Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[craig 5,199]

Yeah, I just thought that there might be some way round it and that if the debt is paid in full, then technically there is no insolvency.

 

I'm very wary of the fans being fleeced by a takeover consortium a la Fergus McCann. It seems all they need to do is guarantee the loans, then float a share issue to fans in order to pay off the debt and be left with say a 60% controlling interest in a debt free Rangers after only spending a few hundred thousand quid.

 

The fans put up 99% of the money are are left with a minority shareholding and their shares will be worth a fraction of what they paid for them.

 

Looks like an nice easy earner for someone with a bit of money behind them and so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the interested parties have a dodgy background...

 

I see what you are saying re the fleecing of fans ala McCann - but if Rangers is item of paramount importance then what Fergus did doesn't seem to have done them any harm, they are on a much more sound financial footing than us.

 

I do see what you are saying though and I agree that it looks like a nice little earner for someone. I know there are plenty of SDM detractors but this plan could see someone making a ton of money from the supporters too - however..... the initial signs are that Duffy (et al) will underwrite the debt but then use the supporter contributions for the running of the club rather than running with the cash - he has said he (they) will not make money from this. However, that is what you would expect someone to say when they are looking for 15,000 fans a year for 3 years to contribute.

[craig 5,199]

Again, thanks UCB for your input this morning.

 

The only problem I have is that the Trust seem to be hanging their hat on ANY show that comes to town. First King and now Duffy. It seems to be indiscriminate and that the Trust will back ANYONE at anytime. This will be seen by Trust detractors as something that goes hand in hand with the Trust's previous problems whereby there was a feeling (perceived OR real) that certain individuals pushed their own agenda and their ego insisted that they wanted that position on the board at Rangers. I am not saying it is right or wrong but there was a definite perception in that regard.

 

Now we see the Trust, with some of those same individuals involved, hanging their hat on anyone who looks like they may be an interested party. It just seems to have come full circle and that the Trust (or certain members of it) are still more interested in personal promotion than the greater benefit of the club.

 

For instance, just how much due diligence was done by the Trust on either King or Duffy before backing either ? There really is no need for the Trust to jump in with both feet without undertaking its own due diligence on the potential investors first. When asked for a statement the Trust can simply conclude "we have seen the reports but have not had time to digest them fully. As soon as we have we will be making an official statement".

 

Obviously "boss" has spent the time to do some of that research and, rather than be thanked by the Trust for doing so, it seems he has undergone a character assassination - not exactly what you would expect when UNITY is what the Trust are seeking.

 

You may not be armed with the same knowledge as your fellow Trust board members with regards to Duffy (which would disappoint me as you should all be kept aware of what is happening) but one concern I have about your opening post this morning (and this is not having a personal dig at you as I have much respect for you and the manner in which you carry yourself) is that the vast majority of it is based on supposition and assumption.

 

If you are not fully armed with the knowledge your fellow board members have then that should be rectified by them. If you are then it is a worry that the Trust have publicly backed Duffy on little more than supposition and assumption.

 

As BD says, the non-filing of Annual Returns may not be a big issue in all of this but it is a legal requirement of which the Directors and Officers are liable if not performed and not being compliant can cast doubt on someone's credibility - something which the Trust board members should be only too aware of in the recent past.

[Union City Blue 0]

Again, thanks UCB for your input this morning.

 

The only problem I have is that the Trust seem to be hanging their hat on ANY show that comes to town. First King and now Duffy. It seems to be indiscriminate and that the Trust will back ANYONE at anytime. This will be seen by Trust detractors as something that goes hand in hand with the Trust's previous problems whereby there was a feeling (perceived OR real) that certain individuals pushed their own agenda and their ego insisted that they wanted that position on the board at Rangers. I am not saying it is right or wrong but there was a definite perception in that regard.

 

Now we see the Trust, with some of those same individuals involved, hanging their hat on anyone who looks like they may be an interested party. It just seems to have come full circle and that the Trust (or certain members of it) are still more interested in personal promotion than the greater benefit of the club.

 

For instance, just how much due diligence was done by the Trust on either King or Duffy before backing either ? There really is no need for the Trust to jump in with both feet without undertaking its own due diligence on the potential investors first. When asked for a statement the Trust can simply conclude "we have seen the reports but have not had time to digest them fully. As soon as we have we will be making an official statement".

 

Obviously "boss" has spent the time to do some of that research and, rather than be thanked by the Trust for doing so, it seems he has undergone a character assassination - not exactly what you would expect when UNITY is what the Trust are seeking.

 

You may not be armed with the same knowledge as your fellow Trust board members with regards to Duffy (which would disappoint me as you should all be kept aware of what is happening) but one concern I have about your opening post this morning (and this is not having a personal dig at you as I have much respect for you and the manner in which you carry yourself) is that the vast majority of it is based on supposition and assumption.

 

If you are not fully armed with the knowledge your fellow board members have then that should be rectified by them. If you are then it is a worry that the Trust have publicly backed Duffy on little more than supposition and assumption.

 

As BD says, the non-filing of Annual Returns may not be a big issue in all of this but it is a legal requirement of which the Directors and Officers are liable if not performed and not being compliant can cast doubt on someone's credibility - something which the Trust board members should be only too aware of in the recent past.

 

Craig, thanks.

 

Regarding the first half of your post, one of the basic problems here is that the Trust is being given information in confidence. If we break certain confidences we believe it will undermine what we're hoping to help achieve - an improvement in Rangers' position and meaningful supporter ownership. I apologise for this and I know how things can sometimes be perceived & interpreted by many, some, or few - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction(s) generally, then sometimes we are in a no-win situation when it comes to explaining things at the time people want explanations.

 

On a related point, there are other big players in the loop here (for their own reasons wishing to remain anonymous at the moment) who we know for sure have credibility, the inclination, the obligation, the motivation and the resources to do background checks on anything you care to mention. Although I can't discuss what these people have done in the background or what's been shared with us, I simply ask you to keep this in mind.

 

I also realise I'm now leaving myself open to criticism for being vague etc so, as has been said quite a few times now, maybe I should shut the feck up for a bit until things further develop - which they surely will.

[craig 5,199]

Craig, thanks.

 

Regarding the first half of your post, one of the basic problems here is that the Trust is being given information in confidence. If we break certain confidences we believe it will undermine what we're hoping to help achieve - an improvement in Rangers' position and meaningful supporter ownership. I apologise for this and I know how things can sometimes be perceived & interpreted by many, some, or few - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction(s) generally, then sometimes we are in a no-win situation when it comes to explaining things at the time people want explanations.

 

On a related point, there are other big players in the loop here (for their own reasons wishing to remain anonymous at the moment) who we know for sure have credibility, the inclination, the obligation, the motivation and the resources to do background checks on anything you care to mention. Although I can't discuss what these people have done in the background or what's been shared with us, I simply ask you to keep this in mind.

 

I also realise I'm now leaving myself open to criticism for being vague etc so, as has been said quite a few times now, maybe I should shut the feck up for a bit until things further develop - which they surely will.

 

Thanks UCB. Again your input is appreciated.

 

I wont give you a hard time for being vague, often-times this is a must in these matters.

[Frankie 8,172]

Craig, thanks.

 

Regarding the first half of your post, one of the basic problems here is that the Trust is being given information in confidence. If we break certain confidences we believe it will undermine what we're hoping to help achieve - an improvement in Rangers' position and meaningful supporter ownership. I apologise for this and I know how things can sometimes be perceived & interpreted by many, some, or few - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction(s) generally, then sometimes we are in a no-win situation when it comes to explaining things at the time people want explanations.

 

On a related point, there are other big players in the loop here (for their own reasons wishing to remain anonymous at the moment) who we know for sure have credibility, the inclination, the obligation, the motivation and the resources to do background checks on anything you care to mention. Although I can't discuss what these people have done in the background or what's been shared with us, I simply ask you to keep this in mind.

 

I also realise I'm now leaving myself open to criticism for being vague etc so, as has been said quite a few times now, maybe I should shut the feck up for a bit until things further develop - which they surely will.

 

I don't think anyone will be overly critical of you minding your Ps and Qss about the people involved. I've always said confidence is a necessary evil of which no-one can find a cure for. Most reasonable people will certainly agree with your outlook and wish you good luck in your endevours.

 

A pity then that your eloquence is ruined by your colleague in the post below on FF:

 

The "problem" is we've had the usual suspects trying to tag-team the thread to make it look like Duffy is the only investor in town, then by implication a fraudster, then by implication the RST dafties.

 

The twisted hate of the spineless is nothing new and their 'shock' fraudulent. We've seen one leap of illogicality after another in a desperate attempt to sabotage the work being done on a united basis by the three large fan groups. It's a pathetic spectacle.

 

We're not playing a game for little boys now. It's not a case of having your ego stroked and selling out your members for the price of a dinner in a swanky Edinburgh restaurant. It's about the future well-being of the club and so the self-promotion of those proven to have no self-discipline in the past is a minor detail.

 

It is that kind of post along with the hypocrisy contained within it that good, honest people like yourself are up against when attempting to reach out to others.

 

Quite frankly it's disgraceful and anyone interested in the Rangers Supporters Trust will be appalled by such unfair, inaccurate and derogatory remarks simply because other people have asked a few basic questions about what is happening.

[Bluedell 5,348]

Absolutely no excuse for that, Frankie, and it's extremely disappointing that RST board members are coming out with this sort of thing (again).

 

If they are unable to deal with yesterday's article by Boss without a reaction like this then do they have the character to lead the fans in raising money?

 

I'm extremely disheartened by this.

[bmck 117]

The worst thing about that is that is not the sentiment, but that they chose to express it. If they were pissed off, and wanted to undermine boss they could have just said 'We are encouraged Rangers fans are taking the time to investigate these things, and we are sure in the fullness of time, and in the challenging process over the next weeks and months, any fears will be subdued. While clearly working only on partial facts, we still encourage all supporters to investigate as much as is possible, and try to go forward with an open mind' or something.

Edited December 1, 2009 by bmck

[Frankie 8,172]

Absolutely no excuse for that, Frankie, and it's extremely disappointing that RST board members are coming out with this sort of thing (again).

 

If they are unable to deal with yesterday's article by Boss without a reaction like this then do they have the character to lead the fans in raising money?

 

I'm extremely disheartened by this.

 

Disheartened is not the word.

 

At least I know now in writing why the STS project was ignored by FF and the RST.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,172]

The worst thing about that is that is not the sentiment, but that they chose to express it. If they were pissed off, and wanted to undermine boss they could have just said 'We are encouraged Rangers fans are taking the time to investigate these things, and we are sure in the fullness of time, and in the challenging process over the next weeks and months, any fears will be subdued. While clearly working only on partial facts, we still encourage all supporters to investigate as much as is possible, and try to go forward with an open mind' or something.

 

Indeed - it is simple enough to dismiss concerns without that kind of complete loss of discipline.

 

I'm absolutely astounded at the reaction to what was a worthy addition to the debate from boss - digs at the RST aside.

[bmck 117]

Indeed - it is simple enough to dismiss concerns without that kind of complete loss of discipline.

 

I'm absolutely astounded at the reaction to what was a worthy addition to the debate from boss - digs at the RST aside.

 

To be honest, I might've been skim-reading but I didn't even see anything other than more facts about our potential new dude. I didn't catch the RST references on a first reading, and when I read it back I pretty much assumed they would already know about these things, and had more information. This was posted, a few people posted 'all true, but may not matter because Bermuda' and other sorts of reasonable things. It prompted a few reservations and some more information and that was that. But now that they're acting like people are trying to pull the carpet from under them, and show they've done no research, I'm beginning to wonder if its the case

 

I had pretty much made up my mind that I would set aside any personal reservations I have about the RST if they come up with something half decent. This is a once in a fair-few lifetimes opportunity to be involved in something great and new and innovative, and I don't want to miss that opportunity. But every statement the Trust-sans-UCB make I'm finding it harder to imagine that a new Rangers with these people close to the corridors of power could be anything other than an undisciplined, undecorous, farce. I wanted to apply Tannochsidebear's cometh the hour cometh the man sentiment about Bain to this, but it's getting too hard