Printable View
It might be £1m or it might not - The list only gives the number of shares, not the value. It's quite common for shares to be issed with a nominal value that is less than £1 - for example Hibs shares are 2p each while the Oldhun's shares were 10p (as are the Yams).Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
As I said earlier, it may be coincidence, but 22m shares at 25p gives us £5.5m - now where have we seen that number before....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
And Chico has nil shares which means despite his phenoemenol claims regarding Newhun's financial future he has not been prepared to forward one penny of his own money.
He lent the company £5.5m for the asset purchase, which (as Cav suggests) may be paid off by the shares issued thus far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
The last line, though, says that he is due a 10% bonus for a successful float. It doesn't specify "10% of what?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
We can assume when he collects this mysterious Sevcorpse percentage he exits stage left with a suitcase of zombie cash.
I think it's more of an "if", given that a successful flotation is by no means a certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Uefa list of registered clubs....................
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/...r=R/index.html
At least they haven't fallen into the same trap as Scottish Press and say it is the same old Rangers
The Rangers "men's" team has been deleted because they aren't in the SPL. There aren't any SFL teams in that link.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
If and when a Zombie huns team is in the spl, T'Rangers 2012 at best on UEFA list!
Why the womens team and the futsal teams then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
:confused:
They play in the top division of those competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Are we sure it was "his" money? I always thought he was the frontman for some sort of coalition of the stupid who had put up the cash, hence the shareholdings.
Fair point. When I say "him", I meant him/one of his companies/him and his mates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
The main point was, though, to say that "he" etc had lent the cash to NewCo, rather than actually bought shares in the company with it.
It's beginning to get on my thruppeny's how long it's taking for the FTT verdict to be released. They said on Sept 12th it would be in October, but they appear to be hanging on to the very end of the month to do it. Why? What possible purpose does it serve dragging it out like this?
....and have the Duffers handed over the leavings to BDO for liquidation yet? The lack of any 'official' clarification is frustrating. I want to see action, and I want to see it NOW
Admit it - who clicked on S looking for Sevco FC :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I looked under 'T' for 'THE' Rangers, but the closest I could find was 'The Glen Bar' :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Guilty! :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
:greengrin
Have no fear. Mere days to go. The verdict was with Murray and Hector as of Friday. Maximum two weeks before it's public. Rumour is it's what we all expected . Guilty guilty guilty!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
:tsk tsk: Quite, quite wrong to pre-empt the official announcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
But just in case, I'm adopting this rightaway as an earworm.
If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I wouldnae bet on that. but I like the way your thinking:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
What would be the consequence of that result? Who is responsible for it - the original RFC or Sevco?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
That's my question too. If the verdict is guilty, what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
The original.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
The only real effect a "guilty" verdict would have would be to dilute the dividend to the other creditors.
It is possible that HMRC might then take action against the directors of the Oldco. However, there should be no implications for the new company.
Except for the shame and humiliation because after all, they are the same club as they bought ALL their history. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The notion that Scottish clubs did the right thing in banishing the Govan football institution to the bottom league might just sink in to footballing pundits on Sky Sports etc. and to a few more politicians nearer home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I know that this is what we are told happened the bit I am having trouble with his public utterances stating that Newhun "have no debt". Surely it cant be both? Also there now appears to be a list of 19.8m shares that has miraculously appeared despite there having been no notification to CoHo of this, and I understand that there has to be notification within 30 days. He may be a Mr. Super Salesman but like most of his breed, the ends justify the means but I can only imagine the carnage that is left in his wake.
My understanding of the £5.5m, however, is that he borrowed the money as a short term loan on the promise of quick and hugely profitable returns and now, as the lenders are asking for their money back, we are having a public share issue. It may be that the lenders are getting a bit jittery given the attention Green is attracting or, it may be as others have pointed out, they need to get their money back and scatter the company ownership far and wide before BDO begin seriously digging. After all he bought Rangers assetts for £1.5m and (claims) he now has a valuation of those assetts of £80m. Obviously not the same valuers that D+P used, unfortunately.
My point was really that if this was such a sure thing them why did Green choose to borrow the money from investors and not use his own which would have enabled him, personally, to make the killing?
If Newco has bought all of Rangers' history then they must surely accept liability for any football penalties due for misconduct by previous owners of the club. I'm interested in just what Green has signed up for when the SFA licence was transferred.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If the SPL investigation into dual contracts decides that results in past years should be amended, then I would expect the owners of the history to be liable for the return of any dishonestly earned prize money. Will Sevco agree to this?
Are these football penalties, though? (devil's advocate smiley..)Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I suspect that's a subject which lawyers will investigate at great length, for appropriate remuneration of course.:cbQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
IMO, it's not really relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
Unless the SFA/SPL have come to an agreement with the NewCo that all football debts have to be paid off, AND that amounts due to HMRC are classed as such,.... all of which is unlikely.... the tax debts stay with the old company.
I agree with you about the money due to HMRC. What isn't clear to me is the extent to which the SFA licence agreement allows any future penalties to be imposed by the SFA/SPL for past offences. NewCo have agreed to pay some outstanding transfer fees. They accepted a reduced form of the player registration embargo. I've no doubt that title stripping can be done, but what else? I just don't know what the details are and that's where I see a possible future legal battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Nah they're still there. Just got the country wrong :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter