given the hostility at the AGM previously. Ok they tried to negate the opposition by moving it to London but then the supporters didn't bat an eye when they were involved in EBT's or not paying VAT in its previous entity, so if it was DK who did this they would be heralding it as a masterstroke. The other flaw is that King and Murray were both involved in previous administrations and must have sat on their hands but this is the usual ironic lying shitefest we have come to be associated with Sevco5088. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You see matey. The absolute perfect thing is that the Rangers fans waited far too long and missed every opportunity to save Rangers from the vultures. Now that the vultures have their grip nothing that happens will favour the fans. Nothing. Ye fucked it up all by yourselves. Suits us just fine. We get a winner no matter what happens. We get to enjoy your journey. This. The minute it became clear that every penny screwed out of the fans and "investors" had disappeared, it became impossible for them ever to attain their predecessors' accustomed status - even if they had been able to use the same financial jiggerypokery. Since then, it's been a long story of false dawns, spivs taking their turn at the trough, and general pointandlaughery for the rest of us. With no end in sight. Fucking lovely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Paul Potless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But wasn't it those affiliated to Murray who forced the EGM ? Given the hostility at the AGM previously. Ok they tried to negate the opposition by moving it to London but then the supporters didn't bat an eye when they were involved in EBT's or not paying VAT in its previous entity, so if it was DK who did this they would be heralding it as a masterstroke. The other flaw is that King and Murray were both involved in previous administrations and must have sat on their hands but this is the usual ironic lying shitefest we have come to be associated with Sevco5088. *Sevco Scotland. Sevco5088 was the corrupt vehicle that Whyte was using to regain control. Sevco Scotland was the corrupt vehicle used by Charlie to gain control / Le Chateau. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 *Sevco Scotland. Sevco5088 was the corrupt vehicle that Whyte was using to regain control. Sevco Scotland was the corrupt vehicle used by Charlie to gain control / Le Chateau. But this is the 2012 Sevco not the imitation Sevco all you obsessed shout about , It's all about Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But this is the 2012 Sevco not the imitation Sevco all you obsessed shout about , It's all about Sevco. No, RFC 2012 is/was Rangers Football Club Company. Sevco became The Rangers Football Club/Company (delete one when liquidation2 does/not happen). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You mean Daniel Prodan who cost £2.2m and played 0 games from 1998-2001? So he was really "Daniel, Not-A-Pro Dan" then ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Oh look its Florie, hiya Florie..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Don't you mean the TWO bookings in London? Two bookings? That would be a red card then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Apologies for thread derailment, but I thought we should pause to marvel at the sheer density of the layers of irony in that picture.I have the peculiar feeling we are beginning to circle that particular rim again, despite the plethora of monied men in attendance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not based on anything but a hunch, I should add. Why didn't the 3 Bears put in 6.5m and pay off Ashley immediately though, do you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) , you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. New Orc alert One major obstacle is what is the only asset that hasn't already been secured ? So not feasable since thats the line in the sand. The more pertinent question is why didn't King loan the funds being the major architect in the continued debacle. Ashley's 5m is secured against MP and Edmiston car park that is his bargaining chip, his shares and with some of the others can block another share issue, so I imagine that MA will agree to that for another deal with the merchandise , he'll hang onto the assets just incase you go belly up and he will remain the secured creditor . The 1.5m will cover the wages due this week and other running costs but where is King again he knew the cupboard was bare and the others dutifully obliged and even if the 3 Bears (what a shit name) have more money to put in they were obviously expecting King to put his hands in his pockets also. I would say it is a worry that the much heralded takeover who promised big things but are short on evidence, again you should be asking questions rather than defending these guys. How long does the 1.5 m last if it does't take you to the ST money comes in what happens next ? When will King announce his investment as this will be the lynchpin to the others following suit. If you get de-listed and have a share issue who under writes it, what likelihood of any outside investors jumping in ? You have gone through £70 million in the blink of an eye and sinse that has dried up the business has relied on those loans secured against the assets. Ask questions at your tainted entity of a club rather than those who are pointing and laughing at your subservience to the Glib and shameless. Edited March 26, 2015 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... A coconut for the winner and a ST prospectus at ibrokes for the losers. The irony of Potless Murray castigating the mismanagement of others while the business is only kept going with another loan from others while King is where SA, did he leave his wallet and had to go back for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CooperOnTheWing Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Maybe its not unsecured? They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... But they would then know Admin was coming and wouldn't put in an unsecure loan, can people be this thick? Or are yoy telling me they're willing to throw away that amount of money, to never see it again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Mactimmy, you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. why is it a loan.?i thought they were investing money. also its unsecured as Ashley already has all the assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Mactimmy, you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. Based on this logic, why wouldn't they put up £6.5 M and clear off the secured loans at the same time? They're going to have to pay MASH off at some point so why not now? The possible reasons: They never intend to pay off the loan. The 'GIRUY, Ashley. See you in court' scenario. They intend to pay off the loan from a source other than their own wallets. So, next year's STM pays off this year's debts. The 'loan-day seems to come round earlier every season' scenario, They don't have the money (see 1). The 'We won the company wars but what are we gonna do now, Daddy?' scenario. They have the money but are unwilling to put it into an ailing concern. The 'Do I look like I zip up the back?' scenario. I don't know which is/are the right answer(s) but they all have one thing in common: The Rangers are buggered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. Eh?...."Provision of the loans is classified as a related party transaction under rule 13 of the AIM Rules for Companies" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. But they would then know Admin was coming and wouldn't put in an unsecure loan, can people be this thick? Or are you telling me they're willing to throw away that amount of money, to never see it again? I think the suggestion is that admin would have been coming for sure if they hadn't chucked in £1.5m. Effectively they've been given the choice to write off everything they've risked so far or pay up to meet the raised stakes. They clearly are willing to risk throwing away that amount of money, to never see it again which should come as good news to you as it means they fancy the odds that they're not simply chucking good money after bad. But it's important not to read too much into this. Just as not finding outside finance doesn't mean certain doom, the decision of the three bears to stay in the game doesn't mean they're holding 4 aces If they weren't already exposed to large risks then this would be a more resounding vote of confidence. It's the business of the future to be uncertain 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.