Have the club blinked? Wallace meets UOF

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You are entitled to your opinion and you may or may not be right,..... or indeed somewhere in between.

 

If you can be so categoric then I'm sure you'll be able to expand and tell us what is 'right'.

 

Much as I would like to oblige, I'm sorry that I can't.

 

However, I can assure you that your first sentence is wrong and therefore the rest of that post is based on a false premise.

 

I don't know which onerous contracts benefit the Easdale proxies, do you?

 

That said at least some of the investors (R&M for example) are in it for medium term growth.

[buster. 5,257]

Much as I would like to oblige, I'm sorry that I can't.

 

However, I can assure you that your first sentence is wrong and therefore the rest of that post is based on a false premise.

 

I don't know which onerous contracts benefit the Easdale proxies, do you?

 

That said at least some of the investors (R&M for example) are in it for medium term growth.

 

Rather than reply here, I think I might put up a thread later/tomorrow where these issues will be covered in more depth.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I've just caught up on today's posts so apologies if I have missed anyone answering a question I posed last night and I'd like to add a couple more; let's just say I'm playing devils advocate for a minute:

 

1. 
   
2. If the Board were to agree to give a legally binding agreement not to grant a charge over Ibrox and/or Murray Park to whom or what would such an agreement be granted? I may well be wrong but I don't think they can simply register such a document unless it is in favour of some entity. So far as I am aware, the UoF is not a legal entity and neither is the SoS. Given the distrust between them and Mr King would they give such a commitment to a company controlled by him? Would they give it to the RST as some kind of proxy for the UoF/SoS (considering that all three use the same address)? Could such an undertaking be given to a named fan(s) as proxy for all Rangers fans or indeed to an un-named reasonable Rangers fan if there is such a thing, rather like the man on the no. 9 Clapham omnibus, or the man on the Glasgow Underground?
    
   
3. 
   
4. Would any such undertaking have any legal standing? Supposing the Board gave such an undertaking and then chose to ignore it, saying circumstances have changed, we need a big loan (for example, to cover the shortfall in income due to large numbers of supporters paying game to game) and have to use one or other of our main assets as security. What remedy might be available to the UoF or whoever is the recipient of the undertaking? What loss might they be said to have incurred?
    
   
5. 
   
6. Some have already questioned the standing of such an undertaking in the event of an insolvency event but what about a new or substantially new Board? Let's say that there were to be changes on the Board, however they might arise, and the "new" Board says we're not bound by that ridiculous agreement, in our opinion it is in the best interests of the company to sell and lease back Murray Park and that's what we are going to do. Again what loss could any possible claimants establish and what remedies might be available to them?
   

 

Any lawyers in the house?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Rather than reply here, I think I might put up a thread later/tomorrow where these issues will be covered in more depth.

 

Fair enough and am I correct in recalling that you were also going to answer another of my earlier posts which you only had time to deal with in part?

[sannybear 0]

If they did do it then they've lost even more money being involved with us.

 

Not when they control assets worth far in excess of the cw/ticketus deal . You could even argue they are sitting pretty with a divided fanbase and able to hire and fire at will ; being who they are I doubt if another administration event would faze them either .

[sannybear 0]

Laxey IMO mate, yes ??

No , octopus investments/ticketus .

[BEARGER 1,830]

I've just caught up on today's posts so apologies if I have missed anyone answering a question I posed last night and I'd like to add a couple more; let's just say I'm playing devils advocate for a minute:

 

1. 
   
2. If the Board were to agree to give a legally binding agreement not to grant a charge over Ibrox and/or Murray Park to whom or what would such an agreement be granted? I may well be wrong but I don't think they can simply register such a document unless it is in favour of some entity. So far as I am aware, the UoF is not a legal entity and neither is the SoS. Given the distrust between them and Mr King would they give such a commitment to a company controlled by him? Would they give it to the RST as some kind of proxy for the UoF/SoS (considering that all three use the same address)? Could such an undertaking be given to a named fan(s) as proxy for all Rangers fans or indeed to an un-named reasonable Rangers fan if there is such a thing, rather like the man on the no. 9 Clapham omnibus, or the man on the Glasgow Underground?
    
   
3. 
   
4. Would any such undertaking have any legal standing? Supposing the Board gave such an undertaking and then chose to ignore it, saying circumstances have changed, we need a big loan (for example, to cover the shortfall in income due to large numbers of supporters paying game to game) and have to use one or other of our main assets as security. What remedy might be available to the UoF or whoever is the recipient of the undertaking? What loss might they be said to have incurred?
    
   
5. 
   
6. Some have already questioned the standing of such an undertaking in the event of an insolvency event but what about a new or substantially new Board? Let's say that there were to be changes on the Board, however they might arise, and the "new" Board says we're not bound by that ridiculous agreement, in our opinion it is in the best interests of the company to sell and lease back Murray Park and that's what we are going to do. Again what loss could any possible claimants establish and what remedies might be available to them?
   

 

Any lawyers in the house?

 

There is certainly one from Philadelphia on here. Plus a couple of barrack room lawyers.

[bluebear54 0]

Just a couple of thoughts here.

Given the nature of the Beast, I agree with others that this board should not be trusted. Wouldn't be surprised if they already have a way to deal with any legal documents. This isn't like them - and they want the money.

Whoever was at the meeting will know a lot more, but did DK know/was on he on conference? If not I would hope he doesn't feel marginalised. Also, with due respect, he's probably got a lot more business strategy in him than the guys on the UOF steering group.

Also, Laxey scare me shitless.

[buster. 5,257]

Fair enough and am I correct in recalling that you were also going to answer another of my earlier posts which you only had time to deal with in part?

 

The law of averages says that you must be correct with something, so yes you probably are but I can't recall the subject off the top of my head.

 

[Zappa 0]

Whoever was at the meeting will know a lot more, but did DK know/was on he on conference?

 

Pure guesswork here, but I'd imagine that he definitely knew about the meeting and possibly even briefed someone who was attending, but wasn't actually on conference from SA.