Jump to content

Charles Green statement


Mikhailichenko

Recommended Posts

THE Board of The Rangers Football Club issued the following statement today.

Charles Green, chief executive commented: “I am sure that all Rangers fans will welcome that a judgment has been reached on this case at last.

“That said, the judgment will not affect the operations of the Club nor the proposed flotation of the business as a public company.

“This case is historic and was a matter for The Rangers Football Club plc ('oldco') which is in liquidation.

“The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a corporate entity formed following the acquisition in June this year, by a consortium led by me, of the business and assets of Rangers, including the Club and its honours.

“As HMRC stated in June when they decided to vote against the proposed oldco CVA, no tax liabilities relating to 'oldco' would transfer across to the new company. HMRC have recently reaffirmed this position to the Club's tax advisers, Deloitte.

“The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a company free of external debt.

“The judgment serves to further undermine the validity of the SPL Commission into the use of EBTs.

“As we have said all along the SPL decision to press ahead with a commission was ill-timed and fundamentally misconceived.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.

indeed, Green needs to clear that up. We expect investors to invest cash in return for shares. We don't want a Mike Ashley situation where every penny he put into Newcastle is a 'loan', now in the region of £130m+ Newcastle owe him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not enough of an attack, he must have been eating his afternoon tea when the news comes out

i expect a fuller, more strongly worded statement tomorrow compromising of the terms such as

"haw you liewell ya prick your fucking gettin it"

"regan ya wank im gonna get big bubba to wreck you a new arsehole"

"doncaster, oh boy doncaster do i have my aiming sight trained on you ya horrible wee puppet to lawwell cunt"

Link to post
Share on other sites

not enough of an attack, he must have been eating his afternoon tea when the news comes out

i expect a fuller, more strongly worded statement tomorrow compromising of the terms such as

"haw you liewell ya prick your fucking gettin it"

"regan ya wank im gonna get big bubba to wreck you a new arsehole"

"doncaster, oh boy doncaster do i have my aiming sight trained on you ya horrible wee puppet to lawwell cunt"

I think that will be pretty much that concerning statements from chick green and RFC. After all he and his consortium have done well from our position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.

Erm, yes, but we already know that. If the money had been put in as shares we would have seen that at Companies House. I am surprised that this comes as a surprise to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.

are investors not technically owed money back therefor also internal debt?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Green's only concern is with the dual contracts investigation.

Expect more dramatic statements when it comes to that as it affects the club and not the previous holding company.

As mentioned in another article, the "Juninho Scenario" could go in our favour, unless the SPL decide to move the goalposts again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Boss I have read your reply and not being knowledgable in the subject of how takeovers work I don't understand why we would owe the Green consortium the 5.5m or whatever it is he paid for us? Surely that money bought him the assets (stadium, players, history, brand) and was money well spent. Why would we owe it back to him? Does this mean he effectively got the whole lot for potentially free? Sorry if I'm totally off track here just looking to make it clear in my mind and probably there are a few other fans in same boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green's only concern is with the dual contracts investigation.

Expect more dramatic statements when it comes to that as it affects the club and not the previous holding company.

As mentioned in another article, the "Juninho Scenario" could go in our favour, unless the SPL decide to move the goalposts again.

Nothing like the 'Juninho scenario' imo,they admitted guilt and paid tax on his 'earnings'= dual contract.The BTC judgement clearly states that the alleged monies 'were loans' and repayable, from/to a trust,set up by MIH=NO DUAL CONTRACTS,therefore no Sphell case agin us imo ofcourse. :7325:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Boss I have read your reply and not being knowledgable in the subject of how takeovers work I don't understand why we would owe the Green consortium the 5.5m or whatever it is he paid for us? Surely that money bought him the assets (stadium, players, history, brand) and was money well spent. Why would we owe it back to him? Does this mean he effectively got the whole lot for potentially free? Sorry if I'm totally off track here just looking to make it clear in my mind and probably there are a few other fans in same boat.

Green and the consortium didn't directly pay for the club and assets. Newco did.

Green and co invested money into newco to enable it to do so. That's why it remains outstanding to them. They could've invested the cash into newco in return for shares instead but it's much easier to get your cash back out if it's invested as a loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green and the consortium didn't directly pay for the club and assets. Newco did.

Green and co invested money into newco to enable it to do so. That's why it remains outstanding to them. They could've invested the cash into newco in return for shares instead but it's much easier to get your cash back out if it's invested as a loan.

But Green and his consortium are newco as you put it? They created the newco? How can they distinguish themselves from the entity they created and loan it money? It only exists because they bought Rangers and created the company as the ownership vehicle no? . Im really not getting this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Green and his consortium are newco as you put it? They created the newco? How can they distinguish themselves from the entity they created and loan it money? It only exists because they bought Rangers and created the company as the ownership vehicle no? . Im really not getting this.

Think of a company as a fake person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of a company as a fake person.

That hasn't helped! Let's say I want to buy Rangers tomorrow. I agree a fee of a pound. I then set up a company to buy the club and loan it a pound. I buy Rangers through the company. Have I not just loaned myself a pound? How can Green loan his own company 5.5m?

btw I not for a minute suggesting im right in my thinking I simply can't understand the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 17 April 2024 19:00 Until 21:00
      0  
      Dundee v Rangers
      The Scot Foam Stadium at Dens Park
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Main Event HD
×
×
  • Create New...