stonedsailor Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I thought things may have become clearer by now - writing "justthefacts" as a topic tag is looking pretty, pret-tay optimistic in retrospect. So, as far as I can gather, the main movements have been as follows: 1. A share issue of any sort seems as far away as ever. Despite talk of re-listing and the "soft loans" being converted to equity, that doesn't look as though it is likely to happen in the required timescales, i.e. before current funds run out. 2. King has issued a rather extraordinarily confrontational statement, that almost looks designed to place Ashley in the fans' conscience as the source of all problems, or Chief Bogeyman. This looks like cutting off another slightly plausible source of funding, in contrast to King's fairly recent overtures about them working together. Resuscitating the second £5m tranche now looks out of the question, which isn't a big change; but calling-in of the first £5m seems perhaps a little more likely than it was. 3. Director investment as loans to be converted seems limited, if not actually dried-up: conversion, rather than repayment, depends on the value of a loaner's allocated proportion of a rights issue being at least equal to the loan amount. And, of course, depends on an appropriate issue taking place. 4. Director investment as unsecured loans seems feasible, but there has been no sign of these. They may be the only way forward in the short term. Perhaps King's beef with Ashley is something to do with his security over assets, preventing further loans being taken (including from external sources). 5. Fan group shareholdings were ramping up, and there still seems to be an appetite for investing - but again only the release of shares can realise funds through this route. From my earlier rough estimate, I don't think there can be much cash-at-bank, and there don't seem to be as favourable prospects as a couple of months ago. But then, who could predict how this is going to pan out? My aim of assessing finances may prove intractable. In summary, it looks as though a deux is required ex the machina, or an insolvency event looks imminent. Just the facts. The facts are that Rangers Football Club Ltd are considered to be a financial fraud by the Crown's legal team. Not many more facts actually matter. Ethereal clubs do not have a legal financial basis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm not going to claim that things are going tits up for Rangers again, mainly because I doubt if they are and I don't know enough to make predictions with any confidence. Is the insistence of Rangers fans on here that every thing is now definitely moving in an upward direction, not maybe a bit naive though? I'd have thought recent history might have taught a little caution, but as I said, what do I know? we are further away from any financial chaos than at any time since ending up in division 3, there are plenty of challenges ahead - the shite retail deal, the current court case holding the share issue up and green trying to get his fees paid etc - however there is more money coming in and less money going out than at any point over the last 3 and a bit years - the wage bill has been cut massively and there are no chairman frittering away money - this supposed 2nd admin stuff has been talked about by other clubs fans every season for the last 4 without it ever happening you would think you would learn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Just the facts. The facts are that Rangers Football Club Ltd are considered to be a financial fraud by the Crown's legal team. Not many more facts actually matter. Ethereal clubs do not have a legal financial basis. more diddy nonsense - rangers are under no threat by the current legal case, this idea that hmrc are ready to swoop in and dismantle us is absolute nonsense 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Yup, pay back Ashley's loan and plain sailing. Apart from the ramifications of the Clumpany being based on allegedly fraudulent foundations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) more diddy nonsense - rangers are under no threat by the current legal case, this idea that hmrc are ready to swoop in and dismantle us is absolute nonsenseNo HMRC won't.The courts have a legal obligation to return illegally obtained property to it's rightful owner though and should a fraud have taken place neither Rangers International Football Club Ltd nor Rangers Football Club Ltd would be the rightful owner of anything which was transferred in the sale of assets from RIFC 2012 PLC. The assets would legally have to be returned to the original owner. It's the law. Edited October 28, 2015 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think the football club should be suspended till it is all sorted out. Just out of fairness to all other competing companies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) I think the football club should be suspended till it is all sorted out. Just out of fairness to all other competing companies. It is. It's suspended in liquidation. I'd be quite happy for them to get their licence and memberships back and allow them continuation with a four year blip restarting next season in the top flight. I doubt there would be much left of the assets after they are returned and divided up by BDO though. Edited October 28, 2015 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 No HMRC won't. The courts have a legal obligation to return illegally obtained property to it's rightful owner though and should a fraud have taken place neither Rangers International Football Club Ltd nor Rangers Football Club Ltd would be the rightful owner of anything which was transferred in the sale of assets from RIFC 2012 PLC. The assets would legally have to be returned to the original owner. It's the law. youve been reading too much of phil three names - thats not how these cases work 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 It is. It's suspended in liquidation. I'd be quite happy for them to get their licence and memberships back and allow them continuation with a four year blip restarting next season in the top flight. I doubt there would be much left of the assets after they are returned and divided up by BDO though. yawn - nope its not and thats official 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 youve been reading too much of phil three names - thats not how these cases work How do these cases work then? If you know that's how they don't work then you should know how they do. If you'd like to check the BRALT I posted that same scenario long before Phil did, as soon as I heard about the charges in fact. Phil is well known to rip off other social media. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 yawn - nope its not and thats official The official line has to change if a fraud has been committed. Even they have not fudged the rules enough to prepare for that scenario. I thought you'd be happy with the prospect of Rangers getting justice? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 we are further away from any financial chaos than at any time since ending up in division 3, there are plenty of challenges ahead - the shite retail deal, the current court case holding the share issue up and green trying to get his fees paid etc - however there is more money coming in and less money going out than at any point over the last 3 and a bit years - the wage bill has been cut massively and there are no chairman frittering away money - this supposed 2nd admin stuff has been talked about by other clubs fans every season for the last 4 without it ever happening you would think you would learn You do realise that the rangers didn't "end up" in D3 - they started off there? You do know that, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 What problems do you still have? Not very much hair left, eyesight ain't what it used to be, could do with losing a few lbs .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) I think the football club should be suspended till it is all sorted out. Just out of fairness to all other competing companies. Rangers aren't really in financial turmoil at all I believe. Yes our outgoings are bigger than our incomings at the moment, but that will change next season when we start bringing in Premiership prize money when we come 1st or 2nd place every year instead of peanuts lower league prize money like we have got over the past 4 years, and we will be playing in Europe every year too probably, where we can earn a lot of cash by doing well too. This was partly what King meant when he said 'over-investing' eg spending more than is coming in to get us out of the Championship which has worked incredibly well so far and we have signed a few bargains too and have completely overhauled the full team and footballing aspect for less cash than we wasted in the years before this year. RFC's wage bill is certainly lower and more sustainable now than it was for the entire time from Divison 3 right up until Ian Black etc going out the door this summer and the new signings coming in. The youth academy has been completely overhauled and if all goes well it will serve us well in the coming decades instead of having to sign every player. MW from his previous job knows how a business works and how it's finances work, and there is no way he would have came to RFC in the summer if we weren't financially sound. MW is also very frugal with his signings, (he himself when asked by a news reporter admitted he was offered/made available to a "7 figure sum" by King for a transfer this summer but turned it down, for the moment at least, while he signed good bargains just now, and this gives us a lot more time to scout and find the quality you would expect for a 7 figure sum which i'm sure will be spent this summer), and MW would only spend cash on a player if they are really worth the value and fit in with the whole philosophy and ethos. If RFC weren't going to make it to the end of this season they definitely would not be hiring top quality chief scouts on multi year contracts and a new heads of preperation and one for statistics too, because when you offer any employee a multi year contract you are committing that you as an employer will guarantee that you will pay them that amount over the time so to offer them it you must know that yourself as an employer will definitely have the funds in place to do that. In short, we are in a good place until it is known otherwise e.g. if the Administrators or anything do actually turn up instead of phil pretending they are going to. I see no reason not to trust King, if you read his statement today you will see why he can't speak a lot just now, I would certainly trust him with my club's finances before Green etc and I know King has the club at heart and will always do what is best for the club so I see no reason not to distrust him. And yes, we owe Ashley a £5mil loan but King said 'the only reason we haven't payed it yet is because I believe we can fight it legally' -- I believe we could most definitely pay it off right now if we wanted but I think King doesn't want to until he/the club absolutely needs to so that we can stick it to Ashley and stand up to him instead of being muscled over by him, like King said in his article today. _our stadium just got done up with lots of nice new signs too, that costs tens of thousands of pounds at least to make and mount them, and unless our club's accountant was somehow completely oblivious to an impending admin haha, we obviously wouldn't be doing that if we were going into admin again. Edited October 28, 2015 by MRF-LCC-RFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k1ll13k1d Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 "And yes, we owe Ashley a £5mil loan but King said 'the only reason we haven't payed it yet is because I believe we can fight it legally' -- I believe we could most definitely pay it off right now if we wanted but I think King doesn't want to until he/the club absolutely needs to so that we can stick it to Ashley and stand up to him instead of being muscled over by him, like King said in his article today." Which is it? Do you or dont you have to pay it? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) "And yes, we owe Ashley a £5mil loan but King said 'the only reason we haven't payed it yet is because I believe we can fight it legally' -- I believe we could most definitely pay it off right now if we wanted but I think King doesn't want to until he/the club absolutely needs to so that we can stick it to Ashley and stand up to him instead of being muscled over by him, like King said in his article today." Which is it? Do you or dont you have to pay it? the loan probably has a 5-15 year deadline like any loan usually has a deadline (we don't need to pay it until the deadline), and King must believe that we can actually challenge the terms of the loan too to legally fight it to stand our corner instead of just being muscled over or milked by Ashley, which if you read King's article from today is what King is going to stop from happening. What would be the point of King paying it before he challenges it legally lol. I don't think the challenge will stop us paying it back, but he could challenge it to remove some of the terms that are attached to the loan such as while it is unpaid this gives Ashley more rights for as long as the loan is unpaid, and King could have them removed via legal challenge and then don't pay it until the deadline just to let Ashley know we're not going to be muscled over and like King said if Ashley wants to be involved with us he needs to play ball and not just run his business like cash converters and try to muscle us to squeeze every penny in his cash converters manner Edited October 28, 2015 by MRF-LCC-RFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) the loan probably has a 5-15 year deadline like any loan usually has a deadline (we don't need to pay it until the deadline), and King must believe that we can actually challenge the terms of the loan too to legally fight it to stand our corner instead of just being muscled over or milked by Ashley, which if you read King's article from today is what King is going to stop from happening. What would be the point of King paying it before he challenges it legally lol. I don't think the challenge will stop us paying it back, but he could challenge it to remove some of the terms that are attached to the loan such as while it is unpaid this gives Ashley more rights for as long as the loan is unpaid, and King could have them removed via legal challenge and then don't pay it until the deadline just to let Ashley know we're not going to be muscled over and like King said if Ashley wants to be involved with us he needs to play ball and not just run his business like cash converters and try to muscle us to squeeze every penny in his ash convertersmanner You will have another sadness filled morning when Dave King proves to be the latest Cash Converter to cross your path. Edited October 28, 2015 by Ken Fitlike -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 "And yes, we owe Ashley a £5mil loan but King said 'the only reason we haven't payed it yet is because I believe we can fight it legally' -- I believe we could most definitely pay it off right now if we wanted but I think King doesn't want to until he/the club absolutely needs to so that we can stick it to Ashley and stand up to him instead of being muscled over by him, like King said in his article today." Which is it? Do you or dont you have to pay it? Don't think he does have to pay it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Bennett / Big Fucking Shock scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 If RFC weren't going to make it to the end of this season they definitely would not be hiring top quality chief scouts on multi year contracts and a new heads of preperation and one for statistics too, because when you offer any employee a multi year contract you are committing that you as an employer will guarantee that you will pay them that amount over the time so to offer them it you must know that yourself as an employer will definitely have the funds in place to do that. I would certainly trust him with my club's finances before Green I believe we could most definitely pay it off right now if we wanted but I think King doesn't want to until he/the club absolutely needs to 1. Daniel cousin 2. Don't you mean company? 3. See 2 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.