BlueSolace 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Imagine this going on in the 70s and 80s ....been bloody riots galore... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Is it legal or illegal? A muddled message at a time when clarity is needed. It's not worded all that well but there's speculation an interim interdict could be attempted to force the decision to an EGM. I'd imagine that's what the Trust is pursuing. Edited January 15, 2015 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Club statement, for what it's worth......................... 'RNS Number : 2783C Rangers Int. Football Club PLC 15 January 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers" or the "Company") Press Speculation The Company notes the recent speculation in the press. The Directors confirm that they are currently considering various proposals to secure the financial future of the club, however no decision has been made at this time. Ends' This statement is somewhat misleading. In terms of S.57(2) of the Land Registration Act 2012. Only the only parities that can apply for an Advance Notice are (1) the party who can grant the intended deed...in this case Rangers or(2) a person who has the consent of the party who can grant the intended deed. The notice was therefore submitted by Rangers or with the agreement of Rangers. The point of the Advance Notice is to protect a deed that the granters are intending to grant - not one that the might grant or one that they are thinking about granting. This is a clear sign that Rangers have agreed to grant SD a standard security over Ibrox. Normally you would submit the Notice about 5 days before you intend to complete the transaction involving the security. So unless the notice procedure is being misused to put pressure on other interested parties, the Ashely Loan is a done deal. Edited January 15, 2015 by Calgacus 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,289 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Surely the SFA are not standing back doing nothing here? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 It's not worded all that well but there's speculation an interim interdict could be attempted to force the decision to an EGM. I'd imagine that's what the Trust is pursuing. Won't the board just argue that the funding needs to be immediate and that, if the BBC report is accurate, it offers double what is being offered by LPT? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSolace 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 They are probably throwing a party in some parts of the SFA.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 This statement is somewhat misleading. In terms of S.57(2) of the Land Registration Act 2012. Only the only parities that can apply for an Advance Notice are (1) the party who can grant the intended deed...in this case Rangers or(2) a person who has the consent of the party who can grant the intended deed. The notice was therefore submitted by Rangers or with the agreement of Rangers. The point of the Advance Notice is to protect a deed that the granters are intending to grant - not one that the might grant or one that they are thinking about granting. This is a clear sign that Rangers have agreed to grant SD a standard security over Ibrox. Normally you would submit the Notice about 5 days before you intend to complete the transaction involving the security. So unless the notice procedure is being misused to put pressure on other interested parties, the Ashely Loan is a done deal. I don't think anyone can truly believe otherwise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Surely the SFA are not standing back doing nothing here? What can the SFA do at this juncture? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,744 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Surely the SFA are not standing back doing nothing here? On face value, it might not exactly matter whether we owe Ashley 3m or 13m. He's got his men in place already. I would assume we'll pay a fine of sorts and argue that without the cash, Rangers might/would end up in administration, which the SFA does not like to see either. Add some honeyclad words about Ashley doing his best for the Scottish game in keeping Rangers afloat and will remove interest at some point in the future or look to sell Newcastle etc. and that might be that. It will depend how Ashley argues his case and what stance the SFA will take. A precedent has been said with the Livingston chap though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Won't the board just argue that the funding needs to be immediate and that, if the BBC report is accurate, it offers double what is being offered by LPT? Yes, that's the case. It will be up to other parties to argue differently. Like I've said since this announcement, I'd fancy the leaking of this document is to expedite the ownership process. 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.