craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 5million probably means nothing to him as would putting us into administration as a result.If King has the money some say he has he should pay Ashley his money back How does he put us in administration again ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Oh I'll buy an ST. Don't worry about that. Once Mr King delivers his promises that is.... Which promises did Whyte or Chuck deliver before you renewed under them ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Any loan between associates with no standing agreements/repayment dates is payable on demand as soon as the monies change hands, I can assure you and Luke that the Herald took thorough advice before publishing same. A former stalwart of RM Edmiston Drive with a schooling in accountancy also confirmed the codicils as standing in such loans between associates. No I haven't used your excellent facility before, which is far more relaxed and wide viewing than any others of that you can be proud, no mean feat in such a charged subject. Utter nonsense. There is, in fact, case law to support the exact opposite. The case law can be seen here : Lord Tyre, sitting in the Court of Session (Outer Court), gave judgment earlier this month in Nixon v Livingston Football Club Ltd [2015] CSOH 43. At issue was whether money loaned by a director (and companies under his control) to the Livingston Football Club was repayable on demand. The judge held, on the evidence before him, that the loans were not repayable on demand but only when the company could afford to repay them. In doing so he noted that "... the concept of making a loan on the basis that it is not repayable unless and until the borrower can afford to repay, which might be regarded in certain contexts as uncommercial and therefore improbable, seems to me to be much less improbable where the borrower is a company operating a football club" (para. [26]). So your use of the term associates can very easily be applied to Directors as well as commercial partners. As Lord Tyre clearly alludes, a loan being repayable on demand would require for such language to be written into the contract. And given Ashley is going down the EGM route would support the notion that there is no such language in the loan contract. You must try harder. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Maybe I am just being a bit dim but I struggle to understand why a guy like Ashley with his wealth and numerous other interests, considers it worthwhile involving himself with Rangers and the hassle. Suppose he might consider the hassle and conflict to be a source of amusement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raygun 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Utter nonsense. There is, in fact, case law to support the exact opposite. The case law can be seen here : Lord Tyre, sitting in the Court of Session (Outer Court), gave judgment earlier this month in Nixon v Livingston Football Club Ltd [2015] CSOH 43. At issue was whether money loaned by a director (and companies under his control) to the Livingston Football Club was repayable on demand. The judge held, on the evidence before him, that the loans were not repayable on demand but only when the company could afford to repay them. In doing so he noted that "... the concept of making a loan on the basis that it is not repayable unless and until the borrower can afford to repay, which might be regarded in certain contexts as uncommercial and therefore improbable, seems to me to be much less improbable where the borrower is a company operating a football club" (para. [26]). So your use of the term associates can very easily be applied to Directors as well as commercial partners. As Lord Tyre clearly alludes, a loan being repayable on demand would require for such language to be written into the contract. And given Ashley is going down the EGM route would support the notion that there is no such language in the loan contract. You must try harder. Perhaps you should publish the conclusion of Lord Tyre and not the brevity which you did. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragosani 69 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Maybe I am just being a bit dim but I struggle to understand why a guy like Ashley with his wealth and numerous other interests, considers it worthwhile involving himself with Rangers and the hassle. Suppose he might consider the hassle and conflict to be a source of amusement. Quite simply he got stiffed. In his eyes he saw a chance to make some easy money, what he didn't take into consideration is the resolve of the fans. He doesn't like that and probably wants make us pay one way or another! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Perhaps you should publish the conclusion of Lord Tyre and not the brevity which you did. The narrative above suggests all we need to know. Enlighten me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 How does he put us in administration again ? Because he is the main creditor 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Which promises did Whyte or Chuck deliver before you renewed under them ? I only got a ST last season after a ten year absence 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Because he is the main creditor Still cant put us into administration. Being main creditor doesn't give you the right to put a company into administration. He would, like HMRC, need to seek a winding up order. And, for 5 million, that winding up order would be swept aside fairly swiftly. Unless of course, like you, you believe that King and T3B don't have any money to pay off the 5 million loan. 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.