RM Monitor And Standards Officer 112,906 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Sad but true, as we may unfortunately soon find out.Or maybe just maybe our new owner will take us to another level and back to the Rangers we all love? (well some of us) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Much as I would love to trawl through all the pages in this thread, I want to maintain the will to live. So can someone give me a summary based on concrete facts on what has (or hasnt) happened today?debt will be waived if we are not put in liquidation with in 90 days of the tax case finishing. 25 million will be invested in the squad2.8 tax debt owing now will be paid by whyte. money will be put in to repair the stadium. 1.7 bar.oh and andrew ellis is a director of our parent company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 so the taigs are down to hoping hmrc are nuts and put us in liquidation out of badness or hoping the bill is north of 18 million but not to bad. 43 million really what with the 25 million extra investment.As I see it, by the time any catastrophic tax bill is finalised, our debt to Whyte (and it seems it would be all secured and hence rank above HMRC, though some legal bod might want to comment) could be:£18m+ £5m+ £2.8m+ £1.7m= £27.5mIn addition, he would have unsecured debt of £5m (working capital) plus any of the additional £20m he had put in by then.Good luck to HMRC getting even a penny out of us in that situation.It seems to me that this is really putting the squeeze on HMRC to do a deal at a sensible number - their options seem to be:1. play hardball and either:.....a) get a whopping victory in the case but receive nothing; or.....b) lose the case and get nothingor2. do a deal that we can live with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotor 2,208 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Do trolling timothys on the wind up actually have to post "I'm a trolling timothy on the wind up" before they get removed from this site?I actually think its getting worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 157 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Did you think he was going to come in, pay £18m to clear our debt, waive it immediately then promise to personally pay anything we owe from the tax case? Really?No but I really did expect him to invest more than £1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 No but I really did expect him to invest more than £1.My mistake, I could have sworn he'd promised to waive the debt we currently owe RFCG Ltd UNLESS we are made insolvent.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterC 12,760 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 My mistake, I could have sworn he'd promised to waive the debt we currently owe RFCG Ltd UNLESS we are made insolvent....Come on now Peter, we cant let those pesky things called facts get in the way of a good shit stirring session now can we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 oh and andrew ellis is a director of our parent company.We've known Ellis was a direct of the parent company since the day the deal was done. He was appointed in October last year - check Companies House. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 We've known Ellis was a direct of the parent company since the day the deal was done. He was appointed in October last year - check Companies House.yes spangles checked taht but i wasnt sure of him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 No but I really did expect him to invest more than £1.Assuming we don't go bust, he is investing £18,000,001 together with a further £20,000,000 in investment that he has to pay or secure from someone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoff 7 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 My mistake, I could have sworn he'd promised to waive the debt we currently owe RFCG Ltd UNLESS we are made insolvent....Indeed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Clause 1.(g) has not had the attention it maybe deserves.It raises more questions than the rest of the circular put together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Phew..that was some read!Very happy with what I've read and understand.Expect the unexpected and that's all I think Craig Whyte has done with regards to 'covering his arse' if we become insolvent.I keep thinking back to how confident he was when asked about the tax case,so barring a major setback with that it's a bright future for us IMO . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 does it mean that once the debt is waived we can be made to make payments to the RFC group ltd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Clause 1.(g) has not had the attention it maybe deserves.It raises more questions than the rest of the circular put together. Don't be so bloody cryptic! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamHero 62 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm sorry but how is that Clown Spangles still here.Should have been gone a long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Clause 1.(g) has not had the attention it maybe deserves.It raises more questions than the rest of the circular put together. One thing that's interesting is that it applies only before the debt is waived, which is by definition the period before 90 days has passed since the tax case. Which could mean that they take a loan against an asset in order to pay the bill (if we lose)?EDIT: Sorry - that's with reference to the "in the Club's benefit" part. Since that would presumably be in our benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosshleach 0 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 It may help if someone in the know summarised things in full (pretty please). I think I generally understand what is going on, but it would be good to have a definitive finance perspective - cheers.On the Andrew Ellis front - and apologies if this has been mentioned before - he is a Director of the The Rangers FC Group Limited, but not the football club. I guess it does not preclude him being appointed later on but at this stage he has no boardroom role at Ibrox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spangles 7 Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Interestingly ... Responsibility statementThe directors of The Rangers FC Group, whose names appear on page 3, accept responsibility for allinformation contained in this document except for the information set out in Part III. To the best of theknowledge and belief of the directors of The Rangers FC Group (who have taken all reasonable careto ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this document for which they acceptresponsibility is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import ofsuch information.Why would that be ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 does it mean that once the debt is waived we can be made to make payments to the rfc group ltd.1.(g) The Rangers FC Group undertakes that, until the debt has been waived, the Club will not berequired to lend money to The Rangers FC Group or grant security in respect of The RangersFC Group's borrowings unless the borrowing (and the granting of the security in relation to it)is principally for the Club's benefitIt's a classic 'seems to say something completely different to the actual wording until you read it carefully' clause.What it actually says is this:1. We can be required to grant security in respect of TRFCG's borrowings even before the debt is waived as long as the money borrowed is given to us. (And it will be re: working capital, tax, capex, players.)2. We can be required to lend money to TRFCG, or grant security in respect of their borrowings, after the debt is waived even if the money given to TRFCG, or the security granted, is not for our benefit.I'm not saying any of this will happen. But nor do I believe that it has merely been badly worded. This clause is there for a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Interestingly ... Responsibility statementThe directors of The Rangers FC Group, whose names appear on page 3, accept responsibility for allinformation contained in this document except for the information set out in Part III. To the best of theknowledge and belief of the directors of The Rangers FC Group (who have taken all reasonable careto ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this document for which they acceptresponsibility is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import ofsuch information.Why would that be ?A typo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 debt will be waived if we are not put in liquidation with in 90 days of the tax case finishing. 25 million will be invested in the squad2.8 tax debt owing now will be paid by whyte. money will be put in to repair the stadium. 1.7 bar.oh and andrew ellis is a director of our parent company.That all sounds ok, if unspectacular. Let the football roll on now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterC 12,760 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Funny how there are those looking for conspiracies in all this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterC 12,760 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 That all sounds ok, if unspectacular. Let the football roll on now.This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Funny how there are those looking for conspiracies in all this We will wake up tomorrow to a new conspiracy that it was Craig Whyte's evil twin Barry who released the circular while he was buying a new mansion in Florida with Ibrox Stadium put forward as security should he fail to keep up his mortgage repayments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts