Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?
Printable View
Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?
200????? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TrinityHibs
I've not seen Craig Thomsons' name on this page. :confused::wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TrinityHibs
Duff & Phelps themselves say the company and the club are being liquidated on their documents so that does for me.
In reality though they are still Rangers albeit The Rangers.
Same colours, same strip, same stadium, same fans, same songs.
I no longer see that as hugely important.
If they'd really 'died' as arguably they should they wouldn't be facing any 'punishments' for the oldco actions such as dual contracts through the EBT scheme.
Allow me to stick my oar in on the Hibs debate.
The difference between Hibs and Rangers is about the corporate structure. In Hibs case it was Forth Invetments that went into receivership (IIRC 'administration' didn't actually exist at that time, and receivership was less lenient on the debtor company, but I digress). The receiver sold Hibernian Football Club as a going concern to Tom Farmer - I thought the club owned ER at that point and it was split after the event, but I may be wrong there. As a unit, the club was viable but in debt, my understanding is that the club's debts were settled in full.
In the huns case it is the club that went into administration - the holding company (The Rangers FC Group Ltd AKA Wavetower Ltd) did not. The administrators sbsequently dismantled the club, sold the asset from it to Sevco and advised the creditors to whistle. Hibs were never dismantled in this way.
THe difference can be seen in that the date of incorporation of Hibs was 11 April 1903 while the club now known by some as Rangers was incorporated on 29 May 2012.
Looks like Mike Ashley (Newcastle owner) is to invest in Rangers, a deal which will result in Rangers getting Newcastle players on loan (before the end of the month of course)
http://www.footballtradedirectory.co...mega-deal.html
Rangers new era begins with mega deal on horizon
Rangers began life in SFL Division Three with a 2-2 draw against Peterhead but it also off the field that the club's fortunes need to be rebuilt.
Chief Executive is looking for new investment and it is reported Mike Ashley is prepared to invest. The Scottish FA is set ratify the move on the condition Ashley owns no more than 10% of Rangers and has no personal role in running the club.
It is understood that as part of the deal Rangers will be able to loan up to nine Newcastle players. Ashley's Sports Direct firm will then take over Rangers' replica kit merchandising operation from JJB Sports for the club. JJB Sports and Rangers entered a 10-year merchandising contract in 2006, when the Glasgow club received an initial payment of £18m with a guaranteed minimum annual royalty of £3m.
Negotiations are under way with JJB Sports to end their retailing contract. Any Newcastle players moving to Rangers would need to do so before the end of this month, when a year-long signing embargo comes into place for the Scottish Division Three club.
Under the terms of the agreement with Newcastle, Rangers are also likely to play the Magpies in a friendly who Ashley bought for £134m in 2007.
Up to nine? Not this season as the following SFL rule applies :-Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary
transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such
transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of
21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of
temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five,
of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age
of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.
I'm trying to remember the name of a Newcastle reserve who was very successful in Scotland a few years ago. Ah I've got it - Alan O'Brien! A few of his calibre should help Rangers no end
You called? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TrinityHibs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Thanks for 'dismantling' Cropley's somewhat spurious opinion that Hibs are on the same page as Sevco 2012.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Really annoys me that somehow folk are beginning to believe that we went into administration before STF bought us. Even some of us believe it now :confused:
You have misquoted me again.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
1. The question was asked how the situations differed.
2. I said that my recollection of the Hibs situation was hazy but, if the facts were as the poster put them, then there was no difference.
3. the facts clearly weren't, according to Cav, who has cleared up the mechanics. As ever, we are grateful.
4. I have never said that "Hibs are on the same page as Sevco 2012."
5. there is no company known as Sevco 2012. Sevco 5088(might have the exact number wrong) bought the assets of RFC. Sevco (Scotland) is the company which is now known as The Rangers Football Club Limited.
For the avoidance of doubt, the company that owned the football club was in receivership. As Cav said, the term "administration" didn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Does that not mean that the Club itself was ok?
I mean it had its problems but it never stopped trading, changed its name or anything remotely similar to the Rangers situation.
Also, I don't recall any creditors being left out of pocket in the way that happened at Dundee, Livingston etc.
I'm claiming the moral high ground for the Hibs on this one. We did nothing wrong :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I also think that the Magpies' football chiefs would be wanting their players playing at a higher level than SFL3.
They'd be better prepared in the SPL or Divisions 2 or 3 in England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The basis for the arguments that the situation is diifferent appears to be that Rangers owed money and Hibs did not,which is untrue, OR that Rangers owed more money than Hibs, OR that STF bought the "accounts", I surmise this to mean that Farmer took on the £4.5m debt, which he didnt. Neither has Green.
I believe that the amount of money owed is immaterial to the argument as it dosent really matter whether its £4.5m (Hibs) £9.1m (Motherwell) or Rangers (any amount that comes into their head) If a company is insolvent its insolvent. The amount dosent really matter, although who the money is owed to may (Taxman? Does he still have first dibs?)
Things may be different because of the structure and set up of the companies or it may be that the laws have changed in the intervening 21 years but, to my mind, the process was very similar. While all Hun Groups debts related to the football club, Edinburgh Hibernian PLC's (as we were in 1990 prior to briefly "rebranding" as Forth Investments in March 1991) was spread over the group.
If Rangers FC do not exist this, according to Paul McConville (cited below), is a choice excercised by Charles Green because it suits his agenda.
Paul McConville's thought on the matter here
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...-to-ceo-green/
The part that confuses me most about the whole thing is that some of you seem to be on page 666 but it says 500 on my browser.
Explain that, all you smarty pants accountants!
:wink:
p.s. Could you PLEASE stop calling him Mister Charles Green, it's Monsiuer Charles Vert, I'll have you know! The previous name was just a misunderstanding.
Q. what is 1 plus 1?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
A. what would you like it to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No, I work in computing so the answer is normally considered to be 10.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't :greengrin
That depends. We have two strikers (Xisco and Nile, er, Ranger) who we'd like to get shot of ASAP so a loan to hun with them covering part wages would suit both parties. There's others that fall into this category as well: no future at all at NUFC but costing us money and good enough for hun.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Nile Ranger could do a job at Hibs from what I've seen - not a lot to be fair
The corporate structure point is an important one though. Since they incorporated as reigning Scottish Cup holders in 1903 Hibs have had many owners. Forth Investments were just another one of those owners and also operated in other business fields. It was FI that went bust because of those other activities and they had to sell the club to go some way to appeasing their creditors - from the club's point of view it simply had another owner. A similar situation could arise across the city if UBIG went bust and sold the yams - the club wouldn't change only the owners would. It's different with Rangers because it was the footballing activity that couldn't sustain itself and the club had to close down. It was the club's assets that were sold on a break-up basis, not the club as a going concern. As far as civil law is concerned they are a new entity, Hibs are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
The Scottish football rules cloud the issue because they consistently refer to clubs, without specifying their legal identity - in law a football club is not a separate entity from the company that operates it but the football rules are ambivalent in that respect. The authorities have further clouded the issue by treating Sevco as neither one nor the other, so in the end it all boils down to opinion. IMHO they should have decided one way or the other (continuation or new club), made their decision clear and stuck with that decision throughout. My preference would have been to treat Sevco as a completely new company as UEFA do (hence the three year 'ban') but either way would have been more satisfactory than the current mess.
The thing about Ranger is that he could do a job just about anywhere - he's got the lot - but he's a total waster.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
So, to be clear....... the current Hibs have never won the Scottish Cup? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
:tin hat:
However, that begs a question.... Cav, you're old enough to answer it..... what were we before we incorporated? Unincorporated association or something like that?
From today's Press and Journal -
Police probe trouble at Blue Toon’s big match
By Rebecca Buchan
Published: 13/08/2012
RANGERS Football Club are at the centre of a police investigation this morning after supporters caused trouble during the team’s Division Three debut at Peterhead.
Officers are appealing for information after several smoke flares were set off at Balmoor Stadium on Saturday.
The Glasgow giant’s fans also sang sectarian songs, leading to one arrest last night.
However, the trouble did not cast a shadow over what was arguably the greatest result in the Buchan club’s history.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by H18SVG
And the current Rangers have never won a game within 90 minutes - I could live with that TBH.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Passing by the ageist slur (and don't think I didn't notice the first one) the late nineteenth and early twentieth century seems to have been a time when a lot of clubs incorporated - or more accurately took limited company status. That was about the time that modern company law started taking root as well, so one probably produced the other. I would guess before then they were charities or mutual/friendly society type organisations like some social clubs are today. I know Hibs started life as a charity, but I couldn't tell you the history of their changes in status - Jonnyboy knows that stuff.
I'm going to delete a few of my earlier posts now...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Seems Leggo was the 'journalist' who threatened Alex Thomson. No shocks then.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/235034632918286336
New blog from Alex Thomo too...
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...-interest/2511
http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/inde...d=4286&cd=2012
Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.
As Robert Duvall said in Apocalypse Now, "Charlie don't lie....."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Oh, wait.... that was "Charlie don't surf."
:rolleyes: