tartandon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 …we can now take time to once again focus on their off field troubles. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11129371/Rangers-facing-new-legal-threat-as-Worthington-Group-recovers.html Rangers facing new legal threat as Worthington Group recovers Investment company which announced last year that it was staking a legal claim to ownership of the business and assets of the club now in position to do so Rangers could face more expensive litigation now that the Worthington Group, the investment company which announced to the Stock Exchange last year that it was staking a legal claim to ownership of the business and assets of the club, has made a remarkable recovery. In April 2013 the group revealed that it would be pursuing the holding company, Rangers International Football Club, through the courts, insisting that Sevco 5088, the company formed by the discredited former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, had been awarded the sole rights to buy the club by the administrators Duff and Phelps. Instead, it was Sevco Scotland, fronted by the equally controversial Charles Green, which ended up in charge, with the former Rangers chief executive publicly admitting last year that he had lied to Whyte to gain control of the new club in the summer of 2012. As a result, the Worthington Group reported Green to the Serious Fraud Office. But its legal action appeared to have been abandoned when the Financial Conduct Authority suspended trading in its shares – then worth just 4p – at the Worthington Group’s request on Aug 1, 2013. However, since that ban was lifted four weeks ago, its share price has soared to £198.50 and yesterday it announced the acquisition of assorted digital media investments. With the improvement in the company’s financial health, it is now in a position to progress the challenge regarding its right to own the Championship challengers. That began last year when the Worthington Group bought a 26 per cent holding in Law Financial Holding Ltd, a company belonging to Whyte who, in turn, is believed to own a 7.54 per cent stake in Worthington. Sevco 5088 is one of the subsidiary companies owned by Law Financial. With a current market value of around £25 million, Worthington is worth around £10 million more than Rangers, who are struggling to raise the money to pay their bills. The Worthington Group did not return calls on Monday, but appear as if they are not walking away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 i think it is correct. The letter before claim lead to a contingent liability over ibrox as an asset in the last rangers accounts. with that in place normal business lenders will not lend rangers money because there is no way to establish the true worth of the club and assets. murray park has been used as an asset but only to cover private borrowing.Sorry but none of what you said there makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRBear Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 To clarify, do you want links to the first or second sentence on my post? This all he ever actually posts about is Rangers. Fux sake support yer team. Did you enjoy the football tonight? Walloper!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 I cheer for my favourite team to win and hope for my least favourite team to lose. I think that's pretty standard. (Probably the The Rangers and Celtic in your case.) I didn't get to see tonight's game, but yes the result was very disappointing. I was honestly believing that we could have challenged for the title (with that momentum) if we had won. Still, 3 wins and a draw, and 12 goals (plus 8) in 4 games is something that we would have bitten your hand off for 2 seasons ago. Always look on the bright side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sorry but none of what you said there makes sense to me. ok, you cant say i didn't try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sorry but none of what you said there makes sense to me. actually i'll try again. Since Whytes letter before claim, who has lent rangers any money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 ok, you cant say i didn't try though.The floating charge was over the business and assets of the former company. The business and assets were sold for £5.5m therefore that is the extent of the floating charge. It ceased to attach to the assets when they were sold by duff and phelps for fair market value. It is the proceeds of the sale, ie the £5.5m that the floating charge attaches to. It's like a bank having a mortgage over a property. They sell the property to recover the mortgage amount but once it's sold for fair market value they don't continue to have rights over the property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 actually i'll try again. Since Whytes letter before claim, who has lent rangers any money?George letham and Alexander easdale. The reason rangers can't or won't get money from a bank is because no bank will lend them money at a decent interest rate given the way the company has been run. It's not because of whytes claim. Plus, it has been established that the value of the business and assets is as little as £5.5m so a bank loan is not going to be higher than that given the volatile ticket sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams More embarrassment for #Rangers as nom'd adviser DanielStewart has trading suspended on stock exc after rules breach http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-nominated-advisor-has-trading-suspended.1412159639 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams #Rangers nomad #DanielStewart says shares suspended as unable to publish annual results for year to March 31 on time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams More embarrassment for #Rangers as nom'd adviser DanielStewart has trading suspended on stock exc after rules breach http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-nominated-advisor-has-trading-suspended.1412159639 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams #Rangers nomad #DanielStewart says shares suspended as unable to publish annual results for year to March 31 on time embarassment for the NOMAD is fine by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 The floating charge was over the business and assets of the former company. The business and assets were sold for £5.5m therefore that is the extent of the floating charge. It ceased to attach to the assets when they were sold by duff and phelps for fair market value. It is the proceeds of the sale, ie the £5.5m that the floating charge attaches to. It's like a bank having a mortgage over a property. They sell the property to recover the mortgage amount but once it's sold for fair market value they don't continue to have rights over the property. Sorry Bruce, i thought I had explained. i used the wrong terminology. its nothing to do with a floating charge. its a letter before claim that is causing the problems. i.e. Whytes claim over the assets. forget the floating charge thing - i used the wrong terminology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 George letham and Alexander easdale. The reason rangers can't or won't get money from a bank is because no bank will lend them money at a decent interest rate given the way the company has been run. It's not because of whytes claim. Plus, it has been established that the value of the business and assets is as little as £5.5m so a bank loan is not going to be higher than that given the volatile ticket sales. Correct - both private loans. You are also correct that they cannot get a lending facility from a bank as they have no credit history but they could still raise money form institutions using Ibrox as an asset to support a loan. However they cant do this as no one will entertain that as Whyte has a claim over the assets. The club was so desperate for money that it needed an emergency share issue. why do you think they didnt use Ibrox as security to raise capital. because they cant, because of Whytes letter before claim. it is referred to in the accounts as a contingent liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Correct - both private loans. You are also correct that they cannot get a lending facility from a bank as they have no credit history but they could still raise money form institutions using Ibrox as an asset to support a loan. However they cant do this as no one will entertain that as Whyte has a claim over the assets. The club was so desperate for money that it needed an emergency share issue. why do you think they didnt use Ibrox as security to raise capital. because they cant, because of Whytes letter before claim. it is referred to in the accounts as a contingent liability. I can't remember what the accounts say but in my view the predominant reason ibrox hasn't been used as security is that banks now know its true value, ie at most £2m, which is nothing in terms of security to convince a bank to lend money to a company so poorly managed as rangers.Also rangers go from one disaster to another financially so any bank would consider an involvement in any form to be toxic. Edited October 1, 2014 by bruce778 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I can't remember what the accounts say but in my view the predominant reason ibrox hasn't been used as security is that banks now know its true value, ie at most £2m, which is nothing in terms of security to convince a bank to lend money to a company so poorly managed as rangers. Also rangers go from one disaster to another financially so any bank would consider an involvement in any form to be toxic. Agreed with all that. And I am not having a go or attacking in any sense I am just explaining that what is in that headline refers to the letter before claim that Craig white has submitted and was serious enough to be mentioned in the accounts by rangers auditors as a contingent liability. This restricts the value of the assets as security for loans. He may get no where with the claim but it is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I was honestly believing that we could have challenged for the title (with that momentum) if we had won. : Ha ha ha ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 Was hoping for 23 of 33 points from the first 11 games, but we've already dropped 11 points with 3 games still to play. Only wins over Dundee, Hamilton, and Motherwell would make me believe that the league is still achievable now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Was hoping for 23 of 33 points from the first 11 games, but we've already dropped 11 points with 3 games still to play. Only wins over Dundee, Hamilton, and Motherwell would make me believe that the league is still achievable now. I'll have some of whatever you are smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Mike Ashley now owns 9% of shares in Rangers. He can now call an EGM Edited October 2, 2014 by EddardStark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Latest rumour is ally will step down after the Livi game.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Latest rumour is ally will step down after the Livi game.. Please let this be true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLAS Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Latest rumour is ally will step down after the Livi game.. He knows Edited October 2, 2014 by OLAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Please let this be true! yeh I dont think many gers supporters would be too worried. the only thing is the affect of the upheaval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 yeh I dont think many gers supporters would be too worried. the only thing is the affect of the upheaval. Upheaval? Would be a breath of fresh air getting a new manager, and one who knows about the tactical aspects of the game unlike Super. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal smith Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Upheaval? Would be a breath of fresh air getting a new manager, and one who knows about the tactical aspects of the game unlike Super. Barry Ferguson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Barry Ferguson? I'd rather stick pins in my eyes! Quote Link to comment 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.