Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-01-2015, 06:39 AM
gorgie greens

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB_NO3

Rangers reject the offer from the Yank. Interesting times ahead. There is 4 different parties wanting control and no one is willing to let their share go. They are in a real mess again.

And long may it continue :greengrin
06-01-2015, 07:21 AM
EdinMike

For anyone who wants to read into it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30692822
06-01-2015, 08:19 AM
Spike Mandela

So, assets bought for less than £5.5m 3 years ago, a loss making company every year since but an £18m offer 'undervalues' the Ibrox outfit?(notice it doesn't say company:greengrin) Couldn't make it up.
06-01-2015, 08:30 AM
Smartie

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'd tell him to get the cash up front, of course. ...and demand some vouchers for Sports Direct.

That's now, though. My point was that, for the first couple of years of the new regime, there was no commercial reason not to trade with them. To take that view just because of what Oldco did would have been plain daft IMO.

I think that would have been fair enough 2 years or so ago. They'd have to get a wee bit of a track record of paying for things - in cash, up front - before being offered credit facilities and to be fair they have been fairly cash-rich and able to pay until quite recently.

The problem for them is that their finances play out in public. Anyone could have seen that they were going to run out of money eventually although it has happened sooner than expected. We've all seen this coming so I'd be amazed if those who actually do business with them haven't.
06-01-2015, 09:38 AM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartie

From that article.......

"I don’t understand why Hearts and almost every other club in Scotland are trying to live within their means when they should be actively pursuing the purchases of Messi, Ronaldo, Costa, etc in order to ‘break world records’, then go bust and shed the massive debt before repeating the exercise all over again."

What a difference a year makes eh? Utterly vomit inducing.

What exactly gives the Jambos the moral high-ground over their cousins on this one? That their creditors accepted f-all meaning that they achieved a CVA rather than being liquidated?

Or, the usual, total delusion, and that they have no right to pontificate to anyone.

Sorry to go off-topic but FFS that got me going!

It's the kind of long-winded, pompous, self-justifying nonsense that Shaun Lawson used to inflict on us. Has he found a new audience?

If true to form, he'll turn on them in a few months and start lecturing Celtc fans about their own club.
06-01-2015, 09:43 AM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

As much as it pains me to say it, I think we have to accept it's the same club. The legal aspects of it are obviously questionable but football isn't about legalities, it's about the passion. And obviously that passion (loyalty, etc.) is in the hearts and minds of the supporters.
If the same had happened to Hibs (when we were almost killed off by the Mercer take-over) I doubt there would be a single Hibs supporter out there that wouldn't have viewed a "new" Hibs entering the lower leagues as "their" team?

In the case of the SPFL, it suits them to view The Rangers as the "same" club as they can not only hold them to their footballing debts (a move which goes against the legal stance) but they can also carry out any disciplinary actions as "further" punishment (eg the 25 point penalty for a second administration).

I don't like it, and Doncaster should have been made to squirm during the interview, but I think we have to (inwardly) accept it.

Can we say then that legally it's a new entity set up in 2012, but emotionally it carries all the baggage and history of the old club?

Was thinking about this while watching AFC Wimbledon last night - unarguably a new club, but surely no one can argue with the references to the FA Cup win in 1988? That has more to do with them (and their fans) than MK Dons.
06-01-2015, 10:56 AM
ballengeich

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinMike

For anyone who wants to read into it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30692822

An interesting phrase - "loans in the short term and possibly equity in the medium term".

Rather than rush into a share issue, is the board going to allow Ashley to grab whatever assets he can?
06-01-2015, 11:10 AM
ballengeich

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

Can we say then that legally it's a new entity set up in 2012, but emotionally it carries all the baggage and history of the old club?

Was thinking about this while watching AFC Wimbledon last night - unarguably a new club, but surely no one can argue with the references to the FA Cup win in 1988? That has more to do with them (and their fans) than MK Dons.

That's a good summing up. I stay out of same club debates as people are using different meanings for the word "club".

As I understand it, in law a club is something distinct from and less formal than a registered company. Rangers wasn't a club before 2012 and isn't one now. It's a registered company operating a football business. In a court the question "Is Rangers the same beer mat as before 2012" would make as much sense.

In the less regulated environment of football discussion we generally use the word club to cover a football team, its supporters and ground.
06-01-2015, 11:16 AM
Smartie

They are the same club for me.

But the price they have to pay for that is a sentence to be spent in the lower leagues for as long as it take them to get out, and to be forever teased as to whether or not they are the same club.
06-01-2015, 11:21 AM
Bad Martini

I dreamed for years (and said they would) eventually get theirs...when it happened, elated and overjoyed doesn't even come close to describing the euphoric feeling of divine brawness I felt.

If it happens again...:not worth:aok::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Cheating *******s.

ENDOF
06-01-2015, 11:33 AM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballengeich

That's a good summing up. I stay out of same club debates as people are using different meanings for the word "club".

As I understand it, in law a club is something distinct from and less formal than a registered company. Rangers wasn't a club before 2012 and isn't one now. It's a registered company operating a football business. In a court the question "Is Rangers the same beer mat as before 2012" would make as much sense.

In the less regulated environment of football discussion we generally use the word club to cover a football team, its supporters and ground.

I have to disagree.

Included in the fiver that Sevco 1690 paid for the HunBrand was 32pence for beermats.
06-01-2015, 11:56 AM
patlowe

My only real concerns in all of this are as follows - is there any turn of events in this merrydance that could allow Rangers to sort themselves out and actually improve their squad in the January window or is that completely out of the question given the circumstances? Conversely, are they likely to need to sell playing "assets" to keep things ticking over in the next few weeks while all this plays out?

I ask because, as things stand, IMO they remain the biggest barrier to us going up with Hearts.
06-01-2015, 12:08 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by patlowe

My only real concerns in all of this are as follows - is there any turn of events in this merrydance that could allow Rangers to sort themselves out and actually improve their squad in the January window or is that completely out of the question given the circumstances? Conversely, are they likely to need to sell playing "assets" to keep things ticking over in the next few weeks while all this plays out?

I ask because, as things stand, IMO they remain the biggest barrier to us going up with Hearts.

It's possible, but unlikely. 2 scenarios:-

1. they get the share issue underway, subscribed and paid for in the next 3 weeks. There are probably Stock Exchange rules on this, but I would doubt there is enough time.

2. they get megaloans from the current characters, to be repaid in the form of shares when the share issue actually happens.
06-01-2015, 12:22 PM
essexhibee

See the rumours over Rangers way that Zaliukas hasn't played because he has a serious drink problem. Off topic apologies but interesting!
06-01-2015, 12:37 PM
Ozyhibby

They are much more likely to sell than buy players.
06-01-2015, 12:59 PM
KeithTheHibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by essexhibee

See the rumours over Rangers way that Zaliukas hasn't played because he has a serious drink problem. Off topic apologies but interesting!

I had forgotten all about that horrible canut. Glad to see he is stealing a wage from them all the same.
06-01-2015, 01:04 PM
Sergey

I just caught a bit on Radio 5 Live where they interviewed some solicitor fellow who was the ex-chairman at Partick Thistle. He thinks that the current black-hole at Rangers could easily be upwards of £20M.
06-01-2015, 01:18 PM
Keith_M

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

.....

That's now, though. My point was that, for the first couple of years of the new regime, there was no commercial reason not to trade with them. To take that view just because of what Oldco did would have been plain daft IMO.

But I thought you were on the 'same Club' side of the argument?

:wink:

Surely they should be wary, if that's the case.
06-01-2015, 01:22 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by keekaboo

But I thought you were on the 'same Club' side of the argument?

:wink:

Surely they should be wary, if that's the case.

Same club, but different company, and (most importantly for me) different people.

They were awash with cash for the first couple of years, so it would have been daft not to trade just because the old lot shafted you.
06-01-2015, 01:35 PM
southsider

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Same club, but different company, and (most importantly for me) different people.

They were awash with cash for the first couple of years, so it would have been daft not to trade just because the old lot shafted you.

I am more of a once bitten twice shy sort.
06-01-2015, 01:40 PM
Spike Mandela

Quote:

Originally Posted by southsider

I am more of a once bitten twice shy sort.

I would go as far to say anybody who trades with current Rangers setup and doesn't demand money up front or with some sort of security is a fool.

That goes for Hearts as well.
06-01-2015, 02:31 PM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Same club, but different company, and (most importantly for me) different people.

They were awash with cash for the first couple of years, so it would have been daft not to trade just because the old lot shafted you.

Perhaps not so much different people as different peepul?
06-01-2015, 05:14 PM
ancient hibee

Scenario...

Ashley demands his loan back -Rangers say they don't have the money-Rangers are put into administration and King and the 3 Bears lose their stake(as does Ashley but his loan is secured and it's peanuts to him anyway) and then the free for all starts.
06-01-2015, 05:20 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

Scenario...

Ashley demands his loan back -Rangers say they don't have the money-Rangers are put into administration and King and the 3 Bears lose their stake(as does Ashley but his loan is secured and it's peanuts to him anyway) and then the free for all starts.

They wouldn't necessarily lose their stake in that scenario.

If a potential new owner offered enough, there is the possibility that all creditors and shareholders would be paid in full. It's a long shot, and a helluva gamble, but one worth considering.
06-01-2015, 05:22 PM
bingo70

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They wouldn't necessarily lose their stake in that scenario.

If a potential new owner offered enough, there is the possibility that all creditors and shareholders would be paid in full. It's a long shot, and a helluva gamble, but one worth considering.

Do you think admin is the most likely outcome here?
06-01-2015, 05:23 PM
ancient hibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They wouldn't necessarily lose their stake in that scenario.

If a potential new owner offered enough, there is the possibility that all creditors and shareholders would be paid in full. It's a long shot, and a helluva gamble, but one worth considering.

Ashley could obviously outbid anyone else.
06-01-2015, 05:34 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by bingo70

Do you think admin is the most likely outcome here?

Hard to say without looking into the heads of everyone involved. There's a lot of game playing which just flies over my head.

If I had to pick one likely scenario, it would be the one where the current Board keep topping up the cash with loans, in order to buy time until the share issue can be organised.
06-01-2015, 05:35 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

Ashley could obviously outbid anyone else.

Even the Sun King (no relation to Dave) in Arizona?
06-01-2015, 05:39 PM
Ronniekirk

Spoke to an intelligent professional Rangers fan today who is adamant that the current management team will be emptied before the end of the month Surely they can't afford this ? Is she just at the wind up :confused:
06-01-2015, 05:49 PM
jonty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

Spoke to an intelligent professional Rangers fan today who is adamant that the current management team will be emptied before the end of the month Surely they can't afford this ? Is she just at the wind up :confused:

Or a month late to the party

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page