Also thinking of a Woman being on the board.....Hope it's the Budgie
Printable View
Also thinking of a Woman being on the board.....Hope it's the Budgie
What's the chances that MA built in penalty clauses for late payment?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Q:Has the board had any meetings with the SPFL with regards to title stripping?
Stewart Robertson: There have been very firm conversations with the SPFL. They have been left in no doubt with what our view is on that. I can't really add to that but trust me, we're fighting the fight.
Dave King: I would be happy to say that I think there is absolutely no chance of that ever happening.
Is that from your courtesy meeting the other day Lying King?:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:
Yep, Henderson Asset Management and Henderson Global Fund Managers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
Just checking my portfolio to make sure I ain't got anything with them, before they start over-investing in Sevco. :greengrin
Hendersons Restaurant, Shirley?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
The Huns don't get penalties against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://www.henderson.com/ukpi/expert/124/john-bennett
Does that look like the turkey !
Looks a bit of a gobbler, right enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
However, Hendersons is veggie....
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Yes Mr King - but are you actually able to say it or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
Mark Warburton now 2nd favorite for the Fulham manager gig. :thumbsup:
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/...manent-manager
King said Rangers are recovering from "all manner of malicious attacks" but are now irreversibly on the road to recovery.
"It was our collective belief that kept Rangers alive despite the crimes, the punishment, the abuse, the lies and sometimes the hatred the club has endured," he added.
you would think he is actually describing the vile institution that is sevco...and it's fans
That would be hilarious…..Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
if the breadman wants to move on to a bigger club then i'm sure the huns wont stand in his way
A decent journalist would ask him to expand on those accusations, and provide examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Even a useless one might think about asking that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Fixed that one for the audacious windbag.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Dave King seems very keen to not to honour the contracts the club has agreed to. Would he not have known about them before trying to get the club on the cheap? Would he not understand that contracts need to be honoured?
Links to the video and text of The King’s speech are given below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwtfrsN_f4
Link to text
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/...gs-agm-speech/
I particularly like this bit in the text, “There were individuals on previous Boards who actively contributed to the problems that continue to impact negatively on the business. Thankfully it now appears that justice will be done and those responsible called to account.” He must empathise.
The written statement has no reference to the repayment of the SD loan. The statement by DK s on this issue starts in the video about 8:30. He says:-
“With the ongoing circumstances with Sports Direct the decision was made at the board meeting last night that we should, in fact, endeavour to pay the loan as long as we could raise the funds to do so and I am delighted to say once again the commitment that investors are giving this club it just took me one hour this morning to make phone calls and myself, Douglas Park, George Letham, George Taylor, Paul Murray, and a new investor, John Bennett. It just took me one hour, we’ve got the commitment to the £5M and we’ll be advising SD today that we will repay the loan and start to take control of the retail operations.” Cue applause
The points that spring to my mind are:-
1. The loan from SD and its repayment is one of the biggest issues facing Sevco and has hung over the Sevco board and club for most of this year. It’s an issue that one would have expected to have been considered in detail for some time and for a considered statement to be made at the AGM. Instead we get the written text of King’s speech which contains no reference whatsoever and have King presenting the decision to repay the SD loan in a low key way as if it was a minor peripheral matter. It seems a bit strange that from King’s account the Board would have a chat about this matter on the previous evening and make a total U turn. Also the fact that King had to phone around on the morning of the AGM to get “commitment” to fund the repayment from board members and major shareholders with whom he must surely be in regular touch. Cast in another light one might construe this last minute change of mind and phone calling as a panic measure.
2. I note there is a “commitment” to the payment, we still have to see the cash and the conditions attached. If King has the money that he claims to have why doesn’t he just stump up the cash.
3. Is the last minute decision to repay the loan in any way linked to the impending court case on 9 December, Ashley V King - Contempt of Court for breaching gagging order which is to be heard in the Chancery Court London. I can hear a line of defence “M’lud this is all water under the bridge, the loan has been repaid and the conditions attached to it are therefore a matter of history.”
What is their view on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
That gaining an unfair advantage is ok?
Probably confused by all the old new new old and thought all debts could be attributed to Oldco including the ones racked up by newco, Title and name seemed to work the other way.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilla Black
To achieve that would cost millions - an MA will give all that up for a mere £5m ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Probably the same as Fat Sally's earlier view on the prospect of getting demoted - basically, 'We arra gers and we're no standin for it'.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Let's hope His Glibship is just as disappointed as Fat Sally was when in the end they got demoted. :wink:
Interesting. I share your cynicism about the "commitment".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Here's another theory for the about-face. No evidence for it, but it's worth a thought.
I go back to what I said about DK's demeanour when he left Hampden the other day. He was, as they say, chastened. Was that because he'd been told "pay your fine, or we'll go for a winding-up order". If that did happen, DK would know what the implications would be:-
1. administration
2. MASH, as secured creditor, get the assets.
The prospect of that would concentrate minds, and wallets.
So, by ridding themselves of the security, they give themselves a better chance of survival if admin happens.
So would that then mean the guys putting up the £5m to repay the loan could do so on the same terms i.e. become a secured creditor instead? If that is the case then it would make sense for them to own the security if they were intending on heading for admin in the near future....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Have they paid the fine as well as the loan?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yeah, that would make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
The 3 Bears already have (?) £3.5m in loans, so by rolling them all up, it would be a nice wee insurance policy against the ravages of admin.
(It might even allow them to pick up the assets and start again. After all, Green bought them for £5.5m. :rolleyes:)
They've paid nowt so far. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
The fine hasn't been mentioned. I just raised it to posit a scenario whereby the fine might be the catalyst for some hard thinking.
Another possibility is that the decision on Green's case made the important peepul willing to put up some cash which would go to get MA of their backs rather than paying for Green's lawyers. Which could have led to a late decision being reached. Also maybe SFA/SPFL have panicked at being halued into court and want MA pacified by giving him his cash and that was what was laid out to King at their meeting. Dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is that allowed?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.foxwilliams.com/news/882Quote:
The timing, as to when the security is taken by the lender, is crucial.
Should the loan have already been advanced and then the security subsequently taken, this leaves such security potentially open to attack by any subsequent liquidator under the Insolvency Act 1985. The basis of attack is that the granting of security may be considered to be a preference. It is therefore vital to ensure that the security is taken before or at the same time as the loan is provided to the company.
:grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Bloody lawyers. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
They could still secure the new £5m though, couldn't they?
And....repay the original £3.5m, and borrow a new £3.5m the following day. :confused:
Think we've found who's behind the JohnJames blog.
That's all plausible. too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
We won't know until JJ comes along and posits (sorry, Grunt :greengrin) the real story.
I'm with you. I can't see any way that the visit to Hampden and the decision to pay back the loan are unconnected.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
When he left Hampden, Dave King looked like he had just been told about a death in the family.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keep at it on the Court diary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If there's a winding up application in the name of the SPFL................:greengrin
Not exactly a court date but BDO or Murray group have to submit their appeal by Wednesday. If they don't then that process is finished and the call for a full investigation will grow a lot louder.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ions-1-3961070
Wel, not really. What he says is someone else might invest in the club in 12 months time but who and why is not certain. Say the £5m loan is being repaid, though but not when.
Do supporters really buy this snake oil?
Newspapers eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
How do they get from "... he still feels that £30 million may be needed to produce the quality of squad he desires" to "Warburton to get £30m to fund Rangers’ Euro ambitions"?
Every now and then King, possibly inadvertently, says something completely true, "promotion this season is essential".
I so hope we can do our bit to thwart that ambition.
That article slso suggests (for the first time?) That they have also raised the £2.5m needed to make the end of the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
The fact the soft loans are going to be converted to equity also suggests they're planning a share issue. So no new white knights just the unwashed hoarded digging into their Christmas funds or giro cheques...
Also taking the view that the SPFL meeting was significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
And no analysis of King's claim to have the strongest balance sheet of any club in the world.
Easy to have a strong balance sheet if your property assets are valued at £41 million ( purchase price £ 5 m. ) and Brand values of £16 million ( purchase price £ 1.00 ). Balance sheets don't pay the bills.
When I was looking back at their account I notice in post balance sheet events, " the group have contracted the purchase of 5 players. The sums payable including agents costs amount to £ 671,000. "
By saying " payable " rather than " paid " suggests to me the transfer fees were still due when the accounts were signed last month, although I stand to be corrected.
So…….. the plan is to convert the soft loans they are going to receive to pay of the £5m for the SD loan and (presumably) the £2.5m needed to get to the end of the season into equity (i.e. shares in the club) at an unspecified later date.
Do I have that right?
So the ball is back in Ashley's court then?
Will he accept the repayment of the loan?
More importantly, presumably the conversion to equity will dilute his shareholding - will he be happy about that and is there anything he can do about it?
I think John J mentioned they now had the soft loan a couple of weeks ago, he repeats it in his article today. IIRC I commented on it at the time but it seems to have slipped below the Hibs Net radar. FWIW I think JJ's blog today is spot on. Douglas Park etc are now in the position where in order to protect their investments they have to keep on providing & hope there's a profit to be made in the future. They also have to keep on propping King up because his downfall could result in the collapse of the whole house of cards. Short term this spoils our fun, long term the longer Glib & Shameless remains at the helm the better it is for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
How did the votes go at the AGM yesterday? Not seen that anywhere yet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was done by a card count rather than a show of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Don't know who does the counting !
Announcement at a later date.
The AGM is surely final proof that King won't be putting anything like £30m into the club.
His bragging about only needing an hour to raise £5m rather overlooks the fact that, if he was true to his word, such ringing round begging for loans wouldn't have been necessary.
Whether he ever had the £30m or not I don't know. But the 'over-investment' promise did its job and got him the top job.
Indeed. Someone called Peter Clark on Twitter this morning said, "The "no debt" line is peddled like a badge of honour, when it should be a source of deepest mortification, given the past." I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
:rolleyes: :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Can't help thinking that, if they did have the £2.5m, they would have been shouting about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
There's a nag called "The Orange Rogue", honest, running at Newcastle, 1.30 today. I suspect King may be punting the £5m on it as its the only chance he'll have of getting £30m!
There's an article in the Record (I know) which claims to set out RIFC defence in the case brought by Ashley about them breaching the confidentiality agreement relating to the retail contract.
I'll link to it, but in case you don't want to read the link, I've also copied it below.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...iality-6915178
And for completeness, here's JJ's take on it. https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...8/kings-bluff/Quote:
Rangers claim they knew nothing about confidentiality agreement until Mike Ashley produced it 10 days before general meeting
RANGERS have laid bare Mike Ashley’s iron grip on the club in their court defence against the Sports Direct boss.
The Ibrox side have asked the High Court in London to overturn a gagging order obtained by the Newcastle United owner almost six months ago. Ashley has accused Rangers chairman Dave King of breaching the order, which forbids the club revealing details of controversial contracts signed by the former board and his sports empire. Ashley is seeking damages over an interview with Sky Sports presenter Jim White in July. If found guilty of contempt of court, King could face prison. The case is expected to be heard on December 9 and Rangers are also expected to seek to strip Ashley of his gagging powers.
Papers lodged by Rangers secretary James Blair state the arguments for overturning the confidentiality agreement drawn up with Sports Direct, former Light Blues chairman David Somers and influential shareholder Sandy Easdale. The Record has accessed the papers, which reveal the club’s anger as King hosted yesterday’s AGM at the Clyde Auditorium.
Rangers claim:
● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist
● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement
● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.
Central to the case is a Record article in May in which we revealed there is a seven-year notice period in retail contracts between Rangers and Sports Direct.
Rangers categorically deny leaking any such info and we would never reveal our sources.
But the Ibrox defence papers reveal that not only does the seven-year notice period exist, but it can only be activated once Rangers pay off a £5million loan from Ashley’s company MASH Limited. The loan was drawn down by the old board shortly before they lost control of the club earlier this year – to the disgust of fans who claimed there were other options. Allegations of failings by the old board will come as no surprise to Rangers supporters – and nor will Ashley’s attempts to keep his dealings with the club under wraps. Blair said: “The former board owed duties to Rangers including a duty to keep proper records of their business dealings. “Notwithstanding that duty, records of certain dealings relied upon by Sports Direct International do not exist and matters that might otherwise be admitted or denied are the subject of non-admissions.”
Blair said Rangers were unaware of a signed confidentiality agreement with Sports Direct until they were presented with it by Ashley’s solicitors on June 2 this year – 10 days before the club’s general meeting and nine months after it was drawn up. Blair added: “Rangers are unable to locate any document explaining why Mr Somers signed it and what was said on behalf of SDI to induce him to do so.
“If it was signed at any meeting on September 5, 2014, Rangers do not believe the attendees attended as company representatives.
“It was a meeting of key shareholders arranged to discuss issues impacting on them as shareholders and to review how, as shareholders, they would proceed. “There is no record of the meeting at Rangers and there was no reporting back from it to Rangers. Rangers’ chief executive and finance director were not present. “The meeting is not in Mr Somers’s diary. “Mr Easdale clearly attended in his capacity as leader of a shareholding bloc and signed the undertaking personally. “As far as Rangers are aware, Mr Somers did not take advice from in-house counsel or any lawyer retained by Rangers about whether it should be signed. “Nor do Rangers believe Mr Somers asked for or was given authority to sign the undertaking on behalf of Rangers.”
Ashley applied for gagging orders against the current Rangers board ahead of the club’s general meeting on June 12. He feared directors would lift the lid off controversial contracts agreed with Sports Direct by the former board. In their defence, Rangers insist the applications were unnecessary as King would only have discussed issues in the public domain such as annual accounts – including “how little revenue came to the club from Rangers Retail Limited”. Ashley also acted to gag the board in light of the Record story revealing the existence of the seven-year notice period to terminate his retail contracts. But the Rangers defence papers add: “While this was true until about January 2015, once Rangers had drawn down under the Facility Agreement they were unable to give notice at all without repaying the sums borrowed. Rangers consider that provision to be onerous and one that should not have been entered into. “Had they wanted to stoke up hostility for Mr Ashley, they could have provided this information to the Daily Record. “The fact this information is not in the article is evidence that Rangers were not responsible for any disclosure made.”
Rangers also insist the confidentiality clause has already been breached several times by sources close to Ashley – including Easdale – rendering it invalid. They list seven occasions when newspaper outlets and bloggers have quoted details of dealings and meetings between Sports Direct and Rangers which the club say couldn’t have come from them.
King is refusing to back down in his war with billionaire Ashley, who is also embroiled in action with the SFA after they granted King “fit and proper status” to lead Rangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Gary Rowat , the Birmingham manager, was favorite but its announced he is staying where he is.
http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...ulham-interest
By my reckoning that makes Warburton bookies favourite for the Fulham job.
Funny how it does not seem to warrant a single word in the Scottish football press.
The Hun hoards ain't swelling the coffers today. Piss poor crowd at greyskull for a semi albeit the petrofeck
Not really had a chance to digest what has happened over the last couple of days due to ill health.
A couple of things still confuse me.
1. Why do the other directors keep King (and Paul Murray) on board?
They could say to King that he is making too many of the wrong headlines. Have a sabbatical and come back once everything is sorted out. Whether he ever makes it back, well who knows. Basically he is bad news and I can't understand why they want to share a room with a con man.
2. What did the SPFL and SFA say to King?
By the look on his face I think they told him he would cease to be fit and proper unless he got the The Rangers off the front pages and started getting them sorted. They were fed up with his lies and bluster.
3. Why do the press keep punting The Rangers as having money when everyone knows they don't have any?
I know it sells papers but it is hell of a boring.
Looks about a 75,000 sell out to meQuote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
According to the Scotsman, in an interview with Jim McInally, Rangers are playing Peterhead in the final.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
No point in turning up to watch a game where the result isn't in doubt [emoji48]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Today's i quoting you as knowing little about football, though, so at least some of the press is getting it right. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I read an article in the paper today which basically says that Dave King made a dramatic u-turn at the newco AGM by announcing that a controversial £5m loan was being repaid to Mike Ashley's Sports Direct.
It says the money to do so has been raised by "regular investors" George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park - the 3 bears - as well as King and director John Bennett. They have also provided a "soft loan" of £2.5m needed for running costs for the remainder of the season.
Last desperate act of the Scotsman to appeal to the The Rangers support. Wonder which is in a worse state?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Which paper?Quote:
Originally Posted by emerald green
Most credible reports have him quoted as "endeavouring" to repay the loan. That's different from actually repaying it.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Scottish i does a roundup of fans' forums on a Saturday and you're today's chosen quotee:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
"Jason Cummings and James Keatings have attracted a lot of the attention up front but it has been overlooked how well our defence has done. I was indifferent to keeper Mark Oxley but he and the defence have shown how little I know about football!" Pathead (hibs.net)
It's in the paper so it must be true.
Does anyone really know how much money Rangers have though?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
The media and King would have us believe everything is fine and they have money.
PMcG and JJ assure us the opposite is true.
Remember how bad it looked for Hearts thoughout their turmoil and ultimately it turned out ok for them.
I don't know what to believe. I know what I want to believe but that is a different matter.
Their club, sorry company, or is it club? Whatever, the institution has **** all money, as acknowledged by everyone including the New Huns themselves. What's in doubt is how much money their main shareholders have, have available to spend (King) and are willing to spend (3 bears).Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
It is true, not just football either to be fair:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I think the crux of the matter is that Rangers, as a club, don't have the money. If they did, none of these problems, by definition, would exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I think the major players who are supposed to be Rangers stakeholders; King, the three huns, etc, DO HAVE ENOUGH IN SOME COMBINATION to see them through the current difficulties. (5m to Ashley, 2.5m to get to the end of the season.) However, they are playing a game of brinkmanship with each other, as nobody wants to put their hand in their pocket. The reason they don't want to do this is that the ownership, control and finances of the club are in a mess, and anybody writing cheques (justifiably) feels they could could be the ones lumbered into putting their hand in their pockets forever.
None of those people want to do that. They have gotten involved in this shabby enterprise in order to make money from the club, not risk their own (limited) wealth.
Rangers are a victim of their own bigoted and vainglorious culture; as a club they are set up to attract arrogant, pompous no-marks, and sleazy self-aggrandising opportunists. Whyte to Green to King, the picture just gets increasingly bleaker for them. As they grow more desperate, it's inevitable that the Daily Record are preparing yet another love-in feature on the latest "true blue white knight, with off the charts wealth, who is watching developments closely."
I think some flimsy deal will be brokered between King and the three Huns, perhaps with (yet another) outside investor coming in to save the day, but they are surely running out of rich mugs, and are now so synonymous with dodgy dealings, that this is almost certain to involve punitive Ashley-style caveats that mire them in deeper in the long term.
The fact is that Rangers are caught between a rock and a hard place. The global financial landscape has changed since their ETB splurging; no big Arab, Russian or American multinational money is going to invest in Scottish football, and at the other end of the scale their fan psyche is too much of the follow follow mentality to seriously mount a supporters ownership bid. The middle investor they are looking for -the rich businessman who loves Rangers and has the wealth to restore them to where they want to be- probably just doesn't exit anymore. All they are left with is a bunch of self-interested charlatans, none of whom want to be holding the financial baby, and will argue and hustle with each other in increasing rancour until one breaks and signs on the dotted line.
And one probably will. But it won't be the end of this saga. They are a club who are currently designed for failure and divisiveness. Best thing they could do is start (yet) again.
Gosh. Stardom at last!Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Probably inferring this from annual account that said they would need £2.5m of debt or equity funding by the end of the season to meet liabilities with an initial tranche required in December. With statement that major shareholders had previously said that they would meet this funding being interpreted as a loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yeah, but do they actually have it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
From saying, a few weeks ago, that they needed it......given the negative PR they've been getting, it would make sense to shout if they actually get it.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I would imagine there line of credit would be non existent and borrowing very hard to come byQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Usually done by their registrars, the company that looks after their share register. It will be independent from the club anyway. No idea how many attended the meeting and that will impact on the poll count but the usual timescale is that result is announced on the same day as the meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/ske...reign-concept/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's clearly not looked at the STV interview with DK where the source and nature of the new loan was disclosed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
On the flip side, he shares my intrigue as to whether the £2.5 m has been raised.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I'm more curious as to what brought on the change of heart. I doubt it was as trivial as withdrawal of his f&p status.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I saw that had been suggested. I think I'm right in saying that Doncaster has no control over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
His fit and proper status has been revoked? Or am I misunderstanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
But it's been suggested in some quarters that DK was told by Doncaster during the week that the status was under threat. That's bunkum IMO, since it's the SFAs call, not the SPFL.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Dave King is all about image. Losing F&P status would be very important to him as he has **** all else left and whilst SPFL could not do that I am sure they will have had discussions about the situation with the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Setting their sights quite low nowadays according to the papers today.
"Rangers striker Martyn Waghorn is dreaming of lifting the Petrofac Training Cup at Hampden this season,"
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