The Gasman Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Am I correct in thinking that Green has said that the investors who stumped up the ?5.5m to buy the carcass were promised a 100% return? If so, does that mean that ?11m of the share issue will be spirited away? Mind you with Chuckles does anyone believe anything he says now? I've not seen Green himself quoted as saying that, but it's certainly been suggested that's exactly what will happen. There also seems to be a question mark over whether the remainder will be enough to finance Rangers, who may still be trading at a considerable loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamorgan Jambo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 And it appears from where I looked that all share sales so far have been 'off exchange' i.e. there are no published trades I'll take that back. i looked somewhere else and the trades are listed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) TRFC and RIFC have raised the following amounts (figures from the Prospectus and AIM documents) There were five lots of shares issued and money raised: 1. The initial consortium raised ?5.5 to buy the assets plus ?1.25M in pre acquisition costs, e.g. working capital for the ?CVA period?. Investors including Blue Pitch, Margarita, Zeus, Imran Ahmed etc were given 22M shares between them. That money has already gone from the club, but the average price paid would work out around 30p a share. 2. A Pre IPO fundraising collected ?5,575,000, with 8,075,000 new shares issued. These investors included Mike Ashley and Gorbon Ltd, The average price paid for that lot was 69p a share. Green claimed that the second lot of investors paid ?1 a share so there may be a mix of higher and lower prices in that lot. 3. Green took up his option to buy 5,000,000 shares at ?0.01p a share raising just ?50,000 4. The placement shares for institutional investors was for 24,242,857 shares at 70p. That raised the oft quoted ?17M (?16.97M to be exact). The investors at this point included Hargreave Hale, Legal & General, Cazenove, Insight etc. 5. The public offer scheme was intended to raise up to ?10m in return for 14,285,714 shares at 70p a share. A reasonable take up meant that ?5.2M was raised in this offer so approx 7.44M new shares have actually been issued. The total money raised will be in the region of ?34.5M, less initial purchase costs of ?6.75M and IPO placement costs of around ?2.5M. That leaves a net ?25M cash pile to pay off loans or invest in the club. Commitments from the propectus relating to the institutional investors money (?15M net of placement costs) included stadium improvements at ?5.5M, land asset purchases ?4.5M, other projects ?3M plus working capital. (total ?13M plus working capital) Commitments from the public share offer money (assuming it was taken up in full) were ?3.5m in further stadium upgrades, other projects ?2M, then any other opportunities. (with a 52% take up the money available will be Assuming the promises in the prospectus are carried through, then there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of spare cash to pay back the loans far less pay a 100% premium. It could be claimed that the initial investors who were given a share allocation (at an average 30p a share equivalent) will have already made 100% profit with the share price closing at 76p. Edited December 19, 2012 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 TRFC and RIFC have raised the following amounts (figures from the Prospectus and AIM documents) There were five lots of shares issued and money raised: 1. The initial consortium raised ?5.5 to buy the assets plus ?1.25M in pre acquisition costs, e.g. working capital for the ?CVA period?. Investors including Blue Pitch, Margarita, Zeus, Imran Ahmed etc were given 22M shares between them. That money has already gone from the club, but the average price paid would work out around 30p a share. 2. A Pre IPO fundraising collected ?5,575,000, with 8,075,000 new shares issued. These investors included Mike Ashley and Gorbon Ltd, The average price paid for that lot was 69p a share. Green claimed that the second lot of investors paid ?1 a share so there may be a mix of higher and lower prices in that lot. 3. Green took up his option to buy 5,000,000 shares at ?0.01p a share raising just ?50,000 4. The placement shares for institutional investors was for 24,242,857 shares at 70p. That raised the oft quoted ?17M (?16.97M to be exact). The investors at this point included Hargreave Hale, Legal & General, Cazenove, Insight etc. 5. The public offer scheme was intended to raise up to ?10m in return for 14,285,714 shares at 70p a share. A reasonable take up meant that ?5.2M was raised in this offer so approx 7.44M new shares have actually been issued. The total money raised will be in the region of ?34.5M, less initial purchase costs of ?6.75M and IPO placement costs of around ?2.5M. That leaves a net ?25M cash pile to pay off loans or invest in the club. Commitments from the propectus relating to the institutional investors money (?15M net of placement costs) included stadium improvements at ?5.5M, land asset purchases ?4.5M, other projects ?3M plus working capital. (total ?13M plus working capital) Commitments from the public share offer money (assuming it was taken up in full) were ?3.5m in further stadium upgrades, other projects ?2M, then any other opportunities. (with a 52% take up the money available will be Assuming the promises in the prospectus are carried through, then there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of spare cash to pay back the loans far less pay a 100% premium. It could be claimed that the initial investors who were given a share allocation (at an average 30p a share equivalent) will have already made 100% profit with the share price closing at 76p. ?3.8m Hat of to Chuck Green, not looking a mug today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm still trying to work out what is in it for the 70p investors. Where's the dividend potential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm still trying to work out what is in it for the 70p investors. Where's the dividend potential? A tax deductible trading loss..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm still trying to work out what is in it for the 70p investors. Where's the dividend potential? I think a debt free rangers, in the spl and more importantly the champions league are probably quite an investable proposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I think a debt free rangers, in the spl and more importantly the champions league are probably quite an investable proposition Thing is when they get back to the SPL they will have to start and match Celtic spending and Celtic have just posted a 7m loss. I am with Geoff on this one i just cant see a return, but there again what do i know. Oh and by the way, there may also be a Debt free HMFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I think a debt free rangers, in the spl and more importantly the champions league are probably quite an investable proposition The thing is though that their wage bill would have to rise significantly over the extra turnover they would make just to compete with Septic, particularly now they have reached the last 16 this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 The incentive for the institutional investors at 70p is the 30% tax relief on investments as RIFC qualifies under EIS and VCT schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 The incentive for the institutional investors at 70p is the 30% tax relief on investments as RIFC qualifies under EIS and VCT schemes. The irony ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Has a football club ever paid a dividend to its shareholders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Jose Carricondo Perez Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'll take that back. i looked somewhere else and the trades are listed Do you have a link to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Do you have a link to this? I use www.iii.co.uk for share info. RIFC info http://www.iii.co.uk...&it=le&show=100 You may end up having to register with them but it's free Edited December 19, 2012 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 "The proposal for Sevco's takeover, detailed by Duff & Phelps, Rangers' administrators, is that Green's company will take over the club for ?1 plus a loan of ?8.3m. That loan will then be repaid, with interest, by Rangers, by 31 December 2020." From The Guardian on 29/05/12 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/29/rangers-sfa-transfer-embargo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) "The proposal for Sevco's takeover, detailed by Duff & Phelps, Rangers' administrators, is that Green's company will take over the club for ?1 plus a loan of ?8.3m. That loan will then be repaid, with interest, by Rangers, by 31 December 2020." From The Guardian on 29/05/12 http://www.guardian....ransfer-embargo That was the deal should a CVA been agreed, not the asset sale that was finally agreed. It is not clear from the article whether or not the asset purchase loan was on the same terms. Edited December 20, 2012 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That was the deal should a CVA been agreed, not the asset sale that was finally agreed. It is not clear from the article whether or not the asset purchase loan was on the same terms. From memory there was no mention of a loan to buy the assets in the event of the CVA failing, just that Green had pre-agreed to buy them. That would imply to me that there was no loan because the original loan was to the company to enable it to continue trading. The company has gone into liquidation and has no means of repaying any loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerLoser Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hmmmm .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Private Eye has a few paragraphs on the share issue. It claims 19m of the shares sold this week for 70p were snapped up between May and August for 1p by a number of offshore companies seemingly mainly close to Green. So that's a paper gain of ?13m, and even if the share price say halves, a healthy return. Tax free no doubt. Green not so crazy after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Private Eye has a few paragraphs on the share issue. It claims 19m of the shares sold this week for 70p were snapped up between May and August for 1p by a number of offshore companies seemingly mainly close to Green. So that's a paper gain of ?13m, and even if the share price say halves, a healthy return. Tax free no doubt. Green not so crazy after all? Cunning Great how Private Eye have been all over this for ages ... years, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Good guest post on McConville's blog : http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/some-thoughts-post-the-rangers-share-offer-by-den/ "These are tough economic times, typical that recessions happen just 4 years before your share issue. Such bad luck ! The Prospectus didn?t arrive on time to a lot of potential Investors. Who could have foreseen postal delays just before Christmas, who could have allowed a bit more time? Christmas is an expensive time of the year. I for one, think that Christmas should be on the same date every year to stop business men from being caught out in this way. HMRC caused a delay by voting against the CVA within the allowed time after being asked for decision. The plot weakens. Given the above the Rangers Directors are either stupid or needed to grab cash when they could." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Lec3m1pLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 From STV's mobile site, seems the vultures are circling, but (so far, at least) only over the corpse of OldCo, and those involved.... "Rangers oldco liquidators are pursuing a ?25m claim against Craig Whyte?s former lawyers. Insolvency firm BDO, which is overseeing the winding up of RFC 2012 PLC, formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC, is pursuing Collyer Bristow in a civil action raised at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The action was originally pursued by administrator Duff and Phelps, which was called in to run the oldco on February 14, 2012. It claimed that former owner Mr Whyte and his lawyer Gary Withey, who worked for Collyer Bristow, had participated in the "deception" of board members in the ill-fated May 2011 takeover. On Tuesday, BDO confirmed it was pressing ahead with the action, while it is also counter-claiming against Merchant Turnaround, a firm that Mr Whyte has a substantial shareholding in through his British Virgin Islands-based Liberty Capital Ltd. The case will call later this year at the Chancery Division of the High Court in London and includes HM Revenue and Customs and the Trustees of the Jerome Group plc Pension Fund as claimants against Collyer Bristow. Rangers went into administration with debts of up to ?124m, including ?18m unpaid PAYE and National Insurance taxes incurred during Mr Whyte?s nine-month reign at Ibrox. The Jerome Group is wholly owned by the Worthington Group PLC, which Mr Whyte also owns a stake in through Liberty Capital. According to the Worthington Group?s annual accounts for 2012, it was in the process of loaning Rangers ?3m when the oldco was plunged into administration. It claims that it is "confident that the ?3m will be recovered, plus interest and costs". Collyer Bristow, Mr Withey and Mr Whyte have denied the accusations originally levelled by Duff and Phelps, now by BDO?s interim liquidators Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen. Mr Whyte purchased an 85% shareholding in Rangers for ?1 from Sir David Murray in 2011 after lengthy sale negotiations. Mr Whyte effectively funded his purchase by agreeing a ?26.7m deal with London firm Ticketus for future Ibrox season ticket sales, while the club had previously agreed similar deals under Sir David?s time as owner. This cash was used by Mr Whyte to clear the ?18m debt Rangers owed to Lloyds Banking Group. Duff and Phelps was originally an advisor to the takeover and was present throughout his time at Ibrox, however partner David Grier has repeatedly denied he had any knowledge that the Ticketus deal was being used to fund the buyout, although Mr Whyte disputes this. Court dates have not yet been set in the case, while Ticketus has stated it is launching separate legal action against Mr Whyte over the deal, which was eventually rescinded by Duff and Phelps after it received backing to do so for the benefit of creditors from the Court of Session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 When is the SPL due to resume the dual contracts investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 When is the SPL due to resume the dual contracts investigation? The day after the SPL ceases to exist, and the new body will claim they have no jurisdiction..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The day after the SPL ceases to exist, and the new body will claim they have no jurisdiction..? Would the GFA not have jurisdiction as old hun was a member club? Obviously they'll not have the will to do anything but surely they have the ultimate power of sanction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Would the GFA not have jurisdiction as old hun was a member club? Obviously they'll not have the will to do anything but surely they have the ultimate power of sanction. The GFA can't get involved (even if they wanted to) as its an SPL issue, and the SFA would need to hear any appeal. Convenient, eh..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grado Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor's latest rant on the sevco site. Remember Sporting Integrity? WRITTEN BY JAMES TRAYNOR THE shape of things to come, three divisions of 12-12-18, has been agreed in principle. This abomination will now be pulled and stretched by selected members of the SPL and SFL in a desperate attempt to make it more presentable. Good luck with that. It would be easier trying to iron out the lines on the face of the old broad, Madge, in Benidorm. 12-12-18. It?s ridiculous, especially when you remember the two 12s will fragment into three eights. Yet this time supporters will just have to buy into it. Whatever happened to that new and bold notion that fans were all important? It isn?t that long ago clubs, particularly those in the top flight, were solemnly insisting that ignoring the views of fans would be akin to financial suicide. Remember? It was when the game was wrestling with the problem of what to do with Rangers. All the clubs were squealing that the wishes of fans had to be granted. If you swallowed any of that bilge you probably also believed in sporting integrity. Of course it was all nonsense. Sporting Integrity was a cloak of convenience, albeit a rather thin, practically transparent one, behind which club leaders huddled together to come up with sanctions. Rangers had to be punished, they deserved to be punished but it seemed as if additional penalties were being randomly introduced depending on who was in which meeting. Many Rangers fans like to think the frenzy to cause the club as much additional pain as possible was driven by one club but that wasn?t strictly the case. Many fans of many clubs waded in but this is not to say Celtic fans or their club didn?t attempt to influence the outcome of debates on Rangers and possible sanctions. Of course they did. And they are still at it on social media sites and on blogs clattered out by individuals who are no better than semi-literate. The sheer hypocrisy of what is happening within Hampden?s corridors of power right now will be lost on them but let?s not pretend sporting integrity or the wishes of supporters really are important to all those clubs pushing for this change. If they were listening to fans they wouldn?t be sticking with a top division of 12 , and if there was any integrity there would be no rush to bring in changes for the start of next season. If, as seems likely, the structure is altered for 2013-14 supporters won?t get what they?ve already paid for, especially those following teams striving for promotion. Actually this entire season will be rendered meaningless. Sporting integrity won?t merely be compromised, it?ll be crushed but this is what happens when desperation slips in and throttles reason. This belief won?t sit well with the few who are more or less running the SPL and influencing thinking within that desperate organisation but they can?t complain. After all, they?ve dismissed Rangers? views completely. This club, the biggest one in the country, were not invited to take part in talks which will shape the game?s future. We are then entitled to conclude that this club are not important, which is strange indeed when so many fans of other clubs continue to be obsessed by Rangers, who are simply getting on with their own affairs asking no favour from anyone. We do, however, expect commonsense to be applied, along with fair play. Look, Rangers will return to the top flight, which will of course have to be rebranded. Rangers will take a seat at the head of the table where, despite the latest insult of being shut out of reconstruction talks, we will act with the good of Scottish football in mind. We?ll work through the divisions and we will return stronger and better than ever before. This club accepted their sanctions and moved on but too many others have been unable to do the same. They continue their assaults and while the deranged, who are using social media sites as conduits for their twisted agendas, should be ignored there are more than a few in the mainstream still maligning the club at every opportunity. In a BBC radio debate last Saturday night one pundit, in a matter-of-fact manner, said Charles Green speaks with ?forked tongue.? No attempt to explain or justify the statement, just as no explanation was offered when another radio voice claimed there was a dishonesty about Walter Smith when he went public with a late bid for the club. Word of advice gentlemen. From now on be very careful when talking or writing about this club. To paraphrase something said about another club, Rangers will not be treated less than others. And although there is no desire to pick fights, be assured that no one will attack Rangers with impunity. Better, however, to quote Bill Struth: ?Never fear, inevitably we shall have our years of failure and when they arrive, we must reveal tolerance and sanity. You do that, you will emerge stronger than before.? Tolerance and sanity. That?s what Rangers will demonstrate and maintain, especially when back at the summit. After all, someone has to. 12-12-18. Dear God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Jabba is learning fast eh?? When in doubt blame the hooped demons and their support for the mess you are in. All that's missing from that statement is an FTP on the bottom to get the masses (pun intended) onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 People actually visit the Sevco website? As for Jabba, it must be feeding time (mmmmm, lamb). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor appears slightly less pro-rangers than he used to in the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor appears slightly less pro-rangers than he used to in the record. You think so? 'In a BBC radio debate last Saturday night one pundit, in a matter-of-fact manner, said Charles Green speaks with ?forked tongue.? No attempt to explain or justify the statement, just as no explanation was offered when another radio voice claimed there was a dishonesty about Walter Smith when he went public with a late bid for the club. Word of advice gentlemen. From now on be very careful when talking or writing about this club.' Still a ******. Just a bit more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Jabba "The Hun" Traynor lecturing people on integrity - he doesn't get irony, does he..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 This new league reconstruction plan is designed to bring Sevco back to the big table as quickly as possible its a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor's latest rant on the sevco site. Remember Sporting Integrity? WRITTEN BY JAMES TRAYNOR Tolerance and sanity. That?s what Rangers will demonstrate and maintain, especially when back at the summit. After all, someone has to. 12-12-18. Dear God. From FC Dracula that is a joke! Now, Jim, I'm afraid your plea has fallen on deaf ears. To appeal to God when you are a blatant liar and doing your Goebbels bit for the "broad road to destruction" mob is disingenuous and just a tad hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumelzier Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 He's becoming ever more venomous, he's looking for a reaction to this statement but he's becoming a very dangerous man and needs to be reprimanded. Won't happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosscoC Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Should've properly killed them off when the chance was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You think so? Nah, i was just amazed by how similar a lot of it was to his stuff in the record over the last year. Given that he doesnt have to pretend to be objective anymore, it's incredible that this could have been published almost in its entirety in a national paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Nah, i was just amazed by how similar a lot of it was to his stuff in the record over the last year. Given that he doesnt have to pretend to be objective anymore, it's incredible that this could have been published almost in its entirety in a national paper. I think there was once a time we would have found it incredible. Not now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 It must be a skoosh for Jabba writing for them now, he can just rehash his old newspaper articles and drop in some references to why it's Lawwell and Celtic's fault and that everyone is against them. Throw in some FTP and wearrapeepul and it's job done. Agree with 2naFish too, it's a joke that he could have written this and had it published in the record with no questions asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor lecturing the Scottish media on honesty and integrity.... Seems legit..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBTA Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor need to build a bridge and get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor need to build a bridge and get over it live under it. Fixed that for you..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Traynor need to build a bridge and get over it. live under it. jump off it. That's better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 This new league reconstruction plan is designed to bring Sevco back to the big table as quickly as possible its a disgrace. Scottish football is a carve-up, let's face it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) This new league reconstruction plan is designed to bring Sevco back to the big table as quickly as possible its a disgrace. only if they introduce some daft rules on stadiums... it should still be the same timescales for their return to the top league. Edited January 8, 2013 by Mysterion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I think there was once a time we would have found it incredible. Not now though. If all else makes no sense and all you are left with is the ridiculous, the ridiculous is true. The game is officially a boggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Are NewCo cr@pping an 18 team home and away league in case say a QoS can beat everyone else and there is no safety of 4 fixtures against each team and success is not guaranteed? Well I never!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Are NewCo cr@pping an 18 team home and away league in case say a QoS can beat everyone else and there is no safety of 4 fixtures against each team and success is not guaranteed? Well I never!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 only if they introduce some daft rules on stadiums... it should still be the same timescales for their return to the top league. I Hope you are right but i cant help feeling their is a hidden agenda to get sevco back quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts