Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Theres no difference because you can't remember the facts.

Hibs weren't in a huge amount of debt when STF took over, most of the debt belonged to a chain of pubs that were owned by Forth Investments. When Hibs were sold to STF, the debt that belonged to the chain of pubs were soley their problem and had nothing to do with Hibs.

With the Rangers situation however, the huge amount of debt owed, it owed BY THEM. Its their debtm its in their account, not the debt of any other companies that Whyte may have owned. It Rangers debt and their debt alone.

Thats the difference here.

Hibs never went anywhere near liquidation when STF took over. Rangers however are being liquidated, because the massive amount of debt is owed by them.

They can sell assets to Sevco, but they can't however sell their history or awards. They're a sinking ship.

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

I am not talking about the history. That's an argument which, as I said earlier today, will rage on... and is, IMO, an academic one.

I am, though, talking about the assets... the players, the properties, the club names. There is no difference in the two situations. The Newco in each situation bought/took over those from the OldCo.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.

Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being the exact same as Rangers FC by all means.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being Rangers FC by all means.

There is no need for your continued abuse. What I will "big-up", as you put it, is the law and my opinion based on 32 years experience, 24 of which have been in my own practice.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Theres no difference because you can't remember the facts.

Hibs weren't in a huge amount of debt when STF took over, most of the debt belonged to a chain of pubs that were owned by Forth Investments. When Hibs were sold to STF, the debt that belonged to the chain of pubs were soley their problem and had nothing to do with Hibs.

With the Rangers situation however, the huge amount of debt owed, it owed BY THEM. Its their debtm its in their account, not the debt of any other companies that Whyte may have owned. It Rangers debt and their debt alone.

Thats the difference here.

Hibs never went anywhere near liquidation when STF took over. Rangers however are being liquidated, because the massive amount of debt is owed by them.

They can sell assets to Sevco, but they can't however sell their history or awards. They're a sinking ship.

Hibs debts in 1990 were £4.5m and, at the time, the football club was in trouble.

I cant see that how the debt is accumulated as being important. Hibernian FC are intrinsically linked to HFC Holdings and should Holdings find itself in trouble then the football club will be sold. If its purely a case of making money to repay debt it may be that the assets realise more money when seperated and if so, they will be sold as such. I would add that Holdings is not in trouble, as far as I know, and is unlikely to be as long as the group retains the support of Tom Farmer.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am not talking about the history. That's an argument which, as I said earlier today, will rage on... and is, IMO, an academic one.

I am, though, talking about the assets... the players, the properties, the club names. There is no difference in the two situations. The Newco in each situation bought/took over those from the OldCo.

Fair enough. I haven't been reading on this thread over the past few days so haven't read some of the older comments on the debate.

Rangers can sell all of their assets to Sevco, but that doesn't make Sevco Rangers. It's the history that makes the club, not the assets.

Sevco will never be the old Rangers, regardless of how much they appear to be on the surface.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being the exact same as Rangers FC by all means.

That is rather more than unfair. Throughout this whole sorry saga it's been good to read the viewpoints of several posters on here who have a real handle on what the hell it all means. CWG has done a suberb job of making some of the legal ins and outs understandable and even interesting to duffers like me. You may not like to hear something that doesn't fit in with your view of the world but there is no need for the digs you are giving out here.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair enough. I haven't been reading on this thread over the past few days so haven't read some of the older comments on the debate.

Rangers can sell all of their assets to Sevco, but that doesn't make Sevco Rangers. It's the history that makes the club, not the assets.

Sevco will never be the old Rangers, regardless of how much they appear to be on the surface.

Sevco are no more. They are now The Rangers Football Club Limited.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/46...d0/compdetails

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

Actually we were. STF bought Hibs from the recievers in the same way and manner that Charles Green bought Rangers from Duff and Phelps. For Sevco 5088 Ltd read HFC Holdings Ltd.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually we were. STF bought Hibs from the recievers in the same way and manner that Charles Green bought Rangers from Duff and Phelps. For Sevco 5088 Ltd read HFC Holdings Ltd.

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own every accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own every accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

The most important thing about a club is its support, not some arcane discussion written in legalese. Of course the football club continues to survive because that is what is in the hearts and minds of their support.

Like it or not this continues to be rangers football club. Whether or not it is wrapped in a new business entity only scratches at the essence of a football club.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

He didn't, though. He didn't take over the loss-making part of the company.

[The Falcon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

So he also took on the £4.5m debt that was in the football club?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The most important thing about a club is its support, not some arcane discussion written in legalese. Of course the football club continues to survive because that is what is in the hearts and minds of their support.

Like it or not this continues to be rangers football club. Whether or not it is wrapped in a new business entity only scratches at the essence of a football club.

No argument with this.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

That is exactly what Farmer did.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didn't, though. He didn't take over the loss-making part of the company.

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

Football Club debts in June 1990 were £4.5m. Hibernian Football Club, in June 1990, did not own the stadium.

The Inn debts were with a firm called Hibernian Leisure and they (Avon Inns and the Sports Centre) were owned, along with ER, by a company called Hibernian Land and Property Limited.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.

He took the whole of "Hibernian FC".

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He took the whole of "Hibernian FC".

...which is not "the lot".

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.

STF took the football club in its entirety, unlike Green who just took the bits of the Rangers corpse he liked. The English pubs had nothing to do with Hibs other than some umbrella scheme that Duff dreamed up. If you're suggesting we were inextricably linked to Duff's nefarious businesses then no, we were not. It was unwound without any break in our history. Unlike Sevco.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

STF took the football club in its entirety, unlike Green who just took the bits of the Rangers corpse he liked. The English pubs had nothing to do with Hibs other than some umbrella scheme that Duff dreamed up. If you're suggesting we were inextricably linked to Duff's nefarious businesses then no, we were not. It was unwound without any break in our history. Unlike Sevco.

I wasnt aware of this. Which parts of Rangers did he not take?

Avon Inns was intended to provide a regular cash flow, outwith the normal revenue streams, to support the football club and both Avon Inns and Hibernian FC were part of the same company.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I wasnt aware of this. Which parts of Rangers did he not take?

Avon Inns was intended to provide a regular cash flow, outwith the normal revenue streams, to support the football club and both Avon Inns and Hibernian FC were part of the same company.

Apparently, he tried not to take Clubfoot, but that was a deal-breaker.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...which is not "the lot".

What are you getting at exactly?

He bought Hibernian FC, not bits and pieces, but the whole thing.

When the club went into recievership in 1991, the reciever sold Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium to STF, but held on to the pubs where the vast majority of the debt lied anyway.

Leaving STF with Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium + a very small overdraft.

The Rangers situation is nothing like the above. To try and compare the 2 is ridiculous.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What are you getting at exactly?

He bought Hibernian FC, not bits and pieces, but the whole thing.

When the club went into recievership in 1991, the reciever sold Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium to STF, but held on to the pubs where the vast majority of the debt lied anyway.

Leaving STF with Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium + a very small overdraft.

The Rangers situation is nothing like the above. To try and compare the 2 is ridiculous.

I am getting at the fact that STF bought the football club and its related assets from its former owners, who were insolvent. CG has done the same. That is what the original question from The Falcon centred on.

[1875godsgift]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am getting at the fact that STF bought the football club and its related assets from its former owners, who were insolvent. CG has done the same. That is what the original question from The Falcon centred on.

But we hadn't defrauded the tax-payer out of approx £150 million and cheated our way to umpteen titles though.

[TrinityHibs]

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

[Lucius Apuleius]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

200?????