Hagar the Horrible Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't think that any of the protagonists have actually got the money to make Newco work as it stands just now. This bitter in fighting is just going to go on and on till they go bust again.Even if they stuck together, and the big investors agreed to the Sarver proposal, it will still take 21 days to call an EGM and then assuming it makes 75% Sarver is only going to supply a ?6.5 loan which is to be repaid in 90 days, ?3m of that loan goes back to MASH and the remaining ?3.5m to see out this season (it might just be enough) but it is still a loan when actual money donated/raised is required? Nobody knows yet what the terms of the loan are? and it wont nullify the onerous contracts. The ?20m to buy the shares goes to the share holders not into working capital. They need money next week, the Brentford money has gone to repay Sandy. As it stands there is nothing left when we play them? unless its more conditional loans. The fans should be praying for Admin v2.0 then do what we have done and stop wishing for a sugar daddy???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris#9 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Duff and Phelps are doing the admin for usc too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Astonishing that USC are using D&P as administrators. The whole tangled web of who knows who in this saga is incredible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Were they also on minimum contracts ?. But he has saved rangers though, right?. How funny would it be if the Rangers playing staff were on Zero hours contracts? They wont keep their lotuseaters like Boyd and Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Were they also on minimum contracts ?. But he has saved rangers though, right?. Of that we can be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ashley and the American certainly have that kind of money Certainly got the money - but I don't think anyone will plough in money into the club just now for it to be flushed away in huge salaries and the onerous contracts. There is a lot of posturing going on just now and the clock is ticking for them relentlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Even if they stuck together, and the big investors agreed to the Sarver proposal, it will still take 21 days to call an EGM and then assuming it makes 75% Sarver is only going to supply a ?6.5 loan which is to be repaid in 90 days, ?3m of that loan goes back to MASH and the remaining ?3.5m to see out this season (it might just be enough) but it is still a loan when actual money donated/raised is required? Nobody knows yet what the terms of the loan are? and it wont nullify the onerous contracts. The ?20m to buy the shares goes to the share holders not into working capital. They need money next week, the Brentford money has gone to repay Sandy. As it stands there is nothing left when we play them? unless its more conditional loans. The fans should be praying for Admin v2.0 then do what we have done and stop wishing for a sugar daddy???? Incorrect. The share purchase is to be new shares issued by Sevco so 75% of the existing shareholders would need to agree to become bit players in someone else's movie. The ?6.5m loan to be repaid out of the proceeds of the share issue. Of course Sarver would also need to make an offer for all the other shares on the same terms so MA, King and the 3 bears could get out - but I just don't see it happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Were they also on minimum contracts ?. But he has saved rangers though, right?. Q1) Yes. Q2) maybees aye maybees no. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfcalum Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Usc stores making first ministers question time with Ashley's name highlighted. Multimillionaire Ashey bumps staff with no notice. Ruthless or what.My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? Edited January 8, 2015 by hmfcalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Why would MA, 3B's and King after investing money in Rangers accept a bid from Sarver to take control of what they want ??? for them then to be offered to sell their shares to him and get out or become bit part players in someone else's game after working so hard to get the shares ? I cant see how 75% agreement is reached here as I dont see what is in it for those that have an interest as it only dilutes their share value? Unless they are so horrendously messed that everyone who has invested recently has had a proper look with their financial brain rather than the RFC one and thought eh I regret this can I please leave through the back door......and I dont see this being the case. Edited January 8, 2015 by Jamboelite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottg71 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? My daughter worked in the one at the Fort over Xmas and is due cash at end of January. I'm guessing the warehouse and stores are separate Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? Yes because as far as Im aware they are closing the depo and moving stock and making people redundant its not the whole USC chain thats going under. Or am I wrong ? Edited January 8, 2015 by Jamboelite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? I don't think there is any sense that any part of Ashley's empire is falling apart or anything (except for the part called Rangers). Rather like Tesco have announced today, they have said "this part of the business is losing money / not making enough, therefore we will shut it and rejig things. Stuff the employees at the USC warehouse / the 43 Tesco stores; they don't count." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfcalum Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yes because as far as Im aware they are closing the depo and moving stock and making people redundant its not the whole USC chain thats going under. Or am I wrong ? The article says the parent company West Coast Capital (USC) Limited is filing for administration... http://m.stv.tv/news/west-central/305780-mike-ashleys-usc-fashion-chain-intends-to-go-into-administration/ Edited January 8, 2015 by hmfcalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yes because as far as Im aware they are closing the depo and moving stock and making people redundant its not the whole USC chain thats going under. Or am I wrong ? That is the way I see this its the depo divison that is being closed and not the actual stores two seperate entity's. They can use the SD wharehouses for the USC stuff but they could not use the SD shops for the USC stuff he is basically cutting out duplicate work. Also it seems he is getting rid of the underperforming stores sounds like austerity to me something similar while come to a club near you soon. Edited January 8, 2015 by Rents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim-jambo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? Saw an article in City AM looks like a third of the stores are set to close http://www.cityam.com/206718/mike-ashleys-usc-goes-administration-hundreds-jobs-risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Incorrect. The share purchase is to be new shares issued by Sevco so 75% of the existing shareholders would need to agree to become bit players in someone else's movie. The ?6.5m loan to be repaid out of the proceeds of the share issue. Of course Sarver would also need to make an offer for all the other shares on the same terms so MA, King and the 3 bears could get out - but I just don't see it happeningThat being the case then, he needs another ?23m to buy out those who wish to sell to him, so he would have paid over ?45m for club value at approx. ?25 there are what 81.5m shares, he wants to increase it by creating another 100m? that would give him 55% min, I cant see this going through when resolution 9 already failed? It would need the T3B + King + MASH + Driscolls + everybody else all to agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 One thing for sure is that Ashley is not frightened or even to proud to call in the receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 That being the case then, he needs another ?23m to buy out those who wish to sell to him, so he would have paid over ?45m for club value at approx. ?25 there are what 81.5m shares, he wants to increase it by creating another 100m? that would give him 55% min, I cant see this going through when resolution 9 already failed? It would need the T3B + King + MASH + Driscolls + everybody else all to agree? Pretty well this. Just don't see it myself either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Pretty well this. Just don't see it myself either Which is why RIFC have said they will "look at the proposal" and release a statement in due course. They only need ask one or two to see that the proposal won't succeed so they won't have to go through with a costly EGM. I expect they'll make it look like they are mulling it over and come back with a "thanks but no thanks" by 4pm today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Need an FF list of shareholders and what everyone bought in at but, give or take a few ?10ks, King and the 3 bears are being offered what they paid a few days ago to give Sarver a 'free-er' passage? It's difficult to keep up but with the other recent purchaser Prior having an IQ 25% greater than that of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, he must be the go to man to explain what is happening. Edited January 8, 2015 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Maybe they all just posturing positioning themselves for an insolvency event ( which will happen if these 3 groups don't put funds in) hoping to pick up the spoils post admin / liquidation ...... just puting that out there not saying it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Certainly got the money - but I don't think anyone will plough in money into the club just now for it to be flushed away in huge salaries and the onerous contracts. There is a lot of posturing going on just now and the clock is ticking for them relentlessly. Aye it does look that way, although I'm always aware that people with that kind of money dont necessarily make financially sensible decisions if the whim takes them. What a soap opera this would make though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Maybe they all just posturing positioning themselves for an insolvency event ( which will happen if these 3 groups don't put funds in) hoping to pick up the spoils post admin / liquidation ...... just puting that out there not saying it will happen. You might not be far wrong with that. In to Administrstion till the season ends and the liquidated to rise agsin from the ashes. Wonder which league they would start off in if it goes that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Maybe they all just posturing positioning themselves for an insolvency event ( which will happen if these 3 groups don't put funds in) hoping to pick up the spoils post admin / liquidation ...... just puting that out there not saying it will happen. There is certainly something which has spooked Goldiliar and the 3 bears and the rest into trying to buy as many shares as they can get their hands on. Why now? Why has all these people decided to buy in now, 000's of shares have been available on the open market for months, nobody wanted them until this week, it's like a feeding frenzy now. However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There is certainly something which has spooked Goldiliar and the 3 bears and the rest into trying to buy as many shares as they can get their hands on. Why now? Why has all these people decided to buy in now, 000's of shares have been available on the open market for months, nobody wanted them until this week, it's like a feeding frenzy now. However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought. They've all been reading A Christmas Carol? No, scratch that, that's the one with Tiny Tim. All been watching Brewsters' Millions, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There is certainly something which has spooked Goldiliar and the 3 bears and the rest into trying to buy as many shares as they can get their hands on. Why now? Why has all these people decided to buy in now, 000's of shares have been available on the open market for months, nobody wanted them until this week, it's like a feeding frenzy now. However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought. Totally agree with this. Why now? Why the urgency when they were available for 18p before the AGM? Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 People, and young people at that, worrying about losing jobs because a very rich man wants to get just a little bit richer, or hold onto a little bit of his huge fortune! B8stard, b8stard, b8stard! He and the illegitimate Govan club are well suited to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 My son works in the USC store in Edinburgh & the manager claims to know nothing about the administration... It's his first job & he's now worried about the ?400 wages he's due - his first wage packet...! Can the warehouse & stores be separate entities...? Close the warehouse, sack the staff, but keep certain stores open...? Probably not separate but administration doesnt mean that every store will shut down on day zero. Administration allows the business to continue to trade whilst it is determined whether it can survive. So some immediate redundancies, shops will trade, a load of accountants will look under the bonnet over a number of days and weeks, then the loss making stores will be closed etc etc Dunno if the Edinburgh shop makes a profit or not? There may be some wages issues initially - maybe late payments, dunno.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynietigers Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Totally agree with this. Why now? Why the urgency when they were available for 18p before the AGM? Odd. Maybe they new this guy was going to make an offer and thought why don't we snap up what shares we can and see if we can make a quick buck out of it ? And nothing to do with wanting and part of The Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Maybe they new this guy was going to make an offer and thought why don't we snap up what shares we can and see if we can make a quick buck out of it ? And nothing to do with wanting and part of The RangersHe is making an offer designed to fail...why? either he is getting his strings pulled, or like Kings Plan A get the club on the cheap post admin. King blinked first and had to put his money in, which I admit I am wrong that he would never do that. but all these guys are all playing the mother of all games. Keef Jackson thinks they will call an EGM by close of play tomorrow, but I don't think they have the cash to get them to that? Like I said earler we will know what sort of future they have by the time we play them, and at a guess that future will be limping on, racking up more debt to people you do not want to owe money to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There is certainly something which has spooked Goldiliar and the 3 bears and the rest into trying to buy as many shares as they can get their hands on. Why now? Why has all these people decided to buy in now, 000's of shares have been available on the open market for months, nobody wanted them until this week, it's like a feeding frenzy now. However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought. Could it be they are trying to be as obvious as buying in "Cheap" - loaning money to the point of being able to force them into admin and manipulate a buyout of assets etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Need an FF list of shareholders and what everyone bought in at but, give or take a few ?10ks, King and the 3 bears are being offered what they paid a few days ago to give Sarver a 'free-er' passage? My latest list which is a mix of STV's records, published yesterday, and my own. There are some errors in the STV records. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305651-who-owns-rangers-our-detailed-breakdown-of-the-shareholders-at-ibrox/ Sandy Easdale Proxies (BPH, Marg, Beaufort) 17,062,365 20.94% bought at various prices New Oasis (Dave King) 11,869,505 14.57% 20.1p George Taylor 7,575,000 9.30% last 5M at 20p Mash 7,265,000 8.92% 3M at 50p the rest at 20p Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14% 20p River & Mercantile 4,704,827 5.77% don't know Sandy Easdale 4,242,110 5.21% various George Letham 3,299,515 4.05% all but 100 at 20p Cazenove Capital Management Limited 2,450,000 3.01% 70p at IPO? FMR LLC 2,000,000 2.45% 70p at IPO? Legal and General Investment Management Limited 2,000,000 2.45% 70p at IPO? Kieran Prior 1,100,740 1.35% approx 40p Ally McCoist 1,071,429 1.31% 1M at 1p remainder a freebie bonus Damille Investments II Ltd 859,521 1.05% don't know Rangers Supporters Trust 700,713 0.86% various Rangers First 610,000 0.75% various James Easdale 572,749 0.70% various Malcolm Murray 271,429 0.33% 200K at 50p the rest were a freebie bonus Phillip Nash 233,031 0.29% various Vanguard Bears 132,694 0.16% various Norman Crighton 96,222 0.12% don't know Walter Smith 71,429 0.09% freebie bonus Discretionary clients of Hargreave Hale 69,450 0.09% 70p at IPO David Somers (Dir) 61,186 0.08% don't know Total - 73,318,915 89.99% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Do any of the Spivs still have rights to take up "penny shares" ? Could be another tidy profit for them if they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wonder if Tom Hunter is anywhere in the background of all this? He previously tried to buy Rangers from David Murray, he used to own USC and is 'friends' with Ashley. I wonder of Hunter has a connection to Sarver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wonder if Tom Hunter is anywhere in the background of all this? He previously tried to buy Rangers from David Murray, he used to own USC and is 'friends' with Ashley. I wonder of Hunter has a connection to Sarver? Doesn't Ashley have a connection to Sarver through some SD merchandising deal with the Phoenix Suns, sure I saw that somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Jambo-Jimbo could you explain this for me "However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought." ?surely the number of shares sold equals the number bought or am I missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Market makers and stockbrokers can hold shares. I believe they can also 'lend' shares to each other so they can complete a buy/sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By The Light.. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Jambo-Jimbo could you explain this for me "However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought." ?surely the number of shares sold equals the number bought or am I missing something. It has to eventually, this makes a market, lots of sellers price drops buyers appear. Vice versa lots of buyers.... also market makers hold stock. If too many sellers and no buyers the sellers might not get out, illiquid market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Jambo-Jimbo could you explain this for me "However today there are more shares being sold than there are being bought." ?surely the number of shares sold equals the number bought or am I missing something. I'll try, however I'm no expert in share dealings. Sold Shares = 139,509 Bought Shares = 139,216 This is copied from the Rangers share site page at the end of business today. The figures of sold shares and bought shares change all the time over the course of a day's trading. Often market makers or brokers hold the sold shares until a buyer comes along to buy them, that is how you can see the opposite happen i.e: for example, 0 shares sold, 50,000 shares bought. The 50,000 shares used in the example were being held by 1 or more brokers or market makers and are supplied once a buyer or buyers buy the shares, the volume of shares held by the brokers or market makers at any given time will change all the time as well and will depend upon the demand for the shares as well as the supply of shares available to be bought. I tried to explain this but if I'm wrong I'm sure somebody who understands this better will correct me, which I'm more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. The copy and paste didn't work so I've just wrote the figures bought and sold. Edited January 8, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Thanks for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 People, and young people at that, worrying about losing jobs because a very rich man wants to get just a little bit richer, or hold onto a little bit of his huge fortune! B8stard, b8stard, b8stard! He and the illegitimate Govan club are well suited to each other. Spot on with this. The obvious parallel are spivs like McCoist doing his walking away financially secure for the rest of his life while back-office guys at the club get emptied before Xmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You might not be far wrong with that. In to Administrstion till the season ends and the liquidated to rise agsin from the ashes. Wonder which league they would start off in if it goes that way? Well the precedent was set after Rangers mark 1 was liquidated, so it's difficult to see anything less than back to league 2. Although I wonder if there were any stipulations made as part of the 5 way agreement in the event of a further insolvency event occurring? Given that the football authorities bent their own rules to enable newco back into the league, would they be prepared to bend the rules again so soon afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Well the precedent was set after Rangers mark 1 was liquidated, so it's difficult to see anything less than back to league 2. Although I wonder if there were any stipulations made as part of the 5 way agreement in the event of a further insolvency event occurring? Given that the football authorities bent their own rules to enable newco back into the league, would they be prepared to bend the rules again so soon afterwards? There's little doubt that in the event of yet another insolvency event with them, the powers that be will bend over backwards to help what ever reincarnation they appear in to the very best of their ability. I honestly can't see how "Rangers" can possibly get themselves out of the mess that they are in without that happening. I suspect that all the recent activity is little more than the vultures positioning themselves to grab the corpse when it finally gives up the ghost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Ashley and the American certainly have that kind of money Except it'll take a 20m cash injection at least and one or two years minimum of regular embarrassing defeats to "lesser" teams, plus some morale-ruining humpings from Celtic, before they can get anywhere near Celtic. Even then there's no guarantee they can pip Celtic for the title any time soon as Celtic will respond with increased spending themselves (and so it starts all over again!). They need a Fergus McCann character - one man with a clear plan - but Celtic were in much better shape when he took over, plus he had complete control and focused on doing things sustainably rather than compete with Rangers on spending. Not sure Rangers fans will tolerate being behind Celtic for much longer. They'll demand big spending. Edited January 8, 2015 by oldcastlerock2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Interesting amendment to the offer. Dangle ?6.5m which they know will see them through the weeks until the ?20m and leave them after a share placing with a war chest of ?13.5m (assuming they blow the whole ?6.5m in the intervening weeks!) If, as seems probable, they're stuck in the Championship next season, they can use that war chest to acquire and pay for unnecessarily expensive players to buy the Championship next season and waltz into the SPL without a bean in the coffers. Next stop, Europe Edited January 8, 2015 by I P Knightley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) . Edited January 8, 2015 by LeBron James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbey Craig Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Maybe they all just posturing positioning themselves for an insolvency event ( which will happen if these 3 groups don't put funds in) hoping to pick up the spoils post admin / liquidation ...... just puting that out there not saying it will happen. I agree with C-B here and have thought so for a couple of days. I thought that the 3 bears and the liar were trying to buy enough of a stake to get the edge in administration or another liquidation. I have posted before that it depends how the contracts are written and whether they would survive admin2 as to the key to where they end up long term. Then Farin posted this today: Ex pats & folk living anywhere in the uk who don't even attend games could sign up to this boycott petition falsely boosting its numbers tbh.. Do all of those 10k actually attend games ?.... On another note. It's rumoured M.A. Could be about to hoover up the whole of R.Retail for the princely sum of ?350k. Some details from the prospectus re R.R. he I am no lawyer, but what does the "Mandatory share transfer provisions...... or an event of default" mean? Does this mean that Mash ownership of Rangers retail would survive another admin/liquidation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Really can't be arsed reading to this thread too much but just seen somewhere that Rangers need ?6.5 million in the next 48 hours to stay functioning. True? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Really can't be arsed reading to this thread too much but just seen somewhere that Rangers need ?6.5 million in the next 48 hours to stay functioning. True? I doubt they would need anything like that amount in the next 48 hours, but it's very possible they need a further injection of cash very quickly to keep them going. It appears that they received the initial payment from Brentford for McLeod, but it was also reported that Easdale's emergency loan had been repaid, so presumably that's the McLeod money accounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts