Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[thplinth]

11 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

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 )

Ok so instead of a clone imagine your wife died and you bought her limbs and torso and head from the undertaker (assuming this was legal of course) took them back to your lab in your castle and crudely stitched her back together as best you could. You then wired her newly stitched back-on head and reconstituted body up to your lightning rod and first big storm, boom! you've got your wife back... or have you really?

edit: come to think of it was Frankenstein no German

Edited May 18, 2020 by thplinth

[RDFH64]

39 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.

 

So newco must have paid the going rate for all the assets, must be plenty in oldcos pot to pay off all the debts due then. How much was the stadium or it’s land worth, what about the state of the art training facilities? Admit it your team totally abused the system to avoid it’s moral, ethical & legal obligations.

[Stu101]

2 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Ok so instead of a clone imagine your wife died and you bought her limbs and torso and head from the undertaker (assuming this was legal of course) took them back to your lab in your castle and crudely stitched her back together as best you could. You then wired her newly stitched back-on head and reconstituted body up to your lightning rod and first big storm, boom! you've got your wife back... or have you really?

Excluding the fact that companies are inert (along with a lot of other company law), then legally yes you have. One of the first rules of company law is that you never compare companies to living persons though. Used to be a thing that would get you marked down on essays, back in the day. 

[Stu101]

10 minutes ago, RDFH64 said:

So newco must have paid the going rate for all the assets, must be plenty in oldcos pot to pay off all the debts due then. How much was the stadium or it’s land worth, what about the state of the art training facilities? Admit it your team totally abused the system to avoid it’s moral, ethical & legal obligations.

no idea what was paid for the assets. Court must have been happy with it though.

It's the same system that is used by 100's of other companies each day. Hopefully you're not too stressed about those, too. You'll be aware that you couldn't have a functioning financial system without it.

[thplinth]

I am generally amazed that insolvency people get away with what they do. Prior to going bankrupt Original RFC listed land, buildings and fixtures and fittings at around the 50m pound mark and this was called their 'fair value'.

Now if you look at the accounts of Neo Rangers what do you see land buildings and F&F listed at? Once again it is their 'fair value' of surprise surprise 50m pounds.

What did these assets get sold to Charlie boy for again? What was it 6m? I forget but it was a pittance.

Don't see how that was doing their best by the debtors who Original RFC could not pay.

I was certain those two from Duff & Phelps were going down but they walked, everybody walked in fact. It is a bit of a racket IMHO. All that prepack stuff as well that goes on... wish I'd got into it. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by thplinth

[Stu101]

21 minutes ago, thplinth said:

edit: come to think of it was Frankenstein no German

isnt there some quiz question about this? Was he not the guy who put it all together? Sort of Charles Green in this situation....

[thplinth]

10 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Excluding the fact that companies are inert (along with a lot of other company law), then legally yes you have. One of the first rules of company law is that you never compare companies to living persons though. Used to be a thing that would get you marked down on essays, back in the day. 

'body corporate'

 The term "body corporate" is defined in Section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 2013. 

You started it. 

[thplinth]

6 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

isnt there some quiz question about this? Was he not the guy who put it all together? Sort of Charles Green in this situation....

Well unless the good doctor imported the various body parts from abroad I am pretty sure so was the monster / new club. You are going to shop local for that sort of stuff.

Edited May 18, 2020 by thplinth

[Stu101]

4 minutes ago, thplinth said:

'body corporate'

 The term "body corporate" is defined in Section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 2013. 

You started it. 

I'll give you that one - although i think its probably the 2006 Act (cant remember a 2013 Companies Act. Possibly wrong though)

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

I'll give you that one - although i think its probably the 2006 Act (cant remember a 2013 Companies Act. Possibly wrong though)

I don't think that was necessarily UK specific. Probably some other country. 

[phart]

1 hour 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.

 

It's not a question of complexity that needs simplified. It's just the argument is of the type where a priest will explain using religious (as opposed to Legal) Jargon about how god can be the father the son and the holy ghost. Regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo a facsimilie was created and entered into Division 3 which is the entirety of my argument. 

I understand that laws have been created that allow the intangible assets to be moved and then assimilated by the new entity and that there is a legal basis for saying they are the same thing, just as there is a religious basis in the argument above. I'm saying in reality though it is quite obvious a pile of nonsense. I'm sure we can all think of many things that were/are legal which were patently wrong.

[sbcmfc]

1 hour ago, Stu101 said:

isnt there some quiz question about this? Was he not the guy who put it all together? Sort of Charles Green in this situation....

I think you’re right, it’s Frankenstein’s monster rather than a monster called Frankenstein.

 

[Stu101]

36 minutes ago, phart said:

Regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo a facsimilie was created and entered into Division 3 which is the entirety of my argument.

... which argument is wrong in law, but which obviously you are entitled to. However, you dont have option of calling law 'mumbo jumbo' just because you dont agree with its outcomes. Laws can be unjust, etc., but they are still the law and still apply. 

 

[Stu101]

10 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

I think you’re right, it’s Frankenstein’s monster rather than a monster called Frankenstein.

 

actually not a bad book. One of the better high school ones- along with Lord of the Files. Pretty much hated the rest

[ger intae them]

Like taking that tiger outside for a ride.......... the one that’s outside, or the one inside that I will now take outside?

[ger intae them]

..... whatever, someone/something taken for a ride.

[phart]

13 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

... which argument is wrong in law, but which obviously you are entitled to. However, you dont have option of calling law 'mumbo jumbo' just because you dont agree with its outcomes. Laws can be unjust, etc., but they are still the law and still apply. 

 

Of course i have the option. I specifically used mumbo jumbo. Reality always trumps man made conventions. The outcome isn't something i'm interested in nor care about. Ir's the consistency of the argument the epistemological purity of it. Law does not equal reality.

Two hundred years ago I could say one human cannot own another human, they can only coerce them through violence (slavery) and you could reply "...which argument is wrong in law but which obviously you are entitled to. However, you dont have option of calling law 'mumbo jumbo' just because you dont agree with its outcomes. Laws can be unjust, etc., but they are still the law and still apply."

I'm not comparing insolvency to slavery i'm demonstrating the dogma involved in legal reasoning. Which when stripped down is just blind force anyway.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by phart

[Rolling hIlls]

Rangers will always be rangers. And some folk cant deal with that. Loonys and well. Loonys. I wont say any more but their point of view is just as bad. Bile.

[Rolling hIlls]

Lets bring scotty in to the mix. He refuses to call rangers rangers. Because they died. So what did they call jesus then? Loony toons.

[phart]

1 minute ago, Rolling hIlls said:

Rangers will always be rangers. And some folk cant deal with that. Loonys and well. Loonys. I wont say any more but their point of view is just as bad. Bile.

There's no internal logic to that position though.

Something was sold a transaction from A to B, if A=B then why the need for a transaction in the first place.

[Jim Beem]

3 hours 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.

Whoever it is, they’re not very good 🤷‍♂️ 

[phart]

3 hours 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.

Also if it is Ranger's playing in the SPFL and the shell being liquidated isn't Rangers. Why is it the shell that's liable for the debt?

These liquidation laws don't make any sense.

[Stu101]

1 hour ago, phart said:

Also if it is Ranger's playing in the SPFL and the shell being liquidated isn't Rangers. Why is it the shell that's liable for the debt?

These liquidation laws don't make any sense.

insolvency law always deals in fake contructs, in the same way i suppose that company law does;  these are not natural constructs. That's why it not a good anology to compare companies to living entities. 

Without going into the full process (and what companies can and cant do), its done this way to protect and seperate assets and claims. For that you need two companies, and (here) one set of assets. The 'shell' is liable for the debt and liabilties as it hold the debts, as part of the process. The main advantage is that it limits claims against the newco (although these still happen- for example, if the process is not followed correctly). It also stops the newco having any claim over the cash held by the oldco to satisy creditors.

Its not the easiest process to follow, but it is logical once you get into it. 

 

[dandydunn]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

Ok so instead of a clone imagine your wife died and you bought her limbs and torso and head from the undertaker (assuming this was legal of course) took them back to your lab in your castle and crudely stitched her back together as best you could. You then wired her newly stitched back-on head and reconstituted body up to your lightning rod and first big storm, boom! you've got your wife back... or have you really?

edit: come to think of it was Frankenstein no German

If she could be reprogrammed to perform more complex sexual adventures, I would definitely consider this. 

[thplinth]

1 hour ago, phart said:

Also if it is Ranger's playing in the SPFL and the shell being liquidated isn't Rangers. Why is it the shell that's liable for the debt?

These liquidation laws don't make any sense.

Where it does not make sense it is usually corruption. I personally think it is really rife in this area because there is a whole lot of money to be made in it, buying distressed assets. It was 5.5m Green paid, I looked it up. How is that feckin possible?

I think major banks are guilty of being involved in it too. E.g. calling in overdrafts unexpectedly to precipitate an insolvency event and then having folk lined up at the other ready to snap it up cheap. Often amazingly it is the same person at both ends. I.e. the people who were running the company before it went insolvent are the same ones snapping it up debt free. edit: Whyte thought he was going to be part of the Green team. But Green shafted him.

A lot of it really does not smell good. The industry is essentially feeding on the dead and as such it is a bottom feeder environment.

Edited May 18, 2020 by thplinth