sam Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Excellent statement from Rangers actually. They deserved some money for Charlie Telfer. United getting a promising youngster for nout is nice but I'd be raging if a similar club started nicking all our youngsters for free. A few folk not understanding that value is based on wages of contract. I thought they were getting money from united. The argument was about Telfers length of time at rangers due to them being liquidated. United reckoned they needed to pay for 2 years but rangers thought it was 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 [emoji1] ?30k what's a K between friends unless of course your the Rangers. Did he actually ever get ?30K a week? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Nope, valued at ?30k a year, not a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Nope, valued at ?30k a year, not a week.. [emoji106] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I thought they were getting money from united. The argument was about Telfers length of time at rangers due to them being liquidated. United reckoned they needed to pay for 2 years but rangers thought it was 6. you are correct in thinking apart from one important fact. The fact you missed was Rangers need the cash and this was panels priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMc Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'd be surprised if they ?1.5m for him can't imagine him going for anything over ?400k to be honest. Shows promise but he not yet proved himself. They thought they would get ?1.5m for Naismith. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-transfer-news/rangers--everton-go-to-tribunal-1225660 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm laughing at the Sevco hordes reaction to their "victory" in the Telfer appeal, ?160,000 to bank, they only need another ?7,840,000 to keep the ship afloat now. There's VAT on top of that ...... oh wait ... ... they don't have a good record on that one ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm laughing at the Sevco hordes reaction to their "victory" in the Telfer appeal, ?160,000 to bank, they only need another ?7,840,000 to keep the ship afloat now. only kicking the can further down the road . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 They thought they would get ?1.5m for Naismith. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-transfer-news/rangers--everton-go-to-tribunal-1225660 Green wants ?1.5million for Naismith, with the SFA set to hear cases over Steven Whittaker, Jamie Ness, Kyle Lafferty and Sone Aluko. If they go against the Ibrox side it will be a huge blow to Green?s plans for the club. Yip, every penny they miss out on is another penny Green doesnt get to give to his pals in pay, bonuses and 'onerous' contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I'm laughing at the Sevco hordes reaction to their "victory" in the Telfer appeal, ?160,000 to bank, they only need another ?7,840,000 to keep the ship afloat now. Yeah, they don't seem to realise they could have had a ?500,000 player on their hands if they'd actually played him. Wonder how many other youth prospects have been held back under McCoist.. Edited December 9, 2014 by oldcastlerock2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm laughing at the Sevco hordes reaction to their "victory" in the Telfer appeal, ?160,000 to bank, they only need another ?7,840,000 to keep the ship afloat now. It would amuse me - a lot - if Thompson made Dundee United's cheque payable to BDO, as they represent what's left of Rangers(in liquidation) and their creditors - who must have a moral (if not legal) claim on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yep, Only played 20 mins for the 1st team as a sub, hope he blossoms at Utd & they make a fortune selling him on later. Utd have certainly got previous for doing that. I would imagine young players will be looking at Hearts and D Utd as the best places to develop the way the two clubs are setting themselves up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It seems that Rangers have dropped a couple of bits from their statement about Dundee Utd's 2yr claim and the rant about the continuation of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I had posted them on aother thread F.F. But here is the 2 statements again.. Cheers. I knew there was a good reason to keep all things Rangers/Sevco in the one thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I had posted them on aother thread F.F. But here is the 2 statements again.. Oooh. This is going to be fun. Think they had legal advice to change it ? Unlikely to have just because they didn't want to upset anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Tweet from Jim Spence. Rangers website says Utd introduced argument that club in current form only 2 years old. Utd say they didn't. Time to make hearings open? _______________________________________________ Disrepute charge coming the way of one club? Edited December 9, 2014 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Tweet from Jim Spence. Rangers website says Utd introduced argument that club in current form only 2 years old. Utd say they didn't. Time to make hearings open? _______________________________________________ Disrepute charge coming the way of one club? That statement could get messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That statement could get messy.I think Thom(p)son is combative enough to want to take this to a higher "court", to establish once and for all the oldco / newco situation Popcorn time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randle P McMurphy Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hope United sell him on for ?10m Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That statement could get messy.Having said all that, I'm sure it was Spence who initially reported that Untd would use the NewCo argument and that both clubs had previously come to an agreement of 100k so Rangers could save the NewCo face in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It seems that a lawyer representing United forced Rangers to drop the website claim. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Chick Young claimed on Sportsound tonight that Kenny McLean remains at St. Mirren because no-one would pay the 300k compensation fee due under the rules. Poor sod. However, it would be interesting on how much McLean earns compared to what Telfer was offered by Rangers. If it takes into account development fee. Kenny McLeans career stats and international honours significantly trump that if Charlie Telfer. Unless of course the SPFL are saying that being at Rangers and getting nowhere near their Dads Army first team is second only to a Celtic player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 A few folk not understanding that value is based on wages of contract. I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that the tribunal set the ?170k as a factor of his ?30,000 salary at Rangers? To me, "value" is the amount that someone is prepared to pay for something. Rangers were prepared to pay ?30,000 p.a. to Telfer which indicates that, relative to the likes of Black, McCulloch, Templeton and others, they didn't really value him that highly. If a ?30k salary translates to a ?170k value, though, (roughly six times salary) someone on ?5k per week would be deemed to have a value of ?1.5m. Does that sound sensible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Deeds Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that the tribunal set the ?170k as a factor of his ?30,000 salary at Rangers? To me, "value" is the amount that someone is prepared to pay for something. Rangers were prepared to pay ?30,000 p.a. to Telfer which indicates that, relative to the likes of Black, McCulloch, Templeton and others, they didn't really value him that highly. If a ?30k salary translates to a ?170k value, though, (roughly six times salary) someone on ?5k per week would be deemed to have a value of ?1.5m. Does that sound sensible? The idea is to stop smaller clubs getting ripped off after developing a player. There's an argument for saying the player Tupe'd over to the new version of the club so the full development fee should be paid. The fact that he actually moved as his development was stuttering makes it most amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Leary Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Out of the 13 Sevco players out if contract, how many will be willing to put a leg in near the end if the season when they know they'll be looking for a new club in the summer? Not many I'd guess :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMc Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Utd have certainly got previous for doing that. I would imagine young players will be looking at Hearts and D Utd as the best places to develop the way the two clubs are setting themselves up. Dundee Utd, Hamilton and Hearts are all doing very well in terms of turning out good youth players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 So basically rangers have tried to con the whole of Scottish football by misrepresenting that the oldco newco argument had failed in quasi legal proceedings? If that isn't bringing the game into disrepute and subject to an SFA charge what is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/happy-in-denial/#more-5421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Rangers have Raygun Donkey-ass & Ogilvie on-side at Hampden and covering their back. Until we clear out these charlatans Gers can act with virtual impunity sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrasbraw Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Laxey Partners Ltd 16.32% Artemis Investment Management LLP 9.95% MASH Holdings Limited 8.92% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 7.06% Blue Pitch Holding 5.43% Alexander Easdale 5.21% Miton Group 4.98% George Taylor 3.2% Margarita Funds Holding Trust 3.19% When you look at the institutional investors they only represent 64.23% of the overall votes? MA has them by the shorties only because the loans and of course some of the onerous contracts. Before him the Easedales had the power but only because of the secret people behind BPH and Margarita. It will be interesting to see if they all stick together or not for the new shares resolution? And can they get the other 11% to push it through? Even if they do, they can only slice that particular pie so many times? If it fails more will have to show their hands???? I also get the feeling the Easedales have wandered into the big boys playground and they are in a different game? Their dinner money is at risk?.. How come if Laxey has 16% in shares and Ashley has 9%,how come Ashley is the boss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 How come if Laxey has 16% in shares and Ashley has 9%,how come Ashley is the boss?Because Ashley's loans are keeping the lights on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrasbraw Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Because Ashley's loans are keeping the lights on.But you'd think Laxey who have mire shares would be in charge. Can't see how he can demand that graham Wallace etc leave and put his own men in with the little shares he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 So about 2/3s have done walking away. it just shows how 'loyal' they are when things aren't going their way just like it was back to the Greig and Wallace era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) So about 2/3s have done walking away. it just shows how 'loyal' they are when things aren't going their way just like it was back to the Greig and Wallace era. To be fair, given the level of pish ripping that's going on, you can understand why some have walked away from it all. Edited December 10, 2014 by Geoff Kilpatrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drainfish Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I would have thought oldco would stand a good chance of suing sevco for 75% of the development fee. Will wait and see what BDO do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Of course the glory hunters will walk away. While one clubs fans took it on the chin, rallied round, saved the club and helped build it back up, the other chucked the toys out the pram, looked for anyone and everyone to blame and arrogantly waited and welcomed any white knight and silly spending again. That's why we will always be superior to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 To be fair, given the level of pish ripping that's going on, you can understand why some have walked away from it all. But they are Rangers, Super Rangers. No one likes them, and they don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 BBC Still running the Original Rangers statement. Not bias in anyway ,shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 But they are Rangers, Super Rangers. No one likes them, and they don't care. That always amuses me, given how upset and abusive they get, whenever someone criticises them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Richard Wilson ?@RichwilBBC 27m27 minutes ago Norman Crighton leaves RIFC board with immediate effect http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12178994.html ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Richard Wilson ?@RichwilBBC 27m27 minutes ago Norman Crighton leaves RIFC board with immediate effect http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12178994.html? He was Laxey's placeman. I don't know what to make of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Derek Llambias NED sat in on Telfer tribunal. Wonder if the SPFL will report to SFA the outcome of the appeal and the attendees? Waiting for the day Mike Ashley is pictured outside Ibrox, smug grin on his face, swinging the keys round his head, a stall set up selling Rangers gear with a Sports Direct card machine, Lewis McLeod stripped out in Newcastle gear and the Rangers team head to toe in Lonsdale - singing away 'I have no influnce Stewart, I have no influence' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 AndyBear ?@andybearz 4m4 minutes ago @tedermeatballs @GersnetOnline any info on why Crichton has left ? keith jackson ?@tedermeatballs 3m3 minutes ago @andybearz @GersnetOnline i'm hearing it was not through choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Crichton walks/pushed but rest assured he goes with full pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Crichton walks/pushed but rest assured he goes with full pockets. I have my doubts on that one. It is the position of Laxey that is of most interest now. Have they swapped sides against MASH? Will it change the voting dynamics at the AGM? Will Laxey look to sell up? The notice to AIM was brief in the extreme "The Company announces that Norman Crighton has left the Board of Rangers with immediate effect.". There was no thanks for his contribution or wishing him well in the future. Who ever wrote it or instructed someone to write it wasn't a happy chappie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I have my doubts on that one. It is the position of Laxey that is of most interest now. Have they swapped sides against MASH? Will it change the voting dynamics at the AGM? Will Laxey look to sell up? The notice to AIM was brief in the extreme "The Company announces that Norman Crighton has left the Board of Rangers with immediate effect.". There was no thanks for his contribution or wishing him well in the future. Who ever wrote it or instructed someone to write it wasn't a happy chappie. Makes you wonder what the problem was then if he seems to have got short shrift. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) So are NEWCO 2 years old or not, this is some fecking circus , the world of football looking in must be peshing themselves at the state of this affair, belongs in a sci fi film. lol. Edited December 10, 2014 by maroonlegions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drainfish Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 So are NEWCO 2 years old or not, this is some fecking circus , the world of football looking in must be peshing themselves at the state of this affair, belongs in a sci fi film. lol. The tail wags the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amjam Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Of course they are two years old. When you cut through all the obfuscation the fact is they were liquidated. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmiyaHearts Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Richard Wilson ?@RichwilBBC 27m27 minutes ago Norman Crighton leaves RIFC board with immediate effect http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12178994.html ? I don't believe it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Of course they are two years old. When you cut through all the obfuscation the fact is they were liquidated. It's that simple. Aye one would like to think so, not simple enough for some of the sports writers of some tabloids though.lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts