Bluedell
-
Posts
1,840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Bluedell
-
-
1 hour ago, Bossorange said:
This sounds good. I'm interested if you still sell these. I know this thread is old someone post a pic of the seat
This is the original leaflet, mate.
-
I have just sent this out to some on twitter.
"I'm trying to organise a meeting with as many supporters groups as I can to discuss creating a unified body for all fans. Would you attend?"
I have been reading for a while now about the desire for fan ownership, fan charters, song books etc. and don't see anything really happening. I tried to do this before but with what has happened over the last 18 months I believe it is time for all fan groups to come together collectively, while retaining their individual organisation, and work as a unified representative forum for all Rangers fans. Something that would allow every fan to still join up with like minded fans, for whatever purpose, or not but knowing that these groups and individuals are working at some point together for the good of Rangers.
This would make the prospect of fan ownership and solving these other issues a real possibility.
I find it a bit strange that you are trying to organise a unified bidy but have already decided that fan ownership should be an aim of this organisation. I know many fans who don't agree with this aim so you are trying to set up something that they would not join.
There is already an organisation that has fan onwership as a priority and I'm not sure that we need another.
If you really want a unified organisation then you may need to consider dropping this point.
-
I obviously haven't seen the documents involved so cannot say that you are wrong as to when Whyte signed the Ticketus deal, however as his take over of the club has brought about a police investigation for what I am led to believe is the fraudulent take over of the parent company then there is enough of a grey area to surmise that if found guilty if it went to court then the debt would rest with him.
I doubt it would work like that. The company still entered into the agreement and anything Whyte is found guilty of is unlikely to affect the debt.
After all on more than one occasion we have heard that he personally underwrote the deal, not the club. Indeed I wonder if a legal eagle could argue that Ticketus were actually also party to any actions taken by Whyte and as such the deal may or may not be open to argument that the club was not responsible. As someone with no knowledge of the legal system I can only voice hypothetical scenarios on this.
I can't believe that Ticketus did not have detailed knowledge of what Whyte was up to and as such I can have no sympathy for them. There may be people at Ticketus who may have acted immorally if not illegally, but the cash still was transferred and individual acts can't take away the debt.
Directors can be found guilty of acts of fraud but unfortunately it doesn't cancel out transactions of their companies in most cases.
-
Certain people out there may not like this as it will probably prove that the club was the victim rather than the perpetrator of the crime. Previous tax problems known as the small tax case may or may not have been paid, I have found that the details of this hard to decipher from the reporting that has taken place in the press.
It wasn't paid.
At this point I would like to point out that any monies that were to be paid to Ticketus were underwritten by Whyte, not by the club as he did not own the club when he entered into this agreement, a situation that has resulted in a court case seeking 25 million pounds that have gone missing from Rangers while under his tenure.
The fact that the debt was underwritten by Whyte is irrelevant. Rangers owed the cash. If you look at the date of the Ticketus agreement, I'm sure that you will find it was post-Whyte takeover. The Ticketus cash was largely used to pay the debt that we owed to LTSB, replacing one debt with another so I don't think that the Ticketus debt can just be ignored.
-
You need to learn to read -even Ally agreed with Rae ",,,,,,, Nor are we disputing that we should be punished for that. ,,,,,"
But keep bumping yer gums and I'll keep shooting you down - ( and I love that you stalk me BTW
).Rae thinks that we should be punished for the actions over a number of years. Ally thinks that we should be punished for the actions of a 10 month period. they are talking about 2 totally different things but because they both use the word "punish" you think that they agree with each other? Wow. You really don't understand what either are talking about.
-
It would be difficult to determine who are fans
Supporters Clubs
Season Ticket Holders
Rangers Forum Members
Members of the many fan groups, etc etc
If you issue a statement then it can be read by all of these.
Either information is confidential or it isn't. If it isn't and it can be disclsoed on Wednesday then let everyone know.
-
Representatives from all Rangers Supporters Clubs are invited to a meeting arranged by the RFFF on Wednesday 4th July at 7pm in the Ibrox Suite.
This will be a meeting to discuss all the recent events, and to ask questions of the committee of the RFFF regarding what has been going on in their many meetings with Charles Green and Malcolm Murray.
Why can't they just issue a statement that is open to all fans and not just those in supporters clubs?
It is also announced that the RFFF will be contacting fans on the Season Ticket database to ask their opinions on a number of issues regarding where we play our football in the 2012-13 season.
That's a breach of the Data Protection Act.
-
Is that consistent with the rules, i.e. one distinct legal entity owning the players and a different, second legal entity paying them their contractual wages?
Don't know what the rules are in that respect.
-
So what happens to the PLC when Whyte doesn't agree to transfer his shares to Miller?
What connection will there be between the PLC and the newco?
-
The only thing I know of that has come up in which it was claimed the ST holders were unfairly treated was in the discussion of a new split between ST holders and RSC's for future seasons away allocations. The club and TO staff defended the rights of the ST holders to the split of tickets in spite of RSC's asking for a bigger allocation, so there viewpoint was not only heard but actually won through.
So there was not a fans' organisation to defend the rights of the season ticket holders and it was left to the club to do so? Not very satisfactory.
-
Laudrup and Gazza were better players than Cooper but Cooper was arguably more skillful.
-
The administratorss have one of the most complex, most convoluted, administrations to content with. Then they have had to contend with the rule change announcements ! Oh and they are doing so under the most public scrutinity. BUT that well known financial expert Mark Dingwall feels qualified to comment on how they should be doing their job, how they should be handling it and what timings they should be working to!
People need to realise that Administrators do not have agendas - they have jobs to do, jobs that they have to report to the court in.
There are plenty of people to take our impatience and ire out on - the administrators however are NOT and should not be a target for that ire.
The administrators are not doing a great job.
They stated that Craig Whyte was an irrelevance when that's clearly not he case. He still controls his shares and the administrators have done nothing to change that.
They have set numerous deadlines and missed most of them. They continuie to delay and delay and come up with a whole load of excuses.
They come out with a number of statements about the situtation of the 3 bids, some of which are subsequently denied by the parties involved.
You may be relaxed about their actions but many aren't and their delays are causing problems for our club.
-
When you are trying to sell a company, you give interested parties confidential documents as part of the due diligence process, and they sign a non-disclosure form.
It's standard practice as Murray well knows and is trying to muddy the waters based on something that he would have given full permission to do.
-
your allegation of complicity is no more founded than the allegation the Americans will liquidate us.
Of course it is. Ticketus advanced the cash to Whyte's lawyers before the takeover to be used as proof of funding.
There's absolutely no chance that Ticketus would have done that without knowing what Whyte was up to. Or do you really believe it's normal business practice to advance cash to the lawyer of someone who has not bought a company yet?
-
saddling us with an interest free loan with ticketus and an overdraft is greatly preferably to liquidation.
do we really believe either of the other 2 bids will ultimately be funded by anyone other than the fans
The only bid that is openly wanting a share flotation is the TBK/Ticketus consortium.
Surely getting rid of Ticketus through a CVA is better than still owing them cash post-CVA? I know that you are trotting out the liquidation propaganda but if Ticketus (and HMRC) are only left with an option of CVA or liquidation then they will end up accepting whichever HMRC want to go for. We should not be giving them another option of getting repaid by a share issue, particularly given their complicity with Whyte over his takeover.
-
It's not allowed as we were told that it would not get used to pay creditors, but that didn't stop the guys who run RFFF from doing it before, so who knows what they will decide. Paying the small creditors may not generate enough headlines for them.
-
Is it a stat trust account and held in accordance with FSA Client money rules ?
Don't know. You'd need to check with the RST on that.
-
I had a little check and from what i read all client money needs to be held in a trust account and any interest earned on Client Money must stay within the Stat Trust account the original Client money was deposited in.
Which begs a further question, if im reading your point above correctly as it appears separated.
The bank account is a larger amount than the creditor which suggests that any interest is being kept within the account.
-
god knows how many posts on this subject and yet , no one knows what account the funds are in.
I'm sure that you'll find that they are held in the RST's Gersave bank account.
-
The above was taken from the gersnet site tonight.
Gersnet site? You sure?
-
Sounds like 9300 people didn't get a share for their tenners
I was referring to the membership fee and not Gersave.
As for the cash sitting in the Gersave account, yes, I think that the RST could have been a lot more proactive in approaching the club and getting it invested with them.
-
I can assure you bud , I have no hidden agendas. Just a run of the mill Rangers man. and I am concerned about a group holding circa 100k, when their site is so out of date in FSA requirements as to naming a company that in is administration.
The poster you asked the question asked it i believe with no hidden aganda , merely to ask that if this particular group that hold they funds or maybe they don't hold them, instead they're in the hands of the administrators of DSL. I thought he asked in a decent manner.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The contents of this website in relation to the Rangers Supporters Trust Share Save Scheme are the responsibility of the Trust and have been approved solely for the purposes of Section 21 of the Financial Services Market Act 2000 by Direct Sharedeal Ltd, 2nd Floor, 4 West Regent Street, Glasgow G2 1RW. Direct Sharedeal Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (No.188753).
RISK DISCLAIMER: Supporters should be aware the value of the shares can go down as well as up and that past performance is no guide to future performance. Your shares in Rangers PLC may not be readily realisable and may be difficult to sell or to obtain reliable information on their value.
The above was taken from the gersnet site tonight. So this legal disclaimer is null and void, I mean it's not as if they went into admin today or even last month. So when you see such disregard for legal requirements it does make you wonder.
Yeah, the RST's admin is crap when it comes to that sort of thing. They are not good about keeping stuff up to date. However I doubt that it's got any impact on the security of the cash.
As for the OP's point, if you look at it as a stand-alone question from a member then it could be taken as genuine but when you take it in conjuction with his other RST comments recently (and likewise other contributors on the thread), it's fairly obvious what his intention is. However obviously you may have a different opinion.
-
Personally, I dislike the entire concept of a body that wants fans to pay £10 to buy something worth far less than that, and then give the rights they would have for owning that share over to a body who will use that 'shareholder's' vote, even if that person disagrees, but that is just me.
Where else could you have bought a Rangers share for a tenner? Don't think it would have beenpossible.
You don't need to give the rights of the share or any shares to the RST. You can if you want, I'm sure, buit I certainly wouldn't dream of doing that.
-
I'd suggest for you'd get a less balanced view of the RST on FollowFollow or VanguardBears. I'm struggling to think of anywhere you'd get a more balanced view, any ideas?
Yes, but I'm not going to promote other websites on here.
).
Oak seats
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
I've got a few left. Cost is £65 plus P&P, or could meet before the game on Sat.
PM if interested.