The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[ghkjambo]

Although this isn't news to many, I think it's an important consideration.

 

Rangers are not in a good position to take a 25 point hit and guarantee a play-off place. The league is nearly half way through and the 5th placed team is likely to be 8 to 11 points behind Rangers after game 18. The 5 top teams seem to be fairly clear now and there are some teams in the bottom half who are really struggling (hence will be "easy" points for all of the top half).

 

Should there be an admin event, complete with the punting of some players, it's not going to be easy for Rangers to make up the deficit of 17 to 14 points on the 4th placed team. I'd say the best they could hope for is being in the first of the play-off games, so needing to beat 3 teams to gain promotion (3rd or 4th in league).

 

IF admin is being considered then it might be that a "cushion" is being sought before doing so. However, the poor performance of the team and management mean that there is no such cushion and there isn't one on the horizon. I think that the tight scrap for 3rd (as is) is seriously curtailing options for the Ibrox board.

 

So...

 

Rangers will have to struggle on, if they can, trying to gain promotion. If they do get through the playoffs it's possible they will do admin in the Summer! Starting the Premiership on -25 would be hard for their supporters to take but it would be the only way to get rid of the onerous contracts (assuming Ashley is in charge of the process to protect his interests). Ally McCoist might be the scapegoat for such a move if he's still there, or he could be the excuse rolled out if a calculated (points rather than financial) gamble is taken on admin this season (although admin could very easily be forced financially, if Ashley withdraws support).

 

As insane as it sounds, I think a Summer admin with Ashley dictating the future shape of the Ibrox outfit is the most likely outcome. Of course, their season ticket sales would be already done and dusted by the time they push the button on a pre-pack admin so they don't suffer from a reduction in uptake - although that's going to be tricky for them regardless. It's Ashley's decision about admin, his man knows the financial situation and is CEO; I think season ticket sales and any share offering will now be orchestrated to fit with the plan he has.

 

It's a real mess for them, if they drop further points they can't afford to lose 25 by going into admin but if they gain on us they can't afford the -25 as they will then lose the chance to catch us (not that they will). Plus they have a lame duck manager and a playing squad that isn't likely to perform for anyone. Glorious.

[gashauskis9]

 

28k.

Interestingly enough, at FT yesterday every game had an attendance figure up except the Huns. Clearly taking time to fabricate something or the BBC were trying to protect their wee lambs.

[I P Knightley]

Whether they have 14 or 18,000 there, everyone knows that they are making up the figures of 28,000. To continue with that pretence is desperate, perhaps arrogant.

 

It's like the aged relative who persists in wearing a wig, even though everyone can see the join.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Whether they have 14 or 18,000 there, everyone knows that they are making up the figures of 28,000. To continue with that pretence is desperate, perhaps arrogant.

 

It's like the aged relative who persists in wearing a wig, even though everyone can see the join.

 

It also keeps up the pretence that they are still a big club or at least as big as before.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Mikey1874]

It also keeps up the pretence that they are still a big club or at least as big as before.

there may be something that it is easier and cheaper to count tickets sold as Hearts do too but agree

 

Celtic and Rangers both - Marketing themselves as big clubs

[Paolo]

Hibs also do it.

[Tasavallan]

 

The hordes that wee missing from 1979-86 came back because they wee more or less guaranteed winning the league with Butcher, Woods, Roberts etc. I don't see any Rangers manager in the foreseeable future getting a warchest that will overcome their partners in crime within 2-3 years. And the hun don't do patience so until Ashley pumps in 50m I'm not worried

 

This.

 

With Minty's millions Souness/Smith were able to attract quality players to Scotland from England (and beyond) with the additional carrot of European football. Look at the premiership now, it is full of foreign players all on exorbitant wages. Bringing this quality of player to Scotland is just not financially viable in the long term even with Mash's billions.

 

Ashley will need to be willing to lose a considerable amount of money in the short term just to get Sevco to a position where they are competitive on and off the field.

 

Personally, I do not see Ashley's game plan. Whatever it is, it will involve making a profit. Which, with the amount needed to fill the money pit, I just cannot see that there is a profit to be made out of a lame duck.

[scott_jambo]

Whether they have 14 or 18,000 there, everyone knows that they are making up the figures of 28,000. To continue with that pretence is desperate, perhaps arrogant.

 

It's like the aged relative who persists in wearing a wig, even though everyone can see the join.

 

They aren't making up the figures.

It's just the season ticket holders plus the punters through the gate. Hardly rocket science and something many clubs do, including Hearts, Celtic and probably Hibs.

[Guess The Crowd]

Although this isn't news to many, I think it's an important consideration.

Rangers are not in a good position to take a 25 point hit and guarantee a play-off place. The league is nearly half way through and the 5th placed team is likely to be 8 to 11 points behind Rangers after game 18. The 5 top teams seem to be fairly clear now and there are some teams in the bottom half who are really struggling (hence will be "easy" points for all of the top half).

Should there be an admin event, complete with the punting of some players, it's not going to be easy for Rangers to make up the deficit of 17 to 14 points on the 4th placed team. I'd say the best they could hope for is being in the first of the play-off games, so needing to beat 3 teams to gain promotion (3rd or 4th in league).

IF admin is being considered then it might be that a "cushion" is being sought before doing so. However, the poor performance of the team and management mean that there is no such cushion and there isn't one on the horizon. I think that the tight scrap for 3rd (as is) is seriously curtailing options for the Ibrox board.

So...

Rangers will have to struggle on, if they can, trying to gain promotion. If they do get through the playoffs it's possible they will do admin in the Summer! Starting the Premiership on -25 would be hard for their supporters to take but it would be the only way to get rid of the onerous contracts (assuming Ashley is in charge of the process to protect his interests). Ally McCoist might be the scapegoat for such a move if he's still there, or he could be the excuse rolled out if a calculated (points rather than financial) gamble is taken on admin this season (although admin could very easily be forced financially, if Ashley withdraws support).

As insane as it sounds, I think a Summer admin with Ashley dictating the future shape of the Ibrox outfit is the most likely outcome. Of course, their season ticket sales would be already done and dusted by the time they push the button on a pre-pack admin so they don't suffer from a reduction in uptake - although that's going to be tricky for them regardless. It's Ashley's decision about admin, his man knows the financial situation and is CEO; I think season ticket sales and any share offering will now be orchestrated to fit with the plan he has.

It's a real mess for them, if they drop further points they can't afford to lose 25 by going into admin but if they gain on us they can't afford the -25 as they will then lose the chance to catch us (not that they will). Plus they have a lame duck manager and a playing squad that isn't likely to perform for anyone. Glorious.

Interesting post. I found myself last night doing the same sums, and concluded that they'd be unlikely to make the top 4 in the event of a 25 point deduction, for the same reasons you state. However, if they go into admin at all, it will be soon I think. If they make it to the summer, they'll survive I reckon.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Has MA even been to see them play yet?  They are Leeds in everything apart from name!!!  The downward spiral into the abyss has started and when you look at this list as whats wrong, it will be a long painful path to recovery, and when you have a fan base built on a mixture of bigotry and glory hunting.  We at least appreciate the journey and celebrate our success so much more, but we also accept it is a roller coaster, and when you are the lowest ebb like us last season, that's when fans become supporters.  but add to this if I have missed something: 

 

MA has only given them loans so far, not donations

It needs 31k supports paying to break even when hosting a game

Ibrox needs approx. ?8m spent on it to return it back to a standard.

They have relied on an outdated approach of living for today, and the old has beens just are not up to it?

Their squad is just not up to SPFL standard

Their wage bill is within excellent parameters compared to turnover, yet they still spend twice as much as they bring in.

They don't have banking facilities with overdraft.

No cash left and ?3m directors loan outstanding

The last share issue just made it over the line

Their saviour in MA is both neither welcome by the fans, and will force the SFA to issue sanctions as per major rule break

Their preferred saviour is a convicted tax fraudster, how will that sit with the SFA, notwithstanding he is a bit of a blether

They have to spend over the odds to bring in the standard of player we release (Black etc)

Next year season ticket sales will drop further

They cant afford to get rid of a failed manager

They are forced to keep him

The merchandise is not theirs

Catering income is not theirs

Several other undisclosed onerous contracts

 

 

Inside 5 years the rest of the league will just accept Rangers as that team that used to be big, the league will move on, and another NEW firm will rise, all for the good of the game

[Hagar the Horrible]

Interesting post. I found myself last night doing the same sums, and concluded that they'd be unlikely to make the top 4 in the event of a 25 point deduction, for the same reasons you state. However, if they go into admin at all, it will be soon I think. If they make it to the summer, they'll survive I reckon.

If they went into admin, they would be right now on 10 points which is 16 behind Falkirk, and with only half a season to play with a depleted side, they wont make the play-off but should stay up.  Even if they don't go into admin, MA blatant rule breaking will enforce sanctions, that will hurt, either embargos, a fine could tip them over the edge, and points deductions wont hurt MA but will rule them out of the title.  The later would make the league box-office as the play-off jockeying will be brilliant watching

[PJ1970]

They aren't making up the figures.

It's just the season ticket holders plus the punters through the gate. Hardly rocket science and something many clubs do, including Hearts, Celtic and probably Hibs.

 

   Season tickets are tickets sold in advance.  If they sell 3,000 tickets in advance at the Playhouse and then 500 people get stuck in a traffic jam on the M8 and can't get to the performance is it sold out or not?

 

   If sevco sold 30,000 tickets but only 15,000 turned up every home match then they'd get the benefit of all that money in advance but be losing out on programmes, parking and concession sales. 

   They could be gaining on possible savings on stewards, police and clean-up squads.

 

   The real significance is that the lower attendance shows how many fans are so P-d off by McSpiv and the rest that they won't even go to a match they've already paid for.

[Jamboelite]

   Season tickets are tickets sold in advance.  If they sell 3,000 tickets in advance at the Playhouse and then 500 people get stuck in a traffic jam on the M8 and can't get to the performance is it sold out or not?

 

   If sevco sold 30,000 tickets but only 15,000 turned up every home match then they'd get the benefit of all that money in advance but be losing out on programmes, parking and concession sales. 

   They could be gaining on possible savings on stewards, police and clean-up squads.

 

   The real significance is that the lower attendance shows how many fans are so P-d off by McSpiv and the rest that they won't even go to a match they've already paid for.

 

This is all true but every club does attendance based on ST sales and walkups whether they turn up or not The Rangers are no different to Hearts, Celtic and Hibs in this regard.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Jamboelite

[FarmerTweedy]

The December wages must be ok otherwise Llambias would be daft to become Chief Exec right now.

I have to say I don't think there's any likelihood of admin for them in the near future now that Llambias has been appointed CEO. I don't say that because I think he's necessarily a great CEO, simply because he and MA will know exactly what position sevco are in and if admin was imminent or even on the horizon, Llambias wouldn't have taken the job.

[scott_jambo]

   Season tickets are tickets sold in advance.  If they sell 3,000 tickets in advance at the Playhouse and then 500 people get stuck in a traffic jam on the M8 and can't get to the performance is it sold out or not?

 

   If sevco sold 30,000 tickets but only 15,000 turned up every home match then they'd get the benefit of all that money in advance but be losing out on programmes, parking and concession sales. 

   They could be gaining on possible savings on stewards, police and clean-up squads.

 

   The real significance is that the lower attendance shows how many fans are so P-d off by McSpiv and the rest that they won't even go to a match they've already paid for.

 

I don't agree or disagree with the practice. In fact it doesn't bother me whatsoever, it's just a **** measuring contest between fans.

 

The police will hold the genuine attendance matchday figure, should be fairly easy to access I'd imagine?

[DETTY29]

If they went into admin, they would be right now on 10 points which is 16 behind Falkirk, and with only half a season to play with a depleted side, they wont make the play-off but should stay up.  Even if they don't go into admin, MA blatant rule breaking will enforce sanctions, that will hurt, either embargos, a fine could tip them over the edge, and points deductions wont hurt MA but will rule them out of the title.  The later would make the league box-office as the play-off jockeying will be brilliant watching

Since 2012, the only box office the authorities and the media care about is about getting the OF back together playing each other regularly.

 

Rules are being broken (ok manipulated)  left right and centre to try and get these games back on the table.

[neave]

Since 2012, the only box office the authorities and the media care about is about getting the OF back together playing each other regularly.

 

Rules are being broken (ok manipulated)  left right and centre to try and get these games back on the table.

 

Yep. I believe the SFA know exactly how close Rangers are to complete financial collapse and, as a result, will do absolutely nothing to hurt them further, regardless of the number of rules they break. The idea of SFA-imposed fines, sanctions or points deductions is fantasy, IMO. 

 

From the day of Sevco's inception their mandate has been to get back into the SPL in three seasons. Come hell or high water, that will happen. 

[DETTY29]

Yep. I believe the SFA know exactly how close Rangers are to complete financial collapse and, as a result, will do absolutely nothing to hurt them further, regardless of the number of rules they break. The idea of SFA-imposed fines, sanctions or points deductions is fantasy, IMO. 

 

From the day of Sevco's inception their mandate has been to get back into the SPL in three seasons. Come hell or high water, that will happen. 

SevCo have done more damage to Rangers and Ashley could do even more than if the authorities had stuck by their rule boo in the first place.

 

There will always be a form of Rangers.  They could be in year 3 of a complete recovery as a completely new team, full of Rangers people that do have the clubs best interest at heart.  And at the point of BDO liquidation completing and CoS signing it off the new Rangers could have worked with BDO and the football authorities to claim the old history.

 

Oh and in between times the football authorities could have been working towards revolusioning Scottish football forever.

Edited December 21, 2014 by DETTY29

[rudi]

Yep. I believe the SFA know exactly how close Rangers are to complete financial collapse and, as a result, will do absolutely nothing to hurt them further, regardless of the number of rules they break. The idea of SFA-imposed fines, sanctions or points deductions is fantasy, IMO. 

 

From the day of Sevco's inception their mandate has been to get back into the SPL in three seasons. Come hell or high water, that will happen.

SFA cannot deduct points, anyway what rules have they broke now, if your on about Ashley owning under 10% or having an influence then why didn't they hammer us for the same crimes that being oor last owner OWNING two other clubs and having a controlling influence on at least three clubs, oh and just to make you aware any sanctions or fines of a fairly irregular misdemeanour are not judged by the SFA they are set out by an independent panel a'la the Tonev case.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

SFA cannot deduct points, anyway what rules have they broke now, if your on about Ashley owning under 10% or having an influence then why didn't they hammer us for the same crimes that being oor last owner OWNING two other clubs and having a controlling influence on at least three clubs, oh and just to make you aware any sanctions or fines of a fairly irregular misdemeanour are not judged by the SFA they are set out by an independent panel a'la the Tonev case.

Were we asked to give undertakings on the size of shares owned by any one individual? No. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

[rudi]

Were we asked to give undertakings on the size of shares owned by any one individual? No. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

It's all to do with having a "controlling influence", it's been said the the SFA have had some sort of guarantee that Ashley won't acquire more than 10% of the shares (for what reason I don't know) anyway back to my point vlad had a "controlling influence" of at least 3 clubs and a very large influence over an entire FA were we hammered for such misdemeanours or is it just another case of having a pop at certain quarters regardless?

[DETTY29]

Were we asked to give undertakings on the size of shares owned by any one individual? No. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

And what did the rules say in 2004 - 2005?

[jock _turd]

Regarding the whole how many shares can he,MA, have and can he control two different clubs, which are not under the same football association jurisdiction. Is there a possibility that he ,MA, might just say "see you in court" or would that be pushing the SFA just a bit too far?

[DETTY29]

Regarding the whole how many shares can he,MA, have and can he control two different clubs, which are not under the same football association jurisdiction. Is there a possibility that he ,MA, might just say "see you in court" or would that be pushing the SFA just a bit too far?

He could but as with Rangers registration ban the Court could decide that the SFA should work within it's own rules.

[Hungry hippo]

Regarding the whole how many shares can he,MA, have and can he control two different clubs, which are not under the same football association jurisdiction. Is there a possibility that he ,MA, might just say "see you in court" or would that be pushing the SFA just a bit too far?

No point in Ashley doing that. There is no legal issue. It is a breach of the football rules and they can be punished within those rules.

[Bauld]

Been doing some thinking. While Danny Lennon was at St Mirren they had a partnership with Newcastle which got them some talented players like dummet on loan.

 

Could Danny Lennon be the next rangers manager by Ashleys own appointment? It would be subtle because not many would make a connection but clearly Danny had something Newcastle thought their players would benefit from and it would give Ashley more influence in the shadows.

[Jambof3tornado]

Regarding the whole how many shares can he,MA, have and can he control two different clubs, which are not under the same football association jurisdiction. Is there a possibility that he ,MA, might just say "see you in court" or would that be pushing the SFA just a bit too far?

Is this not simply where the sfa accuse him of bringing the game into disrepute and charge him?

[Footballfirst]

Companies House has had a ?Compulsory strike off suspended? notice lodged for ?The Rangers FC Group Ltd? (ex Wavetower). I wonder if it was Craig Whyte, Worthington or the legal authorities who made the request.

 

DISS16(SOAS) 20/12/2014 COMPULSORY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
GAZ1(A)11/11/2014 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF

[Jamboelite]

It's all to do with having a "controlling influence", it's been said the the SFA have had some sort of guarantee that Ashley won't acquire more than 10% of the shares (for what reason I don't know) anyway back to my point vlad had a "controlling influence" of at least 3 clubs and a very large influence over an entire FA were we hammered for such misdemeanours or is it just another case of having a pop at certain quarters regardless?

Been a while since you were on here defending The Rangers, how long before you tell us that we have been liquidated too and that our history carried on and therefore so should theirs, that used to be my favourite argument of yours.

 

Anyway I digress, the rules that are meant to be broken were these noted/created post Vlad when the SPFL/SPL reshuffle happened ? I dont know the answer just why that may be an issue when it wasnt before.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Jamboelite

[Jamboelite]

Companies House has had a ?Compulsory strike off suspended? notice lodged for ?The Rangers FC Group Ltd? (ex Wavetower). I wonder if it was Craig Whyte, Worthington or the legal authorities who made the request.

 

DISS16(SOAS) 20/12/2014 COMPULSORY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED

GAZ1(A)11/11/2014 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF

 

Sorry FF what does this mean ?

[FarmerTweedy]

wow, did this thread really reach 1400 pages! Many more to come me thinks!

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of tangent the thread goes off on when we reach page 1902!

[rudi]

Regarding the whole how many shares can he,MA, have and can he control two different clubs, which are not under the same football association jurisdiction. Is there a possibility that he ,MA, might just say "see you in court" or would that be pushing the SFA just a bit too far?

Thems the rules, you can't have a controlling influence of more that one club is my taking of it, anyway everything he is doing at ipox has already happened here so really don't see what all the knicker elastic twisting is for.

[rudi]

Is this not simply where the sfa accuse him of bringing the game into disrepute and charge him?

They have.

[Unknown user]

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of tangent the thread goes off on when we reach page 1902!

I'll be keeping an eye on who gets excited around page 1690

[Malinga the Swinga]

Once things become a little clearer on Monday about Ashely's intentions, after the Rangers AGM, then the onus will be on the SFA to either stand by their rules or crumble under pressure. Whilst I would like it to be the latter, suspect it will be the former.

 

If they do break rules on ownership, it would be nice to see them banned from transfer window but again unlikely as the 'charge' they are facing isn't due to be heard until end January, which is again convenient for all parties as everything could be done and dusted before meeting as far as shareholdings and ownership are concerned, and SFA can pretend there is nothing they can do.

 

Whether it will be to the benefit of Rangers long term, may take a longer time to clarify. As long as they don't get an influx of players to boost them for second half of the season, then the effect may not be felt by Hearts as much as if they get new players immediately.

[jock _turd]

Ok I only asked because Ashley might have some legal angle on the whole why can't I hold X number shares from a purely investment angle that's all. It does seem strange though that football must be one of the few business areas where people are not free to invest in mote than one company doing the same thing/ making a similar product.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

If they went into admin, they would be right now on 10 points which is 16 behind Falkirk, and with only half a season to play with a depleted side, they wont make the play-off but should stay up.  Even if they don't go into admin, MA blatant rule breaking will enforce sanctions, that will hurt, either embargos, a fine could tip them over the edge, and points deductions wont hurt MA but will rule them out of the title.  The later would make the league box-office as the play-off jockeying will be brilliant watching

I've never understood this automatic assumption that our football association will do what's right with regards to rule breaking by MA.

There's a history there already that they won't.

[Jambof3tornado]

They have.

I meant again if he tries to go to court.

[rudi]

Been a while since you were on here defending The Rangers, how long before you tell us that we have been liquidated too and that our history carried on and therefore so should theirs, that used to be my favourite argument of yours.

 

Anyway I digress, the rules that are meant to be broken were these noted/created post Vlad when the SPFL/SPL reshuffle happened ? I dont know the answer just why that may be an issue when it wasnt before.

No they were not it's been a rule for fecking years that you couldn't own more that one club or have a controlling influence nothing to do with it being der hun or not, it's the petty "they won't do anything about it because it's rangers" chat that gets on my goat but almost EVERYTHING HAS had something done about it, they have now been charged on three accounts, my question is why are some getting on their high horse when the exact same thing was done with us but not a bloody peep was made by these cyber lawyers.

[rudi]

Ok I only asked because Ashley might have some legal angle on the whole why can't I hold X number shares from a purely investment angle that's all. It does seem strange though that football must be one of the few business areas where people are not free to invest in mote than one company doing the same thing/ making a similar product.

He can own shares there is no problem with that, der hun themselves owned something like 5% of Arsenal before Whyte sold them as long as there is no "controlling influence" that's where the legal eagles get involved.

[Footballfirst]

Sorry FF what does this mean ?

TRFCG Ltc was company that Whyte owned and used to make the actual purchase of Rangers Football Club PLC (now called RFC 2012 PLC (IL)) from David Murray in 2011.  That is the sale that the fraud cases are related to.  I believe that once a company is Liquidated or Dissolved, there are certain limitations on what legal actions can be taken against directors/former directors, hence my question about who made the request to stop the company being dissolved.  

 

The original dissolution notice probably originated from Companies House themselves, because of the company failing to submit accounts.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Footballfirst

[Malinga the Swinga]

No they were not it's been a rule for fecking years that you couldn't own more that one club or have a controlling influence nothing to do with it being der hun or not, it's the petty "they won't do anything about it because it's rangers" chat that gets on my goat but almost EVERYTHING HAS had something done about it, they have now been charged on three accounts, my question is why are some getting on their high horse when the exact same thing was done with us but not a bloody peep was made by these cyber lawyers.

Why are you getting so upset when it is not even Hearts who are facing the charges. Surely you don't want Rangers to get away with this do you?

[Footballfirst]

Been a while since you were on here defending The Rangers, how long before you tell us that we have been liquidated too and that our history carried on and therefore so should theirs, that used to be my favourite argument of yours.

 

Anyway I digress, the rules that are meant to be broken were these noted/created post Vlad when the SPFL/SPL reshuffle happened ? I dont know the answer just why that may be an issue when it wasnt before.

Rudi is correct re the SFA rules having been in place for years.  These Articles go back to 1994.

 

 

 

DUAL INTERESTS IN CLUBS

13. Except with the prior written consent of the Board no club, or nominee of a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:-

(1) be a member of another club; or

(2) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or

(3) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.

13.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing, a club or nominee of a club, is required to notify the Board in writing within seven days of any such event of its being entitled to hold or own or its acquisition or dealing with the securities or shares in excess of 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club.

13.2 For the purposes of Article 13 ?club? means any club in membership of the Association and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA.

13.3 For the purposes of Article 13, ?member? means involvement directly or indirectly (and whether as principal, trustee, nominee, beneficiary or in any other capacity) in a club as a shareholder, holder of options over any share, holder of convertible loans or securities or any like instrument; member of a company limited by guarantee; the holder of an interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or as possessor of any other right of ownership or control in relation to a club.

 

The rules that were amended to catch Vlad were those which defined the "Owner and Operator" of the club, i.e. Vlad wasn't a director of the club, nor did he have a personal shareholding in the club.

[FarmerTweedy]

Is it just me or does that quote not have the same feel about it as the one they chucked out for Wallace? Have they just changed the name and Man City to Newcastle??

I think they've changed the photo too!!!

[Jamboelite]

TRFCG Ltc was company that Whyte owned and used to make the actual purchase of Rangers Football Club PLC (now called RFC 2012 PLC (IL)) from David Murray in 2011.  That is the sale that the fraud cases are related to.  I believe that once a company is Liquidated or Dissolved, there are certain limitations on what legal actions can be taken against directors/former directors, hence my question about who made the request to stop the company being dissolved.  

 

The original dissolution notice probably originated from Companies House themselves, because of the company failing to submit accounts.

Thanks as always that makes sense

[Jambof3tornado]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2882220/Ally-McCoist-managed-Rangers-final-time-Mike-Ashley-prepares-replace-him.html#ixzz3MVmUgNAj

 

All speculation of course.

Ashley seen as savour especially if previous ?3m loan is written off!!!

[DETTY29]

He can own shares there is no problem with that, der hun themselves owned something like 5% of Arsenal before Whyte sold them as long as there is no "controlling influence" that's where the legal eagles get involved.

Haud the bus.

 

Craig Whyte sold 5% of Arsenal for ?200k!!!!!!!!!

[jock _turd]

He can own shares there is no problem with that, der hun themselves owned something like 5% of Arsenal before Whyte sold them as long as there is no "controlling influence" that's where the legal eagles get involved.

Right ! Thanks for clearing that up.

 

This is purely an illustrative scenario I am conjuring up ... but I think it probably happens. How can you stop two individuals controlling and influencing even though the only own one club? eg. MA teams up with Abramovich at Chelsea and the collude to shift players between the two teams or even if MA had a brother (or a father and son situ) one owned an English prem club the other a Scottish and the cooperated with each other or one influences the other with player deals how is that viewed? You don't have to own or even have to own shares in a club to have influence.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

He can own shares there is no problem with that, der hun themselves owned something like 5% of Arsenal before Whyte sold them as long as there is no "controlling influence" that's where the legal eagles get involved.

Don't think it was 5%. It was a pittance in numbers but they were purchased many years ago to help Arsenal out when they needed quick cash. That's how I remember it.

 

Edit just looked it up. rangers bought 2 shares in 1910 then Arsenal gifted them 14 more shares years later as a thank you. 102 years of history gone in a second.

Edited December 21, 2014 by alwaysthereinspirit

[Footballfirst]

Rangers bought 2 Arsenal shares in 1910 and were gifted 14 more shares 20 years later. They were sold by Craig Whyte in 2011/12 for ?230,000 or ?14,375 a share.

 

There are currently of 62,217 shares in Arsenal therefore Rangers 16 shares represented 0.026% of the club.

 

The shares are currently trading at ?15,125 giving a market capitalisation of ?941M 

Edited December 21, 2014 by Footballfirst