Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 502 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, phart said:

They entered liquidation on 31 October 2012.

Correct, and this is what happened next...

The assets were transfered to a newco as part of the liquidation process. The original company is still being processed.  The assets include the titles, history etc, that were tranfered to Sevco. These assets were given value as part of the liquidation process on transfer.

Technically under company law I've read that as the transfer was intra vires, and never challanged, that is the legal basis for the transfer. That would make sense, but I've not dealt with company law on a regular basis to hang my hat on it. I do know insolvency law though. If value is asscribed to an intangable asset as part of the liquidation process, then without a seperate agreement or direction it is not seperated from the underlying asset. Thus it vests with the new company.

Unless anyone can point out where this is contractory to the Insolvency Act 86, as amended, then Rangers are the same club. The only that vest with the 'oldco' are the debts and the sums paid for them.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Stu101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Correct, and this is what happened next...

The assets were transfered to a newco as part of the liquidation process. The original company is still being processed.  The assets include the titles, history etc, that were tranfered to Sevco. These assets were given value as part of the liquidation process on transfer.

Technically under company law I've read that as the transfer was intra vires, and never challanged, that is the legal basis for the transfer. That would make sense, but I've not dealt with company law on a regular basis to hang my hat on it. I do know insolvency law though. If value is asscribed to an intangable asset as part of the liquidation process, then without a seperate agreement or direction it is not seperated from the underlying asset. Thus it vests with the new company.

Unless anyone can point out where this is contractory to the Insolvency Act 86, as amended, then Rangers are the same club. The only that vest with the 'oldco' are the debts and the sums paid for them.

 

 

 

 

Perfectly summed up. But dont think that will ever suit the bile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Correct, and this is what happened next...

The assets were transfered to a newco as part of the liquidation process. The original company is still being processed.  The assets include the titles, history etc, that were tranfered to Sevco. These assets were given value as part of the liquidation process on transfer.

Technically under company law I've read that as the transfer was intra vires, and never challanged, that is the legal basis for the transfer. That would make sense, but I've not dealt with company law on a regular basis to hang my hat on it. I do know insolvency law though. If value is asscribed to an intangable asset as part of the liquidation process, then without a seperate agreement or direction it is not seperated from the underlying asset. Thus it vests with the new company.

Unless anyone can point out where this is contractory to the Insolvency Act 86, as amended, then Rangers are the same club. The only that vest with the 'oldco' are the debts and the sums paid for them.

 

 

 

 

Again this is irrelevant to the point i made, Rangers were liquidated and a fascimilie was placed in the 3rd division.

It's sophistry to try and argue an issue while what you're doing is arguing another. Unless you're just randomly deciding to tell me this info apropros of nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farcity said:

Hi Debs, everything okay with you? 

A fine drying day so get those drawers of yours in the machine and they'll be good to go this afternoon. 

Hi Fairy,

I'm grand, just locked my laptop and going to take my wee one out a big walk.  

I've a busy afternoon with work, but that shouldn't have any impact on my drawers...

Cheers.  

Edited by Debian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terry Munro said:

Love watching these thick hun fucks trying to argue that they're the same club they always were. A truly vile group of people that Scotland would be better off without.

Aye. We are thick right enough.  There is not one rangers fan on here that resorts to swearing and calling people names. Now that is what I call thick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phart said:

Again this is irrelevant to the point i made, Rangers were liquidated and a fascimilie was placed in the 3rd division.

It's sophistry to try and argue an issue while what you're doing is arguing another. Unless you're just randomly deciding to tell me this info apropros of nothing.

Rangers weren't liquidated. They were placed into liquidation. Important difference. The 'oldco' corporate structure still exists, in order to settle the debts.

Let me know if you want me to cover off any other points here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rolling hIlls said:

Aye. We are thick right enough.  There is not one rangers fan on here that resorts to swearing and calling people names. Now that is what I call thick. 

You must've missed that Dapo Mabude and his various guises, not sure what it is currently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Rangers weren't liquidated. They were placed into liquidation. Important difference. The 'oldco' corporate structure still exists, in order to settle the debts.

Let me know if you want me to cover off any other points here.

Sure. Can you explain why it's important?

Also as pointed out if Rangers exist in liquidation what is the thing that plays currently in the league?

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just stop the bickering. I've just come off the phone to the Plain English Society regarding this. Their recommendation is that we should ignore liquidation, termination etc and keep it simple. They suggest good old fashioned "deid" is the way ahead. So there you have it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, thplinth said:

So if old Rangers were not liquidated and still exist (as a hollowed out shell) who the hell is playing as Rangers in the SPL now? Fucks sake we may have an impostor on our hands here.

Legally, the assets now vest in the newco. This is how insolvency works. The 'shell' holds the debts and funds to offset. The question comes done to what the assets are, and how they are treated (tangable, intangable, etc). Again see my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Legally, the assets now vest in the newco. This is how insolvency works. The 'shell' holds the debts and funds to offset. The question comes done to what the assets are, and how they are treated (tangable, intangable, etc). Again see my previous post.

That's a lot of jargon. The question is if Rangers weren't liquidated then who is playing in the SPFL?

Auctoritas nec veritas facit legem springs to mind with this argument.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, phart said:

That's a lot of jargon. The question is if Rangers weren't liquidated then who is playing in the SPFL?

Auctoritas nec veritas fecit legem springs to mind with this argument.

Ok, I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. What formed Rangers was sold for a value to the newco. What was sold was assets- both tangable and intangable. At the point of sale you then have oldco and newco. Oldco is going through the liquidation process, and is using the money paid by newco to pay off the creditors. Once this process is complete, oldco will be liquidated. Had oldco been liquidated already, then no creditors could still be paid off.

Newco now hold the assets, consisting of both the tangable (stadium, etc.) and the intangable (championships, etc), as money was paid for them by newco. These assets remain the same, as there was no split of them during the liquidation process. 

Apologies if this isnt clear. Best I can do trying to keep it clear and not go into pages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Legally, the assets now vest in the newco. This is how insolvency works. The 'shell' holds the debts and funds to offset. The question comes done to what the assets are, and how they are treated (tangable, intangable, etc). Again see my previous post.

How it works is the Liquidator sells the assets to the highest bidder. And the funds earned are then used to pay off as much of the existing debts as possible. So Rangers under the control of the liquidator sold off their assets. Now it cant sell them to itself can it. It had to be third party of some description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rolling hIlls said:

That is your opinion kid.  The record books say otherwise.  Rangers got put in to division 3 and worked their way back up.  Whether u like it or not.  They are still Rangers.  And this league is not finished so titles and relegation shouldn't be decided.  But your hatred of Rangers will cloud that so no point in discussing it.  League was not finished.  End of.

Your obviously at the wind up or a bit thick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Terry Munro said:

Why did they need to apply for a licence to play football in 2012?

Because it was a league requirement.

At which point in the liquidation process was there any split of assets, prior to the transfer to newco?

Just now, thplinth said:

How it works is the Liquidator sells the assets to the highest bidder. And the funds earned are then used to pay off as much of the existing debts as possible. So Rangers under the control of the liquidator sold off their assets. Now it cant sell them to itself can it. It had to be third party of some description.

Corrrect- the liquidator sold them to newco. The question is, what were the assets?

The assets were Rangers.

PS - I know how this works. I was involved in it on and off for a long period after the credit crunch 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Ok, I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. What formed Rangers was sold for a value to the newco. What was sold was assets- both tangable and intangable. At the point of sale you then have oldco and newco. Oldco is going through the liquidation process, and is using the money paid by newco to pay off the creditors. Once this process is complete, oldco will be liquidated. Had oldco been liquidated already, then no creditors could still be paid off.

Newco now hold the assets, consisting of both the tangable (stadium, etc.) and the intangable (championships, etc), as money was paid for them by newco. These assets remain the same, as there was no split of them during the liquidation process. 

Apologies if this isnt clear. Best I can do trying to keep it clear and not go into pages.

 

Indeed one might even say a facsimile was created. Which then bought the assets off original Rangers. That said anyone with the money could have bought Ibrox and theoretically demolished it and built a supermarket. Different assets could have been sold to different parties and scattered to the wind. However fortunately for you the Liquidator decided it would raise more money to sell them all together to Charles Green (man those were funny times). 

As for the liquidation I am guessing there is some outstanding legal issues waiting to be resolved. As soon as all the loose strings are tied up Original Rangers will formally be made extinct. The facsimile having taken its place. It was good bit of slight of hand, they changed the name of old Rangers to something like RFC 2012 and then renamed the new entity (Sevco) to something very similar to the Old Ranger's name. The old switcheroo!

I guess it is a bit like if your wife died and the technology existed to make a clone to replace her. The question is, is she really your wife?

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thplinth said:

I guess it is a bit like if your wife died and the technology existed to make a clone to replace her. The question is, is she really your wife?

This is why comparisons between companies and real persons always fail. One is a legal construct designed to hold assets and liabilites, one is a physical entity. For you cloan annaolgy to work you would need two sets of assets- here we only have one (and most here would probably say thank god to that :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...