Have the club blinked? Wallace meets UOF

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If the Easdales turn on Wallace i'll be turning on them

 

Get turning. I told you they are the real danger to him.

[bluebear54 0]

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.

 

Thanks Zappa

I think that's reassuring. In the place we find ourselves, we need all our options.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

 

You're too kind, I'm sure.

[Bluedell 5,679]

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?

 

1. Good question Don't know but they may be able to give it to RST as you suggest.

2. Depends on the wording but I don't see why it couldn't have legal standing.

3. The make up of the board isn't that relevant. The company is presumably giving the undertaking rather than the directors. I also presume that there would be some time limit on it. The remedies again depend on the wording.

[bluebear54 0]

1. Good question Don't know but they may be able to give it to RST as you suggest.

2. Depends on the wording but I don't see why it couldn't have legal standing.

3. The make up of the board isn't that relevant. The company is presumably giving the undertaking rather than the directors. I also presume that there would be some time limit on it. The remedies again depend on the wording.

 

As do the hidden pitfalls depend on the wording.

[Zappa 0]

1. Good question Don't know but they may be able to give it to RST as you suggest.

 

The company address is probably irrelevant because it makes complete sense for the UoF & SoS to use an existing fans group address to avoid costs if possible. I think it's just a technicality, but it does obviously suggest cohesion amongst fans, which is not necessarily wanted in certain circles.

 

In terms of legal entities for any supposed binding agreement, is the Ibrox 1972 Ltd company not what the UoF were representing at the meeting?

[Bluedell 5,679]

In terms of legal entities for any supposed binding agreement, is the Ibrox 1972 Ltd company not what the UoF were representing at the meeting?

 

Perhaps, but I doubt the directors wold be willing to give it to that company, and I certainly have reservations about it as well. As I pointed out yesterday, it has no connection with any shareholder or season ticket holder AFAIK.

[Bluedell 5,679]

As do the hidden pitfalls depend on the wording.

 

What pitfalls? Either we, the fans, are better off than we are now or we are in exactly the same position. I don't see a downside to it.

[Zappa 0]

Perhaps, but I doubt the directors wold be willing to give it to that company, and I certainly have reservations about it as well. As I pointed out yesterday, it has no connection with any shareholder or season ticket holder AFAIK.

 

This is obviously something which needs to be addressed in terms of Ibrox1972 & UoF PR, but it seems to be supported by people who provide a very solid and direct connection, both in terms of shareholders and ST holders.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The company address is probably irrelevant because it makes complete sense for the UoF & SoS to use an existing fans group address to avoid costs if possible. I think it's just a technicality, but it does obviously suggest cohesion amongst fans, which is not necessarily wanted in certain circles.

 

In terms of legal entities for any supposed binding agreement, is the Ibrox 1972 Ltd company not what the UoF were representing at the meeting?

 

That's one of the many things I found a bit odd about the meeting and the statement; Ibrox 1972 Ltd wasn't mentioned, that I can recall. Didn't the statement say that representatives of the UoF met the named directors? Of course that may mean nothing at all; but it may also mean that they recognise that the Club will not deal with Mr King in any form.

 

That would then beg the question: if Ibrox 1972 Ltd is the only legal entity in town (apart from the RST and without wishing to drag up any old wounds, it seems unlikely to me that more than a small minority would accept the RST as custodian of Ibrox) then to whom would the undertaking be given?