The issue isn't going to be underwritten. While he's said he'll buy the unsold shares, he hasn't committed himself to a price for them:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
The issue isn't going to be underwritten. While he's said he'll buy the unsold shares, he hasn't committed himself to a price for them:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Fair point :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I am not an expert on share issues.... but if they are offered at a certain price, is he not bound to buy them at that price? Or, if he then waits until they are listed on the AIM, would he buy them at the market rate.....which would be diddley-squat by then? :rolleyes:
You clearly don't understand Yameconomics. He would be buying them from himself!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm not trained in this either. It would be educational if someone who is an authority can tell us what happens to the unsold shares when an issue which is not underwritten falls short of its target.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Surely the lack of underwriting can't be a result of an inability to find anyone willing to take on the risk.
Villa's fans take on Green. Don't think they are too impressed.
http://www.astonvilla.vitalfootball.....asp?a=7513660
If Chuckie is 'underwriting' the IPO, then he has to retain all the shares that are not purchased and pay for these at the full price.
The biggest mystery is that an IPO requires a significant amount of financial details including historical and projections. The utterances of an escaped lunatic from lalaland would not normally meet these qualifications.
I understand that the IPO floatation will be conducted in Euros.
Rangers can't deal with Stirling!
Ibrox of the last few years was a pleasant day out compared to 30 odd years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by wee_hibee
Can someone give me a brief account of why the Hibs 'stopping' and then 'reforming' in circa 1891 is different to the sevco scenario i.e. why we remained the same club and not a completely new company/club? Would be Mich appreciated so i can girfu a few Gorgie tramps.
I'm pretty sure it was legal at the time but company law has changed since then, hence the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheat Hound
I wasn't around at the time .. but I suspect that it would be down to debt owed and modern day changes regarding administration and liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheat Hound
I suppose you could liken it to an amatuer football club folding because there were no funds, or enthusiastic people to run it. A season later a couple of former players decide to start the team up again and get the funds together for league entry.
Totally different to being thrown out of a league for not paying your dues and having the local butcher chasing you round the park with a meat cleaver over unpaid bills for the pies.
Think this was covered a few thousand pages ago. Can you not read the whole thread!!!!!
Sure Hibs never actually folded we just didn't have a team or the funds to compete for a couple of years before the original "Grandpa " Farmer and his mates helped reconstitute the club, got a team together and helped us return to the leagues.
Jonnyboy might tell you if you ask him nicely.
I see Zombie Media is still foo ked. A big thumbs up to whatever good guy put a trojan in the Orc works. :thumbsup:
I liked bobthebuilders comment. They'd only like two Scottish teams who are relevant. Hibs and Celtic. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
The Hibs "pause" came pre-incorporation, ie. the club hadn't formed a limited company. It never went out of business as such so it was possible for it to resume as the same entity. Hibs incorporated as a limited company in 1903 and the club has existed as that legal entity to the present day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheat Hound
The Original Huns incorporated in 1899 and that legal entity still exists but will shortly be liquidated. When it failed to exit administration, the death of the Huns became an inevitability. It cannot continue to exist as that entity without satisfying its creditors.
Sure Hearts had something similar at the start of their history as well did they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I think they took over a club called St Andrews. Can't remember why though - anyone know?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/hur...rox/#more-3237
Phil is usually on the money. The Ministry of Justice are also saying the FTTT verdict will be announced this/next week.
Joyous!!!
Sad thing is that even if everything Craigie Bhoy says is true the Scottish press will just ignore the truth and pump out more about Craigie being to blame for everything.
Chuckie, Walter (Teflon) Smith, Fat Swally and Mintybags Murray have never and never will do anything wrong if you believe these rags and the Beeb.
Hope CWG and Cav G are resting up to interpret the verdict for us as I suspect it will not be in words of one syllable which we will understand!Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Alex Thomson tweeting D+P making a statement later today, possibly about Craigie Boy's links to Charles Green. Hee hee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Crazy Chuck: 1st day at ibrox: ''I have never met Craig Whyte in my life''
Pants on fire ya mouthy old jakey! :thumbsup:
Is this interview with the same BBC that Whyte is suing for saying horrible things about him?
TBH, it's not really that relevant now. It has no bearing on the current club.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Perversely, if it goes "against" the old company, it's the smaller creditors that will suffer.
I was walking past Ibrox the other week when the 'faithful' appeared from everywhere munching on fairy cakes for some strange reason.
Has anyone else suddenly been surround by HUNdreds and thousands?
BBC are milking this more that Hibs marketing on the new tiles.
2nd story of the day
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19979004
Perhaps Green may use the cash raised by a share issue to pay back all the people the oldco stole from........lol or perhaps he may not
Whyte says that he introduced Green to D&P.
In view of the fact that Rangers were sold to Servco for such a low price with no attempt to sell off the assets first. Are the liquidators likely to look more closely at the deal now they are aware Whyte assisted in brokering the deal or would this be flogging a dead horse?
I don't think that Whyte's involvement will affect the liquidators' attitude much. They will (or should) be looking at the asset sale closely in any event.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Now that Whyte has resurfaced, I can't help thinking that this is some sort of attempt at revenge on D&P. He appointed them, in the hope that they would be easy to deal with, particulalry on the question of the security that he claimed to have. However, I think their attitude changed subtly in the Spring.... easy to say in hindsight, of course. That change was, IMO, due to their realising just how high-profile the case was, and that they couldn't get away with doing Whyte's bidding. So, effectively, they shafted him.
The problem is, though, that Whyte probably knows where a few bodies are buried....:greengrin
Liking the sound of this :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:agree: The creditors won't get a lot in any case after D&P and BDO have had their whack. Unless D&P win their case against Collyer Bristow/Gary Withey which is bubbling away quietly in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I had forgotten about that. Do BDO take that over, or will it fall as a result of D&P being removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
There's a distinct smell about it all though. I'm sure Green mentioned that he had been working with D&P around the time Bill Miller put his bid in. And the whole Ticketus thing still doen't hang right, although maybe Craigie's getting his defences up in this interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think BDO still have a duty to recover as much as possible for the creditors, so they will need to take a view on whether the case is likely to succeed or not. The CVA proposal said that the claim 'could be' more than £25m, but without knowing all the details that seems unlikely to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I would guess that BDO will instruct the same legal team to pursue the matter if they think it might succeed.
http://www.thelawyer.com/withey-exit...014897.articleQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Withey was doing a bit of maneuvering in the case the other day. No idea if it is significant. :confused:
This guy reckons admin again may be looming now that Craig Whyte has revealed his links to Green
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/pos...lack-and-whyte
Full interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...ign=sportsound
:lolrangers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-19981266
I can't see how Duff and Duffer can get away with this bullsh*t.
"The Liquidation will not affect the new Rangers as it is a completely separate entity" --------------fair enough,
but he goes on to say " as administrators our primary statutory function was to ensure Rangers continued as a business and this was achieved " and then he says,
" Secondly, we were tasked with finding a buyer for the club and this too was achieved " :confused:
That's not the way I see things, what was sold was the old club assets and everyone else got shafted except the Duffers who got their
£ 3million fees, losing the creditors £ 4 million by trading the company for 4 months.
What odds are the bookies giving on Glasgow's second club winning the Third Division ?
By that I mean Queen's Park.
Surely Queens Park are only the 3rd club in Glasgow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Partick Thistle are the 2nd. :greengrin
If Whyte can back up his claims then it definitely muddies the waters regards Green. Methinks part of this rushed AIM share issue is to try and avoid BDO unwinding the Sevco asset purchase. You have a tainted and conflicted administrator in D&P, a shady newco front man in Green, Whyte lurking in the background, and an ongoing process regards oldco liquidation, along with the EBT and dual contract verdicts to come. Plus the useless carrot Sally in charge of getting the Orcs out of sfl3. Green is obviously making a dash for the cash winning line before these chickens come home to roost.
It's interesting. Is it really possible that Whyte and Green are somehow in cahoots?Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Bill Miller ran a mile from Rangers when he looked further into it. The whole thing stinks.
Here's Traynor on Newsnight by the way, wishing Whyte back into his box.
But Partick Thistle are in the First Division.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Anyone see the Green interview on STV tonight?
Ibrox recently valued at £80m.
It seems perfectly clear that D&P didn't get the best deal for the creditors....
Hmm. Their objectives (and the objectives of any Administration) were:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
a) Rescue the Company as a going concern;
b) Achieving a better result for the Company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the Company were wound up without first being in administration;
c) Realising property for the benefit of secured or preferential creditors.
They failed in the first objective, so their statutory function became objective b). That in no way involves ensuring Rangers FC continued as a business, nor were they "tasked with finding a buyer for the club", their duties were simply to realise as much from the assets as possible for the benefit of the creditors.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was widely predicted that they would fail with a) because of HMRC's stated policy regarding administrations. The CVA failure surprised no-one apart from them and Charles Green. That being the case (with hindsight) they should have pursued objective b) from the outset - that would at least have saved a significant chunk of their fees. I don't believe objective b) was satisfied by the signing of an apparently irrevocable agreement to sell all of the company's assets for £5.5m during the pursuit of a CVA. Objective c) is not relevant in this case.
My view is that Duff & Phelps spectacularly failed to achieve the purpose of their appointment.
And what are the potential repurcussions of such a failure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Could they have their fees slashed, and the savings added to the pot, or are those fees safe?
There argument is obviously going to be that selling Rangers as a going concern (rather than splitting assets) would realise the largest amount of money for creditors, but was this achieved (given the breakdown of what was sold for £5.5m)?
Partick Thistle are Glasgow's number one club :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Sadly, I think the repercussions are likely to be minimal. BDO might question some of their actions which could lead to a lawsuit to recover some of the losses suffered by creditors, but these things are always difficult to prove and expensive to pursue. The creditors have to approve their fees, but I think that has already been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I would agree that selling the club (rather than the company) as a going concern should have realised more than a break-up, but it appears that they tied themselves into the £5.5m deal without properly testing the market. The valuation of all the assets strikes me as ridiculously low and the going concern part - 36,000 ST holders and what Green is now describing as a worldwide brand - was valued at £1.
I also wish someone would challenge Green's contention that he bought the titles and trophies within that purchase price.
"The Liquidation will not affect the new Rangers as it is a completely separate entity" From D&P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Separate Entity = No titles and trophies, surely.
Think I have said it before.... but this is an argument that will rage back and forth for a long time, and probably without resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
On one hand, there is the legal position, and I am with Cav on that. However, as we all know, football isn't just about legalities, it's about emotion as well. Imagine if we were in the same position, with a phoenix-type situation, I am sure that most of us would be arguing that "we are still, and always have been, the Hibs; no matter what the law says".
(this is what is so good about Hibs.net. I have just posted this thought-provoking nonsense, whilst two minutes ago I was praising Sylvia Kristel's tits.)
I agree with the gist of that, but my objection is Green cherry-picking the bits he wants to keep. On the one hand he claims his club have never played in the SPL and so can't be subject to SPL sanctions, but on the other hand he claims his club hold numerous SPL titles that mustn't be taken away - he can't have it both ways. And the breakdown of the sale price shows very clearly that he did not buy those titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
21000 poat
21001
Is anyone else reminiscing about bygone days of yore?
Specifically Christmas 07?
I wish this thread would be as meltdown as the huns but its got a perverse curiosity about it I keep looking for further good newsQuote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Would like to know what that repugnant oaf Salmond was doing contacting HMRC on Whyte's behalf. The same Whyte who robbed hundreds of small creditors blind as well as the tax man. The same Salmond who wants to tear up the 1707 Act of Union that Orcs cherish.
Would it have been a problem if he'd made enquiries regarding any other major employer in a similar position?Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
I remember someone spilled something...and there was a Chelsea game on around then, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you at what time it started...
Anyone else remember that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Care to list one 'major employer' dodging tax that Salmond has lobbied HMRC on? I hear crickets chirping!
Will this do??Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ary-committees
All over the news this week, so it is obviously a 'major employer' :na na:
Salmond has lobbied HMRC on behalf of Starbucks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
I didn't know that.
Awright, it's early and I'm still asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'm sure Eck did some lobbying on behalf of Ha Ha Hearts though.
How exactly would the Currant Buns (old or new) qualify as a 'major' employer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
They employ over 500 people. Don't get me wrong I hate the Huns with a vengeance and wish their club nothing but misery and pestilence, but Alex Salmond is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieFitbaTeam
That was before Duff & Duffer's drastic cost-cutting measures, after which they employed no fewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
I don't see Salmond's name anywhere here. And I doubt Starbucks were withholding their employees NI and PAYE contyributions. Oldco are subject to criminal investigation, Salmond lobbying for criminals. :rolleyes: I think Sturgeon did it before with a serial benefits cheat, so not the first time. :wink:
Their last accounts showed only 256 employees and that has been slashed to 255.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
To be fair to the politicians of all parties they backed right off once they knew what the old Rangers had been up to.
This. When they first went into administration, all the politicians (including Cameron at PMQs) were calling for Rangers to be saved. They piped down as soon as it became public knowledge that Whyte had deliberately avoided paying PAYE and VAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I haven't seen it yet but according to Radio Scotland this morning the Herald is reporting Craigie boy is preparing to fight for his share of the assets.
Tasty.
I think he may have Tupe'd over to our side.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
To be honest - and this isn't a specific dig at Salmond or anyone else - I would have a problem with politicians pleading for leniency for any company which has cynically avoided tax to gain advantage. In the case of Rangers, they sought to gain an advantage over their competitors (thus affecting their businesses), by not meeting their liabilities (our money). No problem with local representatives trying to help businesses operating honestly who have come upon difficult times, and could do with some support, in terms of repayment schedules etc..., to see them over the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
It was always rumoured that he had security over the assets. My suspicion is that the whole thing was a White/Green/D&P stitch up from the very start, with each party getting something decent out of the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
As time has gone on, and it's transpiring that they are yet again headed for disaster, and possible financial loses, I think that the "not so holy" trinity have started to look out for themselves and not averse to "shafting" the others.
I reckon it's going to culminating in a lot of mud slinging and potential court cases.
I thought that Starbucks were being condemned for morally questionable but perfectly legal tax avoidance. Rangers completely evaded it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Sounds good. Genuinely hope they die for good. Zombies are not to be encouraged.
The security was not a rumour, Stevie. It actually existed, and was registered at Companies House. However, such a security can only be exercised if there was a debt. IMO, and in D&P's too, there was no debt due to CW or any of his companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I agree about the shafting bit.... that's going to be quite entertaining. :greengrin
You have to remove their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
herald article belowQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
FORMER Rangers owner Craig Whyte is preparing to claim millions of pounds from the remains of the old club that collapsed earlier this year. The controversial businessman is hoping for a huge payout from the sale of the assets to new owner Charles Green's Sevco consortium.
Whyte told The Herald he believes the RFC Group he used to buy the club and pay off its £18 million debt – using future season ticket sales – held a valid security over the Ibrox outfit's assets sold to Mr Green for £5.5m.
If successful he will be placed ahead of other creditors when the remaining money brought in by the liquidation of the failed Rangers company is distributed.
Whyte said: "Everyone knows there was a security there. All these things are being dealt with."
A recent progress report by administrators Duff & Phelps showed the old company had around £2.3m of funds – although a further £2.8m is estimated to be owed through outstanding transfer fees and millions more could be realised from outstanding litigation.
The administrators were also pursuing an unquantified sum held by Uefa as a result of players participating in matches for their national teams.
In their report Duff & Phelps also said they believed Whyte's company was not owed anything.
London ticket agency Ticketus bought the season ticket rights from Whyte and is pursuing him for more than £20m paid to RFC Group to help him complete his disastrous takeover of Rangers. That money was used by RFC Group to pay off Rangers' £18m debt with Lloyds Banking Group.
The EBT scheme that Der Hun used was perfectly legal, it is the way in which they abused it that has caused the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
Don't forget about the net loss of around 15 players who didn't TUPE. That's what's got the wage bill down to £6 million from £30 million and made Green's newco a financial success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I was talking about the non payment of tax that caused HMRC to put them into administration, not the EBTs.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
How thick are the Hun and the Daily ****** and when will they learn this is a new club?
When Third Division leaders Queen's Park visit Ibrox, it will resurrect world football's oldest rivalry - the Spiders having first played Rangers 137 years ago.
Full story: Daily Record
The last time Queen's Park beat Rangers, in the semi-finals of the Glasgow Merchants' Charities Cup in 1953, the result was decided by the toss of a coin.
Full story: The Sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Wouldn't touch either of those Sevco loving rags with a barge pole.
When will people learn not to read those sorry excuse for newspapers?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Even if you accept the premise that it's the same Huns, QPFC v RFC isn't the oldest derby in the world. Notts Forest and Notts County first played each other in 1866.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_derby
Probably when the likes of Keith Jackson stop breaking stories like "Craig Whyte used the Ticketus money to fund the Rangers take-over".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
July 2011, according to them, but certainly before the OldCo went into administration..:wink:
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/01/rang...eason-tickets/
They do get it right sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I thought it was the English Daily Mail that broke that story and they'd no choice.
shouldnt it say the worlds youngest rivalry?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Celtic v Clyde is the oldest Glasgow derby apparently. Neither Govan nor Maryhill were in Glasgow at the time.
Yes but clyde haven't played in Glasgow for years - even before they played in Cumbernauld it was Rutherglen, not technically Glasgow (a lot further from Glasgow city centre than Maryhill for example)Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Moan the Spiders anyway
At least Queens Park, being amateurs, won't have dual contracts.
Sorry to be pedantic but it is Nottm Forest and Notts County.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Where did you get the £6 million figure from? Don't forget the players brought in such as Francisco Sandaza, Dean Shiels, David Templeton, Ian Black, Kevin Kyle, and Sébastien Faure most of who will be on big wages that no SPL club bar Celtic could afford.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
If Sevco are such a financial success, why did Green go down the IPO route?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
It's a lot more than 6m, hence why Crazy Chuck needs the Orc piggy banks emptied. I would guess the real wage bill is double that £6m Hertz had a wage bill at around £12m for several seasons, I imagine Sevco is similar. Sally and McCulloch alone will be 2m.
The FTTT verdict is apparently with both concerned parties.
Just like a stopped clock!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Green was quoted from a meeting with Rangers supporters saying that the wage bill had been redcued from £30m to £6m. If you google Charles Green £6m wages you get a bunch of stories. No one believes it for a second, even Rangers supporters, and even if true, it's still possibly the third highest wage bill in the Scottish leagues - depending on how Hearts' cost cutting is going.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage.../4576955/.html
The old Rangers, MIH and HMRC all have the FTT decision according to Rangers Tax Case.
If it has gone well for them then I expect David Murray will be shouting it from the rooftops before the end of the weekend.
Silence probably means it has gone as expected.
While not wishing to speak for Ballengeich, I think there may have been a degree of sarcasm in his post. He was replying to my comment about staff numbers being slashed from 256 to 255.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
The reduction from £30 to £6 million was in one of Green's statements about the share issue. Surely you don't doubt him? Charles is an honourable man. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07