forlanssister

No expertise was required.

It's not in f*&king hindsight at all. The reasoning had absolutely no legitimacy at all at the time and made no sense at all unless you wished to deceive.

But the simple undeniable fact is that the FTT had absolutely f*&K all to do with the accounts not being published nor the AGM not being held that was down solely to Whyte and Whyte alone.

Only for the terminally ignorant.

Becomes more boak inducing with each passing day.

Does the £125 share in the Rangers Supporters Society confer entrance into the AGM of The Rangers Football Club Limited ?

Nothing to get excited about it would be remiss of them if they didn't check this out.

From Richard Wilson in today's Herald.

The flotation is premature but it removes the need for the "investors" to fully fund us. I sincerely doubt that the value will go up any value increase will be in the period from initial purchase to flotation. I'm not for one minute advocating waiting till the liquidation process (and associated legal actions both civil and potentially criminal) ends before floating but at least until a fully audited set of annual accounts have been posted that's surely not too big an ask. I'm certainly not paranoid about Green and I don't assume all his answers are lies however I'd be more inclined to lean towards Green if he cut out the stupid hyperbole that he continually spouts. £100m digital revenue furfuxsake, I doubt he'll even get close to matching the £15m screwed out of NTL by Murray. No debt becomes no "external debt" yet he agrees a deal with Rapid Vienna to settle the balance of Jelavic's fee what the f*&k is that if it's not an external debt, ditto re the balance of the Wallace fee. We're listing on AIM not the LSE , the prospectus won't offer much protection just look at the history of companies that have been floated, the regulatory burden on AIM companies is very low. NOMADS effectively are self policing an arrangement which many consider a conflict of interest. It's the lack of adequate regulation which makes the AIM market an attractive place for many to do business. If it wasn't Green it would have been someone else, but it is Green and for that I thank him. Put it this way if the (potential) EBT liabilities could not have been expunged via a CVA then a CVA would never have been considered and we would have went to a very quick straight asset sale, with the benefit of hindsight that now looks as if it would've been more preferable all round especially for the creditors.

The reality probably lays somewhere between the "we're doomed" and the "head in the sand" brigades. I assume we'd all like all the issues resolved so that we can move forward but alas that won't happen. Sadly I fear it will take the better part of a decade before everything is concluded and even then we'll never know the full story. Yes it's up to the individual to decide whether to invest or not, I just hope nobody is that blinded by loyalty and emotion to the extent that they invest money they can't afford to lose. I sincerely hope too that before someone makes the decision to invest that they do their own thorough research into the previous business records of those involved. The fact that there will be a share issue isn't in itself a surprise in fact it was to be expected somewhere along the line however the timing of the issue frankly should be a cause for concern. The prospectus will probably be as effective and as illuminating as the infamous "shareholder circular", take a look at the history of companies that have floated on AIM. Happiest day I've had all year was July 29. Both CVA and liquidation would have effectively expunged the (probable) EBT liabilities irrespective of how much the actual sum due to HMRC actually is.

I wonder exactly how many different k.o. times we'll have to endure before this season is over.....

Looks like a debt of the eternal type to me!

Yes we should focus on supporting the team , I certainly do, hard to believe I know but fact nonetheless. However I'm not naive enough to assume that nothing that has happened in the past cannot in any shape or form return to cause us difficulties. If D&P had had awarded a zero value to the EBT claim it would not have meant HMRC could claim for any liability (if the FTT find that way, which in all probability they will) after the exit of administration via either a CVA or liquidation.

Yes they could have probably blocked the CVA regardless which just makes the decision to include it even more bizarre. Perhaps D&P were simply currying favour in order to get the liquidation gig?

That's not the point at all and you know it. The point he's making is that Duff & Phelps were under no obligation to include the potential EBT liabilities thereby they gave HMRC voting power far in excess of the actual liabilities due to them merited.

Somebody has to provide the services don't they? Who held the players contracts if it wasn't the PLC? Whether it's your concern or not it is the clubs. It's a lot cheaper to buy out the lease than let it run its course ergo it makes economic sense, I take it you do comprehend that or are under the illusion that to continue paying the lease but not using the car park makes better economic sense?

Every contract was nullified? Isn't Green's main argument the polar opposite of that? Azure still run the catering and cleaning, JJB still ran the merchandise till Sports Direct were appointed etc.etc The provision of car parking was a condition of planning consent for the Club Deck, a parking space for there is part of (some of?) the hospitality packages. Where do you intend sticking the cars that presently park there if we don't use it?

Obviously not every contract was nullified, if they were then the pies might actually be worth eating eh? I'd call reaching an agreement to buy out the lease a renegotiation, wouldn't you? Unless we have somewhere else nearby to stick all the cars that park in the Albion in then yes we have too.

That's the point he's making.

You think buying yourself out of a long term contract that costs £300k per annum for the sum of £1.3m (both figures reputed) doesn't make economic sense?

Indeed, a silver lining in the cloud.

Won't know till we see the full picture.

It entirely depends on what those making the "loans" want/expect/get in return, debt is debt whoever it is owed to as Hearts supporters are about to find out.

We simply do not know yet, hopefully the prospectus will fully explain but I'm not holding my breath on that one. One thing is crystal clear, that is the "no debt" has metamorphosised into "no external debt", very reminiscent of the "bank debt" declarations from across the city.

As much as it grates to buy back something that should already be ours, on the face of it at the reputed prices both deals appear to make sound economic sense.