Rangers FC Thread

[RAB - P]

A consortium led by former manager Walter Smith has pulled out of a bid to buy Rangers from Charles Green after an offer was rejected.

Green completed his purchase of the troubled SPL giants last week and subsequently confirmed he was open to investment from a consortium backed by Smith.

However, Smith has released a statement to say that a £6million offer to the Green consortium has been turned down and confirmed his group has now pulled out of attempts to own the newco club in order to allow the new owners to proceed in their own way.

A statement from Smith read: "I would like to clarify the background to the offer of £6million for the assets of the club which I announced on Thursday, June 14 2012.

"The offer was made to the administrators before the Charles Green consortium had concluded their transaction to acquire the assets at £5.5m from the administrators.
Fall-back position

"We felt it necessary to have a fall-back position to secure the club's future. We have since made the same offer of £6m to the Green consortium through Zeus Capital.

"Our offer has been rejected and they have made a counter-offer inviting us to join their consortium.

"However, the current business plan is not in accord with our understanding of the present circumstances of the club and the way forward, but we would prefer to leave them to proceed in their own way and we wish them good luck in their endeavours.

"Members of our consortium had met with Charles Green and Zeus Capital prior to the CVA meeting and it had been agreed that we would be provided with significant information which would give us comfort as to the identity of the consortium members, their strategy and their funding capacity.

"This information had not been forthcoming by the date of our offer.

"We are therefore withdrawing completely from the process to enable Charles Green and his consortium to move forward.

"We very much hope the verbal assurances they provided to us - and the public statements made - are adhered to and that the club will therefore be financed and managed with appropriate governance and can go forward in a sustainable manner.

"We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune."

 

[surfbum]

shit will hit the fan soon, the end is near hang in there bears

 

[surfbum]

I am neither a lawyer nor a specialist in jurisprudence. These views may provide a basis for ordinary people to properly consider the position of Rangers at this time of uncertainty.

RULES

Rules and sanctions come from many sources.

* Key categories of law which affect the conduct of companies are company law, tax law, insolvency law and employment law.
* A company is formed to carry on a business or undertaking
* A company is the persona which acts by contract and otherwise to operate the business
* A company is run by directors. Directors can be "natural persons" or corporate entities. In either case, directors have an individual “persona”.
* Directors are appointed by shareholders and are accountable to shareholders for the conduct and performance of the business whilst the company is a going concern.
* Each director is responsible for ensuring that they have the information necessary to understand the affairs of the company at all times. It is not an excuse or a defence to allegations of misconduct to say that information was not available or withheld
* When the company becomes or is about to become insolvent, the duty of the directors shifts from the duty to shareholders to become a duty to protect the interests of creditors

SANCTIONS

* The company incurs sanctions and penalties if it fails to abide by company law.
* The directors incur personal sanctions and penalties, including disqualification as a director for a period of up to fifteen years, for not ensuring the company abides by company law
* The directors act within the powers laid down by the company's constitution, which conforms to the requirements of company law. The company's constitution is in the form of its Memorandum of Association (setting its objects) and its Articles of Association (governing the rights of shareholders, powers of directors including the power to borrow, and the like
* If directors act outside of these powers, the acts can be challenged
* A company becomes insolvent when it fails one or both of two tests. One is when it cannot pay its debts as they fall due - the "cash flow" test. The second is when its total liabilities exceed its total assets – the “balance sheet” test.
* A company trades when insolvent from the point where "the directors knew or ought to have concluded" that there was no prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation.
* If a company trades whilst insolvent, under company law individual directors may be compelled to contribute to the deficit of assets to the extent that the deficit became worse in the period of trading whilst insolvent
* Under tax law, directors can be compelled to contribute personally to the extent to which National Insurance contributions have not been paid over to HMRC.

STANDARDS

The Deloitte website sets out clearly the standard of a director’s conduct as follows.

“Directors of all types of companies are required to meet the same standards of conduct and behaviour as defined in the Act.

A person, acting in the capacity of director, must exercise his/her powers and perform his/her functions:

* In good faith and for a proper purpose
* In the best interest of the company, and
* With the degree of care, skill and diligence that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions and having the general knowledge, skill and experience of that director”

Thus it is fair to say

* Directors are individually and collectively responsible for ensuring that a company abides by company law
* The company is responsible for the consequences of its actions
* The business has no persona; its affairs are conducted by the company whose affairs are in turn conducted by the directors. By definition, a business cannot be held to account for standards of conduct of the directors or of the company, which in turn is under the control of the directors

Because these distinctions are not clear within the rules of football's governing bodies or within the minds of those applying the rules, there is lots of confusion about what is appropriate.

WHAT PURPOSES DO SANCTIONS SERVE?

Morally and philosophically, the objectives of a system of punishment should be

* To deliver retribution proportionate to the seriousness of the crime
* To deter the offender and others from offending,
* To deprive the offender of the benefits of having offended
* To deprive others of the benefits of the offense
* To rehabilitate the offender
* To provide recompense to the victim

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE RANGERS SITUATION?

Arguably, only retribution has been under public discussion. Notably, the SFA Tribunal applied maximum punishments to subjectively judged offences and attempted to step outside of the SFA rule book to increase punishment. The SPL applied a ten-point penalty, no small penalty, which Doncaster as CEO of SPL in a recent BBC interview said is “insignificant”. The clamour for relegation, regardless of policing and other practicalities, is fierce in certain quarters. What then is just and fair?

* The directors of Rangers who permitted the Club to fail in its obligations must take responsibility for their actions and suffer what penalties, under whatever law, are appropriate.
* The company must do likewise
* These are the proper responsibility of Mr Cohen as Liquidator.

But what of the Club? Here, Rangers fans may dislike some conclusions, but as they follow logically from the analysis above, here goes.

* The Club had no legal persona. The only sanctions which can apply to the Club are sporting sanctions. The Club cannot be punished for the actions of its directors or the company as controlled by the directors
* Sanctions ought to be those applicable at the date of misconduct under sporting regulations. The SPL has levied its penalty.



Next, we see the worst impact of the failure to understand separateness of Club from company.

* The share held by the company is not extinguished upon the insolvency event of the Oldco and yet the Newco cannot be entitled to it without the consent of the SPL. If the SPL rules provided for suspension of voting rights from the date of entry into insolvency proceedings until the date of emerging from it, and for cancellation of the share at the end of the season in which the insolvency event occurred, the question would become one of allocating a new share to the Newco or to another company operating a football club which would then enter the SPL.
* Similarly, no provision exists for demotion from the SPL to the SFL except by relegation according to league position at the end of the season. If such a provision were introduced, and no club could enter the SPL without having spent three consecutive seasons in the SFL, that problem too would be resolved, neatly fitting with ineligibility to enter UEFA competition. Then a Club could resume life in any of the three divisions on a civilly and socially practicable basis.
* The SFA Tribunal has already accepted that suspension or expulsion would be too severe.Perhaps a ban on player registrations to the extent that net registrations were zero would be fair; no-one in before someone is out, in other words.
* This is the unpalatable part. Fans will say they are innocent but are being punished.In fact, this is no more than depriving the fans of the benefits of past offences and is therefore just and fair

In summary it is fair to conclude that

* the company and its directors will be dealt with under company , tax , insolvency and other law
* The Club ought to be dealt with under sporting regulations bearing in mind that

1. Retribution through massive reputational damage has already been inflicted
2. Retribution through substantial competitive disadvantage was suffered from the SPL points sanction, triggering as it did a collapse in sporting performance mid-season
3. Deprival of any benefit of wrongdoingby the companydue tofinancial damage,through inability to compete in European competition for a period of three years
4. Deprival of any benefitobtained by the fans through the offense,has taken place because of (1) and (3) above
5. Rehabilitation through the sweeping away of the former company and the directors who controlled the company
6. Recompense to the victims will be achieved through continuation of the Club and the undoubtedly beneficial impact it brings to the Scottish football industry.

Over to you, Mr Regan and Mr Doncaster.

 

[surfbum]

This shite about paying players we couldn't afford is really pissing me off. If thats the case, any football team in debt is playing players they can't afford.
and most clubs are up to there eyes in debt, so there all fecking cheating. :rulez: are rules :roflmao::nerner:

I love the phrase ""Careful what you wish for"

 

[RAB - P]

CHARLES GREEN has called for a united front and insists he and his investors are in for the long haul as he tries to overcome massive hurdles to lead Rangers FC to a brighter future.

WATCH: You can watch a 13 minute interview with Charles Green for free here: RANGERSTV.tv

 

[phezo]

in it for the long haul. did charles not say last week he was going to leave within a year.

 

[surfbum]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/37/b5/0,,5~177463,00.pdf

 

[surfbum]

There is some mass hatred going on against us and everyone is turning a blind eye.

Its a bit like ethnic cleansing

 

[reni]

Ethnic cleansing ?????? could you care to explain that statement a bit more ?

 

[surfbum]

think it explains its self mate
Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society

and the clue is in the bit that say ( Its a bit like)

a celtic fan posting on the rangers bit lol

 

[wiz569]

If he is a Celtic fan he will be removed from this thread,

But c‘mon ethnic cleansing, you having a laugh?

You guys need to concentrate on the future and forget about everything else tbh

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk 2

 

[surfbum]

mate i did say its a bit like, which it is a whole country is against the poor wee rangers lol
we may not have a future if its up to the rest of them, thats what my coment was about.

If he is a Celtic fan he will be removed from this thread,

But c‘mon ethnic cleansing, you having a laugh?

You guys need to concentrate on the future and forget about everything else tbh

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk 2

 

[surfbum]

New deal would parachute Rangers into SPL... but then relegate club to First Division

By Stephen Mcgowan

PUBLISHED: 23:17, 20 June 2012 | UPDATED: 23:17, 20 June 2012

Comments (4)
Share

Mounting pressure from the SFA could see Rangers relegated to the First Division as part of radical new plans to resolve the greatest crisis Scottish football has ever faced.

The proposal, discussed by the Scottish Football League board at an emergency meeting, would see Charles Green's newco Rangers voted back into the SPL by club chairmen on July 4 on condition they accept responsibility for the wrongdoings of the defunct Ibrox club.

Then, as part of the SPL investigation which found that 'old' Rangers had a case to answer over dual contracts for players and management, the club would be immediately relegated to the First Division.
Compromise: The new deal would see Rangers relegated to the First Division

Compromise: The new deal would see Rangers relegated to the First Division


While any agreement would be seen as a blatant act of gerrymandering by Scotland's footballing bodies, it would minimise the financial hardship suffered by SPL clubs, keep Sky's £80million broadcasting contract on the table, satisfy the bloodlust amongst supporters of rival clubs for Rangers to be punished and give the Ibrox side a fighting chance of a swift return to the top tier.

It would also circumvent the problem raised by SFL chief executive David Longmuir, who has repeatedly said a newco Rangers would have to apply for membership and start at the bottom of the Third Division.

Under pressure from FIFA to resolve the wrangling and heavily punish Rangers, the SFA have lost patience and moved to bang heads together to find the 'least worst' solution to the game's growing malaise.

The governing body are also hellbent on pushing through proposals for a single league body as one of the five key principles put forward in the McLeish report.
Reaching out: Green is keen to build bridges with rival clubs and their supporters

Reaching out: Green is keen to build bridges with rival clubs and their supporters

'We had a very productive meeting,' said Longmuir last night. 'We're right in the middle of discussing all the options at the moment and (Rangers dropping into the First Division) is part of it.

'There are other options available, but we're just trying to do what is best for Scottish football.

'We're not ruling anything out and there's a lot of work to be done before anything can be put together and agreed on.

'I think we looked at every option that was available to benefit the game and the Rangers issue was one of them. We are preparing ourselves for every eventuality that may impact on us.'

SPL clubs will attempt to use Rangers' predicament to force a change in the voting set-up, while the SFL are seeking a return of the play-off system, abolished 14 years ago, in order to grant their approval to the plan.

There are lingering concerns that allowing Rangers to go to the First - rather than Third - Division will send out the wrong message to other debt-ridden SPL clubs. It's also unclear whether relegated Dunfermline, or last season's First Division runners-up Dundee, would acquire the SPL vacancy.

To succeed, the plan requires a level of co-operation and agreement from within Ibrox and yesterday chief executive Charles Green spoke of reaching out to build bridges with rival clubs and their supporters.
Back in training: McCoist and his players return to action next week

Back in training: McCoist and his players return to action next week

Manager Ally McCoist and his players return for pre-season training next Thursday in a state of paralysis over where they will play next season and Green said: 'We really need to focus on that and, part of my role and that of my executive team over the next few days, is to really understand, from the chairmen, from the SPL and SFA, where Rangers can go.

'Can we now try to heal the divides which exist in football in Scotland? I would like to reiterate, the issues we are all having to face now are not as a result of the actions of Rangers supporters, players or the management of this club now.

'And they are certainly not down to the investors and myself. 'These issues were created by previous owners of this club and they have a lot to answer for.'

Speaking after former director Dave King apologised for the chaos wrought by the Murray Group's EBT scheme, Green added: 'I'm quite happy to say I'm sorry, but what am I saying I am sorry for? We all know who needs to make the apology.'

 

[wiz569]

mate i did say its a bit like, which it is a whole country is against the poor wee rangers lol
we may not have a future if its up to the rest of them, thats what my coment was about.

Of course you will have a future and for the wee ones it a chance to maybe watch it unfold from the beginning,

Wouldn't mind being young enough to do that lol

And let's not forget if it wasn't your club you would take as much delight out of it as the rest are doing now

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk 2

 

[surfbum]

post by David Edgar
Sporting Integrity ?

This was a phrase first trotted out a few years ago by Peter Lawell when it was suggested the League campaign might be extended a week to help Rangers in their quest to win the UEFA Cup. Lawell suggested that the integrity of the competition would be damaged by any changes to the League structure taking place during the season. What he meant was that it damaged Celtic’s chances of winning the title. And you know what? I’d have had no problem if he’d just actually said that. He’s Celtic’s Chief exec, it’s his job to look out for their best interests.

What pissed on his point, somewhat, was that he claimed Celtic had already agreed to a tour of Japan immediately after the season ended. If he’d been so insistent about ‘integrity’, then surely he wouldn’t have needed another excuse to avoid an extension? ‘But David’, you are no doubt thinking, ‘he couldn’t help that they had a tour booked then.’ Possibly not. But at the time of writing, four years later, they haven’t actually gone on this tour. I admit that I am suspicious about that. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that just maybe he was at it.

This season, it has become the buzz phrase for SPL Chairman and fans, short hand for them to demand stringent punishment for Rangers. Like Lawell’s use of the word, it is complete bollocks and, ironically, intensely hypocritical.

Integrity, you see, can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy. As a value, it regards internal consistency as a virtue. So how does that apply to Rangers? If we have broken rules, we should be punished. I believe that, as we currently sit, the following measures have been handed down to us:

10 point deduction
£160,000 fine
Ban on signing new players for a year
Denied entry to European Competition for at least 3 years


So why are we talking about the need for further punishment? ‘Sporting integrity’. The phrase is thrown out to ward off any questions. Youse were bad. Youse need punished. But, of course, we have been already.

What they mean by ‘sporting integrity’ is a tad more unwieldy. What they actually mean is ‘look, we hate you. We really hate you and we have a chance to get right in about you that we might never have again. This isn’t about punishment, it’s about decades of impotence, of wee-man-syndrome rage, boiling over. It’s our chance to pretend that we are important, that we somehow matter. That’s what this is.’

If they believe in ‘sporting integrity’, then their choice is clear; Rangers must be made to play in the third division. If they don’t want to do that because they are worried about money, then don’t try to dress that up by saying it’s due to ‘integrity’. There’s no integrity there when all you care about is your own bank balance. That, my friends, is the opposite of integrity. That’s blatant hypocrisy.

If you can’t live with us, throw us out. If you can’t live without us, don’t. But there is no third way. There is no ‘keep their cash while still getting right in about them’ option available here. The clubs must stop using weasel words – which anyone with an IQ bigger than a sandwich or a Billy (Turncoat Rat) Dodds can see through anyway – to hide their own grasping, craven behaviour. If your fans want us punished at all costs, then punish us AT ALL COSTS. Meaning you lose £1.5m a year. Them’s the breaks. We haven’t much enjoyed the fall-out from this either.

As Paul Weller once said, you made your bed, you better lie in it.

No matter what happens, let’s just hear people refer to the spade by its name. No more piss and bluster. Because we know what you are up to.

 

[D 8 RCS]

2 New Stories hitting the news the first from BBC that Glasgow Businessmen Allan Stewart and Stephen McKenna are to table a bid of £11 Million to Green and buy Ranger off him, with the intention of running Ranger for 2 years and then float Rangers on the stock market and let the fans buy in. But the worrying thing is Stewart and McKenna are Housebuilders and Property Developers.
The second story is in the Sun !! as says that Green and Rangers are considering buying Bury Football Club and moving it to Ibrox, allowing Rangers to re-start life in the English League Division One. Which would mean Ranger taking over the Greater Manchester based club's fixtures starting with a "home" game against Brentford on 18th August. Well it is a story in the Sun so ?

 

[surfbum]

the 2 men are celtic fans and have a bad past, just like the coonts we have just got rid so no thanks lol


A FIRM run by two millionaire property developers has gone bust - owing the taxman £78,000.

Allan Stewart and Steve McKenna's empire once boasted a turnover of £134million a year.

And the pair's charity work has been supported by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Goldie Hawn.

But we told in May how one of their companies, Stewart & McKenna Ltd, was taken to court over a tax bill.

And the firm has now been put into liquidation after the cash was unpaid.

Last week insolvency experts Buchanan Roxburgh were appointed as the liquidators.

Stewart & McKenna Ltd was the first company the two men set up, in 2005.

Since then the duo, whose HQ is in Cambuslang, near Glasgow, have formed more than 20 firms.

In an interview in 2007, the partners claimed they had made £134million the previous year after selling 14,000 flats worldwide.

Last month Labour Party donors Stewart and McKenna said they had given shamed former Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell a job with their charity, which has built orphanages in Russia, Indonesia and Africa.

The property developers have previously denied that their empire is in trouble.

The Sunday Mail tried to contact Stewart and McKenna yesterday but they did not return our calls.

A Buchanan Roxburgh spokesman said: "We would appeal to any creditors to contact us."

 

[surfbum]

deedie pm back to me when i told him this yesterday

looks like those 2 might be worth a watching too lol

why the **** do they keep attracting these chancers

 

[surfbum]

Thursday, 21 June 2012
GREEN DEMANDS £8M FOR HALF OF RANGERS-Exclusive

CHARLES GREEN did more than turn down Jim McColl and Douglas Park’s £6M bid to take over Rangers.

For I can now reveal Charles Green demanded that they stump up a staggering £8M for just HALF of the stricken club.

Proving once and for all, despite his claims to the contrary, Charles Green is willing to make a quick sale of Rangers, in order to make a fast buck.

And I can also reveal that it was this unreasonable demand from Green which went a great deal of the way to make up the minds of billionaire McColl and multi millionaire, Park that there was no reasoning with whoever Charles Green’s mystery big backer is.

If that initial £6M offer seems on the low side, that is because it was seen as an opening gambit in negotiations by hard headed businessmen in the fight for the heart and soul of Rangers.

But the disdain with which Charles Green treated the initial £6M bid, stunned everybody. Charles Green’s blatant money grab is something which led McColl and Park to back off.

What Charles Green was asking for, in effect, was a £2.5M profit, while still retaining ownership of 50 per cent of Rangers, leaving the McColl-Park combo to be the Green’s paymasters, without ever being able to call the shots for the benefit of Rangers.

That was unacceptable.

My information is also that when Green made his outrageous demands, the two stooges from Manchester Investment Bank, Zeus Capital, Imran Ahmed and Brian Stockbridge, were just as stunned.

The manner in which Charles Green snubbed the bid, more than the actual refusal, led to what happened.

Now Charles Green will have to find funding. A find it quickly.

That is where Zeus Capital come in. But not by pumping their cash in. Contrary to popular perception, Zeus Capital have no money invested in Rangers. They act as facilitators, middle men if you like, for those who have put some cash in to snare Rangers.

The move which Charles Green has been the front man for.

And all roads seem to lead to Manchester, where the notorious Michael McDonald, the scrap dealer who is the leader of the Manchester Quality Street Gang, built his power base.

Then there is also the company Rui, who own the Glenmuir knitwear brand, who are also based in Manchester.

And Manchester is where the controversial once banned agent, Paul Stretford runs his business from.

But it is Michael McDonald, through investment bank, Zeus Capital, who is believed to be the big player.

For despite the constant denials from Charles Green that Michael McDonald is not a backer, McDonald has made statements suggesting an involvment.

As recently as a few days ago Michael McDonald was lashing out in public at Walter Smith.

Leaving the obvious question as to why Michael McDonald would take that step if he was not involved?

And also the question as to why any backer allowed Charles Green to make a demand of McColl and Park which was so ridiculous it almost amounted to extortion?

And that is the main reason why McColl and Park pulled the plug.

The trouble is that right now and in the days, weeks and months ahead, if Green clings to power, the Green Rangers look like lurching from one cash crisis to another.

They could even slump back into administration.

Though they main danger is Rangers could fall prey to even worse predators, as the news of a new bid underlines.

Charles Green is in such a powerful position that he and his backers could sell up to anyone who will hand over enough money, regardless of what plans they may have for Rangers.

Rangers remain vulnerable. And they will do, for as long as Charles Green is calling the shots.

 

[reni]

If he is a Celtic fan he will be removed from this thread,

But c‘mon ethnic cleansing, you having a laugh?

You guys need to concentrate on the future and forget about everything else tbh


Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk 2

I would deny being a Celtic Fan ! and its nothing like ethnic cleansing the rangers situation !