lenzEK
-
Posts
202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by lenzEK
-
The Easdale's control proxy for 20% and own 5% in their own right (or thereabouts) if I remember correctly. Margarita and BPH only account for just under 9% of those held proxy votes so do we have any idea who the remaining 11% are within that voting block?
-
I do think Weiss was a decent loan signing and offered us something different that season. Inconsistent, yes, but fairly typical of any player at that age and even more so a winger. Wouldn't have been clambering to sign him permanently but for me that was a good example of using the loan system. Still maintain Kyrgiakos was a successful loan signing too. We wouldn't have won the league that year if we hadn't replaced Boumsong that winter and he came in and did a good job. Not quite so good when the move became a permanent one! I don't think loans are any different to permanent deals in that for every one that works there is one that doesn't. Nobody even mentioned Jerome Rothen as yet!
-
We have had a few in recent times that have done well such as Kyrgiakos, Vignal and Weiss. Davis was also initially a loan deal. I suppose the position we are and the league we are playing in make these kind of loan deals very unlikely.
-
Mike Ashley set to bid for Rangers (and NUFC ban Daily Telegraph for story)
lenzEK replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Presumably Ashley is in no place to do anything further with Rangers until he has completely exited Newcastle United? Whilst there may be interest from other parties in acquiring Newcastle surely in reality that is likely to take months and months to conclude even if a suitable price is agreed? A long drawn out process before he is even in a position to progress matters with Rangers? -
Summer transfer window: Official ins/outs and transfer rumours
lenzEK replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
Robbie Crawford to Morton on loan. -
Can you expand on that one GS?
-
How anyone can pretend otherwise is beyond belief.
-
It is complete speculation as to whether the settlement would have been different in the absence of PM's alternative. That is all I was saying.
-
At least £25m.
-
The mythical £100m isn't mine, it was the Liquidators alleged losses. Just because you claim for it doesn't mean you will achieve it and so it becomes a straight forward negotiation between CB Insurer's and BDO on behalf of the Club. I am quite sure that £24m was deemed to be a decent outcome for both and that the Paul Murray bid did influence them coming to a landing at this level. What I said was that there would have been a settlement regardless of any alternative PM bid at the time of Whyte acquiring Rangers. For all we know, it may have been greater in the absence of this alternative? Agreement over the claim has been reached, there will be no big announcement. This is an out of court settlement, the trial having been due to commence in January 2015 if agreement hadn't been reached.
-
This is an insurance claim. The heads of claim is put forward at X and eventually they run to a conclusion. I'm not suggesting for a minute it was ever going to be a settlement of £100m as was being put forward by the Club. What I am trying to say is that this would have settled regardless of any rival Paul Murray bid. Nothing else.
-
So if Paul Murray had not made an alternative offer then there would have been no claim?
-
Yes, the breach of trust element. What I'm saying is that the overall claim against CB far exceeded that.
-
The £3.6m was PURELY the breach of trust element of the overall claim.
-
The claim was far more complicated than that. The original basis of the claim for loss of value of assets alone was for in excess of £100m! In effect, the Club alleged that the actions of CB (or more accurately one of their Partners) resulted in a £5.5m "fire sale" of 1st and youth team playing squads, Ibrox and Murray Park and the Rangers Brand in general. The claim also factored in Administration and Liquidation Costs.
-
It is not GS, I'm positive of this.
-
If there had been no rival Paul Murray bid the liquidators would still have pursued Collyer Bristow in exactly the same manner. The original claim was for £140m plus costs, the out of court settlement of £24M has no link to Murray's bid. This is a claim in respect of damages for deceit and/or conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and/or breach of duty etc.
-
Absolutely nothing to do with Paul Murray. This was a claim by the Club against CB relating to various aspects of their part in CW acquisition.
-
I disagree with this, Paul Muray's rival bid has no bearing on the £24m settlement.
-
Turnover had to drop, money didn't have to disappear.
-
The puppets occupying the boardroom may have altered have but those pulling the strings haven't. I view them all as being part of the same group responsible for the current financial position. As opposed to the usual 'legacy' of the last individuals who have had to take one for the team and disappear to count their money!
-
And they are responsible for the current state of our finances.
-
Rangers Creditors Win £24m Settlement from Law Firm
lenzEK replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
There is absolutely no doubt that this £24m out of court settlement is true. Quantum agreed with Collyer Bristow's professional indemnity insurers. -
It should never be enough but we simply MUST keep winning to get back to the top league.
-
Everyone would love to see five or six kids coming though but the point surely is we don't have that many that are good enough. A lot of players HAVE been given a decent chance over the last 2 Seasons, more than would ordinarily have. A couple have cemented a place in the team, others have had a run and disappeared as they haven't been deemed good enough. As soon as they move on there seems to be an element of hysteria that we are missing out on something! If they are up to it they will be in the team, hopefully playing in their correct position.