That makes it interesting then. I for one am doubtful that any consortium has "donated" 7.5 million. Will be fascinating to see what happens if the loan is not repayed.
Printable View
That makes it interesting then. I for one am doubtful that any consortium has "donated" 7.5 million. Will be fascinating to see what happens if the loan is not repayed.
English version has quotes from Kickback and Rangers, Celtic, Kilmarnock, Hamilton and Inverness forums but no fame down here for you I'm afraid PatHead.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Still playing with the notion that MA may prefer it not to be repaid :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
That could be true but I'm hung up on the concept that after months of struggle the GASL was able to rustle up 5M in one hour. I'm calling B######t.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It may be important to Dave King but I doubt it would be enough to make anyone part with £5m.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
There was a gun than that at their head but how big was it and who's finger was on the trigger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course they haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Will be interesting if it turns out security over assets has been transferred to named individuals rather than back to the club. The King will no doubt explain such a scenario away as being perfectly normal.
Way out of my head a lot of this but the part in Phils blog about MA going for the nuclear ,Would he be able to sell the assets he is holding as s securities if he rejects the £5 million very late loan payment ,enjoying this as much as the yams scenario but hopefully with a much happier ending .
I've said before and will say it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Why do they not just get rid of the Glib one? What have they got to hide that King is a distraction from or what does he know?
Why on earth would you choose to have a crook on your board?
If they want outside investment who would he attract? SDM?
I doubt that will come up. I just can't see the money being thereQuote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
The physical assets are not his to sell. They still belong to RFC, albeit he has security over them. Think mortgage and house....you own the house, even if you don't pay the mortgage for a few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgie greens
If they go pop, he may well take the assets over though.
He does own the Intellectual Property, at least while the loan remains unpaid, although I don't know if there are any restrictions on his ability to sell. TBH, I can't see why he would sell at the moment.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Taking security might be the price the 3 Bears are charging for the alleged loans. Think they'd be daft not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Probably better from the board's postion to have him in the tent and p*ss*ng out than outside p*ss*ng in. Also he has a large personal following among the blue horde. There's certainly more to the decision on the loan repayment than King let on. His statement on paying back the £5m was a throwaway at the end of his speech belying the importance of the issue for Sevco. The term "glib" sprung to my mind. Where did I hear that before?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
How could MA refuse to accept re-payment, unless there is some timebound or penalty clauses, surely if they are due £5m and pony it up then thats it sorted. IF he doenst accept can rangers not walk away and say tough, we tried to pay you, you didnae want itQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Probably knew I voted YES. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by LancashireHibby
Can't have everyone know I know nothing.
They're in default on the loan, as it should have been paid a while back. So.... the terms no longer apply and, as you say, there may...will....be penalty clauses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
DK will know that, of course. We don't, and I'm speculating that one of them could be the right to keep the jerseys :)
Further to that, it may be in MA's interests to keep the loan unpaid.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
None of the previous challenge cup final has been held at hampden, it's a competition for smaller clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Total guess here but I think they want to pay the loan and probably will. My guess is they are making sure they don't loose anything that is secured when they go back into admin again ( not got any proof just a gut feeling). Also my guess would be either when they are definitely getting a play off place if they loose 25 points or at the end of the season.
As someone else has guessed probably secure everything against their names so that nothing can and will be flogged by any company called in to deal with admin / liquidation .
the above got me thinking .... If any part of the Sevco company could be pulled out and called the "Club" it would be that? ... Or put it another way, any future "new" club could never BE a "Rangers team" without it? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think!
PS thanks to you and the rest, OZ etc for your contributions to this thread, enjoyable reading! :aok:
I was suggesting that the new security would be in the names of the directors. It couldn't be in the name of the club.Quote:
Originally Posted by southern hibby
That would protect the individuals, not the club.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Not bad though, club 3 years old and never failed to get to the semis. Any chance this is back at ER?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
It's a good question & brings me to a further question for Oz/CWG etc. If it was found that DK had not actually put any money into the club but instead had been funded by one or other of his fellow directors, let's say Douglas Park, would that raise questions about true ownership of shareholdings & ownership of the club/business whatever? IIRC, if someone owns 30% of a business then they have to annonce that fact & attempt to buy that business. Am i way out of line here or is that a possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...x-it-for-king/
JJ saying that Petrie opposed King's F&P status.
Did we know this?
Oh, I read further, and he's also saying this:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Quote:
The £5m offer is conditional upon Ashley withdrawing from all litigation in regard to RIFC and the SFA’s fit and proper determination.
He seems to be coming round to the view of a few on here that the meeting with the spfl was the tipping point. The beaks at Hampden do not want to have to lie in court. I think King was told he had to make it go away or the SFA would act against Sevco.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I always assumed he would try for that. It's whether Ashley is willing to play ball?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn't public.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Well let's hope it doesn't go away and the truth comes out ,Looks like people at the top getting nervous ,and in the interests of Sporting Integrity it's about time we heard the truth and if that involves the SFA acting against Sevco bring it on ,as am getting tired of thier continued posturing about getting back to being the biggest and best club ,back in Europe etc etc and then bleating they aren't on enough committees to wield thier influence ,Seems they are managing to do that fine without being on committees .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He's suggesting that Regan was in on the meeting. Not sure how he would know, but it does explain why some people are suggesting the the F&P status was under discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Ashley has nothing to lose and everything to gain by them defaulting on the loan. 5 mill is peanuts to him, and potentially offers a big return in terms of the inevitable penalty clauses he has. King made a terrible tactical error by making this personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's in Rangers' interest to get the loan paid off and Ashley out of the equation as soon as possible. The fact that they can't seem to do this, whether for reasons of lack of financial resources, or internal politics and bickering or both, doesn't bode well.
CWG, How are they in default? If they are surely MA would be in court over the debt rather than shaking King's and the SFA's cages over other matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod