UoF call Rangers to account

[the gunslinger 3,366]

But if you had it would have been relevant, crucially relevant in fact. The people who were in charge - you know those ones who are never to be known - appoint boards to do their bidding. So far those boards have pilfered the coffers . The current board have given every sign that they are either similarly pilfering on orders of their pilfering masters = surely fundamentally relevant in the debate over whether they are to be trusted with cash without any guarantee of it not being pilfered and the club left penniless despite yet more tens of millions poured in by fans?

 

It would indeed.

[der Berliner 3,247]

It wasn't at all what I meant.

 

Yes by sept at the latest. But as soon as the cash is in the bank. As such we know that at no point has out bank account hit 1.5 million cash (from a variety of sources).

 

I'm not sure why your arguing against an entirely accurate article.

 

Because ... the regulatory statement does not include what you write above, the info re instant payment comes from unconfirmed sources, you will hardly know from e.g. Easdale what his deal with the club will be or whether he expects his money back, and because the article is littered with assumption and subjunctives?

 

One gets the impression that it is all fine and well for some to be extra-vigilant and sceptic when it comes to anything that the club or the board says. Yet, if a second or third party comes up with (anti-board) stuff like the above, these questions shall not be asked or info queried? As long as this circus goes on, at least my pendulum will swing in both directions and either side's statements will put into question.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Because ... the regulatory statement does not include what you write above, the info re instant payment comes from unconfirmed sources, you will hardly know from e.g. Easdale what his deal with the club will be or whether he expects his money back, and because the article is littered with assumption and subjunctives?

 

One gets the impression that it is all fine and well for some to be extra-vigilant and sceptic when it comes to anything that the club or the board says. Yet, if a second or third party comes up with (anti-board) stuff like the above, these questions shall not be asked or info queried? As long as this circus goes on, at least my pendulum will swing in both directions and either side's statements will put into question.

 

 

no it comes from the contract they signed.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

for the avoidance of doubt.

 

“6. Repayments

 

“6.1 The Borrower shall repay the Easdale Debt and the Laxey Debt on such Business Day as the Company has received clear funds in an amount equal to or exceeding the aggregate principal of all then outstanding Loans from

 

“6.1.1 the sale of season ticket monies for the 2014/15 football season or;

 

“6.1.2 a placing or rights issue or other form of debt or equity fundraising of the Company or any member of the Rangers Group; or

 

whichever is the first to occur and in any event by no later than 1 September 2015.”

[Zappa 0]

der Berliner, please read through this information below and take into account that the regulatory announcement stated:

 

Laxey has, pursuant to an agreement entered into today, transferred all rights and obligations in relation to the Laxey Facility to Mr George Letham including all its rights in relation to the standard security granted as security for the Laxey Facility. Mr Letham is a shareholder in the Company and a lifelong Rangers fan.

 

The Laxey Facility, now transferred by Laxey to Mr George Letham, remains subject to the same terms and conditions with the exception that the premium payment has been reduced to £45,000 and remains payable in shares or cash.

 

You can read the leaked "INTER CREDITOR AGREEMENT" document in full here - http://freepdfhosting.com/1bfcbe0abb.pdf

 

And you can read articles from the Scotsman & Herald about this subject here - https://www.google.co.uk/#q=rangers+inter+creditor+agreement

 

[der Berliner 3,247]

Who needs the NSA then if somesuch hits the web? If it is genuine.

 

I assume that Easdale won't run to the media and tell them what happens on his accounts. That would leave Letham, who - previously willing to lend the club cheaper cash than Laxey to help it along - is looking to get it back at the earliest moment and if that doesn't happen walks to the media and tells them about it? Obviously none of this takes into account that if the club does indeed talk to Easdale and Letham, they might have agreed on a different or not as strict schedule as previously written. What a shock that would be ... people talk to one another.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Who needs the NSA then if somesuch hits the web? If it is genuine.

 

I assume that Easdale won't run to the media and tell them what happens on his accounts. That would leave Letham, who - previously willing to lend the club cheaper cash than Laxey to help it along - is looking to get it back at the earliest moment and if that doesn't happen walks to the media and tells them about it? Obviously none of this takes into account that if the club does indeed talk to Easdale and Letham, they might have agreed on a different or not as strict schedule as previously written. What a shock that would be ... people talk to one another.

 

The following would have been legalled.

 

MailSport understands the wealthy businessman has been waiting more than a week for a response from chief executive Graham Wallace to an email questioning how many tickets HAD been sold.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalala with eyes tight shut doesn't alter the fact that we either don't have 1.5 million in the bank of cleared funds or are in breach of contract.

[Super Cooper 0]

Why does it say 2015?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Why does it say 2015?

 

because they aren't sure they will ever get the cash in in time. probably.