Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

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

09-10-2015, 04:44 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by steakbake

I don't know - another phoenix club and the devil is in the detail: does Ashley hold the rights to the "Rangers" brand? Could it be that no matter what happens, any club calling itself Rangers (The Rangers, The The Rangers, Rangers 2015 etc) would come under the IP that Ashley holds?

To be honest, they gave Cheerful Charlie a carte blanche to chalk up any future legal fees to the club. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they mortgaged off their identity in exchange for a few million from Ashley.

Mugs. hahahah

Ashley owns the name Rangers, the badges, strip designs and even Broxi Bear. Rangers have the right to buy them back if they pay back the £5m but if there is admin then they won't even be part of the CVA process.
Their next saviour will need to go speak to big mike.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 04:46 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

No I did get that, it's just that particular line made me question how accurate any of his musings might be.

I think his estimated 8 figure legal costs might be fanciful, too. He's just taken top end daily rates and extrapolated them over a long time period - I'm not sure that's particularly reliable.

His figures do look a touch expensive even for lawyers. Thankfully a fraction of that figure would be enough to sink them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 04:47 PM
JeMeSouviens

This time the New Huns are 2 companies: RIFC which owns RFC (formerly Sevco Scotland).

There might be some way to pass on RFC to a new vehicle and leave the debt behind in RIFC?
09-10-2015, 05:02 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

This time the New Huns are 2 companies: RIFC which owns RFC (formerly Sevco Scotland).

There might be some way to pass on RFC to a new vehicle and leave the debt behind in RIFC?

Even if they managed to pass on TRFC to a new holding company, the 25 penalty points sanction would still apply. That is very clear in the SPFL rules. Any disposal of the companies main asset would have to be agreed by the shareholders of RIFC.

I don't think there is that much debt as nobody will give them credit. Their problem is finding hard cash to pay wages and Hector.
09-10-2015, 05:14 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

Even if they managed to pass on TRFC to a new holding company, the 25 penalty points sanction would still apply. That is very clear in the SPFL rules. Any disposal of the companies main asset would have to be agreed by the shareholders of RIFC.

I don't think there is that much debt as nobody will give them credit. Their problem is finding hard cash to pay wages and Hector.

Yes, the 25 pts is clear. But could they avoid div 3 for a New New Huns by keeping this New Huns under a different holding co?

Debts of 5M to Ashley and a few M to 3 bears.
09-10-2015, 05:15 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

Even if they managed to pass on TRFC to a new holding company, the 25 penalty points sanction would still apply. That is very clear in the SPFL rules. Any disposal of the companies main asset would have to be agreed by the shareholders of RIFC.

I don't think there is that much debt as nobody will give them credit. Their problem is finding hard cash to pay wages and Hector.

I agree, I think it's cash flow rather than debt that will sink them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 06:11 PM
overdrive

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Yes, the 25 pts is clear. But could they avoid div 3 for a New New Huns by keeping this New Huns under a different holding co?

Debts of 5M to Ashley and a few M to 3 bears.

Similar to what happened with us, you mean?
09-10-2015, 08:42 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Yes, the 25 pts is clear. But could they avoid div 3 for a New New Huns by keeping this New Huns under a different holding co?

Debts of 5M to Ashley and a few M to 3 bears.

The issue with that is the SFA licence. The new holding company would have to apply for a new licence. That's what did for them last time.

However, the way round it is to have a successful CVA, as Hearts did. Not sure how likely that is. It would probably depend on the extent, actual and relative, of the HMRC debt.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 09:04 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The issue with that is the SFA licence. The new holding company would have to apply for a new licence. That's what did for them last time.

However, the way round it is to have a successful CVA, as Hearts did. Not sure how likely that is. It would probably depend on the extent, actual and relative, of the HMRC debt.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Would they not struggle for a CVA while ownership of all the asserts is in dispute? And while the brand is owned by Ashley.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 09:27 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Would they not struggle for a CVA while ownership of all the asserts is in dispute? And while the brand is owned by Ashley.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A successful CVA would pay off Ashley as the secured creditor and return the brand to RFC.

Whether it would be successful? Like any CVA....that would depend on a willing buyer and a willing seller. The buyer would have to satisfy themselves as to the ownership of the assets, and offer enough to make it worthwhile to the seller, ie the unsecured creditors.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 10:03 PM
Ozyhibby

Ashley doesn't just have security though, he owns the ip.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-10-2015, 10:32 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Ashley doesn't just have security though, he owns the ip.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He also has security over a dated , half empty office block called Edmiston House and a car park that has some significance planning wise for the Club to use its corporate guests deck.
10-10-2015, 08:59 AM
greenginger

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...nsfers-6607054

Daily ****** having a pop at Imran Ahmad for moving his assets to his wife's name.

Fail to mention he is only copying Chairman King when the South African Hectors were closing in on him . :greengrin
11-10-2015, 11:46 AM
greenginger

Even more Machiavellian plotting from JohnJames. :confused:

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/.../11/rfc-redux/
11-10-2015, 01:19 PM
MrSmith

The more I read of this farcical merry go round, the more I'm convinced the Rangers are finished! There is no money in Scottish Football and there is no-one daft enough to invest in a sunken ship that is breaking up on the ocean floor ...
11-10-2015, 01:27 PM
Killiehibbie

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSmith

The more I read of this farcical merry go round, the more I'm convinced the Rangers are finished! There is no money in Scottish Football and there is no-one daft enough to invest in a sunken ship that is breaking up on the ocean floor ...

As long as they go pop before the end of the season, i've backed us at 14's, 16's and 20's to win the league.
11-10-2015, 02:56 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by overdrive

Similar to what happened with us, you mean?

Yes, although STF ultimately paid the holding co's debt didn't he?
11-10-2015, 03:01 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The issue with that is the SFA licence. The new holding company would have to apply for a new licence. That's what did for them last time.

However, the way round it is to have a successful CVA, as Hearts did. Not sure how likely that is. It would probably depend on the extent, actual and relative, of the HMRC debt.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

No, last time the licence was held by the company that was the old huns. When that died, the licence was passed to Sevco, since renamed RFC. Separately, RIFC was set up to own Sevco.

So this time RIFC could go pop (incurring a 25 pt penalty as the parent co of Sevco) but Sevco itself and its licence could be passed on.
11-10-2015, 03:34 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

No, last time the licence was held by the company that was the old huns. When that died, the licence was passed to Sevco, since renamed RFC. Separately, RIFC was set up to own Sevco.

So this time RIFC could go pop (incurring a 25 pt penalty as the parent co of Sevco) but Sevco itself and its licence could be passed on.

That's not what happened.

When RFC went into liquidation, the licence was lost. A new licence was subsequently granted to Sevco, as the result of the infamous 5 way agreement.

If the company goes into administration, it will keep the licence, as Hearts did. If it then goes into liquidation, the licence will be lost.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
11-10-2015, 03:35 PM
CropleyWasGod

.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
11-10-2015, 07:49 PM
Cropley10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killiehibbie

As long as they go pop before the end of the season, i've backed us at 14's, 16's and 20's to win the league.

Great value. well played.:agree:
11-10-2015, 08:13 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's not what happened.

When RFC went into liquidation, the licence was lost. A new licence was subsequently granted to Sevco, as the result of the infamous 5 way agreement.

If the company goes into administration, it will keep the licence, as Hearts did. If it then goes into liquidation, the licence will be lost.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

No, that's not right. They didn't get the Old Huns' SPL share, they did get the Old Huns' SFA membership.
11-10-2015, 08:46 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

No, that's not right. They didn't get the Old Huns' SPL share, they did get the Old Huns' SFA membership.

We're probably splitting hairs here. My understanding is that the place was vacant and that Sevco were awarded it as a result of the 5 way agreement.

It wasn't a fair process of course, and it's likely that that would be repeated in the event of their going into liquidation. However, that's on the assumption that there's another buyer who could pick up the pieces quickly enough. That's one of the reasons why the last process "worked"...because there was a buyer in place at the back of the failed CVA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
12-10-2015, 03:52 PM
Keith_M

When the 12 members of the SPL met to discuss the then Sevco's (now Rangers International) application to be admitted directly to the SPL, one of the 12 voting on it (and the only one to vote in favour) was Rangers.

Now, if they were one and the same entity, how could that be possible?
12-10-2015, 04:15 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hibayernian

When the 12 members of the SPL met to discuss the then Sevco's (now Rangers International) application to be admitted directly to the SPL, one of the 12 voting on it (and the only one to vote in favour) was Rangers.

Now, if they were one and the same entity, how could that be possible?

Only 11 voted.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
12-10-2015, 04:42 PM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Only 11 voted.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Was it Killie that abstained?
12-10-2015, 06:27 PM
Kaiser1962

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

Was it Killie that abstained?

Yes
13-10-2015, 02:40 PM
Moulin Yarns

Only a month until we find out if Charles Green has screwed the Rangers for his legal fees

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1330...y-legal-costs/
16-10-2015, 09:09 AM
greenginger

Let the fun begin.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Pmacgioll...41865767227392
16-10-2015, 09:42 AM
grunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

Let the fun begin.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Pmacgioll...41865767227392

Doubt much will happen today, just an administrative exercise. Unless they all plead guilty!

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