Jump to content

spangles

New Signing
  • Posts

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tilburg

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

spangles's Achievements

Cult Hero

Cult Hero (6/12)

7

Reputation

  1. Interestingly ... Responsibility statement The directors of The Rangers FC Group, whose names appear on page 3, accept responsibility for all information contained in this document except for the information set out in Part III. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the directors of The Rangers FC Group (who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this document for which they accept responsibility is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information. Why would that be ?
  2. The point was there is no bar to a public issue, Murray's failure led us into all sorts of problems, as with everything else Whyte is in a no lose situation. He/They have agreed to forgo their option, a public issue if taken up negates the forgoing and still brings money into the clubs coffers, under the control of Whyte and co.
  3. No you have them the wrong way around, there is nothing to prevent a public offering.
  4. Not as strange as truth is to you... or maybe you can confirm the debt has been waived..or not..
  5. The second bolded does not prevent the execution of the first bolded, a public offering, as opposed to the second being a private option relating to The Rangers FC Group. The fans taking up the slack of the public offering and pissing in the pot, the sort of scheme were Minty got his fingers burned.
  6. No the debt isn't cleared, it has yet to be waived, and only under certain conditions.
  7. Not bad return for a £1, also there is the mooted floatation related to the debt to be waived goodbye, all in all Whyte can't lose, only we and the club could, but I don't think it will come to that, as the tax case will be our victory, the alternative is unthinkable for us and the club.
  8. The circular excellent reading............ http://tinyurl.com/67364so
  9. Why as a creditor, i.e. one who is owed a debt.
  10. No, it specifically states the season tickets are the released partial assets, more interestingly....it appears Phil Betts has signed off as the creditor or acting for the creditor,,, http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=186365
  11. So what would have been the prior to this doc surfacing, usage of the said season ticket revenues, as they appear now to be a released asset, and what will be their future usage or asset value applied to. In laymans terms of course, since they appear to have been a confined or guaranty asset previously, despite Minty's view to the contrary.
  12. Not according to our former owner. The former Ibrox chairman firmly denied reports that the bank is insisting on using ticket sales revenue to pay down any of the club's debt. "There's no truth to the bank wanting to ring fence the season ticket money," he said.
  13. As a consequence of the consideration for the Acquisition being £1, and following consultation with the Company and its financial adviser, Noble Grossart Limited, the Panel has waived the obligation under Rule 9 for Wavetower to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders. As a condition of this dispensation, Wavetower is required to send to shareholders, no later than 16 May 2011, a circular providing further details on Wavetower and further disclosure in relation to the terms of the acquisition.
  14. It says in the document that the season tickets are released assets, presumably there are unreleased assets.
×
×
  • Create New...