Rangers Banter Archive January 30 2014

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


30 Jan 2014 18:47:54
deeds rumour - I see this thread kicked off again. But who on this site believes RFC have the deeds and can credibly explain why neither Ibrox or Murray Park have been renamed for the desprately needed cash. for this reason I don't thin RFC do have the deeds. and then of course the whole share issue goes down the swanny as fraudulant

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Op think it's mostly anti rangers bloggers who hope this fiction to be true

But There are some of the conspiracy theorists, some on here, saying someone (Murray, whyte, etc) actually owns Ibrox

So they (whoever it is) just let rangers use it as they wish and for free, get a grip on reality the lot of ye!

Far too many on here believe what the DR or other anti rangers journos and bloggers write, is the truth, they were all blown oot the water with the BTC after all the lies they published

JG

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Jan 2014 20:08:44
Whyte would have to prove he was owed anything from any part he played in the Sevco5088 transaction to have a sniff of the deeds. Sevco5088 took over the deeds - which was then changed to Sevco Scotland by Green. which is now Rangers football club ltd.

So the club has the deeds to Ibrox and Murray park. but Whytes involvment in the D&P / Sevco transaction could cause an issue if Whyte ever decides to go to court.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed039's Note - if he has any claim, remember Green claims to have "shafted" him on this one)

Why is ibrox still called ibrox, why is Murray park still called Murray park simple answer is the people that run the club don't have the authority to sell the naming rights. Anyone who disagrees please explain why when the club is hemreging money the naming rights have not been sold even on a yearly basis to raise some cash, surely that's a no brainier money for nothing

Agree0 Disagree0

Scotty your wrong sevco 5088 never took over any assets or anything to do with the rangers fc
That's basic stuff and well known that sevco Scotland later to become TRFCLtd took over the assets of rangers fc for 5. 5 m

JG

Agree0 Disagree0

@4, jg. duff and phelps stated that all assets, history, etc, had been transferred to sevco 5088. it was also confirmed by green in an stv interview. why would they transfer it to sevco scotland who were NOT the preferred bidder?

Agree0 Disagree0

David Murray is known throughout the business world as being a very tough operator, and very shrewd, Craig whyte was put in place by murray, he then sanctioned the other toerag Green to be Whytes front man, its all as plain as the nose on your face. no name changes to ibrox or murray park simply because the Owner David Murray will not allow it.

Agree0 Disagree0

Green only shafted the stupid fans into buying season tickets, he never shafted whyte, if the truth be told Murray has shafted everyone.

Agree0 Disagree0

Just a credible answer on why naming rights haven't been sold - its not an anti rangers bias - the money is needed and Green mentioned it from the word go - Mike Ashley/JJB sports etc etc.

Agree0 Disagree0

I think the fact that Ibrox HASN'T been renamed is a good sign that the club still owns it. Anyone who bought it as an investment would want to monetise it as soon as possible - and that hasn't happened.

Agree0 Disagree0

@4 D&P had exclusive deal to sell assets to Sevco 5088, who then transfered without compensation (yeah right!) to Sevco Scotland.

Green claimed to be only director of Sevco 5088 at time, but Companies House have revoked Greens forms - and now only Whyte and Eadie are shown as directors of 5088 at time of transfer.

So whytes claim is that Green illegally moved assets from 5088 to Sevco Scotland, and then had IPO to sell on assets which he did not own.

Its murky as hell, and who knows, this appears to be why whyte claims ownership of assets in first place.

Issue is does he have assets to fund legal fight.

He owes ticketus £18m - and if he owns ibrox he can had it over and still be in the money.

Green said lots JG and you seem to have swallowed most of it in the IPO.

common con is to sell something you don't own.

Agree0 Disagree0

Sammy - you have cracked the case

If you believe that the admission document is fradulent, then give the fraud squad a wee ring, i'm sure they would take up your complaint especially as it is an open and shut case, then call in the LSE as well

Only one problem, Sevco Scotland bought the assets and changed their name to The Rangers Football Club ltd, the certificate was issued on 31 july 2012 to that effect

JG

Agree0 Disagree0

Rangers must be aware of the speculation and rumours which are flying around about who owns the deeds. The fact that they haven't produced them to prove they actually own them would to me imply that they know that they don't.

Agree0 Disagree0

Listen if you all are concerned who owns the deeds, boycott till you at least get an answer. simple

Agree0 Disagree0

JG. don't understand issue with admission doc being fraudlent (what do you know that we don't. )?

But companies house shows that Green could not have transferred assets from Secvo 5088 to Sevco Scotland as he did not have the right to.

D&P stated they had exclusive agreement with Sevco 5088. so how did they sell to Sevco Scotland?

Rangers Minutes state that Sevco 5088 transferred assets.

So it does not add up, and Greens con of Whyte appears dubious in the least.

I note Green long gone. odd that. departing scene. odd that.

Its not illegal to sell and asset you don't own, if you state in IPO prospectus that there is doubt over deeds (RiFC IPO does this) and state that someone makes claim on it (RiFC IPO does this).

Question is who owns ibrox.

time will tell. Am sure whyte looking for quick deal, given he owes ticketus £18m.

Your "fans buy ipo shares" will save Rfc. continues to look dodgy. if whyte owns ibrox, IPO shares are worthless

Shares fallen from 90p to 20p. odd that doubt about deed ownership will do that. !

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Jan 2014 10:16:20
Forrest have signed a left back on loan, Danny Fox from southampton, hopefully Wallace will now stay

JG

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Why can dave king or mccoll make a bid for rangers then take a chance to see the books see what's been going on. or isit the case stockbridge has gone so money trail is has been coverd erased

Agree0 Disagree0

DK and McColl do not want to own Rangers and they also do not want to throw 30-40 million pound down the drain. They would need to buy out the asset management companies and they are in no hurry to sell so they would need to be made an offer higher than the current share value and that would then have to be made to all the shareholders. Once that is done, the club still isn't any better off, it just means the owners have changed. They would then need to generate more money, that means another share issue and who is to say that the people who bought the 1st lot wouldn't come back again and buy into the second share issue at a lower price, best of both worlds for them. This whole thing is a mess and will not be sorted out quickly or easily. I think the people expecting King to ride to the rescue better be prepared to be disappointed and we already know that McColl and the Murray gang have already shown their hand so they aren't players anymore, which in my opinion is a good thing for Rangers. There will be a few more years of pain but if you actually allow the current board to try and get the club on a sound financial footing then maybe just maybe you will stand a chance.

Agree0 Disagree0

Km26 - say someone buys out rangers shares in total (JG. allways trying to get fans to do this? odd that). this will cost £18m currently (and falling).

if they then find they bought a shell company which owns nothing, they could then have to buy assets (ibrox, mp) from whoever does.

caveat emptor (latin for the law on purchase, buyer beware. you may buy a pup!).

We know green and whyte involved in con to make money from the shell of RFC in admin/liquidation.

but where does the con start and stop, and is there a con within a con.

Currently two means to unwind the IPO. one is via gratuitous alienation (slim chance that D&P sold ibrox for tooo little - BDO decide this), and one is that someone other that Company/Club RiFC/TRFC owns ibrox (asset worth estimated £50m on bad day).

Yet stockmarket say value of company which claims it owns ibrox (£50m) is just £18m today. which the difference. risk!

So real rangers men with money have to wait for all the issues to pan out, and then spend wisely.

As they say fools (and JG. ) rush in.


ps: would like to see clarity. on deeds, ownership etc etc, but fear this is mired in claim and counter claim.

JG is consistent, always telling fans to buy into the IPO and buy shares prior to EGM, and AGM, odd that.


people who are buying big share blocks are hedge funds, who hope they may get £50m ibrox for £18m. its that kind of a gamble. which needs high risk players.

not fans.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed039's Note - Sammy, if someone wanted to buy all of the shares, then it would be deamed "an aggresive takeover" and they would be allowed time to carry out due diligence and would be able to look into all matters before carrying out their final purchase)

Good debate here. Ed39 - you may be right about the aggressive takeover being able to do due diligence - but that's just the thing - they know its a mess and don't want to buy. It's more than the books that have been cooked. It's one almighty and deliberate mess. Classic asset stripping so no one knows if they are coming and going and eventfully get fed up and give up. Meanwhile any value is legally milked out of the asset. Brutal. These guys don't give a monkeys about your club (I'm not saying most owners do but at least they don't kill the golden goose normally). I hoe you get thru it bears big I'm beginning to wonder how. All, the best

Agree0 Disagree0

N4 cheers joe most of us know that's what happened but its s**** that no laws have been introduced to block this from happening and I don't meen just for rangers but for any firm these barstewards are able to get there mucky fingers in about

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Jan 2014 08:24:58
Hi Ed or anyone who may know I have a quick question regarding Lee Wallace. Do you know if Rangers are looking for the whole Transfer Fee or a large portion of it to be paid upfront? Surely if he did sign for Forrest or anyone no deal over the length of his new contract would be worth it to us unless it accumulated to be about £3 or £4 million. Personally if he needs to go I wouldn't take any less than £2.5 million and would want a good bit of that upfront. Oh to be in a position where we could reject such derogatory offers for our star player.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

 
Change Consent