oheisbaer
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by oheisbaer
-
-
Prey tell which financial ombudsman do you work for?
An inquiry is independent only to the extent that it is conducted by an actor/actors who played no part either directly or indirectly in the issue that is to be investigated.
-
This is not an independent inquiry.
-
Whyte has inadvertently provided evidence as to why he was so eager to appoint Duff and Phelps. I don't think they'll be happy at this leak.
-
Ralf Rangnick anyone? Done a good job at Hoffenheim in Germany taking them from the amateur leagues right up to the Bundesliga albeit with a multi millionaire owner. Built a very decent squad and if not as manager why not get him in as a director of football? I'm sure he had a spell in that role with Salzburg in Austria so would be experienced. If we're to progress and be successful then we need to get shot of the jobs for the boys mentality that's holding us back something awful.
Rangnick stated on his resignation from Schalke 04 that he lacked the necessary energy to turn the club around. That was 18 months ago, though.
-
A proper scouting system would have probably get him for the same Dortmund did!
Correct. Lech bought Lewandowski for 300k then sold him to BVB for 4m 2 years later. Artjoms Rudnevs was signed from ZTE in Hungary as Lewandowski's replacement for 500k before being sold to HSV - again after 2 years - for 3m after achieveing a similar goals per game ratio as Lewandowski had with Lech.
-
The upcoming changes in regulations for the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania should be of interest to our scouts as it will negate the need for a work permit.
-
We have to remember that they have now set the precedent.
Clubs using a newco are sent to the bottom. No excuses now.
The formation of one governing body for Scottish football will afford them a get-out clause in this respect.
-
Some people have short memories. Danny Wilson signed for Liverpool in the summer of 2010, when Boyd and Novo left on free transfers as they were not satisfied with the new terms they were offered and Thomson was sold to Middlesbrough as he only had a year remaining on his contract and we were not in a position to offer him new terms. Wilson was in the same boat. So it was - as it appeared at the time - the wrong career move? Hard lines. At 21 I'd sign him in a heartbeat.
-
Court ruling raises stakes in Rangers takeover fight
A BIDDING war is expected for control of Rangers after a court ruling left the door open for administrators to tear up the four-year season ticket deal.
Lord Hodge's opinion in the Court of Session leaves the way clear for Duff & Phelps to renege on the deal with Ticketus – which raised more than £20 million to finance Craig Whyte's takeover of Rangers – if it is in the interest of the creditors of the club.
Lord Hodge said courts "would be slow to disrupt" the administration process by considering any legal move to force the Ticketus deal to be honoured.
The administrators, who told Lord Hodge they believe the deal struck with Ticketus and Whyte is illegal, could get more money from the sale of Rangers, providing greater value for creditors such as the taxman, if there was no deal.
Buyers are believed to have either stayed away from bidding, or devalued the Ibrox club because of the Ticketus deal, which gives the agency 60% of all ticket sales from Ibrox over the next four years, worth more than £30m.
Lord Hodge's rulings will not just speed up the sale of the club, but could also bring in new bidders, the administrators believe.
Former Rangers director Paul Murray's Blue Knights, Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy, Chicago-based Prometheus Capital Partners and an unidentified British consortium, have made conditional offers.
A Middle East consortium, a Singapore group fronted by Glasgow-based businessman
Shazad Bakhsh and New York-based financiers Fortress are understood to be keeping a watching brief.
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We welcome the decisions announced by Lord Hodge and view them as a significant step towards clarifying the future for Rangers Football Club.
"Lord Hodge has made it clear the Ticketus arrangements do not mean Ticketus has property or real rights over seats at the stadium or, indeed, the proceeds from the sale of future season tickets."
Duff & Phelps is now planning to create a shortlist of bids and said it expected the decision to have a "significant bearing on the proposals put forward by bidders to date".
However, London-based Ticketus believes its bid for Rangers with the Blue Knights, which keeps the ticket deal intact, is in the "best interests of the club".
It said: "With every week that passes, further value is destroyed in the club. To conclude the administration process as soon as possible so that the club can secure its future in the hands of a new owner is in everyone's interest. We feel confident that we can conclude this process more swiftly than other bidders.
"Ticketus has a duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the club."
If the administrators breach the deal, it is understood that the agency, while an unsecured creditor, would have to chase majority shareholder Craig Whyte for any losses.
And, while Whyte believes he has preferred creditor status with first claim on assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park, the court-appointed administrators believe this is invalid because there is no evidence he put any of his money into the club.
Court papers show the first confirmation that the administrators' legal advisers believe the Ticketus deal with Whyte is illegal on the grounds that it was indirectly providing financial assistance for the acquisition of Rangers shares, contrary to the Companies Act 2006.
Lord Hodge was unable to give guidance on the immediate termination of the Ticketus contract because details of competing bids could not be divulged. However, his full opinion accepted the general principle that the deal could be breached in administration, and if the club is wound up.
He also rejected a move by Ticketus to place a trust over the proceeds of the sale of the tickets, to try to make the deal unassailable, ruling that it had "purely personal contractual rights".
-
The perfect opportunity to give them the same allocation as every other away support.
-
I asked on another thread if Whyte was deliberately stacking up debt, to dilute HMRC's influence on any settlement from creditors in the event of administration.
I don't know the legalities of that, or if it's what Boss is getting at, but it's what it looked like to me (a financial illiterate tbh).
This thought entered my head last night, too. Can anyone clarify this point?
I haven't seen this posted elsewhere. Administration triggered the addition of at least another 6,807,000 GBP to the "non-HMRC Creditors" column, according to today's Herald:
"Duff and Phelps, a London-based company, were appointed as administrators yesterday, triggering a clause that means the 6807 fans who bought debentures in the club deck at Ibrox in 1990, at prices ranging from £1000 to £1650, are due their money back.
The issue document for the Rangers bond states that ''the debenture shall immediately become repayable at par without interest'' if ''any administrator or receiver is appointed to the undertaking of the company or any of its property or assets''."
-
last bit is not something to criticise him for.
It wasn't supposed to come across as being critical. I just read some of your posts. Someone who can see the wood for the trees.
-
Only read the first page so apologies if this has been mentioned subsequently. I think a lot of fans remain very naive both to how Craig Whyte has conducted his business and why Paul Murray did not act earlier. Whyte's strategy from the outset now appears clear: Plan A - Administration and CVA, doing over as many creditors as was required along the way (hmrc, other clubs, business partners etc) and sell for a tidy profit / Plan B: Liquidation and new-co, doing over as many creditors as was required along the way (hmrc, other clubs, business partners etc) and sell for a tidy profit. PM was not ethically inclined to devise a strategy that would make the debt and the EBT case go away in such a manner, neither did he have the stomach, nor testicular fortitude to liquidate the club if need be.
-
Still a great Knight to Queen B4.
Superb checkmate today dont you agree ?
For Whyte, definitely. His investment is protected. For us? He can still, and will if need be, liquidate the club.
-
Easy tiger. I wrote between HMRC and Craig Whyte, not between Craig Whyte and HMRC. I in no way suggested that Whyte proceeded with the takeover with these intentions in mind, rather my comment represented a response to HMRC's request to put us into administration. However, it is not the first time HMRC have come across Whyte, whose actions today served to protect his "investment" (in ensuring he remained the solitary secured creditor) and protect us from being at the mercy of hmrc, who would potentially have had the power to liquidate the club (in that order). For the time being that is a better arrangement for those of us with Rangers' interest at heart. However, in my opinion the interests of Whyte and Rangers are not synonymous. That is not to say I believe Whyte will carry out an act of sabotage from within, but I firmly believe that he will protect his own personal economic interest first and our club's interest second.
-
personal vendetta?
you serious ya trumpet?
Did WHyte buy Rangers to have a ding dong with HMRC?
Give yersel a slap ya rocket.
Easy tiger. I wrote between HMRC and Craig Whyte, not between Craig Whyte and HMRC. I in no way suggested that Whyte proceeded with the takeover with these intentions in mind, but rather represented a response to HMRC's request to put us into administration. However, it is not the first time HMRC have come across Whyte, whose actions today served to protect his "investment" (in ensuring he remained the solitary secured creditor) and protect us from being at the mercy of hmrc, who would potentially have had the power to liquidate the club (in that order). For the time being that is a better arrangement for those of us with Rangers' interest at heart. However, in my opinion the interests of Whyte and Rangers are not synonymous. That is not to say I believe Whyte will carry out an act of sabotage from within, but I firmly believe that he will protect his own personal economic interest first and our club's interest second.
-
The old regime may have left us open to the tax case against us but our club is now a pawn in a personal vendetta between HMRC and Craig Whyte.
-
We got out of jail against St Johnstone, a game in which the 4-4-2 formation with Healy supporting Jelavic did not work. How McCoist could have sanctioned Fleck's loan after this is beyond belief. Fast forward to today and it is a similar story, except we didn't get out of jail and we ended the game with Kerkar as an auxiliary striker.
-
Aye and his pal who wears the armband. Shat out that tackle that led to their goal.
This. I thought I had imagined it because no one else had mentioned it. He has been quite good at that recently. He isn't the only one, right enough. I like Davis; he is a quality player having an extremely poor season but he is never a captain and shirking out of tackles is not on.
-
It is positive that we are not willing to sell unless we receive an offer that reflects the value of a player. However, I would be surprised if Edu extended his contract beyond May 2013 as he will more than likely want a significant pay increase. As such I would not be surprised if he left in the summer for around the million mark.
-
Forgive me if I am wrong but as far as I am aware there seemed to be no discussion of the fact that Aluko received a 2 match ban, rightly or wrongly, for an offence which, if considered by the referee at the time that he was indeed guilty of, would have been punishable by a yellow card. Instead he received the same punishment as Goodwin, who, had he been caught at the time, would have received a straight red card.
I know it is off topic but the BBC then invited Goodwin onto Sportscene on the licence payer's dime whilst serving a suspension for punching an opponent to have a wee laugh with Rob McLean about how his dad told him if he was going to get sent off he should have hit the Motherwell player harder.
-
I'd imagine training is a better way of gauging who 'deserves' to be in the starting line-up. I'd imagine Bendiksen has been excellent in training, therefore deserving his chance ahead of Bedoya or Fleck.
I wrote that McKay and Bedoya deserve an opportunity in their preferred positions, not they deserve to be in the starting line-up. Do you disagree with that statement? Bedoya and Fleck are two players who play between middle and front who have both been played out of position because the formation played did not permit using them where the should be playing. Any variation on the 4-4-2 formation took the form of a 4-1-4-1, rather than a 4-4-1-1, which can easily revert to a 4-5-1 if need be, whilst preventing the isolation of the lone striker painfully apparent in a 4-1-4-1. Call me cynical, but Bendiksen's inclusion on Saturday may very well have had more to do with the fact that contract negotiations are ongoing and he wants reassurance that he will be given a chance.
I maintain that the 4-4-1-1 with McKay and Bedoya or Fleck affords a sustainable dynamism absent since Naismith's injury. Would be happy going to Parkhead in 3 weeks with the following midfield/attack?
Aluko Davis Edu Wylde
------Bendiksen-----
-------Jelavic------
-
McKay and Bedoya must be given an opportunity in their preferred positions. I don't think McCoist has found a sustainable response to the loss of Naismith. He got closer on Saturday in terms of formation. 2 up front is a non-starter as we need someone to link midfield and attack. However, Bedoya or Fleck should be given the opportunity in this role before the likes of Bendiksen, regardless how decent he may have played.
Aluko Davis Edu McKay
---Bedoya / Fleck----
-------Jelavic-------
-
Assuming Bocanegra, Papac, and Wallace are available I expect the line-up to be:
-------------McGregor------------
Whittaker Goian Bocanegra Wallace
------------McCulloch-------------
-----Aluko Davis Edu Papac--------
------------Jelavic---------------
I hope not.
I'd go with:
-------------McGregor-----------
Whittaker Goian Bocanegra Wallace
------Aluko Davis Edu McKay------
----------Fleck/Bedoya-----------
-------------Jelavic-------------
Rangers Statement re Green/Ahmad investigation
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
An exercise in semantics. Inquiry and investigation are synonyms and you know fine well they are.