franker

6 hours ago, trublusince1982 said:

People need to get where we are at. Any team using hummel strips doesnt have a big market pull. There is zero chance we can get £5m+ for naming rights etc. Brands dont want to be associates with us the same way they used to. Bluechip is put off by the religious angle. Not many companies want to be seen to align their products with white British protestants. We need success to be a pull. Its catch 22

Trust me, the  major players wanted in, Adidas in particular but the timing of the termination of the existing deal meant it was not possible. PS I find   your comments on  religion and race are the kind of comments you would find on message boards  from the other side of the city. 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/780-no-quality-no-bottle-no-progres-should-the-manager-be-sacked

 

Please use the main site poll.

 

In my view, despite the criticism, I don't think we sack the manager as it stands but it's very difficult to make a strong case for him staying outwith the fact any new manager would be left with no budget.

We have a few weeks to go before the start of the season and i would sack the manager today and use that time to get an experienced manager in .

Interesting comments Anchorman and it ties in with that many of us suspect that the original leak ref the big tax case came from within HMRC

Frankie, so sad to read about this and thoughts go out to Gordons family.

RIP Bluebear54

Filled it in- i don't think they will be happy to take my advice somehow….

King should have offered an interest free loan and played Irvine at his own game and leaked his offer. In this long running game of poker it would have given him an edge within the wider support in his attempts to take control of the club.

Never saw this one coming........

 

Two seasons worth of ticket money, £20m odd share issue, potless in 18 months, and back in debt to glorified loan sharks. Laughable, if it wasn't so tragically predictable. How many more rapings will the club get before people finally say enough is enough? Giving money to support Rangers is now aiding and abetting it's continued pillaging. There comes a time when loyalty crosses over into stupidity. That time came and went a long time ago.

 

I wish King would call their bluff and offer them a £2m interest free loan, to be payed back over 20 years. Once they knock it back, even this boards most ardent of supporters would see it's not even about being short of cash. It's all about the power and control of the assets/boardroom/contracts. Fucking sickening.

Who from here is intending to attend?

I'm going - got confirmation email yesterday

Couple of points following last nights news. I am told that the board turned against Ian due to his continuing arguing for the removal of McCoist as manager and in addition , there is also concern of the details of his acquisition of shares in the club. I suspect that the Mather led board( or should that be Easdales?) feel ditching him before the AGM is one of a number of sacrifices they are prepared to make if it saves their own positions.

It was good to see this month joint statements by the RST, Assembly and Association. We often despair at the rivalry of the online Rangers community,

but these three groups have shown supporters can come together, albeit in a time of crisis, and find a common voice.

I was concerned that Charles Green and some on the current board would, to suit their own ends, try and cause a split amongst these main supporters bodies . The supporters groups responses to the departure of Walter and the proposed board changes/EGM have given me hope and fingers crossed this co operation can continue well into the future .

Lets hope Media House take it in good grace. Wouldn't want Jack to take the hump and target Traynor and others at the club.

Good news. I hope the club consider doing the bulk of the PR work in house.

Given JJB's well documented financial troubles, why would their directors agree to a commitment of £3m pa that they didn't have to? Even if they did want to, I'm not sure that their banking covenants would allow it anyway.

 

However thinking about Umbro and Tennents further, did we not get cash upfront from these contacts so perhaps a new owner would be looking at getting new sponsors as there wold be no commitment to contracts that were null and void.

Tennents paid both old firm clubs upfront and they are working on a full stadium rebranding as we speak- confused? i am

The figures exclude season ticket holders- a back of the fag packet calculation would add another say 4 million to the figure published

The Joint Administrators have a statutory obligation to file a report with the IS regarding the conduct of the directors that held office in the three years prior to the Administration. This report must be filed within six months from the Appointment Date and the content of this report is confidential.

The Joint Administrators also have a duty to investigate antecedent transactions which include:

Transactions at an undervalue, Section 238 of the Act; Preferences, Section 239 of the Act; and

Transactions to defraud creditors, Section 423 of the Act.

We can only hope this will uncover wrongdoing on Whytes part that will allow us to nul and void his floating charge

5.8 MCR BC provided HMRC with a formal update on 13 June 2011, which included an overview of the Company‟s projected working capital shortfall in the following 3 months (as identified by the short term cash flow forecast review), an overview of the Company‟s financial position and an assessment that the Company would be unable to continue to trade in the medium term without the introduction of third party funds or shareholder support. Given this position, an offer of an immediate payment on account of £200,000 was proposed to HMRC and a request made for further time to assess possible new sources of income for the Company to allow time to formulate a proposal to HMRC relating to the balance of the Company‟s Small Tax Case liability.

June 11 Whyte knew we did not have the money- He should be in prison for what he has done

Next: money is already in place to buy the club in full and meet demands of CVA. Purchase is a long term project - not quick turnaround.

Have any of this consortium an interest in other clubs?

Gets even more interesting because David Grier claims to be "Donald Muir's best pal".

I have a hunch that Donald Muir will feature as a very important figure in the eventual sale of Rangers to Whyte....................

He says three years as if it's a good thing, and is not questioning the £24m.

 

There is a risk to Rangers. The risk is that we will have an even bigger shortfall in future years as we are using the cash now and will have to sell even more players.

Bluedell, Can either yourself or Craig tell us based on your professional experience, if there are any circumstances that would allow Grant Thornton to audit and sign off the accounts prior to the FTT ruling?

It may or may not be critical. If the cash was just being held in a Ticketus client account then it doesn't really matter. What's more important is when Whyte/Rangers had access to it.

In my experience of dealing with fund transfers, the agreement is in place for funds, the actual transfer of funds takes place as close to or even on the day the business is sold. Not 4 weeks.

Did he sell it or did he provide an intent to sell ? There is a marked difference.

From todays article: March 8th Letter signed by Whyte to Ticketus confirming intent to sell season tickets(2 months before sale of club)

April 7th-the monies were paid into the client account of Bristow Collyer on 7th April - (4 weeks before the sale of the club was completed)

May 9th- The actual agreement ref above is actually signed(3 days after the sale of the club)

The critical date for me is when the 24.4 million was deposited

They may think that they had good reason but I certainly wouldn't be happy if HMRC started showing commercial documents to ex-non execs of any company that I was involved in. I'd be putting in official complaints about it.

 

He's also seen letters from Whyte written before Whyte had anything to do with the club. I can't see any justification for this.

 

As for the question, a simple wording change would make it stack up.

As previously stated by Forlanssister, surely what is more relevant is how Whyte can "sell" an asset without owning the club??

To be honest, this news does not surprise me. Whyte has never demonstrated he had any substantial personal wealth, has refused to provide visibility of his business success and what could be gleaned of his business career, it was only a matter of time until a story like this surfaced.

The question for the supporters and in particular the Assembly and Trust is what are their options ?

But surely he had that money already when he agreed to by the club for �£6m that was later reduced to �£1?

That's the impression he gave at the time. Complex character Mr Whyte............

He has to get the money to pay the taxman from somewhere!

I will be heading for The Wee Rangers Club. A few rolls, a few beers

when the bar opens and a meal after-expanding waistline loyal.