Jamboelite Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Only the STV link confirming there is no issue which came direct from the SPFL i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Watched rep Scot tonight and even if the U.S. Guy wants in he has till Feb 2nd to submit an offer.....the day the transfer window shuts but yes with MA taking things up a notch this is my soap/reality show and I can't stay away from this thread! They also said something along the lines of he will proceed 'if all the figures stack up'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Seems about right. Simple pie chart shareholding breakdown as the battle lines get drawn for that hostile takeover plot. There's a lot of maroon on that pie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There's a lot of maroon on that pie! Something something fell into someone's hood when we scored something something. There's a funny in there somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Something something fell into someone's hood when we scored something something. There's a funny in there somewhere One was too hot, one was too cold, but the third one was juuust right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 You have to ask why Letham and co, or King for that matter, haven't submitted a demand for an EGM yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Fair amount of loans due to be repaid later this year. I wonder what the latest one is secured against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Fair amount of loans due to be repaid later this year. I wonder what the latest one is secured against? The Lewis Macleod transfer fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Having been trying to keep up with what is going on over there, I can safely say I am confuddled . By the same token it seems as though nobody else knows what the hell is going on either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 They also said something along the lines of he will proceed 'if all the figures stack up'. So what you're basically saying is it's a non-starter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Having been trying to keep up with what is going on over there, I can safely say I am confuddled . By the same token it seems as though nobody else knows what the hell is going on either. There's an easy solution to that. Pop over to a Celtic leaning website and copy and paste a post. Job done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There's an easy solution to that. Pop over to a Celtic leaning website and copy and paste a post. Job done! Or quote a Celtic leaning fantasist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randle P McMurphy Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 HMRC would not issue a winding up order unless Rangers were at least three months behind in there payments. This doesn't square with what the SPFL are saying so someone is telling porkies. The fact that it is being reported as national insurance only makes me think this may be related to benefits in kind. P11d reporting and class 1A NI conts. If memory serves me right this is payable in late July each year. HMRC are normally a bit more relaxed about this rather than the regular monthly payroll taxes. Not sure they would be 5 months relaxed right enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Lewis Macleod transfer fee. Thought that was paying this months wages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Thought that was paying this months wages! I think it's been earmarked for about seven different purposes, war chest included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmul Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The fact that it is being reported as national insurance only makes me think this may be related to benefits in kind. P11d reporting and class 1A NI conts. If memory serves me right this is payable in late July each year. HMRC are normally a bit more relaxed about this rather than the regular monthly payroll taxes. Not sure they would be 5 months relaxed right enough! https://www.gov.uk/running-payroll/paying-hmrc, payable monthly according to HMRC. Cant see them being relaxed about outstanding tax for a company called rangers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Thought that was paying this months wages! Only half paid up front, loan secured against the rest due over 18 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The fact that it is being reported as national insurance only makes me think this may be related to benefits in kind. P11d reporting and class 1A NI conts. If memory serves me right this is payable in late July each year. HMRC are normally a bit more relaxed about this rather than the regular monthly payroll taxes. Not sure they would be 5 months relaxed right enough!That would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Thought that was paying this months wages! No, only half of it is paying this month's wages. Another half is securing the Easdale loan, another half is paying off money owed to SPFL and the other half is the transfer war chest. Edited January 5, 2015 by RobNox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 No, only half of it is paying this month's wages. Another half is securing the Easdale loan, another half is paying off money owed to SPFL and the other half is the transfer war chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 No, only half of it is paying this month's wages. Another half is securing the Easdale loan, another half is paying off money owed to SPFL and the other half is the transfer war chest.Funny but potentially true to many a teddy bear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 You have to ask why Letham and co, or King for that matter, haven't submitted a demand for an EGM yet. See FF's earlier post. Even if they have requested an EGM to the board, they can take 28 days to respond to the request and then three months to actually arrange the EGM (and at a not insubstantial cost too). The request may have been made, without being made public as yet of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 See FF's earlier post. Even if they have requested an EGM to the board, they can take 28 days to respond to the request and then three months to actually arrange the EGM (and at a not insubstantial cost too). The request may have been made, without being made public as yet of course.Quite but given their current situation, any procrastination by the board could land them in major soapy bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Sorry. Double post. Edited January 6, 2015 by JohnB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The Board have rejected Sarver's bid for the club. Looks like Ashley intends providing more loans before the end of the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambobiker Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWJ Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The Board have rejected Sarver's bid for the club. Looks like Ashley intends providing more loans before the end of the month. The rejection just being reported on Good Morning Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas-voss Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) They have told Sarver they value the club higher and want more money to sell. So a club that was bought for next nothing and racked up massive debts again is somehow worth more than ?18m Edited January 6, 2015 by vegas-voss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 More comedy gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashauskis9 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 A club that has done nothing but lose money and rack up debt over 2.5 years values themselves at more than 18m? Dragon's Den WTF moment! They won't get a better offer IMO. They've shown their hand too early. Wish they would hurry up and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Channel 13 are reporting that a billionaire has bought Rangers and solved all their money issues, please share, better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musemic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Channel 13 are reporting that a billionaire has bought Rangers and solved all their money issues, please share, better safe than sorry. Is Channel 13 the Fantasy Channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynietigers Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Channel 13 Is a lot of twaddle it was telling people that you can write to Facebook and tell them you don't want people using your photos which is all shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 See FF's earlier post. Even if they have requested an EGM to the board, they can take 28 days to respond to the request and then three months to actually arrange the EGM (and at a not insubstantial cost too). The request may have been made, without being made public as yet of course. Any legitimate delay gives them time to get their ducks in line. Those timings are allowed so that the directors have an opportunity to prepare a response. Of course, that's the intention for 'normal' companies - what goes on among the Spivs of Sevco is anyone's guess. They have told Sarver they value the club higher and want more money to sell. So a club that was bought for next nothing and racked up massive debts again is somehow worth more than ?18m ?18m was for the new 100m shares. If the same value were attached to the other shares, they'd be looking at a total capitalisation of ?32-33m. Plus the liability to redeem debt of ?3m. We all know that the purchase price paid by Green was a stitch up. It shouldn't be used to indicate the current value of the company. At the time Green swooped, the observation that he'd got a snip was based on the expectation that the club/company was worth a good 3 or 4 times the amount he paid for it. Given that the 'value' of a company is based upon its future earning potential, the two major questions that have affected value between then and now are (1) how do the onerous retail and other contracts affect future earnings? and (2) when will they get back to ST sales of 30,000+ ? (I don't remember the timings but seem to recall that Green got the assets of Rangers unencumbered by the big tax case) Overall, while ?32m is a ridiculous amount, I don't think it's an unreasonable response to have given. You'd normally expect a bit of haggling to occur. However, it indicates that perhaps Sarver is not a close ally of Ashley otherwise the response may have been more welcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishguy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 When did they change their name to Rangers International Football Club? That's what they are called in this link :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30692822 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) When did they change their name to Rangers International Football Club? That's what they are called in this link :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30692822 Rangers International Football Club = The Holding Company The Rangers Football Club Ltd = Is the club which is 13 pts behind us. Edited January 6, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Young Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 MA is in the box seat now the three bears and the lying king can do nothing and donkey Doncaster will back down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Scottishguy - My answer doesn't seem to be shown so: Rangers International Football Club = The Parent / Holding Company of the club. The Rangers Football Club Ltd = The club who are 13 pts behind us. Wholly owned by the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 They have told Sarver they value the club higher and want more money to sell. So a club that was bought for next nothing and racked up massive debts again is somehow worth more than ?18m What are Ibrox and Murray Park Valued at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Dale Cooper Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 So I am relatively new to this thread and don't have the time to read all the previous. Are Rangers still goosed or is Ashley the saviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewboy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Channel 13 are reporting that a billionaire has bought Rangers and solved all their money issues, please share, better safe than sorry. [emoji1][emoji1][emoji1] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Any legitimate delay gives them time to get their ducks in line. Those timings are allowed so that the directors have an opportunity to prepare a response. Of course, that's the intention for 'normal' companies - what goes on among the Spivs of Sevco is anyone's guess. ?18m was for the new 100m shares. If the same value were attached to the other shares, they'd be looking at a total capitalisation of ?32-33m. Plus the liability to redeem debt of ?3m. We all know that the purchase price paid by Green was a stitch up. It shouldn't be used to indicate the current value of the company. At the time Green swooped, the observation that he'd got a snip was based on the expectation that the club/company was worth a good 3 or 4 times the amount he paid for it. Given that the 'value' of a company is based upon its future earning potential, the two major questions that have affected value between then and now are (1) how do the onerous retail and other contracts affect future earnings? and (2) when will they get back to ST sales of 30,000+ ? (I don't remember the timings but seem to recall that Green got the assets of Rangers unencumbered by the big tax case) Overall, while ?32m is a ridiculous amount, I don't think it's an unreasonable response to have given. You'd normally expect a bit of haggling to occur. However, it indicates that perhaps Sarver is not a close ally of Ashley otherwise the response may have been more welcoming. Just a thought but would any bid either by Sarver or anybody else not have to include the ?16m+ which the "Club" owes RIFC, because the way the spivs operate if somebody wants the "Club" then surely they have to pay the debts of the club which are over ?16m payable to the holding company. Or am I just talking piddle.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future's Maroon Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 So, Ashley gets someone else appointed in a high up position, they knock back an ?18m bid almost instantly (after previously knocking back ?16m from King)....seems to fishy to me, admin may be beckoning again and they way the current board WANT to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zico Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 What are Ibrox and Murray Park Valued at?David Murray had Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion car park valued at ?110m. Charles Green picked them up for ?1.5m. Make of that what you will! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) The truth of the matter is that it actually seems, from a Sevco perspective, it is in their long term best interests for administration. It means that not so much money would have to be sunk into stakebuilding, the club would start (again) debt free, there would be a process that would essentially control the installation of new owners.... Edited January 6, 2015 by Jammy T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RENE Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 why do you inform Stock Market you are rejecting a 'possible' bid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 HMRC would not issue a winding up order unless Rangers were at least three months behind in there payments. This doesn't square with what the SPFL are saying so someone is telling porkies. The President of the SFA was a Rangers director and SFA official and also at one point an office bearer of the league body for an ENTIRE DECADE the Rangers board ran a deliberate policy of concealing and not revealing information to the league and SFA they were duty bound to reveal. Campbell Ogilvie and Martin Bain and John McClelland all held high ranking office bearing positions within the SPL and/or SFA yet knowingly participated in Rangers deliberate cover up and failed to perform their duties as officers of our governing bodies. They couldn't have acted with any more bad faith towards the other member clubs if they had tried. Those we entrusted to uphold the rules were actually up to their necks in the rule breaking yet nobody was ever sanctioned or even cited with a disrepute charge. And now we are surprised if Rangers appear to not be revealing the whole truth to Doncaster, Regan etc. Also given Regan's recent interview where he stated it was everyone's desire to see Rangers stabilised, returned to the top flight and their winning ways we are surprised that there is light touch handling of Rangers financial implosion when its clear that applying punishments and points sanctions would hinder the stated desire of wanting Rangers back in the top league asap. We already know from 2012 that Ogilve, Regan and Doncaster are totally corrupt and will go to extraordinary lengths to see that rules and precedents are bent, ignored or rewritten if it means they can treat Rangers differently to how other clubs like Livingston, Gretna and Airdrie were treated. These charlatans should have been forced out in 2012 but they all still remain in position with substantial pay rises. Nothing should surprise us if they continue to assist the Ibrox club by their acts or omissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) why do you inform Stock Market you are rejecting a 'possible' bid? Yeh!, I noticed that as well, a formal bid wasn't made as far as I know, according to the RNS statement made yesterday to the stock market there was only talks going on which may or may not result in a bid for the club being made. I mean how can you reject a bid when a bid hasn't been made? Edited January 6, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Just a thought but would any bid either by Sarver or anybody else not have to include the ?16m+ which the "Club" owes RIFC, because the way the spivs operate if somebody wants the "Club" then surely they have to pay the debts of the club which are over ?16m payable to the holding company. Or am I just talking piddle.? I take it the bid of ?18 million is subject to due dilligence.??????. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Yeh!, I noticed that as well, a formal bid wasn't made as far as I know, according to the RNS statement made yesterday to the stock market there was only talks going on which may or may not result in a bid for the club being made. I mean how can you reject a bid when a bid hasn't been made?There are strict rules over insider trading, even talk of a bid should be announced to all to allow all share-holders(even new investors) to either bail or buy and everybody should have the same intel, not just the guys in the board room! In this case the Yank declared an interest, the company are legally bound to disclose it. Me buying a few shares for a couple of hundred bucks they don't need to? me buying all sandy easedales shares we don't need to disclose it until the deal has gone through, however if I was buying 30% then I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts