The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[the jambo poet]

4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.

 

Interesting part this ... So Sevco are the largest creditor. Thus if any any admin/liquidation they get all the assets back and we start over again? Lol round and round

 

Equally interesting is why this has all come out now? After all the recent buying of shares by the three bears and king etc. Has someone been toying with them all this time?

 

Who owns Sevco? Is it chuckles? Wow what a killing he has made from this!!! And people were calling him dumb. It looks to me that he has played everyone for fools knowing where this would end up!!

 

But then again so many twists n turns who knows where this will go now

 

 

Sorry edited due to typos - done on my phone

Edited January 9, 2015 by the jambo poet

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.

 

Interesting part this ... So Sevco are the largest creditor. Thus if any any admin/liquidation they get all the assets back and we start over again? Lol round and round

 

Equally interesting is why this has all come out now? After all the recent bit out is shares by the three bears and king etc. Had someone been toying with them all this time?

 

Who owns Sevco? Is it chuckles? Wow hat a killing he has made from this!!! And people were calling him dumb. It looks to me that he has played everyone for fools knowing where this would end up!!

 

But then again so many twists n turns who knows where this will go now

 

Depends what Sevco?  

 

Whyte claims to own Sevco 5088 does he not, the one chuckles keeps trying to get shut down?  

 

Well I think he does, it's hard to keep up with all the different goings on.

[Barney Rubble]

Someone is gonna have to take the bull buy the horns and kill this beast that Craig and Charles built ! But who will it be ?

[Footballfirst]

4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.

 

Interesting part this ... So Sevco are the largest creditor. Thus if any any admin/liquidation they get all the assets back and we start over again? Lol round and round

 

Equally interesting is why this has all come out now? After all the recent buying of shares by the three bears and king etc. Has someone been toying with them all this time?

 

Who owns Sevco? Is it chuckles? Wow what a killing he has made from this!!! And people were calling him dumb. It looks to me that he has played everyone for fools knowing where this would end up!!

 

But then again so many twists n turns who knows where this will go now

 

 

Sorry edited due to typos - done on my phone

 

That section dealt with the CVA proposal, which failed, so those terms of the loan don't apply.  The question being posed is whether the subsequent  "purchase" of the assets was financed by a loan or a straight payment.

[Ron Burgundy]

I have no idea what the hell is going on. Yesterday some decent posters reckoned admin or worse wouldn't happen but today it looks like it may be back on the menu. Am I right or still completely befuddled?

[Paolo]

I have no idea what the hell is going on. Yesterday some decent posters reckoned admin or worse wouldn't happen but today it looks like it may be back on the menu. Am I right or still completely befuddled?

I haven't a clue. I will cross my fingers though.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Claudia

[Charlie-Brown]

FF dont have time to search right now but there are 2012 articles where Chuckie Green gives some detail about the founders loan and the IPO proposal. I remember being baffled how they could buy 100% with a loan then 6 months later sell 49% at 4-5 purchase price keep 51% themselves, have penny share / discounted share buy ins and still have a loan repayable at 2020 latest. Nevermind onerous contracts that was outstanding spivery imo.

[stevie1874]

I have no idea what the hell is going on. Yesterday some decent posters reckoned admin or worse wouldn't happen but today it looks like it may be back on the menu. Am I right or still completely befuddled?

Nobody seems to know what's going on and that probably includes people within the club. The Three bears would be better buying a small team calling them new Rangers playing in blue, forget about their history(once and for all) and working up through the leagues. The support would eventually follow them leaving the money men with ibrox & Murray park that no one wants. I'm sure the SFA would let them rent Hampden.

[Meadows]

I suppose to use the lights analogy, it's like someone gave them a power card with ?100 on it, stuck it in the meter and when the lights eventually flickered pressed the emergency ?5 . If you think the ?100 went quick.......

[Meadows]

I suppose to use the lights analogy, it's like someone gave them a power card with ?100 on it, stuck it in the meter and when the lights eventually flickered pressed the emergency ?5 . If you think the ?100 went quick.......

[Walter Bishop]

Delahunt and Keevins on SSB claiming no money left as off Monday and no denials coming from Rangers.

[Don Dan]

Delahunt and Keevins on SSB claiming no money left as off Monday and no denials coming from Rangers.

But Llambias has "personally" guaranteed that The Rangers have enough money.

[Deevers]

Delahunt and Keevins on SSB claiming no money left as off Monday and no denials coming from Rangers.

 

Interesting that Easdale has had his loan repaid apparently. I take it that was unsecured. If there is no money in the pot and there are creditors to be paid, where does that leave them?

[SUTOL]

Nobody seems to know what's going on and that probably includes people within the club. The Three bears would be better buying a small team calling them new Rangers playing in blue, forget about their history(once and for all) and working up through the leagues. The support would eventually follow them leaving the money men with ibrox & Murray park that no one wants. I'm sure the SFA would let them rent Hampden.

 

Maybe the SFA would, but would Queens Park?

They own the stadium. 

[SUTOL]

Interesting that Easdale has had his loan repaid apparently. I take it that was unsecured. If there is no money in the pot and there are creditors to be paid, where does that leave them?

 

It was secured against the Mcleod transfer fee, which has been paid.

(at least some of it anyway)

[The Mighty Thor]

Delahunt and Keevins on SSB claiming no money left as off Monday and no denials coming from Rangers.

 

Now that would be just a fine way to finish the weekend.

[Charlie-Brown]

But Lambias has assured Donkey there is no chance of another insolvency event.....

[Turkishcap]

But Lambias has assured Donkey there is no chance of another insolvency event.....

That was a few days ago mind!

[RobNox]

FF at the very inception of Sevco when they purchased the assets & history of RFC from Duff & Phelps it was done not via equity but via a multi million pound loan from Green and his initial backers who then later sold 49% equity at IPO and also awarded themselves and others lucrative share buy ins and penny share deals etc.

 

Question how was the initial loans to purchase assets shown in the Rangers accounts and balance sheets and were these loans & any profits due on them ever repaid or converted into equity? Did Sevco shareholders pay for the asset purchases or are any Green & Co loans on them still owing?

I thought the financial statement published as part of the 120 day review findings showed the total cost of purchase was funded by pre-IPO shares issued of c ?13m.  That was ?5.5m to buy the assets and c ?7.5m of other costs associated with the purchase, including commissions and introduction fees.

 

That would suggest the off book debt doesn't relate to the purchase, unless I'm overlooking something (which is distinctly possible)!

 

There is one item though, the repayment of Oldo debt of ?3m which isn't covered by the pre-IPO shares.  Could that have been covered by a loan from Green and co?  Remember this was imposed on Rangers as a condition of gaining entry to SFL 3 so probably not factored in to the original fund raising exercise.

 

Just a thought!

[Hagar the Horrible]

But Lambias has assured Donkey there is no chance of another insolvency event.....

Yeah but he had his fingers crossed so it does not count

[maroonlegions]

The beast just wont die. lol;

[DETTY29]

But Lambias has assured Donkey there is no chance of another insolvency event.....

He said no administration.

 

Nothing about other types of insolvency.

[i wish jj was my dad]

But Llambias has "personally" guaranteed that The Rangers have enough money.

 

Why shouldn't he? As we all know MA saved them. Of that there can be no mistake. 

[stevie1874]

Maybe the SFA would, but would Queens Park?

They own the stadium.

Didn't know Queens Park Own the national stadium

[SUTOL]

Didn't know Queens Park Own the national stadium

 

They always have. 

 

They lease it to the SFA. 

[Kilmacolm Jambo]

Are we now at the point where they are finished with this version, no meat left on the bone etc? Is there are a possible scenario where they can get as much cash from us as possible before next Friday, then get the "friendly" administrators in before sales for the Celtic game begin?

[stevie1874]

They always have.

 

They lease it to the SFA.

Who pays for the maintenance then?

[SUTOL]

I don't know the details of the lease, but I'd imagine the SFA or their operating company Hampden Park Ltd. 

[Dacok56]

Who pays for the maintenance then?

Full repairing and maintaining lease I'd imagine. Quite common in commercial leases.

[Strachsuit]

IIRC the CVA was to be funded by an ?8.5M loan, repayable in 2020. The Asset purchase was to the best of my knowledge a cash purchase of ?5.5M.

 

However, in parallel with you bringing this up, a poster on TSFM has come up with this theory.

If this post on TSFM is accurate then wowsers. It really is end game time.

[DETTY29]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 1m1 minute ago

Ok, this RFC funding package is edging closer to completion. Expect a decision to be made tomorrow and a stock exchange klaxon on monday.

[jamboinglasgow]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 1m1 minute ago

Ok, this RFC funding package is edging closer to completion. Expect a decision to be made tomorrow and a stock exchange klaxon on monday.

 

sounds like a last minute deal.

[Don Dan]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 1m1 minute ago

Ok, this RFC funding package is edging closer to completion. Expect a decision to be made tomorrow and a stock exchange klaxon on monday.

Jackson doesn't know if he's Arthur or Mather one minute there goosed next minute they're in the Chumpions league.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 1m1 minute ago

Ok, this RFC funding package is edging closer to completion. Expect a decision to be made tomorrow and a stock exchange klaxon on monday.

Does this mean they are safe again?

[jamboinglasgow]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs  8m8 minutes ago

Park consortium appear to be very positive tonight. Experience says it ain't over till it's over. But an answer from the board is imminent.

[Footballfirst]

 

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs  8m8 minutes ago

Park consortium appear to be very positive tonight. Experience says it ain't over till it's over. But an answer from the board is imminent.

 

I wonder if Ashley has reached a deal with the Three Bears that leaves a long term contract for the merchandising in place, perhaps even with King left on the sidelines.  That night be enough for Ashley to walk away and collect his loans and profits.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Hendricks]

Wrong thread.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Hendricks

[Harry Palmer]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs  35s

Last thing for tonight, whatever the RIFC board decide my guess is an EGM is inevitable. Just a guess mind

Edited January 9, 2015 by Harry Palmer

[Unknown user]

.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Smithee

[Unknown user]

This being discussed on RangersMedia just now, interesting reading re the retail deal

 

by Iain Nicol and Ross EJ Hendry | Guest Contributors

 

As with almost every aspect of the ongoing Rangers saga (WHEN WILL IT END? PLEASE LET IT END!) there has been copious amounts of scrutiny and conjecture levelled at the joint venture between Sports Direct and RFCL - known as Rangers Retail.

 

Interestingly enough this was one of the first orders of business that Charles Green and his team put in place. The two parties entered into the agreement just 47 days after Green acquired control of the football club. It is incredible that major decisions on such an integral part of the Club's financial future were being taken in such short order.

 

Of course, Charles had a severe bout of Rangersitis at that point. And, it is reasonable to assume that Mr Ashley was made a promise in return for his taking an initial three million shares and 8.98 per cent stake in RFCL. Incredible, because there is simply no way that; one - this deal is a good one for Rangers and two - this was the only option the Club had.

 

Let's be honest, in order to decipher the Rangers Retail joint venture you would need to have been in the room with Green and Ashley when the agreement was struck. Then you would have to be in their respective offices when they told their own teams what their real plans were. Once you had seen all sides you'd have to apply a 'Rangers lens' to things and interpret it from that sight line. Because, apparently, nobody cared what the long term benefit to Rangers was when this deal was agreed. Temporal displacement is about as likely as trust at this point so we are left to patchwork together a view of the deal.

 

The latest part of the agreement to be scrutinised online is the passage below after it was tweeted by the Rangers Supporters Trust Twitter account on Wednesday evening. The said passage comes from part XIII, section 12.1.3 of the RIFC prospectus. It is heavy on the legal jargon in places. But, we can glean a couple of key points that should make anyone with Rangers' best interests at heart at least slightly uncomfortable.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot...8/s1600/RR1.JPG

 

What the above paragraph tells us is that Sports Direct have the authority to acquire the entirety of our shareholding in Rangers Retail Limited for a prescribed amount in the event of there being no resolution in a deadlock matter between Rangers and Sports Direct. A deadlock matter usually arises when two parties entering a joint venture i.e. Rangers Retail cannot agree on the interpretation of a guiding principle in the agreement or running of the business. Such a clause will usually be invoked after third party mediation has failed. The amount in question is 50 per cent of Rangers Retail's profits for the past 12 months or, in our case (RFCL), the equivalent of one year's net income from our retail operation.

 

In year one of Rangers Retail, 50 per cent of Rangers Retail's profit equalled ?217,000. That's predominately down to the JJB deal and when the Rangers Retail deal began. In the last year, we can't know for sure of the profit from Rangers Retail until we see their accounts released early next month, but using the first year accounts as rough guide we can make some very rough estimates (these estimates will be on the high side, given costs likely incurred in opening new stores which will probably be shown in the next set of RR accounts).

 

In the last year, 50 per cent of Rangers Retail's profit amounted to less than ?817,000. If, hypothetically, Sports Direct contrived a deadlock situation, they could buy out our side of the retail contract for the above amount. This deadlock provision benefiting one side also gives an insight to the power dynamics of Rangers Retail, for example;

 

Rangers Director: We do not agree with X.

 

SD Director: Oh really? Well if you don't agree with it we'll simply buy your side out...

 

Rangers Director: *slopes off with tail between legs after agreeing to X*

 

This, in addition to the fact Sports Direct hold superiority in terms of share class and their powers (see below) makes for frightening reading. We (Rangers) do not hold the power over OUR own brand. That has been given up. And, it puts paid to the fanciful notion of being a global brand that seems to predominate on the Internet.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/s1600/rr3.JPG

 

 

 

So, what would it actually mean for Rangers if Sports Direct bought out Rangers Retail? Well, firstly we can expect a reverse depremiumisation of the Rangers brand. Essentially we would be subjected to merchandise such as the disgusting League Cup semi-final commemorative t-shirt. The production of which highlights exactly the issue with Sports Direct having control over our retail division. Such items would become the norm under any buyout as Sports Direct are unashamedly a 'stack 'em high, watch 'em fly' discount-led retailer.

 

 

 

Secondly, Sports Direct would become our exclusive supplier and distributor of merchandise. Under the terms of which we'd have to pay Sports Direct cost, plus 10 per cent, for any branded merchandise supplied to us.

 

Sports Direct would have the authority to sell our merchandise in their stores or sell it on to whoever else they liked at whatever cost they liked. Which means it would likely be cheaper to buy a Rangers item from Sports Direct than it would be to buy from Rangers direct. Why would Sports Direct position their unit selling price any other way? Rangers would then be paid a royalty for merchandise sold by Sports Direct. What this royalty would look like cannot be reasonably guessed at. But, we can rest assured that it would at the very least fall slightly favourable to Sports Direct.

 

So, what are our options from here? It is extremely hard to say at this point and it would be irresponsible to speculate given that those vying for the Club are (presumably) in the middle of negotiations. What we can state is; that as the Douglas Park, Dave King and Ashley groups negotiate a potential solution that particular effort is applied to reaching a more equitable agreement in the Rangers Retail joint venture.

 

In order to restore Rangers to robust health the Club requires as much of its own revenue as possible and it needs its merchandise arm to work harder for the Club than it ever has before. It also requires a fully motivated fan base ready to back club partners such as Sports Direct. Both parties can benefit from each other if both sides can agree to hit the reset button and build something together and for the long term.

 

This is not an easy fix but it can be a mutually lucrative one.

[Dutchmul]

keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs  35s

Last thing for tonight, whatever the RIFC board decide my guess is an EGM is inevitable. Just a guess mind

 

Well, finally, KJ actually say's something I believe!! Whatever deal is accepted by the board, if it involves the issuing of new shares, they will have to have an EGM.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Well, finally, KJ actually say's something I believe!! Whatever deal is accepted by the board, if it involves the issuing of new shares, they will have to have an EGM.

So no guarantee this is over yet?

[CJGJ]

Well, finally, KJ actually say's something I believe!! Whatever deal is accepted by the board, if it involves the issuing of new shares, they will have to have an EGM.

Wow that took a high class piece of investigative journalism to work that out.

[Paolo]

Well, finally, KJ actually say's something I believe!! Whatever deal is accepted by the board, if it involves the issuing of new shares, they will have to have an EGM.

I thought you were going to say the 'just a guess' bit, which are what most of his stories are.

[The Mighty Thor]

This funding package Jackson is slavering about. It gets them to when?

Since llambias has gone in they appear to be burning cash quicker than ever!

[I P Knightley]

....Sports Direct have the authority to acquire the entirety of our shareholding in Rangers Retail Limited for a prescribed amount in the event of there being no resolution in a deadlock matter between Rangers and Sports Direct...

 

The amount in question is 50 per cent of Rangers Retail's profits for the past 12 months or, in our case (RFCL), the equivalent of one year's net income from our retail operation...

 

In the last year, 50 per cent of Rangers Retail's profit amounted to less than ?817,000. If, hypothetically, Sports Direct contrived a deadlock situation, they could buy out our side of the retail contract for the above amount. This deadlock provision benefiting one side also gives an insight to the power dynamics of Rangers Retail, for example;

Rangers Director: We do not agree with X.

SD Director: Oh really? Well if you don't agree with it we'll simply buy your side out...

Rangers Director: *slopes off with tail between legs after agreeing to X*...

 

This, in addition to the fact Sports Direct hold superiority in terms of share class and their powers (see below) makes for frightening reading. We (Rangers) do not hold the power over OUR own brand.

 

 

The figures in there are eye-opening. Ashley has a contract to buy half of the retail business on an effective earnings multiplier of 2 (half the business for one year's profit).

 

I've never worked in retail but in a service business, we'd typically value a business on a multiplier of 1.2 times TURNOVER.

 

So not only is the multiplier down in the bargain basement, basing it on profit allows accounting practices to affect the overall value.

 

Fantastic for Ashley; stinkingly bad for Rangers.

 

Add to that the point that Ashley seems able to contrive a buy out position when it suits him (or to make his JV partner, Rangers, bend to his will under threat of being bought out for peanuts, and it all looks very onerous indeed.

 

I didn't quote the final line where the authors state that another deal may be "mutually beneficial". Wishful thinking.

[The Mighty Thor]

The figures in there are eye-opening. Ashley has a contract to buy half of the retail business on an effective earnings multiplier of 2 (half the business for one year's profit).

 

I've never worked in retail but in a service business, we'd typically value a business on a multiplier of 1.2 times TURNOVER.

 

So not only is the multiplier down in the bargain basement, basing it on profit allows accounting practices to affect the overall value.

 

Fantastic for Ashley; stinkingly bad for Rangers.

 

Add to that the point that Ashley seems able to contrive a buy out position when it suits him (or to make his JV partner, Rangers, bend to his will under threat of being bought out for peanuts, and it all looks very onerous indeed.

 

I didn't quote the final line where the authors state that another deal may be "mutually beneficial". Wishful thinking.

Was Chuck incredibly naive in setting these deals up or is this a masterclass in spivvery?

[Alva-Jambo]

Agree value of the retail biz should be a multiple of turnover  in this case then divided by 50%  so Ashley's Sports Direct SHOULD have to pay at least  ?5-6 Million. 

Maybe as much as  8 M.   However they would only need to pay  ).87M  ..  which is really rubbish.

[The Gasman]

....I didn't quote the final line where the authors state that another deal may be "mutually beneficial". Wishful thinking.

There is still this naive belief that Mike Ashley will do something to benefit Rangers, as if he actually somehow cares about them or the wishes of their fans, and is not just looking out for the best interests of Mike Ashley, the best interests of Sports Direct - and Hell mend Rangers.

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by The Gasman

[Charlie-Brown]

Charles Green was highly criticised after an earlier venture he took to IPO turned sour for the investors in under 18 months.

 

Remember that Green and Ashley and other billionaires were part of the original consortium that helped reform Rangers after liquidation.

 

It wasn't a case of Green v Ashley it was Green & Ashley and others rewarding their own interests and setting up favourable deals that ultimately came out of Rangers revenue streams.