Comment on Bad Money? by Allyjambo.
upthehoops 8th July 2019 at 07:45
On Good Morning Sports Fans on Sky this morning, Gerrard is quoted as saying any offer for Morelos will have to be 'really, really big'. He's also quoted as saying that no one has so far shown any interest in him. So, does that mean any club interested in him will have to be 'really, really interested' before we hear a club mentioned as a suitor?
I seem to remember Gerrard saying something very similar a couple of weeks ago, so is this a new 'quote' or has Traynor just run out of p*sh?
A wee question, though. Is it the case that a lack of interest in a player is an indication that there's a club out there so 'really, really' interested that they are ready to make a 'really, really big' offer? Or is this lack of any interest an indication that there 'really, really' isn't any interest in Morelos, at all?
Apologies for asking such a difficult question, but I just wish one of the SMSM's intrepid reporters would show some interest in the transfer gossip from Ibrox
Allyjambo Also Commented
Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 12:35
Thanks for that, Homunculus.
I think it's important to remember, too, that as the only asset of RIFC, and assuming RIFC had external debt at the time, if TRFC falls into insolvency, RIFC must also become insolvent having no income, and no assets, to support/cover it's debts. The whole shooting match would be in administration, with, I suspect, RIFC's administration, as the holding company, encompassing that of TRFC.
Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 10:48 Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 09:40 I'm not disagreeing with you AJ, just pointing out that it is the parent company (controlled as you say by King) who will be the major unsecured creditor. In an administration they would be looking at what was left over after the secured creditors were dealt with. The current assets with security over them are (1) All and whole the subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA68492; and (2) All and whole the subjects known as Edmiston House, Harrison Drive, Glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016. (3) Training Centre Youth Academy, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow (4) Floating charge Unless there are rules against it, RIFC will be the creditor which will agree to accept or reject a CVA. So basically writing off tens of millions in debt or liquidating the assets of TRFC to get the cash in to then distribute between the shareholders, King included. That's if the administrator sees a Ltd Company which is a viable business going forward, after having decimated the playing squad, sacking staff, and cutting costs wherever possible. I just don't see the fantasy scenario where someone comes in and buys the subsidiary with all of it's assets for £1. I have been wrong before though.
I'm not disagreeing with you either, Homunculs, just enjoying the debate
I doubt, though, that a holding company could ever be allowed to vote on a CVA as it has control over the debt racked up in the first place, and I'm sure that's not the only reason why. What's more, should TRFC fall into administration, as RIFC's only asset, RIFC would follow as night follows day, and vice versa.
Without the necessary legal qualification or knowledge, I feel sure I can categorically state that debt to a holding company does not bestow on the holding company the right to vote for, or against, a subsidiary's CVA. If for no other reason it would leave a massive loophole running right through company law that any and every crook and conman would use incessantly.
Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 23:08 10 Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 21:08 2 0 Rate This easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra’s performance at the Festival. …………………. Times like these one can only think back to Jimbo and his brass bands, how he would have loved that. ………………. Ps. will get that sorted tomorrow BP
Funnily enough I thought of Jimbo when I was posting the link last night. I do hope he's well and if you're looking in, Jimbo, please give us a wee shout to let us know you how you are
Recent Comments by Allyjambo
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
Timtim 16th November 2019 at 22:33 The Club* refers to the Rangers football club PLC which is the Company (yes I Know) who are currently being liquidated . The fact it was printed on Company notepaper will allow them to claim it was the Company who indemnified them. Any lawyer acting for the players should try and use the club* aspect to hold RIFC to account but I doubt they would be successful . It was the club that was the company and not the club that was the club and incorporation doesn't neccessarily mean that the club is the company or vice versa unless it suits our purpose for it to be so . All clear ?
While I agree with what you are saying here, and actually thought along the same lines (of the excuses the excuse makers would make) while writing my post on the subject, there remains the fact that had there been the slightest inkling within either the directors' or players' minds that 'the Club' was not one and the same as the company then the side letter/contract was totally worthless and, had the directors been aware of this, a fraudulent act had occurred.
Adding to that I should refer to something I wrote on the OC/NC debate some time ago, and that is that prior to 2012, millions of words had been written about Rangers FC, and not once, and there can be no doubt that this is true, did any of these words refer to a separation of club and company, nor mention some separate entity living in the hearts and minds of Rangers, or any football club's, supporters. And here we have, in an official document, created and executed by officials of Rangers Football Club that clearly (for it would be an act of fraud for it to be otherwise) ties the limited, incorporated club to…well, itself!
I'd love to challenge any Rangers apologist or Same Club claimant to provide any document more decisive than that side letter/contract in the OC/NC debate. I'd even open that challenge up to any of the millions of words written by all and sundry about Rangers FC that just might hint, even slightly, to the existence of two Rangers entities prior to the club failing to achieve a CVA in 2012.
In the 7 years since that failed CVA, and in all the words written about it since, absolutely not one contract, or official document, or even a quote from a book, media article or overheard conversation, supporting the existence of a club separate from the incorporated club has come to light. That's over 100 years of silence over something that miraculously turned up one day without even an attempted explanation.
PS sorry to reopen the OC/NC debate, but it's never really gone away, for truth must always be supported in the face of lies and dishonesty, and never more so than today in this lying and dishonest Britain.
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
Cluster OneCluster One 16th November 2019 at 21:56 HirsutePursuit 16th November 2019 at 21:42 JC Torre Andre Flo’s side letter (I don’t think it’s possible to post it here) …………………… https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1195822650846777345/photo/1
'The Club'. Nothing but 'The Club' was mentioned in that contract/side letter. Not 'the Company', not 'the Business', just 'The Club'. Clearly David Murray, and everyone else involved with the 'Club' believed (knew) that 'The Club' was an incorporated entity, and nothing else; or else they must have been fraudulently misleading every employee who accepted those contracts/side letters.
If 'The Club' was not a corporate body, then a greater crime was committed in its name than has previously been acknowledged. But, of course, no such crime was committed, for 'The Club' was one and the same as the limited company, the body corporate!
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
John Clark 16th November 2019 at 00:17 Cluster One 15th November 2019 at 20:08 '…A firm suing Rangers following a shelved plan….' ++++++++++++++ There is the SMSM at its best! Not a mention of 'breach of contract'. Oh ,no. A 'shelved plan!' A mere nothing that some wee company is making much of! Honest to God! Memorial walls is suing for a substantial some of money because TRFC is, they say, in breach of contract. in the same way as Lionel Persey QC found them to be in the SDIR case. This pussyfooting about anything to do with 'Rangers' , the minimising and misreporting of the facts about anything to do with either RFC of 1872 or TRF of 2012 , marks the SMSM as perhaps the most untrustworthy aggregation of 'journalists' outside North Korea, China, and other such places where journalist means party propagandist.
And the question of why was the memorial wall shelved in the first place is never asked, rhetorically or of the club, itself?
Now we all know that the most likely true answer is that it was going to cost much more than the club could possibly afford, but that then begs the question, why wait to 'shelve' it until after the contract was signed?
Typical of the SMSM is that instead of asking these questions they introduce the idea that the memorial wall plan has been put on hold rather than abandoned because their favourite club has dire financial problems, with a board so hung up on 'Rangersness' that it abandons high publicity schemes after the contracts have been signed rather than biting the bullet at an early stage of negotiation/planning. What don't they get at Ibrox about contracts? would be another question the SMSM should see as worth their while asking!
In Whose Interests
While I prefer to leave direct criticism of non-cheating clubs and/or their successors to supporters of those non-cheating clubs, I'd just like to say how noticeable, and so Sevco supporter like, the plethora of TDs is to posts critical of the Celtic board when gauged against the number of posts (currently zero) challenging anyone posting said criticism. By all means give any post you disagree with a TD if you want, but at least have the guts to justify your TD with a post challenging the poster directly and setting out a counter argument, or just your own thoughts on why such criticism of your club might be wrong.
We have all been fulsome in our praise, and indeed admiration, for the Resolution 12 guys, so these unsupported TDs for criticism of the very board so obviously blocking its progress are quite strange, to say the least. In fact, this obvious dislike of posts critical, not of Celtic FC itself, but of its board, is so typical of how those not protective of our game's integrity are getting away with it time and time again. It is, I think, an example of the 'tribalism' that those running our game take advantage of to run roughshod over all that they should be respecting, including us, the people who keep the game, and their cushy number, alive.
A TD without a counter argument is so Morelos like in its fly kick and hide behind the petted lip style.
PS I do acknowledge there are times when someone will come on and post something that is deserving of nothing more than a TD when to respond would not be in the best interest of the blog, or our sanity.
In Whose Interests
StevieBC 6th November 2019 at 22:23 Well, it's taken the SMSM 5 full days… but at last they've sourced an expert to share their opinion on the RIFC financials. Internet Bampots might want to sit down for this explosive, Scottish Sun headline; ======= "IBROX WARNING Rangers could end up in financial turmoil like 2012 if King stops bankrolling club, says footie finance expert" https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4922995/chris-brady-rangers-dave-king-finance-expert/ ========
Give the media a chance, Stevie. How long do you think it would take you, or any one of us, to come up with a way of spinning RIFC/TRFC's accounts as a positive for the man who's leadership has cost them so many millions?
It's still sh*t, of course, but spare a thought for a poor hack who's been waiting for five whole days for a dump..!