Bluedell

Wrang again, Davie Why is curious that a huge bank didn't see fit to point out that a blogger was incorrect? Should a bank respond to every blog on the internet?

Agreed. It seems too easy.

Yeah, I would presume it's just for the shortfall.

Correct. They are owed money from the CVA but will not have any claim on future income.

CG said that he paid CW £1 for the shares.

Frankie and I attended a meeting at Ibrox with around 20 other fans attended by Charles Green (CG), Sandy Jardine (SJ) and Jim Hannah. CG spoke for around 40 minutes and then allowed questions for around 20 minutes. This was nowhere near enough time to address the many questions that the fans in attendance had, but CG said that he had to go. This is unfortunate as there were still very many questions unanswered. CG confirmed that there would be no season ticket rises. He advised that the administrators had written to Ticketus advising them that the agreement was terminated. He expects the administrators will put out a statement to this effect. SJ spoke about the SFA appeal. The club made a 75 minute presentation to the panel and asked for a quick decision. The SFA then made their argument (I thought it was independent committee that found against us but it seems that the SFA are happy to argue against us). The panel adjourned for 90 minutes before giving their decision. The club are waiting for the written findings from the judge before they decide on their next course of action. It would not be in the clubâ??s best interests for any protests to take place on Saturday. CG wants to go down the CVA route, although it is more expensive. It is dependent on both Ticketus and HMRC. Cash from CG consortium has been paid to the administrators. A letter will go out from the administrators to the creditors by the end of next week and creditors have 14 days to decide. If a CVA is agreed the administrators will stand aside and let CG take over the running of the club, although he would not be legal owner at this point. The creditors have a 28 day cooling off period but is not expected that either HMRC or Ticketus would change their minds. CG said that the administrators have said that the feedback from Ticketus and HMRC was positive in respect of a CVA, although I felt that this answer was a bit bland but there may be confidentiality reasons for this. He said that the administrators would not go to the expense of a CVA if they felt it would fail. I do not have a huge amount of confidence that a CVA will be accepted. they should know by know whether it will be accepted and they are spending a lot of time on the newco scenario. The current court cases being raised by the administrators will be for the benefit of creditors only. The club will come out of administration when the creditors accept the deal. We need to be out of administration by 4th August. If a CVA is not accepted by the creditors then there will be a newco structure. It differs from the Bill Miller proposal as his would still have a CVA running as well (I didnâ??t understand this point). CG said that he club would still carry on with its history intact and made the good point that the club had been unincorporated when it was set up in 1872. He mentioned that there had been 4 changes in structure along the way, which I donâ??t agree with. He had a diagram which highlighted re-registration in 1981 but this was just the existing company changing from private to PLC so his point doesnâ??t hold up. CG said that he had been working on this since 18th February. Existing shareholders would be given the opportunity to buy shares in the event of a newco. CG wants the situation that no single investor would have more than 15% of the club. He wants to relist the club and his (unnamed) advisers would be looking into this given Plus Markets is closing. He said that the investors did not want to be named, partly due to the intrusive nature of the press, and commented that his own children had already been named. He mentioned that Shepherd and McDonald had made their names public but that had not come from him. He said that there was a bank account with £20m that had been shown to the administrators and there were safeguards that this cash could only be used for the club. After questioning he admitted that there were only â??5 or 6â? investors who had put in cash already but up to 20 had expressed interest. Shepherd and McDonald have not put in any cash yet. I am not sure why he is so vague on the number of investors (which he had to confirm with his advisers). The number who have paid cash already should be fairly clear in his own mind and this has to raise questions. He said that not all 20 would necessarily be accepted as he wants people that would be able to work together. There are some from Middle East and Far East who could bring expertise in developing marketing in these areas and also set up academies. There are also some Rangers fans, and some of the names will be â??majorâ?. He was not concerned about the risk of all the players walking away in the event of a newco as he believes it would be easy to get a team together due to the pulling power of the club and his contacts. He confirmed that he had a legal agreement to buy CWâ??s shares in the event of a successful CVA, and CW was unable to back out of this. CG seems to firmly believe that a newco would have to play in the SPL as the SPL would be in trouble if they didnâ??t and he gave the impression that playing in the 3rd division would not be an option. He also gave the impression that he wants to leave everything that has happened to us in the past and would not be looking for retribution against those who have had a good kick at us recently. Overall I thought CG spoke well but was light on details and it was extremely unfortunate that he cut short the Q&A as there was no chance to ask about funding of the club going forwards together with many other questions. We are all sceptical about anyone who buys are club and he needs to work harder at overcoming this, although it was great that he is willing to sit down with fans and explain some of what is going on. I do think that he is planning to go forward and buy the club as I think that being CEO of Rangers appeals to his ego, something he himself alluded to. It is a promising start and it sounds like he will be open to sensible suggestions (eg the change in policy on season ticket prices) and letâ??s hope that he can continue this interaction with the fans and explain more going forward.

Green doesn't own the club and things could still go wrong with the deal so he can't do anything at the moment.

The page you link to doesn't have much on it now. In respect of the point on the corporate veil, that would be the situation in normal corporate law, but we are not looking at that situation. I'd argue that it's irrelevant when looking at us. A "normal" company" would not be prevented from hiring new employees. It's ridiculous that there are a set of punishments for our "crime" and they just ignore them. There is also the inconsistency with other administrations. If we had paid HMRC the PAYE and not paid other creditors, would be still have been found guilty of bringing the game ino disrepute? Administration is because a company cannot meet its liabilities. Does it matter if we pay A and don#'t pay B or vice versa? If we as a club are being charged for deliberately not paying someone over a period of time than that suggests wrongful trading and it's the directors of the company, and not the company itself that should be charged for that crime. I'd also suiggest that the SFA finding us (or whyte) being guilty of this could prejudice any legal investigations going on and they may find themselves in a bit of trouble.

Does anyone have the exact wording?

Why is that? What is rule 95?

Bwwaa haaa haa. Leggat's credibility finally out of the window.

Yes a membership scheme would be good, depnding oon benefits but it will take time to get up and running. The club will need cash immediately. and that's why season ticket money wioll be vital. Likewise we need to know the plans for the future, but are we realy going to hold off buying a season ticket until we get them? Will the words mean anything anyway? As for the RFFF, I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for the Dunfermilne debacle before I back any of the committee.

The club is still in trouble. It needs cash. There's been many promising to invest in a potential share issue, join a monthly membership scheme or whatever but there's hesitation about renewing season tickets? I don't get it.

I believe Whyte still owns us

The SPL and SFA shares were never with Wavetower. Sounds like TBK are proposing a newco.

Agreed. What are they going to use the details for? Is this some sort of reverse Operation Tango?

I've had business dealings with Paul Murray in the past, albeit a number of years and have never had any doubts about his business acumen. He has got a good track record with the various venture capital companies that he has worked for. I've been involved in some companies that have been dissolved and they have not owed a penny. Companies are dissolved all the time for various reasons.

I make it 3 new offers made since Paul Murray declared that offer was the final one.

I thought you were the one invoking Smith's name last night. Was that your objective? :fish:

Possibly if they were to get cash on a game by game basis.

If it's a newco then the contract would be null and void. If it's the same company then presumably the contract is still in existence unless theadmin process cancelled it. We don't know the financial clauses to ases how good it is.

If Ticketus get dealt with through a CVA then we emerge owing them nothing. If they were to buy us then we would emerge from a CVA owing them £27m. They have already shafted us by advancing OUR season ticket money to whyte to help him buy the club, knowing what he was up to. I think that their involvement would be a bad thing.

Even then, I doubt that he could automatically enforce the FC. Any agreement between the club and whyte to reimburse whyte for his guarantees would be on very shaky ground.

Highly unethical by both sides involved, particularly if D&P invoiced plc.

Not sure that any such agreement between the club and Whyte would stand up. The guarantee would presumably have to be paid before he could go after Rangers to reimburse him and I doubt that he could do that, although obviously we don't have all of the details.