Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Insolvency law seems to change with each individual case anyway.
The Yams got to pick and choose who voted on their CVA despite insolvency law indicating connected companies could not vote. With these sorts of shenanigans going on and what has already occurred with the liquidation of the original Rangers it appears to me that insolvency law in this country is a mess. With this in mind, his opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else. The experts on insolvency law in this country have not covered themselves in glory so far.
I am glad he's not involved in Hibs though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Exhibit A. He talks about Preferred Creditors. There are none in Rangers case.

Exhibit B. He talks about Worthingtons being Preferred Creditors. They're not. They can't be.

Exhibit C. He talks about Worthingtons having security. There can't be security without a debt. That whole question was settled a long time ago.

Exhibit D. He talks about the Oldco being an attractive investment, because they might win the Big Tax Case. Even if they do, there are still tens of millions in unpaid debt

Exhibit E. He talks about the assets being transferred back to Oldco, as if it's an easy process. They're already (at least) 2 companies away. Good luck with that.

That's better. I prefer to know why rather than just be told someone is talking *****.
One thing I think is correct is that this will take a lot of time in the courts to sort out and that the new Rangers will struggle to borrow until it's all sorted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

That's better. I prefer to know why rather than just be told someone is talking *****.
One thing I think is correct is that this will take a lot of time in the courts to sort out and that the new Rangers will struggle to borrow until it's all sorted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ah so that is why they want to re-instate Oldco. How will it get easier when their previous track record was horrific?

Genuine question, not trying to be awkward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

That's better. I prefer to know why rather than just be told someone is talking *****.
One thing I think is correct is that this will take a lot of time in the courts to sort out and that the new Rangers will struggle to borrow until it's all sorted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

:greengrin

He also does that thing that so many so-called professionals do, in that he uses lots of big words and buzz-phrases that make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. He might know his own game, but in this situation it's mostly padding and flannel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Ah so that is why they want to re-instate Oldco. How will it get easier when their previous track record was horrific?

Genuine question, not trying to be awkward.

---

I guess with a new board they could always convince someone to lend to them but there is no way they could convince someone while the ownership of the assets is being contested. And Mike Ashley own security over everything except Ibrox. It's really down to Dave King and the 3 bears to fund the rest of the season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Exhibit A. He talks about Preferred Creditors. There are none in Rangers case.

Exhibit B. He talks about Worthingtons being Preferred Creditors. They're not. They can't be.

Exhibit C. He talks about Worthingtons having security. There can't be security without a debt. That whole question was settled a long time ago.

Exhibit D. He talks about the Oldco being an attractive investment, because they might win the Big Tax Case. Even if they do, there are still tens of millions in unpaid debt

Exhibit E. He talks about the assets being transferred back to Oldco, as if it's an easy process. They're already (at least) 2 companies away. Good luck with that.

---

I haven't been keeping up with this side of the thread much as my financial adviser and psychiatrist both said it wasn't a good idea, but is the gist of this post that there might be more than one glib and shameless liar? :confused::greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

:greengrin

He also does that thing that so many so-called professionals do, in that he uses lots of big words and buzz-phrases that make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. He might know his own game, but in this situation it's mostly padding and flannel.

---

Are you sharing a professional secret with that? :devil:

16/1 is still available...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

16/1 is still available...

---

I got 20/1 yesterday.

Charles Green taking The Rangers to court according to BBC. Wants his legal fees paid. Got to admire his brass neck. Love it if The new club are billed £500k

BBC Scotland has learned the former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences relating to his time at Ibrox.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experie...livingston.jpg
BBC
Green claims his contract with the club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge. Lawyers acting on Green's behalf have written to the club and want a court ruling to clarify the situation - that could happen as early as next week.
Green and a number of others, including the club's former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month following an investigation by Police Scotland into off field events at the club in 2012 and 2013.
It's understood the fees involved could reach in excess of £500,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Charles Green taking The Rangers to court according to BBC. Wants his legal fees paid. Got to admire his brass neck. Love it if The new club are billed £500k

BBC Scotland has learned the former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences relating to his time at Ibrox.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experie...livingston.jpg
BBC
Green claims his contract with the club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge. Lawyers acting on Green's behalf have written to the club and want a court ruling to clarify the situation - that could happen as early as next week.
Green and a number of others, including the club's former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month following an investigation by Police Scotland into off field events at the club in 2012 and 2013.
It's understood the fees involved could reach in excess of £500,000.

---

That's beautiful :greengrin

What we want here is the Court to say to Rangers.... "stick £500k aside in a separate account, and we can have the case heard next year sometime."

:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's beautiful :greengrin

What we want here is the Court to say to Rangers.... "stick £500k aside in a separate account, and we can have the case heard next year sometime."

:cb

---

Do they have £500k to put aside? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Do they have £500k to put aside? :greengrin

---

one would doubt it and lets be honest, the fees will probably rise considerably as the due process is followed - hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Do they have £500k to put aside? :greengrin

---

One would expect a company the size of Rangers to have an insurance policy to cover such eventualities.

:greengrin

In the meantime, they have to find the cash to pay their own lawyers to defend the action. ...................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's beautiful :greengrin

What we want here is the Court to say to Rangers.... "stick £500k aside in a separate account, and we can have the case heard next year sometime."

:cb

---

Well, Chuckie no doubt wrote his own contract so he would know what's in it. Just fabulous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Charles Green taking The Rangers to court according to BBC. Wants his legal fees paid. Got to admire his brass neck. Love it if The new club are billed £500k

BBC Scotland has learned the former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences relating to his time at Ibrox.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experie...livingston.jpg
BBC
Green claims his contract with the club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge. Lawyers acting on Green's behalf have written to the club and want a court ruling to clarify the situation - that could happen as early as next week.
Green and a number of others, including the club's former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month following an investigation by Police Scotland into off field events at the club in 2012 and 2013.
It's understood the fees involved could reach in excess of £500,000.

---

That guy is a total weirdo and a charlatan, just like Whyte, which is deeply pleasing.

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

  That guy is a total weirdo and a charlatan, just like Whyte, which is deeply pleasing.

  ---

It it is all so ridiculous and frightening in that our football ruling bodies sit back and do nothing! This is the state of our game where the SPFL/SFA will not get involved because they Know they will be exposed for the corrupt associations they where in a previous name and now going forward! I so wish EUFA would just ban our entire associations! I absolutely detest football in Scotland because of the parochial governing bodies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmith

It it is all so ridiculous and frightening in that our football ruling bodies sit back and do nothing! This is the state of our game where the SPFL/SFA will not get involved because they Know they will be exposed for the corrupt associations they where in a previous name and now going forward! I so wish EUFA would just ban our entire associations! I absolutely detest football in Scotland and the parochial governing bodies!

---

Well there is no sitting on a fence with that comment
I almost share it though you have a fair point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

One would expect a company the size of Rangers to have an insurance policy to cover such eventualities.

:greengrin

In the meantime, they have to find the cash to pay their own lawyers to defend the action. ...................

---

Let's be honest, as soon as their name is mentioned, I'd think any decent, law-abiding business will run a mile before having ANY dealings with them so they might no be covered !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think there is almost no chance these guys will go to jail. White collar crime rarely gets punished in Britain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

What utter horse ****.

You have more chance of going to jail for defrauding someone than you have of battering them.

Where we might agree is that large scale fraud cases seldom see people do time, probably because the fraud perpetrated is too complex for the police to provide a case simple enough for the jury to understand.

But plenty small scale fraudsters who have abused positions of trust have done time. It's almost mandatory and little is allowed by way of mitigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

Let's be honest, as soon as their name is mentioned, I'd think any decent, law-abiding business will run a mile before having ANY dealings with them so they might no be covered !!

---

My tongue was buried in my cheek when I said that [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Exhibit A. He talks about Preferred Creditors. There are none in Rangers case.

Exhibit B. He talks about Worthingtons being Preferred Creditors. They're not. They can't be.

Exhibit C. He talks about Worthingtons having security. There can't be security without a debt. That whole question was settled a long time ago.

Exhibit D. He talks about the Oldco being an attractive investment, because they might win the Big Tax Case. Even if they do, there are still tens of millions in unpaid debt

Exhibit E. He talks about the assets being transferred back to Oldco, as if it's an easy process. They're already (at least) 2 companies away. Good luck with that.

---

Beautifully put.

I've said for a long time that the outpourings from the Sellik hysterics are to be treated in exactly the same way you would handle a dog turd.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09...8b31296e5f.jpg

Looks like all their former directors will have legal costs covered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09...8b31296e5f.jpg

Looks like all their former directors will have legal costs covered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Allow me to be the first financially ignorant to ask...Is that specific to The Rangers 2012, or does it pertain to all directors of all companies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09...8b31296e5f.jpg

Looks like all their former directors will have legal costs covered

---

Is that standard practice? Or did they fully expect there to be legal action against them in the aftermath?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

Allow me to be the first financially ignorant to ask...Is that specific to The Rangers 2012, or does it pertain to all directors of all companies?

---

I believe that came from the IPO document when they floated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...igation-costs/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

I've said for a long time that the outpourings from the Sellik hysterics are to be treated in exactly the same way you would handle a dog turd.

---

Wasn't this particular Celtc hysteric one of those to stick his hand up and say he wanted to buy Hibs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...igation-costs/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Always an entertaining read, but for some reason I get the impression this guy doesn't quite have the financial understanding he implies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I believe that came from the IPO document when they floated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

They made damn sure they shut the door before the horse bolted then :greengrin