Printable View
Sorry but this reads like bad news to me - I read it like King's gonna be history very soon and the GFA will also escape having to reveal everything they've 'done' with the Hun ?. Please someone tell me I'm completely wrong and that King will still be there at least until the end of the January transfer-window ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Nixon, Jeffrey Archer, & Jonathan Aitken were all brought down, not by their original acts but by their failed attempts at a cover up. Methinks, or even I posit, :wink: the same fate may await King! This is fun!
There's bad news and there's less-bad news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Whilst King's removal may reduce the amount of amusement, there is still the need for cash. In December.
As for the SFA getting off the hook, I don't see it. Whether or not DK is still in post, MA's case against them will still go ahead.
What is going to happen to the huns in all of this. It seems to be painted as King vs Ashley with the SFA getting caught in the crossfire with no mention of what will happen to the club.
It's hard to see this ending well for them whichever way it goes. Even if they through King under a bus and go begging to Mike Ashley, they won't be able to repair the damage to his reputation and get the fans back behind him. He will want compensated for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Mike Ashley could save them from admin but he won't spend a penny he does not have to and will be taking a lot more money out than he will be putting in. And he won't do any of that till he has total control and to get that he needs to see the SFA in court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They need cash. Now-ish.Quote:
Originally Posted by God Petrie
In that light, the Court cases are a sideshow to an extent, albeit a financially-draining one.
Is MA not limited by dual ownership?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
On paper he is, but if the SFA think MA is the only show in town who can save the unthinkable armegedon of sevco going bust again, do you think the SFA will let a little thing like the rule book stop him taking over?Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Phew - both explanations/opinions I very much like - cheers gents :applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Problem for the SFA is that everyone is watching now and they are aware that people may ask questions. They will have to not only be whiter than white but to be seen so.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Wonder who will take the bullet for the SFA with a nice payoff?
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...general-melee/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they are shown up in court as the corrupt group we believe them to be they, or at least fairly honest successors, might have to then follow, follow the rules? Or am I just pathetically naive?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Is it worth Mike Ashley's while saving them from admin?
He has secured loans, owns the rights to the badges, merchandise, etc.
He could sell/loan all these to Third Rangers for a great profit.
It may well be the beginning of Ashley's exit strategy.
Notice Douglas Ireland Park is appointed as a Director
The appointment of Douglas Park to the RIFC Board has been notified to Companies House.
19 Nov 2015 Appointment of Douglas Ireland Park as a director on 16 November 2015
Am I understanding the last paragraph correctly in saying that, albeit rumors at this stage, greens plea for legal fees will be paid? so any money raised by rangers form loans, as hinted in the evening times, may come form the supporters (500k) would instantly be siphoned off to green and his legal team? and obviously if they decide to not provide some funding, it will need to come from somewhere within the current rangers set up? if so it all seems very pleasing :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If I were RF, which after all is its members, I would want guarantees about how their cash is to be used. Bottom of that list would be paying CG's legal fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
However, and this is their dilemma.... if that's what it takes to keep the lights on, do they part with their cash? Or hold on to it, pending Admin 2, a new regime, and a "safer" home for the money?
That's the essence of it; the Huns' money will all be going to pay for the defence of the guy who shafted theire club. Truly wonderful :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Green, White and now someone called Ireland, whats the world coming to. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Yes - and here's the best bit. There's an opinion that the ONLY thing the RST and Rangers First can use their subscription income for is to buy shares - which means they CANNOT provide a soft loan in return for equity, later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Which means the Directors, who aren't rich enough to be able to afford to do this anyway, will have to fund Green AND fund defending litigation from Ashley.
Meanwhile the Evening Times, Record and Herald are talking about the Hun strengthening their playing squad in January, whereas there's a good chance they'll have to flog a player or two.
Oh, its an awfy mess!:greengrin
Apparently the money provided by the members is to buy the Club's shares, not to advance cash...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Haven't been following this very closely. Can someone explain, what's the worst outcome for the Huns here? Does administration loom if they don't get a cash injection fairly soon?
That's even better. So the Evening Times story is unravelling even more. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Do you have a (credible :greengrin) source for that?
Sorry CWG a couple of questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
1. Would it be admin 2 or is it the parent company that go into admin and an attempt would be made to sell the subsiduary (The Rangers) as a going concern?
2. Do you see administration as more likely giving the events of the last couple of days and the amount of costs for court cases?
It looks like they are going to get a cash injection of 500k from Rangers First through a soft loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
We can't know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
They told us in their accounts that they need cash in December. How much, and for what, we don't know.
It's possible that they already have it, but I'm sure they (or Level 5) would have been shouting if they had.
By the way the local hun has just advised me that Mike Ashley owns the sponsorship rights for their shirt next season.
Wonder if he will go for Sports Direct or sell them to the highest bidder. Would love it if he allowed the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund to get their name on it or Irish Tourist Board put in the highest bid.
1. I'd reckon that the parent company would go first, but often in these situations it's a deck of cards, and associated companies follow. I'm not sure that the subsidiary would be all that attractive to a potential buyer, given the history and doubt about ownerships etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
2. I'm still sticking to my gut feeling (and it's no more than that) that they will manage to get to the end of the season. However, using my head, there is no doubt that the legal costs are, like you say, making it increasingly difficult for them.
I'd forgotten about that. He he.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I do wonder if they might take their chances on getting a 25 point penalty and still making the playoffs rather than starting next season, wherever they are playing on -25 points.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If they see admin as a "way out" they might go for it.
We will know by the MSM talk over the next few months. Doubtless it would be done for the good of Scottish Football.
In terms of the 25 pt penalty, it doesn't matter whether it's TRFC or RIFC that go into admin. The rule covers either.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
There's also another possibility: that Ashley forces King out, comes to an accommodation with the 3 bears, gets a couple of his guys on the board and releases the 2nd half of the £10M loan they agreed. That would probably keep the lights on.