Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[green glory]

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

@Pmacgiollabhain: Senior legal source very well connected to Rangers (1872-2012) say the new entity is "perilously close to administration". #SevcoCashFlow

And there's more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Dave-King.html

[steakbake]

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

@Pmacgiollabhain: Senior legal source very well connected to Rangers (1872-2012) say the new entity is "perilously close to administration". #SevcoCashFlow

It's clearly a plot hatched between the football authorities, the Green side of Glasgow and indeed the Vatican to shut down the Big Hoose.

[green glory]

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

It's clearly a plot hatched between the football authorities, the Green side of Glasgow and indeed the Vatican to shut down the Big Hoose.

The hidden Fenian hand I believe it's called.

Rumours abound last night that the club deck at Ibroke is closed due to the state of the roof.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

And there's more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Dave-King.html

I read a similar story in the Record yesterday or the day before.

Whilst we have to be careful of the PR job being done here (Green=bad, Walter=good), and also be mindful of the history of one Dave King, the consistent story seems to be the extent to which RFC have spent most of the IPO money.

£15m in less than a year???? WTF?

[green glory]

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

@Pmacgiollabhain: Senior legal source very well connected to Rangers (1872-2012) say the new entity is "perilously close to administration". #SevcoCashFlow

@Pmacgiollabhain: Source was one of three well placed individuals who informed me that RFC had run out of cash in October 2011. We now know that to be true.

[steakbake]

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

I read a similar story in the Record yesterday or the day before.

Whilst we have to be careful of the PR job being done here (Green=bad, Walter=good), and also be mindful of the history of one Dave King, the consistent story seems to be the extent to which RFC have spent most of the IPO money.

£15m in less than a year???? WTF?

The boardroom battle seems very intense and its being played out within a largely compliant and unquestioning media so it's hard to figure out motivations.

Phil MacGiollabhan has been all over this story since day one. The emergence of Charlotte Fakeovers is also very interesting but is being generally ignored by the MSM.

In summary, unlike the Hearts situation, this really is #allverycomplex

Clearly, TRFC have learned nothing from history. £15mil to win Div3 and be pumped out all of the cups (including the Ramsdens) seems a ridiculous price to pay.

Ah well... hell mend them.

[Leithenhibby]

If, and it may be a big "if". TRFC do go into admin, does that trigger a points penalty?........

I make it 28 pts if this is the case.............

[CropleyWasGod]

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

If, and it may be a big "if". TRFC do go into admin, does that trigger a points penalty?........

I make it 28 pts if this is the case.............

Not sure if the old SPL rules have been imported into the SPFL, but, if they have been, you will be right.

Shame, eh?

[Billy Whizz]

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

If, and it may be a big "if". TRFC do go into admin, does that trigger a points penalty?........

I make it 28 pts if this is the case.............

And does that mean we'd get Deano for free?

[steakbake]

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

If, and it may be a big "if". TRFC do go into admin, does that trigger a points penalty?........

I make it 28 pts if this is the case.............

I recall reading that somewhere, too. They won Div3 by 24 points. I think Div2 might be a slightly sterner test but you'd still imagine that lads paid 5k+ a month would still overturn that to reach the upper positions of that League.

I wonder what the game plan would be if TRFC don't make it out?

Another restructure? Promotion through Fair Play (now Ian Black looks like he's off)?

[Leithenhibby]

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

And does that mean we'd get Deano for free?

Would be nice!

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

I recall reading that somewhere, too. They won Div3 by 24 points. I think Div2 might be a slightly sterner test but you'd still imagine that lads paid 5k+ a month would still overturn that to reach the upper positions of that League.

I wonder what the game plan would be if TRFC don't make it out?

Another restructure? Promotion through Fair Play (now Ian Black looks like he's off)?

Please, if there is a god. I want Funny as ***k

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

Not sure if the old SPL rules have been imported into the SPFL, but, if they have been, you will be right.

Shame, eh?

My heart bleeds.........

[wazoo1875]

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

I read a similar story in the Record yesterday or the day before.

Whilst we have to be careful of the PR job being done here (Green=bad, Walter=good), and also be mindful of the history of one Dave King, the consistent story seems to be the extent to which RFC have spent most of the IPO money.

£15m in less than a year???? WTF?

And all to win D3, you couldn't make this up :^)

[green glory]

An interesting blog on the share issue. There have been doubts before that 22m was actually raised.

http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/

[brog]

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

SFA provide clarification as requested by Craig Mather.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...3&newsID=12282

About time these lower league nonentities were put in their place.

It was a good & timely statement from the SFA but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate re Yams. While their misdemeanours re tax were not in same class as Oldco there's no doubt they were withholding payments of taxes while signing & paying new players. Again that was their choice.

[ScottB]

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

It was a good & timely statement from the SFA but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate re Yams. While their misdemeanours re tax were not in same class as Oldco there's no doubt they were withholding payments of taxes while signing & paying new players. Again that was their choice.

I suspect it's a case of Rangers having enough money in the bank to pay the tax, but chose not to, while Hearts didn't have the money.

Of course the reason they didn't is because they spent it all on wages and the like...

[CropleyWasGod]

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

An interesting blog on the share issue. There have been doubts before that 22m was actually raised.

http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/

At the time, I expressed doubts (don't know if it was on here or not) that they could actually raise £22m. However, the spin was that yes, they actually did manage it.... and I slunk away, another prediction gone wrong.

That article, though, raises lots of questions.

[Off the bar]

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

An interesting blog on the share issue. There have been doubts before that 22m was actually raised.

http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/

most interesting bit there (IMO) is the re-emergance of ticketus, it always seemed a bit odd to me that they had taken a bath for £15m or whatever it was CW borrowed from them to buy oldco.



''2. Placed Shares – these shares were pre-sold to a number of institutions (but see above) subject to certain conditions. If you read the Prospectus very carefully not all of the conditions have been revealed. It is our understanding and perfectly feasible therefore that no cash has been paid to RIFC plc for these shares. Furthermore, if you read the Prospectus very carefully again, there is no definitive statement that cash is guaranteed to be received for these shares. They do ‘though have a cash value hence the Prospectus and subsequent statements refer to “Share Capital”. The suspicion is that these are a front for Ticketus. In other words, Ticketus have swapped the money they are owed by Rangers FC for shares in RIFC plc. At some point in the future, Ticketus will sell these shares in order to recoup its losses and/or may even just be holding them as security against repayment from season ticket income.''

[CropleyWasGod]

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

most interesting bit there (IMO) is the re-emergance of ticketus, it always seemed a bit odd to me that they had taken a bath for £15m or whatever it was CW borrowed from them to buy oldco.



''2. Placed Shares – these shares were pre-sold to a number of institutions (but see above) subject to certain conditions. If you read the Prospectus very carefully not all of the conditions have been revealed. It is our understanding and perfectly feasible therefore that no cash has been paid to RIFC plc for these shares. Furthermore, if you read the Prospectus very carefully again, there is no definitive statement that cash is guaranteed to be received for these shares. They do ‘though have a cash value hence the Prospectus and subsequent statements refer to “Share Capital”. The suspicion is that these are a front for Ticketus. In other words, Ticketus have swapped the money they are owed by Rangers FC for shares in RIFC plc. At some point in the future, Ticketus will sell these shares in order to recoup its losses and/or may even just be holding them as security against repayment from season ticket income.''

Ahhhhhh.... missed that bit.

Initial thinking is that that is a no-no, particularly if they haven't paid for them.

[Off the bar]

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

Ahhhhhh.... missed that bit.

Initial thinking is that that is a no-no, particularly if they haven't paid for them.

a no-no as they should'nt (potentially illegal) have done it or could'nt (not possible and conjecture in blog is wrong) have done it?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

a no-no as they should'nt (potentially illegal) have done it or could'nt (not possible and conjecture in blog is wrong) have done it?

I did say initial thoughts.... which, given my age, normally means mixed-up bulldust.

Breathe.

If it is correct, that Ticketus have these shares, and they haven't paid for them (which is what I'm reading it as)... they basically owe Rangers that money. I don't know if failure to pay for shares is an offence, but it's not very nice.

If Rangers go into admin again, I reckon the administrator will try to recoup that cash. And Ticketus won't get it back. Which means that Rangers will have stuffed them. Again.

They really do deserve each other, this lot.

[steakbake]

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

I did say initial thoughts.... which, given my age, normally means mixed-up bulldust.

Breathe.

If it is correct, that Ticketus have these shares, and they haven't paid for them (which is what I'm reading it as)... they basically owe Rangers that money. I don't know if failure to pay for shares is an offence, but it's not very nice.

If Rangers go into admin again, I reckon the administrator will try to recoup that cash. And Ticketus won't get it back. Which means that Rangers will have stuffed them. Again.

They really do deserve each other, this lot.

Why would Ticketus have put themselves in that position? To get rooked twice by the same crooks?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Why would Ticketus have put themselves in that position? To get rooked twice by the same crooks?

Dunno. I have my doubts that it's true.

If it is true, the only thing I can think of is that they took the view that these shares in the new Rangers were a sure thing.

Reputable international brand.

Solid customer base.

Respected people in charge.

What could possibly go wrong?

[steakbake]

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

Dunno. I have my doubts that it's true.

If it is true, the only thing I can think of is that they took the view that these shares in the new Rangers were a sure thing.

Reputable international brand.

Solid customer base.

Respected people in charge.

What could possibly go wrong?

Haha very true...

[Off the bar]

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

I did say initial thoughts.... which, given my age, normally means mixed-up bulldust.

Breathe.

If it is correct, that Ticketus have these shares, and they haven't paid for them (which is what I'm reading it as)... they basically owe Rangers that money. I don't know if failure to pay for shares is an offence, but it's not very nice.

If Rangers go into admin again, I reckon the administrator will try to recoup that cash. And Ticketus won't get it back. Which means that Rangers will have stuffed them. Again.

They really do deserve each other, this lot.

thanks CWG I read it as Ticketus taking the shares instead of chasing the old debt and making things difficult for the newco, but as with everything in this saga it is as clear as mud.

If this scenario isn't true it does make me wonder why Ticketus went so quietly as oldco folded shirley they should have chased that debt harder, they seemed to just dissapear from the scene, which has bothered me since. Would it be too good to be true that they hatched a secret deal with Greene, and are about to reveal themselves as a large shareholder and wade into the boardroom wrangling. If only we were'nt so rank on the park I could really enjoy the re-emergance of this story!

[steakbake]

I very much think TRFC are to an extent, protected by the media. There is a great deal of information that has come out through social media sources - documents, recordings etc - which is simply glossed over or ignored.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

thanks CWG I read it as Ticketus taking the shares instead of chasing the old debt and making things difficult for the newco, but as with everything in this saga it is as clear as mud.

If this scenario isn't true it does make me wonder why Ticketus went so quietly as oldco folded shirley they should have chased that debt harder, they seemed to just dissapear from the scene, which has bothered me since. Would it be too good to be true that they hatched a secret deal with Greene, and are about to reveal themselves as a large shareholder and wade into the boardroom wrangling. If only we were'nt so rank on the park I could really enjoy the re-emergance of this story!

Wasn't the deal with Whyte, though? IIRC, they are chasing him (or whatever company guaranteed it) for it.

[steakbake]

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

Wasn't the deal with Whyte, though? IIRC, they are chasing him (or whatever company guaranteed it) for it.

Therein lies some of the mystery. The stench of some kind of connection between Green and Whyte hasn't really gone away despite the no doubt thorough internal investigation carried out at Ibrox.

[Off the bar]

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

Wasn't the deal with Whyte, though? IIRC, they are chasing him (or whatever company guaranteed it) for it.

Yeah it was how Whyte paid off the RFC overdraft. I guess my point is that if I had lent money with 3 years of RFC season ticket sales as collateral I would find it a bit rich watching a team playing in blue at Ibrox selling 30,000 season tickets and me being out of pocket. If I recall correctly one of the stumbling blocks to the newco was the Ticketus debt, and there was some talk at the time that Tickets where involved in Greene's bid, would make sense that Ticketus went in with Greene's bid and agreed to take shares as a swap for the debt or a portion of the debt and agree not to rock the boat as the newco was set up.
I'm probably putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 here, but it does seem to me that Ticketus lost a lot of money and did'nt (in public at least) put up much of a fight for it.

[Smidge]

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

An interesting blog on the share issue. There have been doubts before that 22m was actually raised.

http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/

The blog is dated February and I'm fairly sure that its been repudiated in one form or another. There's no doubt that things look like they are imploding (again) over in Mordor, but I suspect this is not the reason.

As has been pointed already by CWG, an administrator would go straight after any shareholder who hasn't paid for allotted shares. It's the whole point of limited liability - it is limited to the extent of the share capital subscribed for. If you haven't paid for the shares, you are still liable. Can't believe for a second that Ticketus are THAT stupid.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The blog is dated February and I'm fairly sure that its been repudiated in one form or another. There's no doubt that things look like they are imploding (again) over in Mordor, but I suspect this is not the reason.

As has been pointed already by CWG, an administrator would go straight after any shareholder who hasn't paid for allotted shares. It's the whole point of limited liability - it is limited to the extent of the share capital subscribed for. If you haven't paid for the shares, you are still liable. Can't believe for a second that Ticketus are THAT stupid.