NessFTW
-
Posts
1,923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by NessFTW
-
-
Was planning to head down directly before the match and get tickets, about 6.45 probably. Early enough you think?
-
It was stated before that the admins get paid after the job is done.
Ah I see, so as long as the finances are sorted out first then they can take time to select a buyer and they will foot the bill. Gotcha.
-
I am not sure. hopefully we will get an answer on this.
I think it might essentially be on tic.
What financial services company do you know that works on tic?
-
no its what the buyer puts in.
how this turned into an anti blue knights thing is beyond me. even if p Murray was saying it he would be right. but there's no mention of them.
this can't happen immediately but it should be progressing.
why have none of the buyers seen the accounts.
Ok so if the purchase is completed then the buyer provides the funds for the CVA. But you can't tell me that the prospective bidders are paying the administrators just now surely. They must be getting paid by Rangers; unless they work on tic
So assuming that the administrators are getting paid out of Rangers bank account at the moment (how else would they), what happens if we run out of cash before the sale is completed? Start liquidating assets?
Ok I am probably getting ahead of myself here and all this is just conjecture but the point is, I don't think we should just sit back and let Duff and Phelps have a free reign considering who they were appointed by.
Oh and to the guy who said it wouldn't matter how long we stayed in administration for, sorry pal that's rubbish. If a business runs out of cash before they are able to exit from administration then that's game over. Well, for us it's liquidation and a newco but you get the point.
-
yes but every day depletes the money for the creditors and makes it less likely a cva will be accepted.
Precisely, the longer this process continues, the more Duff and Phelps benefit, the more the creditors will lose out.
This may be an obvious one, but this 'kitty' I keep hearing about, I assume this is just the spare cash that Rangers currently have sitting in the bank? Any idea how much? Can't be a vast sum surely.
As I said previously I'm more than happy for the administrators to be scrutized; after all, they were appointed by Craig Whyte
-
I'm not so keen on this weeks or months thing, seems awful ambiguous. Financial services companies are notorious for sucking as much money as they can from their clients and administration is a notoriously expensive process.
I think we should be putting pressure on Duff and Phelps tbh. At the end of the day they have no affiliation to the club and probably could not give two shits if our club went down the drain, as long as they're racking up a huge bill in the process.
-
Question, do we have sell on clause?
-
Is this going to be played a Ibrox then? Could be a future anthem
-
Cowan always seems to be pretty genuine to me, to be honest, and quite consistent. He was strongly praising the 'Bear's Day Out' for example, but will slag us for other things, why is that a problem? He is nothing like his nutty companion Cosgrove.
It is certainly good to read any article saying some of this stuff, and if it's our turn next week, so what?
Exactly
-
Couple of good articles there, refreshing to hear a couple of people let rip at them for a change
-
I think it's brilliant
-
Who is the chunt that signed the agreement for whyte to mortgage something he did not on, i.e the future sales of the season books. Because was this deal not in place before he owned the club?
As far as I was aware, Whyte got the ticketus money using his own assets as security against the loan. But...does that not mean that we technically haven't sold any season tickets to ticketus
Anyone care to try and explain
-
Every Rangers supporter who spoke tonight came across well. Not all have the same views but the general gist was one of togetherness. Anyone outside the putrid circle of anti-Rangers who listened to that tonight will come away thinking positively of us.
Loved when they were all talking about the reasons to buy Rangers. Hopefully the Sheikh was listening
-
Of course, yes!
-
*Away to read first thread*
-
Of course he should.
A lot of Referees would have given that yesterday because they're only too aware of what would follow.
Giving them a penalty would have made Collum's life a whole lot easier, the fact he stood by his principles deserves a bit of credit. The decision was spot on and very brave.
Agreed, top piece of refereeing and I hope he gets the total support of his colleagues if he is challenged on this.
-
paul mcride should be straight onto the SFL about this and also head of the Referee committee ........................oops! silly me, I forgot
.gif" />That's about as low as you can go.
Don't want to read shite like that anywhere. Disgusting.
-
I'm just baffled that so many can't give the one man who has provided some unity and leadership to the club at our time of greatest need a fair crack at his own job, after a season when he's been restricted by Whyte's transfer fuck ups and Whyte's mismanagement of the club.
Some bears really need a reality check. Give him one normal season. Hopefully the club will be able to do that and he gets that chance. A club like ours is big enough to pay its dues to a legend who has been heroic in recent weeks- as heroic as anyone in our history.
I would definitely give him till at least next January if the club normalises itself and is able to rebuild in the summer. If anyone deserves it it's him
Even then I would only consider a managerial change if we were already miles behind Celtic, otherwise he'd get till the end of the season for sure.
Barring disaster, Ally deserves a full normal season in charge before he is judged.
-
Good. If that's the case then he deserved a days rest.
Now.........about these accounts?
What accounts?
-
You're wrong.
So predictable, I said correct me if I'm wrong not tell me
-
That's ridiculous. Of course some rules are more strictly adhered to and acted on than others. Similar reasons that a court would give for not punishing a petty thief to life imprisonment.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a poster broke a reasonably serious rule. They are warned about that by PM, accept that they've broken the rule, apologise and say it won't happen again. A couple of weeks later, they break the same serious rule. Is a 24-hour posting suspension too harsh? Just right? Not harsh enough?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
So what is this serious rule?Iit's not a hard question, just give a straight answer.
Why isn't it in CAPS and labelled as "serious rule" if it's so important? How are we supposed to know which rules are serious and which are minor infractions?
-
I'm assuming this was a joke, but caseyjones seems to believe it. It was a joke, right?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Promotion of other sites
Members are not permitted to promote another site on RM without the permission of an administrator via the personal messaging system.
Don't see why that was such a big deal.
-
I see. Well it seems that I would have to agree that some rules are being applied a lot more stringently than others.
Disappointing RM.
Edit: Also just clicked what rule has been broken by both members. It's fair enough I guess but still can't argue with the fact a lot of the forum rules are broken every day and are not acted upon.
Should maybe define within the rules which rules we are and aren't allowed to break.
.gif" />
Super's Goal
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
Absolutely brilliant header against a world class defender.
Best headerer of all our strikers?