Funding an admin would be a long term affair would it not if these assets ownership is in dispute?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Funding an admin would be a long term affair would it not if these assets ownership is in dispute?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think my friend was suggesting they don't have enough money to keep the lights on and nobody left to bail them out. Also that there's nobody out there willing to take them on. Maybe!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Without scrolling through about a million posts what is happening?
I notice this thread is alway floating around the top of the page yet there is nothing on the news about them. I don't read the red tops either.
The Rangers aren't going bust anytime soon according to many so just wondering why this is still ongoing?
Or maybe I should stop being lazy and just read it 😁
If the assets ownership is in dispute, all the more reason for administration rather than liquidation. At least, in administration, there is a chance of saving the business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As for funding, RFC are still a potentially viable business who could probably fund an administration themselves in the short term .
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
The debts wouldn't be written off, though. If the assets were sold in a liquidation, the debts would more than likely be paid off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
There would be no business, though, unless the assets were sold to someone who wanted to run a football club. So I am not sure it's in the club's interest.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Who are these people that say that? What are their names?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecat23
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Wee Davy down the local.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Malcolm who collects the trollies up Morrisons.
Colin who lives few doors down the road from me.
I'd give you their numbers as well but I'm not sure they won't to speak to a stranger!!
****, you've got me there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecat23
Okay, against that argument, I'm out.
[emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/an-ecumenical-matter/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Simple answer to that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
"Current liabilities " are those that are payable within 12 months.
As I understand it, the SD loan had no set repayment period.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
It will be interesting to see what happens to the securities over Sevco properties currently held by SD and which will be released as/when/if the £5M loan is repaid. Will they be held by Sevco or will they be held by “Rangers minded people?” It may be that that people putting up the cash to repay the loan may want these as security. Could this also afford protection of the assets if trusted individuals have security on them ring-fencing them from any future administration? I’d be interested to hear from people who know about such things. But no doubt the SMSM will be closely monitoring such things and will keep us fully informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That is certainly how they presented it before, in fact I'm sure Dave King once questioned if it ever needed paid back. Now, however, there seems to be a mad rush to get it paid back when they do not have enough cash on hand to finish the season and getting their hands on the money is obviously proving difficult. Is it possible they mislead their auditor about the nature of the loan?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The auditors would have seen the loan agreement. If it's the same one that I saw (albeit a Twitter version) I wouldn't have classed it as a Current Liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
The question is then, why are they paying it now? And if it has no set repayment period but is payable on demand, say 1 month notice, then it should still be in current liabilities. Even if it's in long term liabilities would there not have to be notes to the a/c's stating the terms of the loan?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If I were lending the club money to repay a secured debt, I would sure as **** want the same security. That would at least give me preference in an administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
However, the implication in the various pronouncements is that those loans would be soft and unsecured. If that's the case.....and, given some of the strange commercial decisions made over the past few years, I wouldn't be surprised. .....there would be none of the protection that you mention.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
The intellectual property won't return to Sevco. That will go to Rangers Retail which is 50% owned by SD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For your edification and seeing that I haven’t been invited to take part in a boozy Black Friday, here’s some of the future action.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecat23
Ashley is suing SEVCO for damages for breaching the confidentiality clause in £5M loan agreement
Ashley is taking SFA to court for judicial review of King being a fit and proper person.
Green is appealing against the rejection of his claim that SEVCO should pay his legal expenses in the trial for his fraudulently acquiring Rangers OLDCO
Green and Whyte on trial for fraudulently acquiring OLDCO
Worthington Group/ Law Financial have stated that they have a claim on Sevco assets
Employment tribunal by a number of former Rangers players for holiday pay could be 5/6 figure sum
All of these could have financial / legal implications for SEVCO/RIPFC. On top of that King and the Board say they have managed to scrape together £5m to repay the loan to Sports Direct which they said they had intention of repaying at the EGM earlier this year. They also have to find £2.5M to keep the lights on. So there is a continuing legal and financial vortex with SEVCO in the middle and no one can be sure what the eventual outcome will be. You should follow this thread, it’s got a more exciting story line than Eastenders, although the cast of Eastenders are better looking.
Thanks for the summary billQuote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
You were doing so well until the last sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
So is the game being played here by Sevco, to make out that MA wants his £5m loan back, when really he doesn't or the loan agreement doesn't say it needs to be paid so if the current board of directors decide to pull the plug (in the background as things are getting so bad), they have a big bad wolf to blame? So to speak?
What if they were repayable "on demand" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's part of the intrigue:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Libby Hibby
Arguably, it's in SDs interests to have the loan remain unpaid. And RFC know that. And I'm not sure that the "paperwork " that is being talked about will actually be finalised.
As for blaming SD, I reckon that's bang on.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
It's not, though, according to the version doing the rounds on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
What's the story with Ashley's merchandise deal? He gets a high percentage of any Rangers merchandise bought doesn't he? I assumed once the £5m was paid back he'd lose that deal, is that not the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sorry, so many questions!
The deal has, apparently, a 7 year notice period. That notice can only be given when the loan is paid back :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
While the loan remains unpaid he gets 75% of any profits of Rangers Retail.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
It reverts back to 50% after its paid back.
That's not what makes it such a bad deal though. Rangers retail can only buy stock from SD and they charge RR like a wounded bull.
There is a 7 year notice period that can't be handed in until the £5m is paid back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to the Guardian, Rangers transfered 26% of its holding in Rangers Retail Ltd (RRL). RRL is a joint venture set up by the club and Sports Direct, with Rangers in control of 51% and SD controlling the rest. As part of the new loan deal, the club also agreed that from the 2017-18 season, for the duration of the loan, any future shirt sponsorship proceeds “will be for the benefit of RRL”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...y-sport-direct
Maybe they are worried Mike would put '****** KING' on the jerseys?http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12...ca67b70004.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion...-being-7035297
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;4525462]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion...-being-7035297
the the rangers fans are revolting.....
😷