PDA

View Full Version : If we go into administration again?



turkish
10-05-2014, 13:39
Do the wigs get to decide who the administrators are again?

I remember thinking it fantastic at the time the shyte was given then decision to put his placemen in duff and duffer in and thought they would do us well..... Basically I was a mug... Along with I think the majority of fans.

I often think back to what would have been if the decision went against and different administrators were put in? Can't think it could have been any worse than the nightmare since green et al got their grubby claws into us.

But if we do indeed go Into administration do the wigs get to decide? Then We go through another cycle of this sh!t with some other crook coming in and doing us over again?

sebrof61
10-05-2014, 14:18
This is a big concern and why they need to be bought out

bertram
10-05-2014, 14:21
Could a judge block a request for administration if a potential investor offered a cash injection in exchange for equity in the plc?

MasterC
10-05-2014, 14:29
Could a judge block a request for administration if a potential investor offered a cash injection in exchange for equity in the plc?

I really don't see how.

It is their PLC and their Ltd Co, how could anyone force them to take money from someone else.

In any case, if TRFC goes into administration the PLC is 100% shareholder and by far the biggest creditor. They will decide the outcome of the administration anyway.

However I really don't see why they would go down that road anyway. What would be the point in trying to place the subsidiary into administration. To what end.

bertram
10-05-2014, 14:32
I really don't see how.

It is their PLC and their Ltd Co, how could anyone force them to take money from someone else.

Surely a judge could dent their request for the protection of the court if there is an alternative option that us better for the company, its subsidiaries and employees?

kyivgers
10-05-2014, 14:41
I really don't see how.

It is their PLC and their Ltd Co, how could anyone force them to take money from someone else.

In any case, if TRFC goes into administration the PLC is 100% shareholder and by far the biggest creditor. They will decide the outcome of the administration anyway.

However I really don't see why they would go down that road anyway. What would be the point in trying to place the subsidiary into administration. To what end.

I think if it went to court they would decide RIFC and TRFC ar the same entity.

‘creditors of an insolvent subsidiary may be able to obtain a judgement against the parent if they can pierce the corporate veil and prove that the parent and subsidiary are mere alter egos of one another.’

This would almost certainly be the case for RIFC and TRFCL.

MasterC
10-05-2014, 14:43
Surely a judge could dent their request for the protection of the court if there is an alternative option that us better for the company, its subsidiaries and employees?

Like I said I don't see why they would do it in the first place, however if any entity goes into administration it will be the subsidiary, not the holding company.

Again, I don't see how a judge could force them to take loans from anyone. The administrator could, as he would have total control of the situation, but that is a different argument.

MasterC
10-05-2014, 14:45
I think if it went to court they would decide RIFC and TRFC ar the same entity.

‘creditors of an insolvent subsidiary may be able to obtain a judgement against the parent if they can pierce the corporate veil and prove that the parent and subsidiary are mere alter egos of one another.’

This would almost certainly be the case for RIFC and TRFCL.

How is that relevant, who are the creditors of TRFC. As far as I am aware by a huge margin it's RIFC. Do TRFC actually owe anyone else money.

Mason Boyne
10-05-2014, 14:57
I think if it went to court they would decide RIFC and TRFC ar the same entity.

‘creditors of an insolvent subsidiary may be able to obtain a judgement against the parent if they can pierce the corporate veil and prove that the parent and subsidiary are mere alter egos of one another.’

This would almost certainly be the case for RIFC and TRFCL.

We used to be at pains to point out the Club and the Plc were separate. Now we want to argue that they are the same. We cant have it both ways.
RIFC Ltd own The Rangers FC. My view was that they were one in the same but no longer are.
My shares were in the name of RFC plc and the annual report didn't differentiate between the plc and the club. I realise others may argue differently.
RIFC are owed circa £16mill from TRFC. They could call in that debt to recover that amount. Which is why King or a Rangers minded consortium should offer £25mill and lets move on. Hope that they can recover their outlay via a share issue to the fans.
Maybe this should be on a different thread, but I heard last night that the financial world believe the Artemis(?) investment is most certainly money from a single client investor. Also Somers is a nice guy, PM of a lodge in London, and knows hee haw about football, Rangers or our history. He's an ambitious type and only took up the chairmanship as we a listed company and this is the first time he's been chairman of a listed company.
Something for the FF detectives to work on.

johnny v
10-05-2014, 15:38
Do the wigs get to decide who the administrators are again?

I remember thinking it fantastic at the time the shyte was given then decision to put his placemen in duff and duffer in and thought they would do us well..... Basically I was a mug... Along with I think the majority of fans.

I often think back to what would have been if the decision went against and different administrators were put in? Can't think it could have been any worse than the nightmare since green et al got their grubby claws into us.

But if we do indeed go Into administration do the wigs get to decide? Then We go through another cycle of this sh!t with some other crook coming in and doing us over again?The answer to this is yes.

The wigs would decide who the administrators were to be due to the fact they are by far and away the main creditor.

sakuraba
10-05-2014, 17:33
Another administration means another liquidation, the wigs are the biggest shareholders their is no way they would accept a lowball offer for the club, I think they'd rather see the company liquidated again.

Sam_English
10-05-2014, 17:50
Another administration means another liquidation, the wigs are the biggest shareholders their is no way they would accept a lowball offer for the club, I think they'd rather see the company liquidated again.

That is a very frightening possibility.

rangers77
10-05-2014, 18:46
It would be scandalous end of

Kel
10-05-2014, 18:48
Another administration means another liquidation, the wigs are the biggest shareholders their is no way they would accept a lowball offer for the club, I think they'd rather see the company liquidated again.

There is no benefit in liquidation so why would they take it to that point?

dfa2000
10-05-2014, 18:56
Admin 2 IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Several reasons but the main one you can be sure of is that club assets will be used to secure finance. Suits NO ONE to go into admin 2.

sakuraba
10-05-2014, 19:12
There is no benefit in liquidation so why would they take it to that point?

Spite? They've already drained our club of 60M+.

bertram
10-05-2014, 19:18
Spite? They've already drained our club of 60M+.

Liquidation would give court appointed receivers the opportunity to forensically examine the holding company's books.

The way it appears we've been mismanaged you'd imagine that this would be the last things that the parasites would want,

Aunty Christ
10-05-2014, 19:35
This is the capitalist world we live in. Give the "workers" a few shekils now and again and they'll be happy. Meanwhile the fat cats make a fortune to keep them from having to do anything then they appear on tv telling the mugs that they've worked "hard" to make their fortune.

Its ****ing hilarious watching it unfold and listening to the workers trying to claim to be "empowered"

Mason Boyne
11-05-2014, 00:19
Liquidation would give court appointed receivers the opportunity to forensically examine the holding company's books.

The way it appears we've been mismanaged you'd imagine that this would be the last things that the parasites would want,

But the holding company would not be liquidated. RIFC are owed money by TRFC. TRFC s books would be examined.
No one has mismanaged anything, they have engineered things. They have fecked us, the fans and raped our club.

MasterC
11-05-2014, 00:26
But the holding company would not be liquidated. RIFC are owed money by TRFC. TRFC s books would be examined.
No one has mismanaged anything, they have engineered things. They have fecked us, the fans and raped our club.

Exactly.

They own the PLC and by extension the subsidiary. It is their business and their money, and so long as they don't do anything actually illegal they can do what they want.

That is the position just now. The support are customers, nothing more than that.

That is why the only solution now is to remove that custom and starve them out. Righteous indignation and not accepting the facts isn't going to change anything.

There is a legal requirement for the board of the PLC to act in the best interests of it's shareholders, there is no requirement for them to make their customers happy. The only reason they would do the latter is because it can affect the former.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 01:06
I really don't see how.

It is their PLC and their Ltd Co, how could anyone force them to take money from someone else.

In any case, if TRFC goes into administration the PLC is 100% shareholder and by far the biggest creditor. They will decide the outcome of the administration anyway.

However I really don't see why they would go down that road anyway. What would be the point in trying to place the subsidiary into administration. To what end.

If they have already transferred the assets it would make sense to push TRFC into admin in order to draw out a rescue of the loss making football side of the business. They know bears won't want to see the club go under and hence this opens the door to further exploitation.

MasterC
11-05-2014, 01:27
If they have already transferred the assets it would make sense to push TRFC into admin in order to draw out a rescue of the loss making football side of the business. They know bears won't want to see the club go under and hence this opens the door to further exploitation.

It wouldn't be the club going under though, it would be the company which operates it.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 01:42
It wouldn't be the club going under though, it would be the company which operates it.

Can't subsidiary companies be declared insolvent?

Delboy1962
11-05-2014, 02:21
I haven't renewed as yet in fear of losing my money in the event of another administration would that happen,basically any ST will null and void and you would lose any money you paid to it?.

bertram
11-05-2014, 08:51
But the holding company would not be liquidated. RIFC are owed money by TRFC. TRFC s books would be examined.
No one has mismanaged anything, they have engineered things. They have fecked us, the fans and raped our club.

I'm looking at this from a layperson's perspective, surely there must be legislation in place to make it a crime for a company's directors to mismanage a company in a way that could be argued as reckless, malicious or deliberate in a court of law?

Hiring executive non playing staff on 6 figure salaries and taking bonuses awarded by your cronies whilst borrowing cash at sky high rates and with crazy securities etc.

Surely a QC could argue that it might be beyond reasonable doubt that there has been foul play?

kathmandu
11-05-2014, 09:25
I'm looking at this from a layperson's perspective, surely there must be legislation in place to make it a crime for a company's directors to mismanage a company in a way that could be argued as reckless, malicious or deliberate in a court of law?

Hiring executive non playing staff on 6 figure salaries and taking bonuses awarded by your cronies whilst borrowing cash at sky high rates and with crazy securities etc.

Surely a QC could argue that it might be beyond reasonable doubt that there has been foul play?

I'm also a layman and think this should be the case but one look at the banking sector would tell you it's not, pigs at the trough is an accepted part of big business.
Funny thing is when the little man tries it and withdraws his labour or works to rule to get more he is the most terrible person in the world.

kathmandu
11-05-2014, 09:28
This is a big concern and why they need to be bought out

This is it for me, someone with financial clout needs to put up the money to buy out at least some of the incumbents.

bertram
11-05-2014, 09:30
I'm also a layman and think this should be the case but one look at the banking sector would tell you it's not, pigs at the trough is an accepted part of big business.
Funny thing is when the little man tries it and withdraws his labour or works to rule to get more he is the most terrible person in the world.

If there is the slightest chance that we could prove that directors haven't been acting I. The best interests of all shareholders we should see if there is a respected high profile Bear or fans group that would front a fund raising campaign to buy and fund court action.

MasterC
11-05-2014, 10:35
Can't subsidiary companies be declared insolvent?

That's what I said.

TRFC, the subsidiary company, which operates the football club is the one which would go into administration.

However I do not expect administration to happen. I could be wrong of course but I just don't understand why they would do it. Other than possibly to get rid of the bulk of the squad and the staff for as little as possible.

Mason Boyne
11-05-2014, 12:46
I'm looking at this from a layperson's perspective, surely there must be legislation in place to make it a crime for a company's directors to mismanage a company in a way that could be argued as reckless, malicious or deliberate in a court of law?

Hiring executive non playing staff on 6 figure salaries and taking bonuses awarded by your cronies whilst borrowing cash at sky high rates and with crazy securities etc.

Surely a QC could argue that it might be beyond reasonable doubt that there has been foul play?

But the guys doing the hiring are the majority shareholders. Easdale controls 27%(?) and Laxey whatever %. I understand that one of the Easdales decides on salaries. If you own a business, you can pay your staff whatever you like.
Mate, I'm on your side, but just don't see what they've done that could be described as foul play. On the contrary, they have been extremely clever and have engineered an almost invincible hand.
However, without its customers, us the fans, Rangers FC are nothing. They need us and that is there only weakness. We just have to explore the best way of dealing with this. And that will take a better mind than mine.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 12:56
That's what I said.

TRFC, the subsidiary company, which operates the football club is the one which would go into administration.

However I do not expect administration to happen. I could be wrong of course but I just don't understand why they would do it. Other than possibly to get rid of the bulk of the squad and the staff for as little as possible.

Ah sorry MC I must have picked up your previous post incorrectly.

The reason I think they might do this is that they know it would force a buy-out under circumstances where they retain ownership of the assets.

If King or the support bought the club out of admin in order to ensure a future, the snouts would be back at the trough as creditors.

daven37
11-05-2014, 13:17
Exactly.

They own the PLC and by extension the subsidiary. It is their business and their money, and so long as they don't do anything actually illegal they can do what they want.

That is the position just now. The support are customers, nothing more than that.

That is why the only solution now is to remove that custom and starve them out. Righteous indignation and not accepting the facts isn't going to change anything.

There is a legal requirement for the board of the PLC to act in the best interests of it's shareholders, there is no requirement for them to make their customers happy. The only reason they would do the latter is because it can affect the former.

So why are they not doing all they can to make the "customers" happy? What the hell is their end game?

The have players to pay, they have the stadium to upkeep. If they cannot make those payments then do they just keep risking our assets and ultimately selling them to keep the club going for as long as possible until there is nothing left to play with and the club goes bust.

They will have made their money by that point.

The whole thing is a fxxk up - the only way to get rid of the investors/board is for them to be bought out.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 13:48
Their end game appears to be to take as much money as possible from the club. Short-term profit would be increased if they were able to sell off the footballing side of the business. The best, and perhaps only way to maximise this possibility is to put the club into admin. They know bears will not be happy to see the club go out of business.

Long-term profit would be ensured by leasing assets back to the club.

I think it is important to remember that as things stand the club is loss making and it plies its trade in a loss making industry. Hedge funds do not invest with a view to sustaining long term losses.