Jump to content

 

 

RANGERRAB

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,612

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RANGERRAB

  1. RANGERRAB
    Correct me if I'm wrong but if the board wish to have a 2nd share issue and current shareholders do not take up their allocation then the board can then offer those shares to other investors???? Surely then the likes of DaveKing with his 50million would be welcomed with open arms?
  2. RANGERRAB
    No pressure on Ally is there ?????
  3. RANGERRAB
    Hopefully we can get the SFA to make a special case for us to get into the EL next season
  4. RANGERRAB
    Perhaps due to more games being televised viewing figures increased? Forget the viewing figures. The deal Dumbcaster and Liewell signed two years ago after we got voted out the SPL is worth peanuts. All other similar-sized countries to ours have far better deals in comparison.The brain dead chairmen in this country need to realise this
  5. RANGERRAB
    I doubt it was that simple. Were no checks done on Whyte by Ticketus or whoever? It's a helluva lot of money for what turned out to be unsecured loans?
  6. RANGERRAB
    But they were effectively lending money for the purchase of a company which had a potentially massive bill from HMRC hanging over it which it couldn't have paid and would have gone bust. Why did they give Whyte the money and did they not know about his shady business past ? And why didn't they know the difference between Scots law and English law regards ST sales as security? Did they not seek legal advice?
  7. RANGERRAB
    Why do the board feel the need to release yet another statement regards security of Ibrox?
  8. RANGERRAB
    OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)? But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus 1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit? 2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual?
  9. RANGERRAB
    Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south
  10. RANGERRAB
    They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law. They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte
  11. RANGERRAB
    How? Explain?
  12. RANGERRAB
    Unprofessional & negligent I'd say.
  13. RANGERRAB
    Astonishing.......
  14. RANGERRAB
    ???? I thought they were suing on behalf of creditors and for the exorbitant fees of D&P and BDO. CB were negligent in allowing Whyte to acquire Rangers hence they were sued
  15. RANGERRAB
    He declared the deal Whyte had with ticketus regards ST's to be null and void after administration
  16. RANGERRAB
    At the tail end of last year Whyte lost his appeal against Ticketus at the high court in London for 'fraudulent misrepresentation' and was ordered to pay Ticketus £17.6m. How could Ticketus have pursued both Whyte and Rangers oldco for the same debt? As I understand they were originally a creditor for £26.7m with their profit on the deal being £26.7m - £17.6m eqs £9m but chose to go after Whyte instead
  17. RANGERRAB
    I'd be more inclined to say the court consider CB to have been extremely negligent in not appearing to have researched Whyte and his source of funding which he used to acquire Rangers not to mention the legal aspects of this bid. Not quite sure how this involves PM though.
  18. RANGERRAB
    My apologies. It was Lord Hodge who threw out ticketus' claim to be a creditor hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south
  19. RANGERRAB
    I remember him bidding at the time but always thought he'd left it too late i.e. the deal with Whyte had already been done.
  20. RANGERRAB
    How was that? Please explain
  21. RANGERRAB
    They can be in touch with DK all they like but until they get themselves a substantial shareholding or persuade enough of the current shareholders to elect them instead of the current board they will have no part to play in Rangers.
  22. RANGERRAB
    The big question now for the UoF,SoS,DK etc is where do they go from here? Their ST idea hasn't worked. They can say what they like about the current regime but they hold the power and will continue to do so. I don't suppose it's ever occurred to the UoF,SOS, DK etc that the current regime might actually want Rangers to be successful again at home and abroad?
  23. RANGERRAB
    Hibz got transferred from Forth Holdings to Farmer's newco. It's listed in wikipedia. My arguement regards the players was that the oldco was never insolvent (the BTC victorys and not owing ticketus anything). A newco need never have been created. Whoever was responsible for the newco needing to be created should be pursued the costs of the fees lost for the players who left. HMRC?
  24. RANGERRAB
    Perhaps the board now consider DK as an irrelevance. Perfectly understandable given his strategy(or lack of it)
  25. RANGERRAB
    What were the reasons then? The oldco/newco is not an arguement. Hibz did that in 1991 when their old parent company went bust and Farmer transferred the club to his newco. I maintain all along it was deliberate lies aimed at destroying Rangers and the clubs voted accordingly It is now time for retribution. The board must seek damages for lost revenues and also players who walked away denying the club transfer fees
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.