Hope you don't mind but I've shared that gem via twitter :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Printable View
Hope you don't mind but I've shared that gem via twitter :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Not at all :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by brianmc
It the 1st time i've had time to go through the CVA n that just caught my eye alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Paragragh 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.
however on the Estimated Outcome Statement only states £4,590,214 +£200k for Exclusivity Payment so they £709,786 missing from the sale to start with????
lastly for now with 49 unsecured creditors still on the fiuures as TBC and still not knowing wot penny in the pound u would be getting they all mugs if they agree to a CVA
then there the cash at bank £3,403,762 was that not the fiure quoted moths ago that bound to be spent as they out of money come 1st June???
1. The £4.59M will be their valuation of the asset value in selling to the open market, in the event of the Green proposals falling through and RFC being liquidated. Presumably there will be conditions attached to the £5.5M "newco" offer, just as there are conditions attached to the CVA offer. They're just not telling us what they are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
2. You'll see the line below says that RFC have lost £3.6M since going into administration, which has wiped out the cash balance (from selling Jelavic) at administration date. The offer basically consists of whatever they can sell the fixed assets for + £2M from selling players this summer.
CWG I agree with you on this which is basically what he was saying to us at the meeting, I think until a Newco scenario arises there isn't much more he can say.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm assuming that the £5.3m is mainly the property, despite being shown against only Intellectual Property, Goodwill and Player Contracts. Otherwise the realisable value of the property has been completed omitted in the newco scenario (a level of incompetence beyond even Duff and Duffer). The balance will be for those three items and I assume is low due to players leaving the club, as the player registrations would be worth that on their own even allowing for the cut price transfer fees negotiated as part of the wage deductions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
We may have gone quiet at SPL Fan Surveys but until things develop there isnt much we can do though we are monitoring the situation daily and i do have an invite to a further meeting which at this stage I don't believe is worthwhile until we see how things pan out re RFC.
We did however send this out to all SPL clubs ahead of todays meeting as a reminder we are still here and havent gone away.
All club chairmen should think carefully on how the supporters of THEIR club will react in the event of a Newco club being allowed direct re-entry into the SPL.
A lot of statements have been made about how we need a strong Rangers in the SPL but ask yourself how strong will Rangers be if they are reformed as a Newco bear in mind under EUFA rules as a Newco they would not be eligible for European competition for three years therefore they would be denied significant revenue streams.
Would a Newco RFC command the attendances they currently receive or would we see a return to the crowds the pre David Murray era due to the fact a Newco RFC would not be as competitive.
Again there is speculation regarding the Sky TV deal which if statements suggest is dependent on four Old firm matches per season again would they be willing to pay as much knowing that they may not be as competitive.
Some Chairmen have already stated that they feel they need the revenue generated by the 1 or 2 visits from RFC dependent on whether they finish in the top 6 ask yourself if you vote to allow a Newco will this cover the loss of revenue you will suffer if as fans who took part in our survey state they will walk away from the SPL follow through on their threat and a large number of fans of other clubs are now saying they will boycott away matches of any club who votes for a Newco to allow this to happen.
We are in no way threatening clubs by our actions we are just passing on the thoughts of Scottish football fans from all clubs bear in mind 54% of fans of the 16527 fans who took part have said they will walk away can you as a club afford to take the risk.
You should also bear in mind that both members of the Old Firm had aspirations of leaving Scottish football in the not too distant past in search of a place in the EPL and given the opportunity as unlikely as it seems would they think twice about your club in those circumstances, no doubt we would hear how Scottish Football would benefit i.e. be more competitive etc surely there is an opportunity for you as club chairmen to bring about those changes for the benefit of all.
The Scottish game is dying and if you make the wrong decision then you will accelerate its demise through ignoring SPORTING INTEGRITY over finance.
Things are building, please let this happen!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Anyone found these bad boys yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeeMG
Green trying to win the power struggle...
SFA must tell Green to bolt and take the medicine
maybe a vote of no confidence in doncaster is wots needed?Quote:
Originally Posted by cheshire hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Nothing yet. Only this:
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont
Apologies for the lack of publication of that new @markdaly2 story. Not sure why it hasn't appeared. May well be held till tomorrow now.
I hope you noticed that it should be UEFA and not EUFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheshire Hibee
Seemingly EUFA is Early Unilateral Follicular Aspiration (an assisted pregnancy procedure). I know they want to be re-born as a new club but that's taking things a bit too far!:wink:
Here's what Mark Daly was talking about earlier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18268346
I'll let those more qualified than me pick the bones out of it!
Wouldn't work either . That way, the club's accountants would be left out of the loopQuote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Yeeeehhhhaaaaa!!!!!
Woo hoo, this could be it (prays silently at foot of bed). GIRUY ya dirty cheatin hun b******s!!!
:D :D :D :D :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
HMRC outlines how you can have more than one agent for PAYE:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
PAYE for employers
For PAYE for employers a client may want more than one agent to act on their behalf and deal with payroll issues. HMRC's PAYE for employers system is only able to send out information such as tax code notices P6 and P9 to one agent. Clients who have more than one agent dealing with their payroll matters must choose which one 'lead' agent they want to receive this information.
If you are becoming the 'lead' agent, you must be authorised using either the agent online authorisation service or by completing form 64-8. Clients can authorise HMRC to send information to you either online or by using form FBI 2.
If your client is already using an agent who continues to act for them as the 'lead' agent, please do not submit a form 64-8 for your authorisation as this may result in the 'lead' agent's details being overwritten.
If your client wishes to nominate you as a second agent, they should send a letter to HMRC with details of the secondary authority so that your records can be updated accordingly.
And remember, if you only wish to file information online on behalf of your client, and do not need HMRC to communicate with you directly, you can do so without submitting a form FBI 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lungo--Drom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
yesterday's paperQuote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
today's is full of special pleading by Green.
And at the end of a linked article there,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Mr Clark said he and Mr Whitehouse had "a statutory duty to look after the interests of creditors and keep the business going, which we have managed to do under extremely challenging circumstances".
According to gurus on this site the bold is just a straightforward lie, is it not? Why have D&D not been relieved yet? :dunno:
Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Whatever is actually going on, they ---D&P---- have been in on it from day one. If they hadn't been in on it, then they would have been screaming blue murder ages ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:aok: and whats the problem with that....they should be used to it :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
The dawning realisation....and an excuse to use this pic again :greengrin
Attachment 8313
That's Green seriously flapping now. I expect him to walk away as soon as the SFA bin his begging letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
The cheek of these guys has no boundaries. Take the SFA to court to teach them a lesson about punishing Rangers and then come looking for leniency when they discover that theyve just shot themselves in the foot!
It shouldn`t make any difference now. FIFA are in on this and their choice should be made clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Hang Rangers out to dry or Scottish football will suffer. I dont see that they can make any other decision, and no begging from Charlie Green should make any difference.
"Project William" :faf:
Ah, ok, cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
:aok:
It's a lie and it isn't :greengrin Sometimes the interests of creditors are best served by keeping the business going. But, legally speaking, it is supposed to be about the rights of creditors and shareholders.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee