Was just about to post that. Anyone able to see it? I'm at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
This has got to be good.
Printable View
Was just about to post that. Anyone able to see it? I'm at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
This has got to be good.
@RonnieEsplin: Breaking: Jim McColl has issued a statement to Press Association Sport. On wires soon.
@scotzine: Charles Greens claims that Malcolm Murray is the one behind this latest EGM call to remove Stockbridge, Mather etc from the board.
@scotzine: Green also stated that Walter Smith announced his resignation back in April and recent events accelerated the decision.
@scotzine: Green says to McColl put in £14 million into the bank and then his consortium will get around 28% of the club.
@BBCDouglasF: More on #Rangers: Charles Green says the McColl-Murray-Blin crowd can lodge £14m in a bank account by Friday, and 28% of #rfc is theirs
So, according to Green, The Rangers is worth 50 million. Remind me again, how much did Duff and Phelps sell it for?
Clearly nobody will be stumping up 14m for a 28% share in that disaster zone, so the question is now what's Green's next move?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
No money, no credit line and no future I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I know, I think it's his way of saying 'put up or shut up'.
Must be strugling big time after that anouncement from green.
Tick-tock
SFA provide clarification as requested by Craig Mather.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...3&newsID=12282
About time these lower league nonentities were put in their place.
Unfortunately this won't get headlines on the back of the Daily Record unlike Mather and Swally's comments so the great unwashed will continue to BELIEVE the myth. Job done as far as Mather is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Sadly you're right. Mather already knew everything that's in the SFA statement, just as McCoist knew who "these people" were. The motives behind the statement are all too obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Great eh.You ask to be fined and then object to being fined.Must be great to behave like a big club.
I see Mather and McCoist made no mention of the crime for which they were fined being described as, 'only match-fixing would have been considered more serious'.
The Rangers lawyers asked for for a fine, as the alternative would have been to remove their SFA membership.
Am not sure why the SFA made that statement - are they finally losing patience with The Rangers
Setting the record straight? Perhaps they are just fed up with the constant whining of TRFC feeling somehow hard done by when in fact they were dealt a major favour just to stay in the league set up as was.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenPJ
I wonder if they'll be cut further favours WHEN things go pear shaped for Sevco again?
For god's sake would someone just telll Bomber Brown who's name is on the Ibrox title deeds.:rolleyes: Dundee manager on his specialist subject again............Rangers.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...club-1-3031228
I think Cha;s trumps that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...able-1-3032455
Is that not the guy from the beech grove ? Thought he was a Don's fan ? www.thebeechgrovegarden.com/jim-mccollQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). He did not lead evidence of Rangers' financial position or ability to pay any fine. :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Why does Charles Green always talk about himself in the 3rd person ?
Maybe he's Sidney. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNoBut
Finally! That's that mystery cleared up then
Have you ever seen them on the same message board at the same time???Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Left Peg
Hmmmmm.... now that you mention it our Sid did say he was off on holiday just as Green arrived on the scene!? :shocked:
I wonder where Sid goes on his holidays?
CWG read Sidney saying "Sidney is off to Seton Sands, in a caravan".Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Now there's a true Hobo for you.
Do they not have wifi? He should still be able to contribute. Hope he's taken his typewriter with him. Port Seton is will served by the postal service...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Have you never SEEN Port SetonQuote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Yep, but they stop at the edge of town and refuse to go near the caravan site. The place is full of Glasgow Hoods and Terrorists in hiding.
Attachment 10815
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by YehButNoBut
Nice place !Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
@Pmacgiollabhain: Senior legal source very well connected to Rangers (1872-2012) say the new entity is "perilously close to administration". #SevcoCashFlow
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
:pray:
Please be true!...........
And there's more:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Dave-King.html
It's clearly a plot hatched between the football authorities, the Green side of Glasgow and indeed the Vatican to shut down the Big Hoose.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The hidden Fenian hand I believe it's called.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Rumours abound last night that the club deck at Ibroke is closed due to the state of the roof.
I read a similar story in the Record yesterday or the day before.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Whilst we have to be careful of the PR job being done here (Green=bad, Walter=good), and also be mindful of the history of one Dave King, the consistent story seems to be the extent to which RFC have spent most of the IPO money.
£15m in less than a year???? WTF?
@Pmacgiollabhain: Source was one of three well placed individuals who informed me that RFC had run out of cash in October 2011. We now know that to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The boardroom battle seems very intense and its being played out within a largely compliant and unquestioning media so it's hard to figure out motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Phil MacGiollabhan has been all over this story since day one. The emergence of Charlotte Fakeovers is also very interesting but is being generally ignored by the MSM.
In summary, unlike the Hearts situation, this really is #allverycomplex
Clearly, TRFC have learned nothing from history. £15mil to win Div3 and be pumped out all of the cups (including the Ramsdens) seems a ridiculous price to pay.
Ah well... hell mend them.
If, and it may be a big "if". TRFC do go into admin, does that trigger a points penalty?........
I make it 28 pts if this is the case............. :wink:
Not sure if the old SPL rules have been imported into the SPFL, but, if they have been, you will be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
Shame, eh?
And does that mean we'd get Deano for free?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
I recall reading that somewhere, too. They won Div3 by 24 points. I think Div2 might be a slightly sterner test but you'd still imagine that lads paid 5k+ a month would still overturn that to reach the upper positions of that League.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
I wonder what the game plan would be if TRFC don't make it out?
Another restructure? Promotion through Fair Play (now Ian Black looks like he's off)?
Would be nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Please, if there is a god. I want :aok: Funny as ***kQuote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
My heart bleeds......... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And all to win D3, you couldn't make this up :^)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
An interesting blog on the share issue. There have been doubts before that 22m was actually raised.
http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/
It was a good & timely statement from the SFA but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate re Yams. While their misdemeanours re tax were not in same class as Oldco there's no doubt they were withholding payments of taxes while signing & paying new players. Again that was their choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I suspect it's a case of Rangers having enough money in the bank to pay the tax, but chose not to, while Hearts didn't have the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Of course the reason they didn't is because they spent it all on wages and the like...
At the time, I expressed doubts (don't know if it was on here or not) that they could actually raise £22m. However, the spin was that yes, they actually did manage it.... and I slunk away, another prediction gone wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
That article, though, raises lots of questions.
most interesting bit there (IMO) is the re-emergance of ticketus, it always seemed a bit odd to me that they had taken a bath for £15m or whatever it was CW borrowed from them to buy oldco.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
''2. Placed Shares – these shares were pre-sold to a number of institutions (but see above) subject to certain conditions. If you read the Prospectus very carefully not all of the conditions have been revealed. It is our understanding and perfectly feasible therefore that no cash has been paid to RIFC plc for these shares. Furthermore, if you read the Prospectus very carefully again, there is no definitive statement that cash is guaranteed to be received for these shares. They do ‘though have a cash value hence the Prospectus and subsequent statements refer to “Share Capital”. The suspicion is that these are a front for Ticketus. In other words, Ticketus have swapped the money they are owed by Rangers FC for shares in RIFC plc. At some point in the future, Ticketus will sell these shares in order to recoup its losses and/or may even just be holding them as security against repayment from season ticket income.''
Ahhhhhh.... missed that bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Initial thinking is that that is a no-no, particularly if they haven't paid for them.
a no-no as they should'nt (potentially illegal) have done it or could'nt (not possible and conjecture in blog is wrong) have done it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I did say initial thoughts.... which, given my age, normally means mixed-up bulldust. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Breathe.
If it is correct, that Ticketus have these shares, and they haven't paid for them (which is what I'm reading it as)... they basically owe Rangers that money. I don't know if failure to pay for shares is an offence, but it's not very nice.
If Rangers go into admin again, I reckon the administrator will try to recoup that cash. And Ticketus won't get it back. Which means that Rangers will have stuffed them. Again.
They really do deserve each other, this lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Why would Ticketus have put themselves in that position? To get rooked twice by the same crooks?
Dunno. I have my doubts that it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
If it is true, the only thing I can think of is that they took the view that these shares in the new Rangers were a sure thing.
Reputable international brand.
Solid customer base.
Respected people in charge.
What could possibly go wrong?
:rolleyes:
Haha very true...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
thanks CWG I read it as Ticketus taking the shares instead of chasing the old debt and making things difficult for the newco, but as with everything in this saga it is as clear as mud.
If this scenario isn't true it does make me wonder why Ticketus went so quietly as oldco folded shirley they should have chased that debt harder, they seemed to just dissapear from the scene, which has bothered me since. Would it be too good to be true that they hatched a secret deal with Greene, and are about to reveal themselves as a large shareholder and wade into the boardroom wrangling. If only we were'nt so rank on the park I could really enjoy the re-emergance of this story!
I very much think TRFC are to an extent, protected by the media. There is a great deal of information that has come out through social media sources - documents, recordings etc - which is simply glossed over or ignored.
Wasn't the deal with Whyte, though? IIRC, they are chasing him (or whatever company guaranteed it) for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Therein lies some of the mystery. The stench of some kind of connection between Green and Whyte hasn't really gone away despite the no doubt thorough internal investigation carried out at Ibrox.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yeah it was how Whyte paid off the RFC overdraft. I guess my point is that if I had lent money with 3 years of RFC season ticket sales as collateral I would find it a bit rich watching a team playing in blue at Ibrox selling 30,000 season tickets and me being out of pocket. If I recall correctly one of the stumbling blocks to the newco was the Ticketus debt, and there was some talk at the time that Tickets where involved in Greene's bid, would make sense that Ticketus went in with Greene's bid and agreed to take shares as a swap for the debt or a portion of the debt and agree not to rock the boat as the newco was set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm probably putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 here, but it does seem to me that Ticketus lost a lot of money and did'nt (in public at least) put up much of a fight for it.
The blog is dated February and I'm fairly sure that its been repudiated in one form or another. There's no doubt that things look like they are imploding (again) over in Mordor, but I suspect this is not the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
As has been pointed already by CWG, an administrator would go straight after any shareholder who hasn't paid for allotted shares. It's the whole point of limited liability - it is limited to the extent of the share capital subscribed for. If you haven't paid for the shares, you are still liable. Can't believe for a second that Ticketus are THAT stupid.
:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
oh well there goes my conspiracy theory!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
Nil desperandum - dinnae worry. There will be a lot more twists and turns to come, I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
won't take me long to come up with another one, and with that lot there is not a lot that I would'nt believe! as one door closesQuote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
It would clear up a lot of questions if someone just supplied the names of major investors (i.e anyone with more than a handful of shares). Then there could be no speculating on who owns what.
where would the fun be in that? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Few rumours flying around re Rangers, as per below, hopefully Deano is coming back.
Richard McLuckie @Acemcl Rumours galore from what I'm being texted ... Aird to A'Deen, Shiels to Hibs, Wallace to Notts Forrest & also more redundancies at the club
Also while they're at it they could show 'bomber' brown the title deeds for ibrox and get his blood pressure down!Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNoBut
I'd be happy with that.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the contract negotiations with Petrie.
Deano: "So, I was getting 5k a week minimum at The Rangers and would be looking for something similar"
Petrie: Falls off chair laughing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Not if it says "Owner; Ticketus" :wink:
I like it I like it! If that were to be true I'm not sure what would be louder, Brown exploding or me laughing!Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Ackcherly,:nerd: they are supposed to lodge them at Companies House .Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
The Football Club's Return is overdue; should have been lodged in June.
The plc's Return doesn't have to be lodged until December.
I am smelling a rat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
how funny would it be if it came back as Ticketus and Craig Whyte as majority share holders!
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/2208...r-craig-whyte/Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I suspect the chances of Whyte being able to repay that amount is slight, so Ticketus are likely to be taking other measures.
Gee wizzz, does Companies House have a lodge of its own?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Perhaps a condition of paying the purchase price was for an increase in the share price in excess of the IPO. A guarantee of a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Could we perhaps get Sidney doing some overtime sending letter on this subject to? Surely the FOI act covers this too?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No. It's covered by the Companies Acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan69
I have it monitored, just as I did with the Hearts, so Hibs.net will have the scoop, as always :cb
Guarantee? Rangers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Have we learnt nothing? :greengrin
There is nothing CH can do, to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Sorry "Lodge" ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sketchy summary of the Rangers meeting tonight:-
https://twitter.com/RangersStandard
If, as claimed, they have £10m in the bank.....
They had (so they claim) £22m from the IPO, plus say £10m (?) from ST sales.
So.... um.....
Where's it all gone?
:cb
Swept under the carpet.....Like every other awkward question concerning SevcoQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There must be someone on here that works at Meadowbank House who could provide such info, perhaps easty could use his contacts!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
Rangers consists of a holding company with a wholly owned football club as a subsidiary. There must have been a reason for setting up this structure.
Would this be a good time for the holding company to sell its loss-making subsidiary? I'm sure you could find Rangers Peepul willing to pay £1 to become owners of the football club. Someone (Dave King perhaps) could then give the club an injection of capital without having to pay for CG's shares. The injection would have to be big enough to allow time for the club to cut its expenditure to the level of its income, or there may even be someone willing to subsidise its losses from other business like in the Murray era.
The club's expenditure in future would of course include a substantial sum to rent Ibrox and Murray Park. Everyone wins. Rangers football club is back in the hands of Rangers Men while the holding company turns a substantial profit on virtually zero outlay so the institutional investors get what they're interested in - dividends and a share price recovery. The fans are happy because they see a billionaire "investing" in their club.
I'm assuming the existing company does actually own the property. If so I can see this scenario occurring soon.
For some reason, T'Rangers are going to have a Boardroom vote to get rid of Green. Now, I realise I'm not all that bright but I would have thought someone only hired as a 'contractor' would just be given whatever notice is required to end his contract. (Herald)
Also, the War of Words is now getting quite funny, with Green's spokesperson using McCoist style rhetoric
"Charles Green pleads guilty to the following crimes - saving the club from Craig Whyte and now trying to prevent it from falling into the hands of men who haven't invested a penny.
"Talk is cheap as Paul Murray and Frank Blin have repeatedly proved. Action costs more, more than the £2.80 invested by billionaire Jim McColl.
"As regards Mr Mather it is clear he is confused and intimidated by the fans' robust actions. Perhaps he should return to a much gentler business atmosphere. As for calling a board meeting to discuss Charles, perhaps he should ask his fellow board members before pushing the panic button. Glasgow is a place for big boys not frightened wee laddies."
:greengrin
A quick google for rangers interim results 2013 found this.
Interesting how they turned a £7M operating loss into a £9.5M profit.
IIRC, that was recognising that they made an instant "profit" on the value of the assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunderhall
Yup, mainly from a £5M uplift on property etc, and a £16M uplift in the Brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They only have £10M in the bank ... and they're introducing a membership scheme (where have I heard that one before?). Could these seemingly separate facts be at all related???? :greengrin
I think membership schemes will become much more common among football clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
There's already a number down south. The advantage is that clubs can learn more about its support and therefore provide a better service for them.
The benefits for the supporters is wide and varied depending on the club.
The Advertising Standards Agency find that 'Rangers' are NOT the most successful club in Scotland.
'Rangers' accept it.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudi...erms=rangers#2
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quality man, quality!!
(try saying that in a nasally weegie Ned voice)
What's that all about then?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I can't see any details as to the nature of that complaint. What am I missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
It's all part of the ongoing SameClub/NewClub battle. They use the term 'Scotland's most successful club' in their advertising, implying they were the same club, to which a complaint was made (RaSellik Fans). I think this was initially rejected but has since been overturned.
There have been complaints concerning their legal right to brand themselves 'Scotland's most successful club' for advertising/merchandise purposes as they are considered to be a new club by many.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
The ASA agree their claim is pish, and newco equals new club. The club have accepted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
I see, thanks for that. So does that mean Celtic are actually Scotland's most successful club? I hope they bring out a clothing range to that effect, sending the Rangers fans into meltdown :devil:. It's interesting Rangers haven't contested it.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
:thumbsup: