khan 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Can you interpret the numbers? http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/913748742 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 khan, can I ask what point or points you were trying to make with what you posted in post #39? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Can you interpret the numbers? They are the number of directorships held the former active directorships the latter former (non active) directorships. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khan 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 khan, can I ask what point or points you were trying to make with what you posted in post #39? Just emphasising that Ellis is still a registered director of RFC group, the nicest thing that I can say is that the deal stinks from the bank down, it really should be investigated but there is no body or person with the teeth or authority to do anything about it aka Cadbury and countless others syndrome. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Just emphasising that Ellis is still a registered director of RFC group We'd hear about it extremely quickly if that were to change. Ellis being made a director of RFC Group is something that has always puzzled and troubled me because I can't make any sense of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Perhaps, but Rangers might be able to insist on all or most of the money up front and if not they could use it as collateral. What I am not sure off is whether or not having the asset of money owed would be taken into account in the administration or just any cash in the bank; my accountancy head tells me the former but perhaps Craig or BD would know the answer to that. Also they might be able to get it paid to the holding company which is offshore; not sure if they would get away with that either. All I can say is that the info about the sale or intended sale was solid (it didn't come from another site) and seemed to be backed up by the apparent offer yesterday. Any money owed to us would be on the books as a receivable and therefore would also be considered club funds for the purposes of administration. So if we sold Jelavic for 8 mill in 4 annual instalments of 2 mill... and we went into administration after a year then the administrator would still take into account the amounts due (6 mill) from the purchaser. They wouldnt get away with the funds of sale being paid to the holding company offshore either, unless the structure is such that the players are "owned" by the holding company, but I doubt that would be the case. Even if they get the funds paid to the holding company that would be considered an inter-company loan if the players are, as I suspect, on the books of the club and would be due back to the club in the event of an administration. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Just emphasising that Ellis is still a registered director of RFC group, the nicest thing that I can say is that the deal stinks from the bank down, it really should be investigated but there is no body or person with the teeth or authority to do anything about it aka Cadbury and countless others syndrome. It does indeed stink to the high heavens does merit a proper legal investigation but alas as you say there won't be one, the fans will be left to pick up the mess while those culpable get off scot free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Whyte's plan (if that's the correct word) requires RFC to get a negative finding in the FTT, a positive result requires Whyte to provide funding to keep us going, money he simply doesn't have. I've always felt that the only possible way Whyte could benefit from buying the club would be if we lose the EBT case, but assuming that's true, it would mean that he's a bare-faced liar and essentially a crook, the thought of which the majority of fans don't seem to be willing to entertain. The unaudited accounts and failure to hold an AGM robs the shareholders of their once chance to hold him to account and ask pertinent questions. Even if he had held an AGM he could have just waffled his way out of properly answering pertinent questions or told bare faced lies. Those who think administration (God forbid even liquidation) is simply a case of wakening up the next day and we'll be debt free and everything will be hunky dory are in for one mighty shock, the ramifications will last for years. Couldn't agree more and a very large percentage of fans just don't seem to get it. When you look at the history of British clubs who've gone into admin', a large percentage of them have gone into admin' more than once because the financial problems have a snowball effect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Whats the score with the AGM? By law does he have to hold one by a certain date? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Whats the score with the AGM? By law does he have to hold one by a certain date? If he was sticking to the rules laid out in the Companies Act, he'd have to hold an AGM sometime before midnight on New Year's Eve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.