stonedsailor Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 So a board of directors give a public commitment to ensure financial support for their club. Dog bites man story of the year, no? I read that statement as the ISDX had fucked RIFC off either that or there is no point in issuing shares in a company which could have all it's assets removed and returned to their legal owner should the fraud case find that the sale was illegal. The rest came across as trying to reassure the fans that insolvency won't happen as the current board will beg for loans to tick over until the case is completed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Just read the statement about loan-financing. Very interesting, and it makes more sense of the anti-Ashley statement earlier. This is the first time that I've seen this administration acknowledge that loan-type funding will be the medium-term model, rather than "investment". More transparent, but much less sustainable as a model. I presume that this is very much a second or third choice, and that the board's hand has been forced by the upcoming accounts - the going-concern on those is very important, strategically. Linking the ISDX non-listing to very recent events is pretty obviously a bit opportunistic, as is the statement on share offers. It's also interesting to see the non-pre-emptive part (as an intention, at least: still needs sanctioned) - as I noted above, there's very little scope for convertible additional loans. So, what are the messages for finances, overall? Well, taking spin from either side out of the equation, it seems clear that: 1. Immediate funding has now been explicitly promised. The description of that is a bit spinny, but if should help with keeping lights on and avoiding going-concern warnings in the accounts. Those are both Good Things. 2. Predictions of burn-rate and the timing of zero balance appear to have been broadly correct. As above, funds looked like running out around now, taking a broad-brush approach to calculations. The renewed loaning strategy matches that almost exactly. It could be argued that this is a Bad Thing; but many people on both sides, and many neutrals, already took this as read, on the evidence available. So I would argue that tacit acknowledgement that money has just about run out is not a (new) Bad Thing, but rather is greater transparency. If it gets the accounts through without the going-concern note, then I think that little has been lost, except for anyone who thought there was significant cash-at-bank, and something has been gained. So it's a good move overall. I worry slightly about the obviously and deliberately misleading way the conversion-to-equity prospects have been described; but that may be tactical, and TBF it's no worse than many, inc. Gers fans, would expect of King on the veracity front! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Nah, I don't agree. Deila and Warburton play similar tactics (i.e. too much emphasis on attacking full-backs that leaves the team exposed to counter-attack). The difference is that Deila has lots of million pound players at his disposal so he only get's found out In Europe. Whereas Warburton's players are not million pound players so he gets found out by St.Johnstone level teams......... As is Delia will always come out on top. And if the money ever does flow into Rangers then the two managers would probably cancel each other out via their mutual short-comings.... hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah wh*t a load of pi*h hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah i'm going to wait until next season to quote your post, because by that time Warburton will have proved yous all wrong that he is really the best and Rangers will be champions soon. Warburtons target is to win the Premiership within 2 years of entering it Bennett and i'm sure that's going to happen. Deila and Warburton aren't "the same" and never will be. Tell me all about Warburton's "short-comings" then .... just because he lost one match out of 12, with a squad that he built almost from scratch in 3 months. I take it by your logic, that since Mourinho has lost before in a cup game that he too is the same as Deila? Warburton has revitalised the full of Rangers and the full of Murray Park youth academy in 4 months, in over a year Deila hasn't made any positive progress at all except from telling Griffiths to stop eating chips haha, the team have actually declined since Lennon .. RFC don't get found out by St Johnstone level teams ever on a regular basis and I am so proud that next season I know we are going to steamroller over bigots like you who can't even accept it that we are good now. Lee Wallace himself has said that the football levels at Rangers now are actually more sharp than they were when he was in the team with multi million pound players and internationalists like Naismith, Davis, McGregor, Whittaker, Bocanegra, Goian etc. and he said that RFC dont play at Championship level we play at Rangers level. To be honest, I could never prove Warburton will beat Deila with a wall of text. But I would bet my life savings on Warburton winning the league before CFC win 9 in a row and I'm sure he will prove you wrong next season, just wait and see before trying to spew your false post that Deila is the same level as him. ps you don't have a clue about the new Rangers philosophy if you think it is only about attacking full backs, it is a much more substantial philosophy and ethos than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) ps next year we will all know, Warburton isn't to be underestimated. Edited October 30, 2015 by MRF-LCC-RFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Patience mrf, we'll get there. Should've been further along the road by now but we're making sensible appointments on and off pitch now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuoAnLai Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 ps next year we will all know, Warburton isn't to be underestimated. Is that because you're hoping he'll give the club a loan in January? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 No mate, maybe if you're lucky he will give your club Dunfermline a loan if yous could even repay it because Dunfermline need it more than us.. If we gave yous a loan that would maybe put yous into crisis again when yous can't repay lol. or else even a lucky youth loan if you's hit the jackpot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 It is the same book. Not according to the Rangers historian John Allan. John Allan passed away many years ago, since his passing further research by Rangers historians have determined that the club was indeed founded in 1872 and the club continuity from that year is recognised and intact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) John Allan passed away many years ago, since his passing further research by Rangers historians have determined that the club was indeed founded in 1872 and the club continuity from that year is recognised and intact.Far from intact, the CAS ruling against FC Timişoara shows that any club shedding debt by creating a newco has an interupted membership of their home FA and UEFA. Edited October 31, 2015 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gastropod Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I read that statement as the ISDX had fucked RIFC off either that or there is no point in issuing shares in a company which could have all it's assets removed and returned to their legal owner should the fraud case find that the sale was illegal. The rest came across as trying to reassure the fans that insolvency won't happen as the current board will beg for loans to tick over until the case is completed. Bit strange blaming the court cases on the lack of Stock Market re-joining ??? Surely some fud already knew they were ongoing ? This has everything to do with RIFC being close to oblivian .What happens toTRFC next is anybody,s guess ..On and on and on!!! The press are avoiding this story like The Plague ..Why ?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Kelevra Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Clonmel Bhoy, CFC will be lucky if they don't detiorate further before RFC get promoted, Deila is walking on ice and might be sacked, the team have only detiorated Since Lennon not improved, RFC are improving like wildfire every month, if I were you I would be really worried about RFC overtaking your club and ousting yous from Europe. Your club is in debt to the tune of millions too mate, and is really dependent on qualifying for CL for cash for it's humongous wage bill for its oversized squad. Improving like wildfire? Heard of spreading like wildfire, caught on like wildfire; but never improving? Trying to think of any situation where wildfire may improve a situation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Improving like wildfire? Heard of spreading like wildfire, caught on like wildfire; but never improving? If wildfire didn't improve it'd just be a wee spark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Are Duff and Phelps employees or former employees not implicated in a certain fraud trial? Not sure that we can trust anything said by them over this sale, let the courts decide. HMRC said that football could continue at Ibrox they did not say that the original Rangers would continue. They comment on the "proposed" sale of the club, since then there has been no mention of a club in the bill of sale. BDO were commenting on the reports received from the administrators who were allegedly acting fraudulently in their conduct over the sale. Probably best waiting until a court has ruled on whether that sale was fraudulent or not? the usual attempt to pick holes in absolutely clear proof as usual - duff and phelps deal with the administration and liquidation of companies all the time - they are 100% clear the club survived - whether or not 2 of their ex employees are indicted in a fraud trial makes no difference - the usual procedure regarding the sale of a club form an old company to a newco as has happened around 20 times at least in british football has been followed so the statemenet is accurate there is a direct quote from hmrc there stating the club will be sold "the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation" the proposed sale went ahead and the two parties involved - bdo and duff and phelps as well as hmrc all say this means the club was sold and absolutely nothing in the bill of sale contradicts that, the business and assets of the company was sold to newco which includes the club according to all three of the organisations mentioned , experts in that area agree happened, yet you are asking us to believe you, a chump on message board knows better - have a word with yourself crackpot bdo made their own statement based on their own understanding of the matter, there is no mention of them acting on reports from duff and phelps while making their statement as it didnt happen - just another fantasy dreamed up by you you can add the spfl, sfa, sfl, spl, sfl, uefa ,the eca and the asa who have also been 100% clear that the club survived, as well as lord glennie and lord nimmo who both stated club and company can be separted and in lord nimmos case numerous times that that was exactly what happened once you have done that you can weigh up your evidence against all these organisations stating the club survived - zero credible sources stating that we are a new club, various non expert opinions from newspapers and ex pros some who posted headlines or made statements that our history ended just like they did with celtic in 1994 and who now all pretty much accept that we all survived and then you will realise you have been talking absolute pish for three years. you can then roll the various non sourced nonsensical original thought arguments with absolutely no evidence backing them up like you started in div 3/ have an associate membership/ started in an earlier round of the cup etc so you are new, - which ignore the fact that the organisations making the rules say there is absolutely no confusion and we are the same club amd that none of these arguments prove anything of the sort since many clubs have started in div3/held associate memberships and not been new and there was a statement from the governing bodies saying there are 2 conflicting cup rules but since rangers are in division 3 that year they will start in an earlier round and you will realise that your strawmen are laughably pathetic. ive been waiting years for one of you to provide a credible source stating clearly that we are a new club , but none exist so you cant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 It's the equivalent of being kb'd at the door of clatty pats on great western road. The ISDX is shite and they let anyone in so sevco must be either covered in their own sick or they started a fight with themselves in the queue. Rosy outlook. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 the usual attempt to pick holes in absolutely clear proof as usual - duff and phelps deal with the administration and liquidation of companies all the time - they are 100% clear the club survived - whether or not 2 of their ex employees are indicted in a fraud trial makes no difference - the usual procedure regarding the sale of a club form an old company to a newco as has happened around 20 times at least in british football has been followed so the statemenet is accurate there is a direct quote from hmrc there stating the club will be sold "the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation" the proposed sale went ahead and the two parties involved - bdo and duff and phelps as well as hmrc all say this means the club was sold and absolutely nothing in the bill of sale contradicts that, the business and assets of the company was sold to newco which includes the club according to all three of the organisations mentioned , experts in that area agree happened, yet you are asking us to believe you, a chump on message board knows better - have a word with yourself crackpot bdo made their own statement based on their own understanding of the matter, there is no mention of them acting on reports from duff and phelps while making their statement as it didnt happen - just another fantasy dreamed up by you you can add the spfl, sfa, sfl, spl, sfl, uefa ,the eca and the asa who have also been 100% clear that the club survived, as well as lord glennie and lord nimmo who both stated club and company can be separted and in lord nimmos case numerous times that that was exactly what happened once you have done that you can weigh up your evidence against all these organisations stating the club survived - zero credible sources stating that we are a new club, various non expert opinions from newspapers and ex pros some who posted headlines or made statements that our history ended just like they did with celtic in 1994 and who now all pretty much accept that we all survived and then you will realise you have been talking absolute pish for three years. you can then roll the various non sourced nonsensical original thought arguments with absolutely no evidence backing them up like you started in div 3/ have an associate membership/ started in an earlier round of the cup etc so you are new, - which ignore the fact that the organisations making the rules say there is absolutely no confusion and we are the same club amd that none of these arguments prove anything of the sort since many clubs have started in div3/held associate memberships and not been new and there was a statement from the governing bodies saying there are 2 conflicting cup rules but since rangers are in division 3 that year they will start in an earlier round and you will realise that your strawmen are laughably pathetic. ive been waiting years for one of you to provide a credible source stating clearly that we are a new club , but none exist so you cant I know that the circumstances are not identical due to the Clydebank situation, but what about what happened with the side from Airdrie? They started off by calling themselves Airdrie United, then many years later, switched to Airdrieonians, the name of the original club. I'm not suggesting that this version of Rangers is completely brand new. I am however saying that this is all less clear cut than you'd like to suggest and that any continuation has not been seamless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Any evidence at all Ted of me assuming that an insolvency event looked imminent? Post it if you find some. Otherwise, you'll obviously wish to apologise and withdraw that claim. Any word on this yet Tedi? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Far from intact, the CAS ruling against FC Timişoara shows that any club shedding debt by creating a newco has an interupted membership of their home FA and UEFA. Timisoara were refused a licence to play by their F.A., that didn't happen to Rangers, Rangers had their SFA membership transferred from old company to new company, ensuring full continuity of the club's historical timeline. Under advisement from the European Club Association UEFA accept that the continuity of Rangers from 1872 is fully recognised. All of this is fact, so therefore no matter how much you and others argue against it, the recognition as the one club from 1872 is accepted as such by various football authorities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Timisoara were refused a licence to play by their F.A., that didn't happen to Rangers, Rangers had their SFA membership transferred from old company to new company, ensuring full continuity of the club's historical timeline. Under advisement from the European Club Association UEFA accept that the continuity of Rangers from 1872 is fully recognised. All of this is fact, so therefore no matter how much you and others argue against it, the recognition as the one club from 1872 is accepted as such by various football authorities. Was it the club or the company that was given a vote on the newco being allowed into the SPL? Edited October 31, 2015 by kildog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Was it the club or the company that was given a vote on the newco being allowed into the SPL? Hardly relevant in relation to the matter of the historical continuity of the club being fully recognised from 1872. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hardly relevant in relation to the matter of the historical continuity of the club being fully recognised from 1872. Entirely relevant I'd have thought. There's a problem with the seamless continuity narrative, if apparently there were two clubs on the go at one point. Could you address that problem please? 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.