elephants stoned 2,994 Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 13.10 The Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company‟s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities, agreed to assume these liabilities in order to gain membership to the SFL.Translates as: Threw us out the SPL, blackmailed us, then kept all our money.Morally on a scale with chucking your Granny out her house, selling her furniture and telling her if she tries to claim it back you'll make sure she has nowehere else to live. Sporting Integrity ?Especialy when the granny was paying the bills for you and contributed far far more to the family pursestrings then all the other members put together. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yes, they can, especially when there were other better bids came in......And, you've got to remember, Green's crowd tried to buy Leeds just before us.What were these "better" bids and why were they better ?Show us the bids.So what if they tried to buy a club before us. I fail to see the relevance. Brian Kennedy DID buy a rugby club before us. Why haven't these other bidders not invested in Rangers now if they are so hot for us ?These and many other questions won't be answered in next weeks episode of Soft Soap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 What were these "better" bids and why were they better ?Show us the bids.So what if they tried to buy a club before us. I fail to see the relevance. Brian Kennedy DID buy a rugby club before us. Why haven't these other bidders not invested in Rangers now if they are so hot for us ?These and many other questions won't be answered in next weeks episode of Soft Soap. Short answer... D&P blocked it and it wasnt any of the ones you mentioned who bidded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirFleckNRothen 1,789 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Can someone give me a summary, please? I've read it and don't quite understand it. Well, I understand that potentially, the old PLC owed £94M, but why is this being revealed? The old PLC is being liquidated, so surely this will have zero impact on ourselves, is that correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATPRFC1872. 220 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Can someone give me a summary, please? I've read it and don't quite understand it. Well, I understand that potentially, the old PLC owed £94M, but why is this being revealed? The old PLC is being liquidated, so surely this will have zero impact on ourselves, is that correct?That's what im hoping, can any one shed some light? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashy 16 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATRFC:- finally we getting somewhere.I stated that the amount 'nicked' in the RFC was in excess of £25 m.Para 8.3 of DP report shows 25m claimGIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATSo our figures are approx correct..next court hearing 4 october in High Court and I will attend to observeGIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATNearly 900,000 pounds received in last 30 days again showing what I had said that RFC was NEVER insolvent...as time passes my words ringGIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATFor a company in administration the estate balance is of £3,165,294 as at 25 September 2012...insolvent my a.... as Tomlinson says GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATremuneration of £2,457,420 was drawn by the Joint Administrators on 10 August 2012.....with a company NOT insolvent how that money could have GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATbeen used to better effect.... GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT"claims made by Ticketus against the Company are unenforceable" its one thing we agree on at least GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT"HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22."..now I see DP game...so clear now GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATDP allow FOR VOTING ONLY a claim of nearly 100M BUT if they had contested it as accounts show much much less HMRC could NOT have vetoed CVA GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATTHis way HMRC are blamed for destruction of RFC whereas CW/DP and LLOYDS and others are the real culprits..this has ONLY just been declared GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT"Ticketus should be rejected in full for voting purposes."..they actually have a far better claim than HMRC although not enforceable I agree GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT"rather than holding a physical meeting to consider the resolutions in Section 15 below, creditors can vote by way of correspondence." GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT...of course they are terrified of a human face to face with shareholders as they would be unable to answer questions...but now its clear GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATPara 15.2 and if creditors/shareholders dont approve the millions in fees then DP go for an order to wind up company...lerum try GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATAfter 12 October DP try and place company in liquidation which I as shareholder will oppose..any other shareholder should see solicitor asapGIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKATASSETS 11,740,032 LIABILITIES 8,574,739 SURPLUS 3,165,294 INSOLVENT????? even INCOME over EXPENDITURE take out legal costs and admin PLUS This is what Giovanni Di Stefano had to say about it, Does anyone think he is on to something here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.