Quote:
Originally Posted by Callum_62
So we have:
The Krays
The King
The Three Bears
The Godfather of Govan
Any nicknames for Ashley yet?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callum_62
So we have:
The Krays
The King
The Three Bears
The Godfather of Govan
Any nicknames for Ashley yet?
The Terminator !Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Most bizarre twist yet? Felix Magath FFS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callum_62
the terminatorQuote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Some redundancies at the USC warehouse in Ayrshire, apparently. That won't help Ashley's reputation with the fans. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/off-the-radar-debt/Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I would love it, if come next week - admin II is upon us
Still, at least Llambias assumed the FPFL everything is sweet
Piece in the Natinal paper regarding this American billionaire ( Robert Sarver )upping his bid to 20 m .
The soap opera continues .
Ggtth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
That'll do me
:aok:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
A Hun at Ibrox??Whatever next.
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Ah Phil..... he really never disappoints when you're looking for a myopic sneering waste of space talking absolute horlicks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
............and right on cue.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
I never tire pointing out what an absolute spoofer he is! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
All about opinions I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
The problem with the Rangers situation is that the whole thing has been set up to not make RFC succeed but to line the pockets of the spivs.
We will have to wait and see whether there is a £6.5m debt due from something that was well concealed previously.
Phil is no more, or less, a spoofer than anyone else in the reporting of this saga...
He had his uses in the early days when MSM wasn't telling these stories. Now, though, I wonder if he feels the need to be "ahead of the game" all the time. ...hence he latches on to rumours which have little substance; because it's him that is retelling the stories, his previous reputation gives them credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
That said, if this story is correct, Rangers' auditors will be looking out their insurance policies. [emoji33]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm a bit confused as he didn't feel the need to provide the details as to what this unexpected new bill/debt was for.
Any ideas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sure, but auditors can only audit what they have been told about or what is obvious from other public records.
That's the big hole in the story for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
I can't think what it could be.
I must admit, his writing gives the impression he's completely up his own arse, and there seem to be plenty of replies below from people who are desperate to join him.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There was speculation on KDS it might have something to do with the original £ 5.5 million plus interest borrowed in 2012 to buy the club assets from Duff and Phelps.
Maybe some small print saying if the sum is'nt repaid by a certain date it falls due by by the Club.
Of course, but that wouldn't stop someone from suing them. The point about the insurance policies was partly in jest. ....there may be a Hun Excess.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I saw that on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
However, that's too simple. The auditors would follow that transaction through. How much....how financed. ...how paid. If it wasn't paid, they would know and demand it be shown as a creditor.
The suggestion appears to be that it was, or is, a side-letter, referred to elsewhere as 'incognito leverage'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
All normal rules in this saga don't apply CWG - Charles Green did not set up this Clumpany to benefit (the) Rangers fans - he set the whole thing up to benefit himself and others, IMHO.
The sheer amount of money TheRangers have got through since 2012 is testament to this.
I see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
But some simple rules still apply. Either it was paid for or it wasn't. That should be straightforward enough for the auditors.
So if auditors can only audit what's in front of them, and this side-letter wasn't in front of them, and it's now been handed to the Clumpany and the claim is valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Think people are over thinking this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Taking it from first principles:-
1. The purchase of the assets of OldCo/First Sevco is fundamental to the Balance Sheet.
2. The auditors therefore have to establish whether the purchase was valid, how it was financed, and whether it was paid for.
3. If they are able to do all that, the accounts reflect the evidence.
4. If they can't do that, their audit report will say so.
4 doesn't apply. Therefore there are only 3 possible scenarios.
1. The accounts are wrong, and the auditors didn't do their job properly.
2. The accounts are wrong, and the auditors were misled.
3. The accounts are right.
The talk of side letters is muck raking IMO, and deflects from the basics.
It's notable that not even Phil McG has said what the alleged debt relates to.
Let me see if I've got this latest rumour correct:
1) Green & Co 'pay' D&F 5.5 million for the Club Assets.
2) Green & Co get Preference Shares at 1p to reward them for putting in the 5.5M for the Club Assets.
3) The 'Payment' to D&F was actually loaded onto the Club in the form of a repayable Loan that has, to the surprise of those now in charge of the Clumpany, become due for repayment.
4) This has all been hidden in some mysterious way from everybody after Green left, inclding the people paid to audit The Accounts.
Does that about sum it up?
:dunno:
I would have to say there is every chance that the answer is Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
If it's that simple, the auditors need shot. That wouldn't be "hiding", it would be incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Okay, I will ask the question, who were the auditors ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Deloittes I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Hearts to beat them next week at Ibrox is 12/5. Incredible odds when you consider how bad they actually are and that hearts have beat them twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And they were paid plenty, so should know all the answers. :greengrin
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/busines...-audit-3071074
That's quite a story! £933k for Charles Green!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I've had a quick skim of the accounts.
The only thing that sticks out is that there were a couple of claims relating to Craig Whyte. No financial value was placed on either, and they haven't been included in the accounts. The first was dismissed by RFC, after an investigation. The second has had no movement since July 13, and the club therefore reckon it's not going anywhere.
The auditors have agreed with the club's view of both claims, which seems reasonable to me.
It is possible that one or both of these have resurfaced. However, I can't see that that would have happened so quickly and without any Court movement.
It is highly likely that Whyte was duped by Green - the Police are now investigating the whole thing and it's also highly likely that Green left some timebombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The chat on Twitter is that - as Bomber Brown alluded to back in 2012 - the claim relates to ownership of or money due for Ibrox and/or Murray Park, via a side-letter that the auditors weren't privy to...
Sarvar bid rejected
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30774504
Where now for them? :confused:
What are they waiting on/expecting ?! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
He has upped his bid once so bit of brinkmanship to test out how much he is prepared to go to .Who knows anymore but the unedifying spectacle continues to occupy the public glare ,and something has to get worked out soon unless it's more short term loans secured against what as surely there can't be much left they can put up for Security that they haven't already put up,Quote:
Originally Posted by EdinMike
There's been media speculation that Carver was going to join up with King and the 3 Bears. For that reason alone, Ashley probably wants nothing to do with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
The currant bun we keep in the corner of the office reckons king is on his way to ibrox now, no idea why or what he plans to do ofcourse!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Proably, but Ashley has less than 10% of the shares, so couldn't block it on his own. They really should have put it to the Shareholders to decide, instead of rejecting it out of hand.
This smacks of yet more self-preservation on the part of the Easdales, et al. They'll only accept an offer that keeps them in their positions on the board(s).
BBCBMcLauchlin @BBCBMcLauchlin5m5 minutes agoRobert Sarvar pulls out of bid for Rangers after latest offer rejected. More soon on Radio Scotland #bbcsportscot
He can chuck his £18m our way if he wants :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
The £18m would have gone to the shareholders, not to the club.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
They wanna keep feeding at the trough instead of sorting out the club, fat gorged parasites that they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Not if he bought shares in us though, which I think was the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I would rather he did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Indeed they do it would appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
If he bought existing shares in us, then yes, the money would go to the existing shareholders.Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
He can buy 50% of mine (400 shares). All for a total price of £2,000,000. I am sure AS will spend it wisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Someone like me who knows nowt about business and corporate finance could almost believe Sevco would welcome another insolvency event as they seem hellbent on making things worse/not making improvements
Amongst all the theories and guesses that are going around, this is as valid as any.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaimendhibs
Only some of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
A large part of his offer was new funding. He has an interview in the Record this afternoon which clarifies things a bit.
Rumour has it that Mr.Sarvar was unable to sing all the verses of The Sash when auditioned.
And hopefully when the trough's empty, they then start to eat the trough until it's beyond repair and scrapped !Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
For the record, I'd welcome such an event too.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaimendhibs
long may they feed:cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
So Rangers needed £6.5m within 48 hours. 4 days later, they haven't received £6.5m and they aren't in administration. Those of us who were sceptical about how a previously unforeseen need for this amount could have suddenly sprung up seem to have been justified in our doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I can understand how Jackson got this wrong. He could have been given wrong information, either deliberately or in good faith, or he could simply have misunderstood something he was told. What I don't understand is his total lack of willingness to investigate the details of what the money was needed for, given that salaries are paid near to the end of the month. Now that his article appears to be wrong, he's behaving as if it had never been written.
That's not how a top journalist should do his job. The same goes for Keevins who was spinning the same line on Radio Clyde on Friday, but had forgotten about that by this evening. They're a pair of incompetents.
It's obviously a case of sports hacks being out of their depth when trying to report on business matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
Chick Young will have the scoop after a day's seat sniffing in "the corridors of power" at Ibrox.
Wouldn't trust Jackson to get the score of a game right, never mind read a set of accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
I assumed the 6.5 million was to cover operaing costs to the end of the season?!
Which shows how poor our media is, that they haven't sent a decent business minded journalist in to do a report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
They aren't interested in the facts.
Neither it seems, is Phil McG.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
Subtle, and not so subtle, promptings on his blog have been unsuccessful in establishing the exact nature of the fabled £6.5m.
His agenda is even more obvious than the Jackson's, Traynor's and Young's of the world hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
much can be said about any one of our so called journos, conveniently forgetting things said. the speeches and statements made from our former prime minister Brown for example about full home rule. suddenly he did not say half of that, despite it being said on TV, and in the full view of our nation, in front of all the press 2 days before the referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
not just sports hacks:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
As I've said repeatedly about him he is a bigoted agenda peddler and it's all about him and punting his appallingly written books. The Celtic Twitterati appear to be blind to this but we certainly should not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He has no interest in reporting 'the facts' (and he's gotten the major ones wrong) unless it gives him an axe to grind. Mind you neither was the Scottish MSM prior to the Rangers meltdown but at least they had the excuse of not doing so because they were scared of getting sued.
ScottB & yourself are right that the Rangers situation need a proper business journalist to cut through the nonsense and emotive agenda rubbish spouted by the myopic Old Firm muppets. Douglas Fraser at BBC Scotland has looked at the issue on and off but that he got so much abuse online from witless halfwits from both sides he appeared either to get bored or walk away from it.
Well, just to annoy you, here's Phil's latest piece,
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/security-problem/
It is so badly written it's almost unreadable, all short statements, misplaced hyperbole and hackneyed illiterate imagery. Would say it was written by a 12 year old if he didn't have a photo on his blog!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Wonder if he, Jackson or Keevins will discover the paragraph first?!
There's a few choice paragraphs in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
This one sticks out :- "to be the largest unsecured creditor makes you king of the hill in an insolvency event".
Right. :rolleyes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-30798934
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte has attended another court hearing in London amid ongoing efforts by Ticketus to recover about £18m damages from him.
when exactly is this little crook going for a stint in one of lizzies prisons, we all know it's him underneath that face fungus
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...7_80236381.jpg
:grr:
excuse my ignorance, but even the smallest secured creditor, would be above this "king of the hill" , correct Crops?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Every insolvency is different, but in the "normal" type, yeah you're absolutely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by monktonharp
There's no point in being the largest unsecured creditor if there's F all in the pot. (see Midlothian, Heart of....)
Would it not depend on whether anything is secured on Ibrox? If there is no security against it, then the largest unsecured creditor would be in the best position to control it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
McGilliven made a sweeping statement about insolvencies which was exactly that, general and (for the most part) crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
In RFC's case, Ashley has a security over the car park and Edmiston House. His debt is £3m.
We don't know who the largest unsecured creditor is. Neither does McGilliven.
[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;4272548)
We don't know who the largest unsecured creditor is. Neither does McGilliven.[/QUOTE]
Why don't we know this. Is their something fishy about the secrecy of this?
There's no need for anyone outside of the Big Hoose to know, TBH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
We would only find that out in the event of an insolvency.
Thanks, who are the contenders though😄Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Outside of the fabled £6.5m, I have no idea TBH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
There will be HMRC, perhaps, although they'll have kept a close eye on things. And the Council etc.
From a sevco statement last year (which of course may be untrue!)-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
"The board has stated that it has no intention of granting security over Ibrox to anybody. We have already shown in our actions - and not words - that our stadium is sacrosanct."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27298234
That actually chimes with one thing Phil McG said in his latest blog.... that the Board "can't" grant security over Ibrox.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
However, does that mean they "won't" or that they actually can't, because it's charged to someone else on the fly?
Or am I getting like Paranoid Phil?
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/3064...r-liquidation/
Looks like ( Sir ) David Murray has hit the buffers.
Discount him from coming to Sevco's rescue.
Actually, I think that was what reminded me of the statement last year. It could mean something dodgy I suppose, but it could just mean they've pinky-promised not to. Surely they wouldn't break a promise?:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/end-of-an-era-as-murray-closes-illustrious-charlotte-square-hq.25482419Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
This article from last October offers a few clues to Sir David Murray's recent business issues.
CWG would need to interpret the threads but I doubt Mr Murray is remotely finished in the business world.
Lots of the companies originally owned by the now closed MIH are still trading independently under the ownership of the Murray Family.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30805669
His business empire has run into conflict with its pensioners over a lack of funds to fulfil their expected pensions. It has been reported that there is a £22m shortfall in the pension fund, and pensioners will have to take reduced pay-outs as a result.
******* buzzard that he is
Meanwhile a lot of assets from his companies were transferred to his family trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
He's no better than Robert Maxwell.
Indeed and a discussion this morning with a Glaswegian business chum (who also happens to be a bluenose) of mine alludes to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
"Murray's a ****. But one that knows how to play the game. He's about to do what can only be called a rubbish dump. He's scooped out all the good stuff from his business empire (MIH) and transferred it away into his family basically leaving MIH as a shell with all the debt to get wound up. He leaves nothing but a trail of debt behind him and he's screwed Lloyds/Bank of Scotland good & proper.
You'd be a fool to write him off but I'd never ever do business with him. He's one of the most unethical people I have ever come into contact with."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Hope he can't swim any better either ! :greengrin
And this is the man that was "duped" by Whyte? Yeah, right!
Duped? Yeah right indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
His hand was forced by Lloyds to dump Rangers. Mind you he appears to have had the last laugh on Lloyds having burned them for the best part of £300m +
There were 3 consecutive statements in P McG's piece ( only 3 you say! ) which made no sense to me. The part which really puzzled me was the apparent wish by the largest unsecured creditor that anyone else giving a loan, ie becoming a creditor, should have security over their loan. Surely that would just push the unsecured creditors further down the pecking order? Finally, & again I may be completely wrong here but does being the largest unsecured creditor not really count for the square root of hee haw, other than possibly voting on a CVA or insolvency event! If the creditors, and (assuming all are unsecured/equal status ), = say £10m & the largest is £5m, in the event of a 20p in the £ payout then surely the largest would only get £1m, not the whole £2m which is being distributed?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There is an article in Private Eye, City Column, all about Craig Whyte, Law Financial, Worthington Group, Liberty Capital and all the various shady names that have been cropping up over the Rangers saga.
One sentence caught my attention.
"Law Financial maintains it holds investments worth £ 10 million which would seem to be a legal claim to Rangers " Newco " assets . "
Can't post a copy, can't understand all the inter-connections, but its fun to read ! :greengrin
Who are Law Financial? If I can get out of my Tax Return hell, I might do some digging.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Craigie Whyte is/was a directorQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This lot?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08440073
Interesting
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/2218...-over-rangers/
Feathers his own nest, while the workers whose labour made him rich get shafted. What a charming individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Was - resigned in August.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Sole director listed by company check is Douglas Ware
They say he "holds 14 appointments at 13 active companies, has resigned from 9 companies and held 22 appointments at 21 dissolved companies. Douglas began their first appointment at the age of 39. Their longest current appointment spans 23 years and 10 months at THE PERRYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED. The combined cash at bank value for all businesses where Douglas holds a current appointment equals £90,053, with a combined total current assets value of £3,987,196 and total current liabilities of £1,231,935. Roles associated with Douglas Ware within the recorded businesses include: Director, Company Secretary
Read more at: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/901360317
22 appointments at 21 dissolved companies - that's some successful business record...