The Circular

[RFC55 110,157]

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)

[gunslinger 270]

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 squad

2.8 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.

[boss 1,941]

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

= £27.5m

In 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 nothing

or

2. do a deal that we can live with.

[TheMotor 2,208]

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.

[forlanssister 157]

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.

[bluepeter 5,627]

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....

[MisterC 12,412]

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?

[boss 1,941]

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.

[gunslinger 270]

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

[boss 1,941]

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.

[Hoff 7]

My mistake, I could have sworn he'd promised to waive the debt we currently owe RFCG Ltd UNLESS we are made insolvent....

Indeed!

[boss 1,941]

Clause 1.(g) has not had the attention it maybe deserves.

It raises more questions than the rest of the circular put together.

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

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 .

[gunslinger 270]

does it mean that once the debt is waived we can be made to make payments to the RFC group ltd.

[bluepeter 5,627]

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!

[TeamHero 62]

I'm sorry but how is that Clown Spangles still here.

Should have been gone a long time ago.

[ogbg 20]

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.

[rosshleach 0]

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.

[spangles 7]

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 ?

[boss 1,941]

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 be

required to lend money to The Rangers FC Group or grant security in respect of The Rangers

FC Group's borrowings unless the borrowing (and the granting of the security in relation to it)

is principally for the Club's benefit

It'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.

[Bluedell 14]

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 ?

A typo

[caseyjones 3,009]

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 squad

2.8 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.

[MisterC 12,412]

Funny how there are those looking for conspiracies in all this

[MisterC 12,412]

That all sounds ok, if unspectacular. Let the football roll on now.

This.

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

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.