Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Indeed. I'm pretty sure that there's no honour among thieves etc. but Whyte is the guy who strikes me as having it all carefully documented ready to share when the going gets tough - which it is. Be funny if he escaped jail by rolling over, especially since he is the one the fans all blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 A little fix to the end there. OK, it may be as you suggest that there are a few who support them without nodding towards the Protestant history of the club but even the most reasonable I know will smirk knowingly when the topic comes up. It's not a feral, rabid response but it's an acknowledgement that that's who Rangers are.It's where the club has come from and they've not actually travelled very far. They've not quite managed ino the 18th century yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Be funny if he escaped jail by rolling over, especially since he is the one the fans all blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 They've probably been sold by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I agree with this. As a claiment you would question how someone could value the assets at ?5 million, then sell those assets to himself and claim they are worth ?50 odd million. Or the situation that transpired which was assets valued on the books at ?135m being sold for ?5m.It sounded dodgy as feck at the time and despite a couple of years passing I still can't believe it wasn't picked up on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 His outburst about the Rangers fans is a terrible generalisation about a subsection of their fans - it's wrong to say they are all bad... but he has described the most angry and stupid of them. When even those educated fans who have become Queens Counsel are singing the sash you can see that the "generalisation" is actually fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 When even those educated fans who have become Queens Counsel are singing the sash you can see that the "generalisation" is actually fact. Our own "Robbie is innocent" thread pretty much explains that facts have no place in Scottish football. Well at least were some are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Or the situation that transpired which was assets valued on the books at ?135m being sold for ?5m. It sounded dodgy as feck at the time and despite a couple of years passing I still can't believe it wasn't picked up on! I think it was. It's just that the need for a "strong Rangers" was so profound that fair play, rules and even legalities were ignored. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were a few more squeaky bums with well-known names, faces and hairstyles around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Just caught up after a few days away. Plenty going on and almost all of which is extremely concerning for those at ?1brox and of course the former members of the board at Castle Greyskull. Which makes a certain poster's comment on a previous page of it "being good news for King" even more astonishing! Really is close to becoming popcorn time one feels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Just caught up after a few days away. Plenty going on and almost all of which is extremely concerning for those at ?1brox and of course the former members of the board at Castle Greyskull. Which makes a certain poster's comment on a previous page of it "being good news for King" even more astonishing! Really is close to becoming popcorn time one feels. Sad to see there are those who still don't want to make any distinction between the various events on this matter but it's to be expected when emotional responses come before logic . As stated before some on here really are going overboard and link anything and everything to the topic without any distinction at all. Dare to question them and they attempt to bring down their wrath upon you... don't worry their attacks are like being savaged by a dead sheep as someone once stated famously. It is good news for King as it shows a clear distinction between the 'new regime' and what went on before. The investigation has been needed for some time and is to be welcomed as answers should be forthcoming at any trial. The authorities will I am sure be asking questions of all the original backers such as Mike Ashley to determine just what the terms and conditions were of their original investment at the time and anything linked to the old regime since then. You can of course comment as I can but whilst there are many questions that need to be answered about the Whyte and Green era the current 'new regime' are not part of the investigation (in terms of their takeover though of course the current club are the focus of the investigation) no matter the desperation of some to link them to anything that has gone on re those two. Indeed they wanted the involvement of the authorities into the matter. King is no angel having been found guilty in court but he has been cleared by the footballing authorities to run matters at the club and so far there is no hint he has been involved in any dodgy practices at the club unless you count the usual football success promises most owners make.. The one major question that still needs to be cleared up is if the original takeover was found to be part of a fraud what is the impact on the current owners and the assets that they control and that will I am sure be a legal matter to which greater minds than JKB will be focusing on. Given the process went through court and it was approved by them it may not make a difference at all to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboz Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Sad to see there are those who still don't want to make any distinction between the various events on this matter but it's to be expected when emotional responses come before logic . As stated before some on here really are going overboard and link anything and everything to the topic without any distinction at all. Dare to question them and they attempt to bring down their wrath upon you... don't worry their attacks are like being savaged by a dead sheep as someone once stated famously. It is good news for King as it shows a clear distinction between the 'new regime' and what went on before. The investigation has been needed for some time and is to be welcomed as answers should be forthcoming at any trial. The authorities will I am sure be asking questions of all the original backers such as Mike Ashley to determine just what the terms and conditions were of their original investment at the time and anything linked to the old regime since then. You can of course comment as I can but whilst there are many questions that need to be answered about the Whyte and Green era the current 'new regime' are not part of the investigation (in terms of their takeover though of course the current club are the focus of the investigation) no matter the desperation of some to link them to anything that has gone on re those two. Indeed they wanted the involvement of the authorities into the matter. King is no angel having been found guilty in court but he has been cleared by the footballing authorities to run matters at the club and so far there is no hint he has been involved in any dodgy practices at the club unless you count the usual football success promises most owners make.. The one major question that still needs to be cleared up is if the original takeover was found to be part of a fraud what is the impact on the current owners and the assets that they control and that will I am sure be a legal matter to which greater minds than JKB will be focusing on. Given the process went through court and it was approved by them it may not make a difference at all to them. King has been cleared by the footballing authorities to run matters at the club eh? That'll be the same authorities that cleared Craig Whyte and Charles Green etc aye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 A now deceased member of The Scottish Football Monitor is absolutely convinced a meeting took place in Switzerland with several people linked to Rangers. 2 have been arrested by Police Scotland in relation to the takeover and 2 not. The other 2 very interesting. If he was correct then the meeting was either very coincidental and completely innocent or there has to be reason why the 2 arrested have kept stoom or PS hasn't decided to bring them in for questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 It is good news for King as it shows a clear distinction between the 'new regime' and what went on before. Was King not part of the regime that sold to Whyte? Was King not part of the regime when they went into administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Distinction between the regimes? I think every fan, commentator and expert can already see that when different people take over, the regime is different. In terms of regime distinction this is irrelevant news to King, even if you throw an essay at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Was King not part of the regime that sold to Whyte? Was King not part of the regime when they went into administration? Exactly, my thinking as well. King was a board member during both Murray's & Whyte's regimes which means King 'was part of the OLD REGIME' as well as being part of the new regime. This case will be like a ripple on the water, it's the main players who are in the frame just now, somehow I don't think they will be the last to be implicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 A now deceased member of The Scottish Football Monitor is absolutely convinced a meeting took place in Switzerland with several people linked to Rangers. 2 have been arrested by Police Scotland in relation to the takeover and 2 not. The other 2 very interesting. If he was correct then the meeting was either very coincidental and completely innocent or there has to be reason why the 2 arrested have kept stoom or PS hasn't decided to bring them in for questioning. We're gonna need a bigger hint!! (Not about the deceased chappy - the four who had the meeting.) Was King not part of the regime that sold to Whyte? Was King not part of the regime when they went into administration? I suspect that CJ looks at "regime" as being distinct from its constituent members when convenient to do so. King had a hand on the tiller when they hit the rocks; King picked up the flotsam (or is it jetsam) for peanuts very shortly thereafter. But it's OK not to link the two. As the man who gave us the "savaged by a dead sheep" quote also once said, "Silly Billy!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Exactly, my thinking as well. King was a board member during both Murray's & Whyte's regimes which means King 'was part of the OLD REGIME' as well as being part of the new regime. This case will be like a ripple on the water, it's the main players who are in the frame just now, somehow I don't think they will be the last to be implicated. not quite, Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie, most of the committees of the SPL/SFA and David Murray who set up the charade by bringing in the patsy, who have yet to be outed for their parts in this great fable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 not quite, Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie, most of the committees of the SPL/SFA and David Murray who set up the charade by bringing in the patsy, who have yet to be outed for their parts in this great fable Patience my friend patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Sad to see there are those who still don't want to make any distinction between the various events on this matter but it's to be expected when emotional responses come before logic . As stated before some on here really are going overboard and link anything and everything to the topic without any distinction at all. Dare to question them and they attempt to bring down their wrath upon you... don't worry their attacks are like being savaged by a dead sheep as someone once stated famously. It is good news for King as it shows a clear distinction between the 'new regime' and what went on before. The investigation has been needed for some time and is to be welcomed as answers should be forthcoming at any trial. The authorities will I am sure be asking questions of all the original backers such as Mike Ashley to determine just what the terms and conditions were of their original investment at the time and anything linked to the old regime since then. You can of course comment as I can but whilst there are many questions that need to be answered about the Whyte and Green era the current 'new regime' are not part of the investigation (in terms of their takeover though of course the current club are the focus of the investigation) no matter the desperation of some to link them to anything that has gone on re those two. Indeed they wanted the involvement of the authorities into the matter. King is no angel having been found guilty in court but he has been cleared by the footballing authorities to run matters at the club and so far there is no hint he has been involved in any dodgy practices at the club unless you count the usual football success promises most owners make.. The one major question that still needs to be cleared up is if the original takeover was found to be part of a fraud what is the impact on the current owners and the assets that they control and that will I am sure be a legal matter to which greater minds than JKB will be focusing on. Given the process went through court and it was approved by them it may not make a difference at all to them. Your final paragraph is the one which does give the current regime real problems, in my view. Any doubt about the validity of the current regime's property ownership could snooker future share issues ( assuming they meet ISDX requirements for working capital) So yes, while the current regime is separate, and as admitted by King , not traditional Rangers, a fraudulent transfer of Title may affect them. Why Rangers online fans are so pleased is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The old regime of the now in liquidation Rangers FC included Dave King, Paul Murray, Andrew Dickson and Campbell Ogilvie then Rangers director, SFA office bearer and now of course SFA President were found GUILTY by the LNS Commission of systematically lying to and deceiving the football authorities and deliberately subverting the rules they as members were duty bound to uphold. For this Lord Nimmo Smith imposed the single biggest fine and financial penalty ever handed to a Scottish Football Club. These men as Rangers Directors were culpable and responsible for this. Low and behold the very same King, Murray and Dickson are now again directors at Ibrox of the New Rangers / Sevco fraudulent creation whilst Dickson and of course Ogilvie remain SFA and/or SPL office bearers. And this is good for the new regime CJ? These men should be sine die from Scottish football and probably all UEFA and FIFA football, they are a permanent stain on Scottish Football. Cheats who themselves are corrupt to the core by their actions, words and deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Arrest warrant now issued for Imran Ahmed "believed prosecuters issued warrant following (his recent) statement" I.e. "I will remain overseas until the trial is over, when I will return to the UK" Edited September 17, 2015 by Mikey1874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 We're gonna need a bigger hint!! The information came from a well respected and informed poster on the RTC blog under the name of "Corsica" (where he was based). In July 2012, a month after the CVA was rejected, he posted that Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis had met in Switzerland. It would be interesting to know what was on the agenda for that meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 If the police stop you and find you are driving (unknowingly) a stolen car, the car will be impounded and handed back to the real owner, regardless whether you bought the car in good faith.. In the case of Sevco, if it was proven in court that the assets were in fact bought fraudulently by Chuckles then the assets go back to their original owner i.e. the Liquidators of Oldco (i.e. BDO). King would need to buy Ibrox back from BDO or find somewhere else for the team to play. e.g. Hampden. What is more difficult to prove is whether there was fraud in the forming of Newco and whether or not it was a Phoenix company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmul Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The Rangers/Sevco story continues on it's way, this will run for some time yet. Regarding the asset sale, if that is proven to be fraudulent, that gives king a big problem, the assets would either be rtnd to BDO(as liquidators of rangers) but sevco would get their purchase price back(minus depreciation) or sevco have to pony up a large sum of money to cover their real value. either way sevco have a problem. King also has problems now in trying to raise loans to keep the lights on, as there is now a question mark over the ownership of his 2 major assets(ibrokes and murray mints park), ashley already has security over asbestos house and the car park(these were purchased after the ipo so ownership is not in question). I don't think sevco are considered a phoenix company by hmrc, if they were, hmrc would have been all over them by now. All the court cases are about the sale of the assets to sevco by the administrators and was that fraudulent. The switch in sale recipients for the assets from sevco 5088(whytes company) to sevco scotland(greens company) by duff and phelps will be the main focus, i believe. However, at this stage, it's all conjecture, we will need to wait and see how this plays out. Bear in mind that fraud cases are very difficult to prove. Maybe one of the accused will roll over(or has already done so). Re the Switzerland meeting alluded to above, corsica was indeed a well respected poster on RTC and TSFM, We never got any proof that that meeting actually happened, however, that doesn't mean it didn't. I've believed all along that king was only ever in this to get his 20million back, he may have thought that getting in on the ground floor of sevco would deliver that but it never happened, unless he was behind some of the mystery shareholders(blue pitch etc). Also super ally was a recipient of 1 million shares at 1p each in sevco at the very start, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. The court cases will be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 All the court cases are about the sale of the assets to sevco by the administrators and was that fraudulent. The switch in sale recipients for the assets from sevco 5088(whytes company) to sevco scotland(greens company) by duff and phelps will be the main focus, i believe. The court cases cover both the sale of the Oldco from Murray to Whyte in May 2011 and the sale of the assets from the Oldco to Sevco in June 2012. They will probably include events a few months either side of the two sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The information came from a well respected and informed poster on the RTC blog under the name of "Corsica" (where he was based). In July 2012, a month after the CVA was rejected, he posted that Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis had met in Switzerland. It would be interesting to know what was on the agenda for that meeting. If this meeting did indeed take place I would have thought Craigy Boy would have had his trusty tape recorder with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Can someone please tell me in simple terms why Whyte is still caught up in all of this, i.e. the police investuigations. Is he 'pretending' to have been shafted by Green et al whilst still still having his finger in the pie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The information came from a well respected and informed poster on the RTC blog under the name of "Corsica" (where he was based). In July 2012, a month after the CVA was rejected, he posted that Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis had met in Switzerland. It would be interesting to know what was on the agenda for that meeting. Oh my G ... that's a cracking development. Where's Dk these days? Has he "Jetted out" yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Companies House notice that the dissolution of TRFCG (aka Wavetower) has been stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The information came from a well respected and informed poster on the RTC blog under the name of "Corsica" (where he was based). In July 2012, a month after the CVA was rejected, he posted that Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis had met in Switzerland. It would be interesting to know what was on the agenda for that meeting. Very juicy. Hope it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Companies House notice that the dissolution of TRFCG (aka Wavetower) has been stopped. What cause would stop this action? No idea myself any thoughts FF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 If Ibrox was indeed fraudulently obtained it SHOULD be returned under the law and the shareholders would need to suck it up as its in the prospectus that it may not be theirs, so the company is covered in this regard I'm sure. There will be debate thereafter as to how much of he ?5million is for Ibrox and hence due return. Difficult one as there were so many other high value assets in that total- Murray Park, badges, strips, "history" "titles" and players + Edmiston House and the car park- However finding a Judge in Scotland who would take Ibrox off rangers and hand it over to be sold? good luck with that one- you'd need nerves of steel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 What cause would stop this action? No idea myself any thoughts FF? I would guess that at least one party associated with the forthcoming court cases want the company to remain active. I don't know it that would be Police Scotland, the Crown Office, BDO or another. I'm not sure how company law works, but I suspect that once a company is dissolved there are some barriers to taking action against directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Thanks FF Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 If Ibrox was indeed fraudulently obtained it SHOULD be returned under the law and the shareholders would need to suck it up as its in the prospectus that it may not be theirs, so the company is covered in this regard I'm sure. There will be debate thereafter as to how much of he ?5million is for Ibrox and hence due return. Difficult one as there were so many other high value assets in that total- Murray Park, badges, strips, "history" "titles" and players + Edmiston House and the car park- However finding a Judge in Scotland who would take Ibrox off rangers and hand it over to be sold? good luck with that one- you'd need nerves of steel ... and windaes of reinforced glass ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corryjambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Even by your standards that's a weird post. Q. Why do you always gets so defensive if someone dares to question one of your posts on here, & why do you view it as an attack/wrath when posters have the audacity to simply have a differing view of the situation from yours also ?. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Not really that weird farin. He has been like this since the beginning of the rangers problems. What I find strange is that according to him everyone else on this thread is simply ignoring the facts and wishful thinking but everything he says is based on fact according to him. I have neither the time or inclination to go back to older posts but he did at one time claim that we were all wrong and wishing for the best and that KIng would have a Nomad in no time and a share listing. This was stated as one of his "facts" and when asked weeks later why it had not happened the question was totally ignored. No doubt I will now be accused of ignoring facts and only wishful thinking. The strangest thing about this whole thing is I cannot understand why a HMFC man would not relish the discomfort of that vile institution which has been built on arrogance and bigotry throughout its history. Whether any further misfortune falls on them I have relished every moment of their problems and I hope their problems last for a lot longer for the good of our club and the better good of Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 If Ibrox was indeed fraudulently obtained it SHOULD be returned under the law and the shareholders would need to suck it up as its in the prospectus that it may not be theirs, so the company is covered in this regard I'm sure. There will be debate thereafter as to how much of he ?5million is for Ibrox and hence due return. Difficult one as there were so many other high value assets in that total- Murray Park, badges, strips, "history" "titles" and players + Edmiston House and the car park- However finding a Judge in Scotland who would take Ibrox off rangers and hand it over to be sold? good luck with that one- you'd need nerves of steel According to D &P the breakdown of what Sevco paid for Oldco's assets was as follows: Heritable Properties (Ibrox and Murray Park) ?1,500,000 Plant and equipment ?1,250,000 Player Registrations ?2.749,990 Share Capital in subsidiary companies ?5 Goodwill ?1 SPL Share ?1 SFA Membership ?1 Leasehold interests ?1 Stock ?1 Total ?5,500,000 I have no idea how such transactions are viewed by HMRC. It may be that the low figure paid for the property assets of Ibrox and Murray Park was another tax avoidance scheme, possibly to avoid stamp duty? (that is - if there was tax due to be paid on the transfer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Even by your standards that's a weird post. Q. Why do you always gets so defensive if someone dares to question one of your posts on here, & why do you view it as an attack/wrath when posters have the audacity to simply have a differing view of the situation from yours also ?. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Answer...all comment is to be welcomed. I do smile a bit at anyone trying to infer that I am defensive given the comments made about anyone not following the party line on this subject. There are some posters who comment on this topic and in my opinion post everything and anything trying to pass it off as genuine . Please note as stated before the pre King era was correctly the subject of enquiry and I supported those calls.. indeed the time taken to have police involvement has been a scandal in itself but I don't have to defend myself as a Hearts fan. It does annoy me when those posters who will not see any other view try to tar a fellow fan with innuendo about proper Hearts men etc etc.. silly and childish behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 According to D &P the breakdown of what Sevco paid for Oldco's assets was as follows: Heritable Properties (Ibrox and Murray Park) ?1,500,000 Plant and equipment ?1,250,000 Player Registrations ?2.749,990 Share Capital in subsidiary companies ?5 Goodwill ?1 SPL Share ?1 SFA Membership ?1 Leasehold interests ?1 Stock ?1 Total ?5,500,000 I have no idea how such transactions are viewed by HMRC. It may be that the low figure paid for the property assets of Ibrox and Murray Park was another tax avoidance scheme, possibly to avoid stamp duty? (that is - if there was tax due to be paid on the transfer) So basically D&P let Ibrox go for a million. Utterly mind blowing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altyjambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 So basically D&P let Ibrox go for a million. Utterly mind blowing! Depends how much you think a large plot of land in the back of beyond in Glasgow with a large cost of demolition of existing buildings would be worth. Murray Park, I would expect, would have a much higher value than Ibrox - possibly about ?1,499,999 more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil D. Corners Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) According to D &P the breakdown of what Sevco paid for Oldco's assets was as follows: Heritable Properties (Ibrox and Murray Park) ?1,500,000 Plant and equipment ?1,250,000 Player Registrations ?2.749,990 Share Capital in subsidiary companies ?5 Goodwill ?1 SPL Share ?1 SFA Membership ?1 Leasehold interests ?1 Stock ?1 Total ?5,500,000 I have no idea how such transactions are viewed by HMRC. It may be that the low figure paid for the property assets of Ibrox and Murray Park was another tax avoidance scheme, possibly to avoid stamp duty? (that is - if there was tax due to be paid on the transfer) I always thought ?5 million was too low, but did Ann Budge not get around 79% of the Hearts shares from UBIG and UKIO for ?2.5 Million? I have no idea if making a like for like comparison is valid here. Edited September 17, 2015 by #effzeh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Depends how much you think a large plot of land in the back of beyond in Glasgow with a large cost of demolition of existing buildings would be worth. Murray Park, I would expect, would have a much higher value than Ibrox - possibly about ?1,499,999 more.... This is it exactly the fruad case can surely only be brought if the Police/CPS have evidence that there was people out there willing to pay more. I maybe getting this wrong though. I think Whyte is behind a lot of this latest stuff personally and he will end up coming out of this in not a bad shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I always thought ?5 million was too low, but did Ann Budge not get around 79% of the Hearts shares from UBIG and UKIO for ?2.5 Million? I have no idea if making a like for like comparison is valid here. Bidco's ?2.4M was lent to Hearts to allow them to buy themselves out of administration. All the money (approx ?2.1M after BDO's costs) went to the Administrators of Ukio Bankas in settlement of their debt and in exchange for the security over Tynecastle. Bidco only paid ?100,000 for the Ukio and UBIG shares (the same price as FOH will pay Bidco when the big loan is paid off around 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Depends how much you think a large plot of land in the back of beyond in Glasgow with a large cost of demolition of existing buildings would be worth. Murray Park, I would expect, would have a much higher value than Ibrox - possibly about ?1,499,999 more.... How much would Ibrox be worth on a sale and lease back basis? I reckon you could lease it back for 1m a year and most investors would be happy with a 5% yield giving a value of 20m for Ibrox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corryjambo Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 How much would Ibrox be worth on a sale and lease back basis? I reckon you could lease it back for 1m a year and most investors would be happy with a 5% yield giving a value of 20m for Ibrox A very good point. The stadium would not need to be demolished but could be bought as an investment and leased to a football club. (any guesses who that might be.) Could the same have been done for Murray Park? Therefor increasing the value again and making the ?5 million bid seem very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 How much would Ibrox be worth on a sale and lease back basis? I reckon you could lease it back for 1m a year and most investors would be happy with a 5% yield giving a value of 20m for Ibrox Factor in maintenance costs and you are nearer 10m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Things are only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them. I could market my garden shed for a million but that won't make it worth a million. If however my garden was next to Brighton beach then I'd probably get what I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Things are only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them. I could market my garden shed for a million but that won't make it worth a million. If however my garden was next to Brighton beach then I'd probably get what I want. the trouble with that is, that in this instance, no market was ever formed, straight to charlie at a fixed price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Factor in maintenance costs and you are nearer 10mFor commercial property maintenance costs would be Rangers responsibility not the stadium owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts