The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Diadora Van Basten]

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 whole admin business was very dodgy.

 

It was widely reported that the only time Craig Whyte appeared worried was when it appeared that Duff and Phelps were not going to be appointed as administrators.

 

There does not appear to have been any attempt to cut costs.

 

The administrators took the SFA to court to fight the registration ban.

 

The costs for administration were very high substantially higher than for Hearts.

 

The amount received for the assets were almost exactly the same as the administrator costs.

 

The administrators had a valuation of the assets done but never released the valuations.

[I.T.K]

Just thinking... Green, sold the oldco assets for ?5 million to newco.

 

This is being viewed as a wee bid dodgy and may involve the assets being returned to oldco. 

 

I wondering what would happen to the ?5 million? Would that go back to Newco?

 

As an example, A kid innocently buys a bike that turned out to be stolen. If the seller kid gets caught and his parents get involved (administrators) and take is his piggy bank. Would they be obliged to refund the kid that bought the bike?   

[I P Knightley]

Factor in maintenance costs and you are nearer 10m

With or without maintenance, there's little doubt that Ibrox as a piece of property should have fetched at least 10 time what it did.

 

As liquidators, D&P were 'employed' by creditors to generate as much cash as they could from the assets of the liquidated company to pay off debts. There should have been no loyalty or even reference to the football club, let alone the bending over backwards to find a buyer of the business - it was liquidation, not administration. 

 

The fact that there is a value in there for player registrations also stinks. The players had been contracted to the company that had then been put into liquidation. Unless I'm horribly wide of the mark, that meant that, in fact, there were no contracts to speak of - the players were free agents; there wasn't a football club for them.

 

I think that puts D&P in very deep doo-doo; they just didn't do their jobs as the engagement would have suggested to me (long time since I did any Insolvency law so fully appreciate I could be out of date.)

 

Establishing a definite link to Whyte and Green in the stitch up process is the key. 

[davieholt]

With or without maintenance, there's little doubt that Ibrox as a piece of property should have fetched at least 10 time what it did.

 

As liquidators, D&P were 'employed' by creditors to generate as much cash as they could from the assets of the liquidated company to pay off debts. There should have been no loyalty or even reference to the football club, let alone the bending over backwards to find a buyer of the business - it was liquidation, not administration. 

 

The fact that there is a value in there for player registrations also stinks. The players had been contracted to the company that had then been put into liquidation. Unless I'm horribly wide of the mark, that meant that, in fact, there were no contracts to speak of - the players were free agents; there wasn't a football club for them.

 

I think that puts D&P in very deep doo-doo; they just didn't do their jobs as the engagement would have suggested to me (long time since I did any Insolvency law so fully appreciate I could be out of date.)

 

Establishing a definite link to Whyte and Green in the stitch up process is the key. 

 

At the time D&P sold Ibrox and Rangers 'history', they were in administration not liquidation. I have no idea who the administrators answer to or act for but since it isn't liquidation it can't just be the creditors. Having said that, selling for a pittance short changed the creditors and if it was all part of an organised fraud then I would think BDO will be watching carefully. 

[Tasavallan]

 

As liquidators, D&P were 'employed' by creditors to generate as much cash as they could from the assets of the liquidated company to pay off debts. 

 

 

Were D&P not appointed as Administrators by Whyte to run Rangers FC before they went into Liquidation?   Once they went into Liquidation, BDO were appointed by the creditors (HMRC) as Liquidators of Oldco. 

[Footballfirst]

There is a fair amount of information from D&P about the offers in the first creditors report following the rejection of the CVA.

 

 

 

5. Sale of the Business and Assets

 

Interested Parties

 

5.1 As detailed in the Proposals, after undertaking a widely publicised marketing campaign indicative offers for the business were requested by 16 March 2012 with best and final offers to be received on 4 April 2012.

 

5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company.

 

5.3 A large number of unsubstantiated offers were received but each party seeking to submit an offer was asked to provide proof of available funding and an outline of the terms of the offer. Of the offers received, three credible indicative offers were received on 16 March 2012 deadline and one further credible offer was received on 23 March 2012. The key terms of each of these offers are summarised overleaf:

 

Offer 1 ? Party 1
5.4 A sale of the Company?s business and assets for ?25m. No CVA proposal required.

 

Offer 2 ? Party 2
5.5 Consideration of ?5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal.

 

Offer 3 ? Party 3
5.6 Consideration of ?10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company?s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process.

 

Offer 4 ? Party 4
5.7 Consideration of ?10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company?s shares directly.

 

5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin.

 

Best and Final Offers
5.18 It was apparent that although Offer 1 offered the highest return to creditors, given the uncertainties detailed above there were no unconditional offers, nor were there any offers which were deliverable at this stage in the process.

 

5.19 Despite the inherent uncertainty, in order to progress matters all parties were well informed of the risks and best and final offers were invited on 4 April 2012 with a view to announcing the preferred bidder shortly thereafter.

 

5.20 The following offers were received by the deadline:

 

Offer 1 ? Bill Miller
5.21 Following further negotiation Mr Miller declared himself to be the only individual remaining from Party one and subsequently lodged an offer of ?10m for a purchase of the Company?s business, history and assets. There was no requirement for a CVA.

 

Offer 2 ? Party 2
5.22 No further offer was received however the original offer was not withdrawn.

 

Offer 3 ? Party 3
5.23 The original offer was reconfirmed.

 

Offer 4 ? Party 4
5.24 A revised offer of ?12m plus additional deferred consideration contingent upon future European participation/success.

 

Offer 5 ? Party 5 (a new bidder)
5.25 Consideration of ?30m subject to a successful CVA proposal. No proof of funding was provided.

 

Financial Fair Play Proposals
5.26 An announcement as to the preferred bidder was scheduled to be made during the week commencing 9 April 2012 however during the Bank Holiday weekend 6 to 9 April 2012 the Joint Administrators were formally advised of the proposed Financial Fair Play amendments to be issued by the SPL. A vote was scheduled to be cast on 30 April 2012.

 

5.27 The SPL proposals as they were drafted would have had far reaching consequences for any of the purchasers of the Club and/or its business whether it was to be via a CVA or otherwise and as such no preferred bidder announcement could be made as originally hoped whilst prospective purchasers looked to fully understand the implications and reformulate their offers accordingly.

 

5.28 Bill Miller confirmed that he would pay a refundable ?500k deposit for exclusivity however, his offer was entirely contingent upon an outright rejection of the SPL resolutions on 30 April 2012.

 

5.29 Party 2 did not make a further offer or increase the quantum of its offer at this time.

 

5.30 Party 3 comprised of a consortium of individuals whose offer was to be underwritten by a third party investor (?the Investor?). During a telephone call on 12 April 2012 the Joint Administrators were told that terms had not yet been agreed either between the individuals in the consortium or between the consortium and the Investor. This cast considerable doubt over the ability of Party 3 to complete upon any agreement within the terms it had stipulated. However, the Investor confirmed that it would provide the Joint Administrators with a ?500k non-refundable deposit in order that Party 3 be given a period of exclusivity to complete the transaction.

 

5.31 On 13 April 2012 Party 3 withdrew its offer of a non-refundable deposit, just prior to a likely decision to grant them preferred bidder status.

 

5.32 Party 4 withdrew its offer on 20 April 2012 citing the uncertainties facing the Club and the difficulties surrounding the acquisition of the Company?s shareholding which would be required for a CVA. However, its advisors verbally confirmed that it would contemplate making an offer for the business and assets of the Club at a later date via a SPA should a CVA not prove possible.

 

5.33 Party 5 failed to provide proof of funding or disclose details of its professional advisors. This party was the least advanced of the bidders.

 

5.34 Bill Miller?s offer and Offer 3 were the offers which delivered the best return to creditors; however on 23 April 2012 the SFA published its disciplinary hearing outcome imposing the Transfer Embargo. As this sanction was later shown by the Court of Session to be unlawful, it was unexpected and it therefore caused a further delay to the process whilst the prospective purchasers considered the implications. Bill Miller asked for further time to consider his position. Party 2 also requested further time from the Joint Administrators with which to formulate a revised bid and undertake due diligence despite using the media to call for the Joint Administrators to announce the name of a successful purchaser.

 

5.35 On 28 April 2012 Party 2 and Party 3 together submitted a joint second offer, subject to a CVA, of ?5.5m. The Investor had by this point stepped away from the consortium of individuals. This offer assumed that pre-existing football debtors be included in the sale. Football debtors held a value of circa. ?3.8m which left this offer at a level of ?1.7m, when compared to competing bids. In addition, a proposal was requested from Party 2 as to how the Club would be funded whilst a CVA proposal was put to creditors. No such funding offer was received. This new offer was made on the basis that this purchaser could and would facilitate the transfer of the Company?s shares.

 

5.36 Following further discussions and analysis of the remaining offers, the Joint Administrators concluded that Bill Miller?s offer provided the best return to the Company?s creditors and was most likely to proceed to completion. On 3 May 2012 he was announced as the preferred bidder, but with no exclusivity arrangement.

 

5.37 On 4 May 2012, a late entrant into the sale process, Sevco, provided an indicative offer setting out the terms on which it would acquire the Company which following a number of discussions was agreed upon as follows:

 

Offer 6 ? Sevco
5.38 Consideration of ?8.25m on successful implementation of a CVA contingent upon Champions League participation during the next three seasons. Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for ?5.5m using a newly incorporated company. Trading the Club whilst a CVA was proposed was to be funded utilising future revenue and football debtor monies, as appropriate.

 

Final Sale Process

 

5.39 On the May Bank Holiday weekend, following dialogue with the SFA and the SPL it became apparent that Mr Miller was considering the withdrawal of his offer. As such, a draft SPA was sent to Party 4 and Sevco. An SPA was not sent to Party 2/3 as it had not indicated that it would consider submitting any offer other than in conjunction with a CVA.

 

5.40 On 8 May 2012 Mr Miller withdrew his offer.

 

5.41 On 10 May 2012, Party 4?s advisors made a verbal offer of ?5m for the business and assets of the Club at which point Party 2/3 submitted a funding proposal for trading the Club whilst a CVA was proposed however the quantum of this party?s offer remained below the Sevco offer.

 

5.42 The final remaining offers were therefore:

 

Offer 2/3
5.43 The final offer was for ?5.5m however the purchaser wished to retain the football debtor balance of ?3.8m leaving a net benefit to the estate of ?1.7m. A funding proposal was put to the Joint Administrators whilst a CVA was proposed to creditors however this offer remained uncompetitive.

 

Offer 4
5.44 A verbal offer for the business and assets of the Company was received for ?5m. No CVA proposal was required.

 

Offer 6
5.45 ?8.25m to fund a CVA, if the CVA failed then it would revert to an SPA with a sale price of ?5.5m. An exclusivity payment of ?200k and provision of funding whilst a CVA was proposed.

 

5.46 Having regard to the remaining offers the Joint Administrators were satisfied that the Sevco offer provided the best potential return to creditors of the Company. Therefore on 12 May 2012 the Joint Administrators accepted the Sevco offer.

 

5.47 As discussed in Section 6 below the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors at the meeting held on 14 June 2012 and a sale of the business and assets of the Club completed shortly afterwards to Sevco.

 

5.48 Following the CVA creditors? meeting on 14 June 2012, the Joint Administrators were approached by a party verbally offering ?6m for the business and assets of the Company. No offer had been received by this party in the previous 17 weeks. The person making the offer was believed to be part of the Party 3 consortium. Notwithstanding the verbal offer, the Joint Administrators confirmed that a binding contractual agreement with Sevco had been reached and the business, history and assets were subsequently transferred from the Company to Sevco.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Footballfirst

[alwaysthereinspirit]

At the time D&P sold Ibrox and Rangers 'history', they were in administration not liquidation. I have no idea who the administrators answer to or act for but since it isn't liquidation it can't just be the creditors. Having said that, selling for a pittance short changed the creditors and if it was all part of an organised fraud then I would think BDO will be watching carefully. 

You know who WONT be watching carefully? Our very own football association. Hear, See and Speak no evil.

[Dutchmul]

At the time D&P sold Ibrox and Rangers 'history', they were in administration not liquidation. I have no idea who the administrators answer to or act for but since it isn't liquidation it can't just be the creditors. Having said that, selling for a pittance short changed the creditors and if it was all part of an organised fraud then I would think BDO will be watching carefully. 

 

Rangers where in administration, however, once the CVA was rejected by the creditors, there were only 2 options - 1) someone buys the shares and pays off all debts in full and company comes out of admin or 2) they move to liquidation and a fire sale of the assets. The administrators are appointed by a court, and they answer to the court, their job is to secure the best deal for the creditors.

 

The reason why HMRC do not agree to CVA's is that this loses the tax payer money, in this instance(because of the pending EBT tax case liability) HMRC where the biggest creditors and they where happy to move rangers to liquidation as it allowed them to appoint BDO as liquidators and to start looking behind the scenes for any wrongdoing by the companies officers(directors etc) and shareholders.

 

I believe whyte wanted duff and phelps in as admins as he wanted to do a prepack admin which would have allowed him to shed the debt and move the company back out of admin quickly, however, HMRC scuppered that and that is why we are where we are now.

 

It's interesting that duff and phelps mention sevco as a bidder but don't say which sevco, sevco 5088 was whytes company and sevco scotland was green's. Other documents(these cropped up on RTC and TSFM) mention sevco 5088 as the preferred bidder but the assets where tfrd to sevco scotland, the reason for this change has never been explained.

 

Whyte asked for the appointment of duff and phelps as admins, this was granted by the court

[Footballfirst]

It's interesting that duff and phelps mention sevco as a bidder but don't say which sevco, sevco 5088 was whytes company and sevco scotland was green's. Other documents(these cropped up on RTC and TSFM) mention sevco 5088 as the preferred bidder but the assets where tfrd to sevco scotland, the reason for this change has never been explained.

 

Whyte asked for the appointment of duff and phelps as admins, this was granted by the court

 

29 May 2012 CVA Proposal

4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited ("Sevco") to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.

 

12 Jun 2012 D&P Statement

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said today: "We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14. ?As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure.

 

10 July Creditors Report

Sevco - Sevco Scotland Limited of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow G51 2XD (Company number SC425159);

[BRAVEHEART1874]

So according to 5.48 a binding contract was made with sevco 5088 ?

So that's why the other offer later the one involved with Walter smith etc. was not considered ( it was also after the deadline anyways so up yer moaning )

They then sold to a different company sevco Scotland so how can the first have been binding ? And it's taken how long now nearly 3 years to investigate sorry can't remember exactly when rangers fans let there club die

[Rods]

Rangers where in administration, however, once the CVA was rejected by the creditors, there were only 2 options - 1) someone buys the shares and pays off all debts in full and company comes out of admin or 2) they move to liquidation and a fire sale of the assets. The administrators are appointed by a court, and they answer to the court, their job is to secure the best deal for the creditors.

 

The reason why HMRC do not agree to CVA's is that this loses the tax payer money, in this instance(because of the pending EBT tax case liability) HMRC where the biggest creditors and they where happy to move rangers to liquidation as it allowed them to appoint BDO as liquidators and to start looking behind the scenes for any wrongdoing by the companies officers(directors etc) and shareholders.

 

I believe whyte wanted duff and phelps in as admins as he wanted to do a prepack admin which would have allowed him to shed the debt and move the company back out of admin quickly, however, HMRC scuppered that and that is why we are where we are now.

 

It's interesting that duff and phelps mention sevco as a bidder but don't say which sevco, sevco 5088 was whytes company and sevco scotland was green's. Other documents(these cropped up on RTC and TSFM) mention sevco 5088 as the preferred bidder but the assets where tfrd to sevco scotland, the reason for this change has never been explained.

 

Whyte asked for the appointment of duff and phelps as admins, this was granted by the court

 

I can see your logic with the pre pack admin thing. Its begging to sound like Whyte got his pre-pack admin but not in the conventional sense and here in where lies the fraud. It would not suprise me if it turns out Green and Co have been paying Whyte some sort of kickback over the last few years.

[269miles]

You know who WONT be watching carefully? Our very own football association. Hear, See and Speak no evil.

They will be , you can be sure of that. There's nothing they can do or could have done about the Sevco I/Sevco II scenario although they were instrumental in allowing it to happen by allowing Newco into the 3rd division.

 

They'll be watching. Very closely. They will be worried because the internet  bampots might still have their day in the sun and all those questions the SFA etc  have chosen to ignore might still have to be answered - publicly.  In a court of law. I'd imagine Reagan & Doncaster are currently visiting their CVs right now.

 

Jelly & ice cream still very much on the menu.

[Dutchmul]

29 May 2012 CVA Proposal

4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited ("Sevco") to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.

 

12 Jun 2012 D&P Statement

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said today: "We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14. ?As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure.

 

10 July Creditors Report

Sevco - Sevco Scotland Limited of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow G51 2XD (Company number SC425159);

 

Yup, that's it, that was the switcheroo.

 

So according to 5.48 a binding contract was made with sevco 5088 ?

So that's why the other offer later the one involved with Walter smith etc. was not considered ( it was also after the deadline anyways so up yer moaning )

They then sold to a different company sevco Scotland so how can the first have been binding ? And it's taken how long now nearly 3 years to investigate sorry can't remember exactly when rangers fans let there club die

 

That's the bone of contention by whyte, how did it get switched from sevco 5088 to sevco scotland?

 

I can see your logic with the pre pack admin thing. Its begging to sound like Whyte got his pre-pack admin but not in the conventional sense and here in where lies the fraud. It would not suprise me if it turns out Green and Co have been paying Whyte some sort of kickback over the last few years.

 

The bbc documentary(the men who sold the jersey's) alluded to this, they had info that whyte had had discussions with d&p about a prepack admin costing no more than 500k prior to going into admin, it didn't turn out that way.

 

All of the above will most probably be covered in the court cases.

[Alva-Jambo]

Surely the manner in wiich millions dripped out of Sevco while Green was in control speaks volumes when it comes to

the fraudulent aspect of the cases? 

And of course the link between Duff and Phelps, Whyte and Green has always seemed more than a coincidence. 

 

Separately " Baldie"   who is in the Middle East I expect, should he delay returning here, will be up on extra charges of evading justice -  yes.. 

[269miles]

Surely the manner in wiich millions dripped out of Sevco while Green was in control speaks volumes when it comes to

the fraudulent aspect of the cases? 

And of course the link between Duff and Phelps, Whyte and Green has always seemed more than a coincidence. 

 

Separately " Baldie"   who is in the Middle East I expect, should he delay returning here, will be up on extra charges of evading justice -  yes.. 

I don't think that's got anything to do with the current investigation. Maybe if Sevco had actually gone bust it would have been ie  if the directors had deliberately crashed the company for their own gain , but I don't believe that's what the investigation is about (looking at the alleged offences). Directors can take what they like , pay themselves what they like , even "onerous contracts" wouldn't necessarily be a criminal issue so long as they trade legally/ not insolvently. IMO.

Edited September 18, 2015 by 269miles

[BangkokHearts]

I hate the way Phil Mac Gollagolla writes.

 

It's in very short sentence paragraphs.

 

Makes it very annoying to read his blog.

 

Maybe it is for the average Celtic fan.

 

They possibly struggle with the English language.

 

Or perhaps his first language is Gaelic?

[jambovambo]

Dear reader, for the avoidance of doubt, this stenographer concurs.

[reaths17]

.1 As detailed in the Proposals, after undertaking a widely publicised marketing campaign indicative offers for the business were requested by 16 March 2012 with best and final offers to be received on 4 April 2012.

 

 

from my experience, large parcels of real estate can take a while to sell, waiting for proper proposals to be formed, it wasn't as if everybody new this was coming to market and had a proposal ready. given that the collection of monies due the liquidators is still on going, there was no rush to sell the properties. the process was rushed through at someones behest

[I P Knightley]

At the time D&P sold Ibrox and Rangers 'history', they were in administration not liquidation. I have no idea who the administrators answer to or act for but since it isn't liquidation it can't just be the creditors. Having said that, selling for a pittance short changed the creditors and if it was all part of an organised fraud then I would think BDO will be watching carefully. 

 

 

Were D&P not appointed as Administrators by Whyte to run Rangers FC before they went into Liquidation?   Once they went into Liquidation, BDO were appointed by the creditors (HMRC) as Liquidators of Oldco. 

 

My apologies - got a bit ahead of myself.

 

Still hope they die a very messy death, mind.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

My apologies - got a bit ahead of myself.

 

Still hope they die a very messy death again, mind.

 

FYTY 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

They will be , you can be sure of that. There's nothing they can do or could have done about the Sevco I/Sevco II scenario although they were instrumental in allowing it to happen by allowing Newco into the 3rd division.

 

They'll be watching. Very closely. They will be worried because the internet  bampots might still have their day in the sun and all those questions the SFA etc  have chosen to ignore might still have to be answered - publicly.  In a court of law. I'd imagine Reagan & Doncaster are currently visiting their CVs right now.

 

Jelly & ice cream still very much on the menu.

I want to believe. I just don't see any scenario were any punishment is forthcoming with regards to past, present or future transgressions by this company. To much back slapping and hand shaking in the shadows of our game by the people that matter.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

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.

 

 

*Imply.

[...a bit disco]

FYTY FTFY  

 

FTFY

[Jambo-Jimbo]

FTFY

 

I should have went to specsavers........................Oh wait, I did.  

[The Gasman]

I want to believe. I just don't see any scenario were any punishment is forthcoming with regards to past, present or future transgressions by this company. To much back slapping and hand shaking in the shadows of our game by the people that matter.

The football authorities will go out of their way to avoid taking any new action, any retrospective action, or seeing any wrongdoing in whatever comes to light in the court cases - of that I have no doubt.

 

BDO (as liquidators of OldCo) HMRC (as major creditor of OldCo) the Courts, and the other Creditors, will not be so accommodating. If they think there has been wrongdoing, that laws may have been broken, or that they may be able to claim/reclaim additional funds - they won't miss.

[Dutchmul]

The football authorities will go out of their way to avoid taking any new action, any retrospective action, or seeing any wrongdoing in whatever comes to light in the court cases - of that I have no doubt.

 

BDO (as liquidators of OldCo) HMRC (as major creditor of OldCo) the Courts, and the other Creditors, will not be so accommodating. If they think there has been wrongdoing, that laws may have been broken, or that they may be able to claim/reclaim additional funds - they won't miss.

 

Spot on.

 

The SFA and the SPFL, will simply put their hands up in the air and say "we didnae ken, naebody told us, we acted on the information supplied" blah blah blah. It will be interesting what comes out in court(if anything) re the 5 way agreement and any other deals that where done re sevco, possibly some squeeky bums at the SFA/SPFL?

 

Remember, regan(stewart not jack) predicted civil unrest and Armageddon if sevco didn't get admitted to the spl.

[jambovambo]

@Pmacgiollabhain: http://t.co/A7oGvdFFUA

Mr Warburton and...Mr Weir are costing the Holding Company Vehicle the equivalent of one Kenny McDowall.

[Mysterion]

@Pmacgiollabhain: http://t.co/A7oGvdFFUA

Mr Warburton and...Mr Weir are costing the Holding Company Vehicle the equivalent of one Kenny McDowall.

If true - that's a decent bit of business.

[Paolo]

If true - that's a decent bit of business.

And must also cost half a fat Sally.

[Pistol1874]

If true - that's a decent bit of business.

Haven't read it, but it that statement could also make Mr McDowall very expensive.

[hueyview]

And must also cost half a fat Sally.

is that a semi-fat sally

[jambovambo]

is that a semi-fat sally

He's been skimming off his salary for moths now ...

[Angus Young]

@Pmacgiollabhain: http://t.co/A7oGvdFFUA

Mr Warburton and...Mr Weir are costing the Holding Company Vehicle the equivalent of one Kenny McDowall.

 

 

So clipboard Kenny is still on the payroll i wonder if Kenny Black and Stuart McColl are also still on the payroll ?

[Footballfirst]

Chris McLaughlin ?@BBCchrismclaug 12m12 minutes ago

BBC learns Charles Green to take #Rangers to court in a bid to get club to cover his legal fees after charges relating to his time at Ibrox

[Hearts007]

Footballfirst, on 23 Sept 2015 - 5:16 PM, said:

Chris McLaughlin ?@BBCchrismclaug 12m12 minutes ago

BBC learns Charles Green to take #Rangers to court in a bid to get club to cover his legal fees after charges relating to his time at Ibrox

[Stuart Lyon]

Green's got a brass neck but then we knew that!

[Footballfirst]

Green's got a brass neck but then we knew that!

 

More here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216

 

 

Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid to get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences.

 

BBC Scotland has learned that Mr Green claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge.

 

His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim.

 

It is understood the fees involved could be in excess of ?500,000.

 

The court ruling could happen as early as next week.

[Hearts007]

More here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216

would be funny if this happens

[Jamdub]

'Oh Charlie is ma' darling my darling'. 

[hueyview]

More here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216

Oh Chuckie.............

[The Comedian]

Mind when the Hun were sooking his Yorkshire taw?

 

It's the least they can do.

[Alva-Jambo]

I suspect he is still going to jile.  Hope he enjoys Bar Linnie, full of bluenose thugs  he'll have to ask to be put on a Celtic landing. 

[Jodami]

These onerous contracts are a long running source of entertainment.

[Don Dan]

Brass neck?

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

i'd pish myself if they had to sell Lee Wallace to pay Chuckie's legal fees.

[Don Dan]

Sevco are denying it. [emoji1]

Rangers deny Charles Green has contacted them in a bid to have the club pay his legal fees http://t.co/bEDMwi8TRE http://t.co/Bi14pWXoJP

RANGERS say they are unaware of any move by ex-boss Charles Green to claim legal fees from the club to help fight charges of serious organised crime.

The Ibrox club insist they have not been approached by the former chief executive who is set for a courtroom showdown in relation to the acquisition of the assets of the club in 2012.

Green, has been charged with conspiracy, fraud and an offence under Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006.

The 62-year-old denies all the charges.

It has been reported that Green is set to take Rangers to court amid claims his contract entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge at Ibrox.

His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim, according to the BBC.

The legals fees are reportedly in excess of ?500,000.

But Rangers deny that an approach has been made.

?500k. Spivtastic [emoji1]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Remember it's the GALS he couldn't lie straight in bed. Green will have approached Sevco.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

From hero to zero. The circus continues. [emoji3]

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18049801

 

"The announcement that their bid had been accepted by Rangers' administrators Duff and Phelps was greeted with relief by club manager Ally McCoist, who said it was "very positive news".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18447530

 

Wattie less convinced though.

 

Memories... *sigh* ... Whoda thought it would end in handcuffs?

[269miles]

Sevco are denying it. [emoji1]

 

Rangers deny Charles Green has contacted them in a bid to have the club pay his legal fees http://t.co/bEDMwi8TRE http://t.co/Bi14pWXoJP

 

RANGERS say they are unaware of any move by ex-boss Charles Green to claim legal fees from the club to help fight charges of serious organised crime.

 

The Ibrox club insist they have not been approached by the former chief executive who is set for a courtroom showdown in relation to the acquisition of the assets of the club in 2012.

 

Green, has been charged with conspiracy, fraud and an offence under Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006.

 

The 62-year-old denies all the charges.

 

It has been reported that Green is set to take Rangers to court amid claims his contract entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge at Ibrox.

 

His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim, according to the BBC.

 

The legals fees are reportedly in excess of ?500,000.

 

But Rangers deny that an approach has been made.

 

 

?500k. Spivtastic [emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Priceless. Who writes this stuff.

[DETTY29]

Priceless. Who writes this stuff.

Level5

[Angus Young]

 

Chris McLaughlin ?@BBCchrismclaug 12m12 minutes ago

BBC learns Charles Green to take #Rangers to court in a bid to get club to cover his legal fees after charges relating to his time at Ibrox

 

 

The Glib and Shameless liar who only spends other peoples money will not be liking this. LOL