Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Rangers Rumours Member Posts
oj17's Profile
oj17's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To oj17's Posts
To oj17's last 5 banter replies
oj17's banter posts with other poster's replies to oj17's banter posts
04 Mar 2014 21:47:32
in all the smoke and mirrors of fanatical bloggers - isn't the interim accounts due this week? or ar the already overdue?
1.) OJ - in 2011 they were issued on the 31st March
Last year they were issued on 4th march
I expect we will see them soon but to answer your question
No - they are not overdue at this time
JG
2.) Jg, do you know why the club owes £16 to the holding company, as per the accounts?
3.) OJ - they are definitely overdue. On Company Check, they are shown as being due to be posted by 28/02/2014.
4.) Fifer - we all want to see them but the accounts are not overdue
aim rule 18, companies must issue interim reports within three months. Therefore RIFC have unti 31st March
JG
5.) Hughphil -read note 15 on the yearly accounts, the 16m was raised in the ipo and left with TRFC for working capital
The loan should be drawn down as TRFC expend the money on wages etc
JG
6.) The interim accounts that are to be published are the RIFC accounts. They are not due until the end of March but were out on the 4th last year. The ones that are overdue are the TRFC LTD accounts, the trading subsidiary/club itself
7.) JG. welcome back. three posts and each one murkier that the last.
"they are not overdue". sadly companies house report they are! odd that.
"aim rule 18" - but tax rules for LTD companies trump this. odd that.
"The loan. " - eh? You told us we debt-free. now there is £16m loan in first year? odd that.
Laxley gets loan at 30% on other assets, yet Rangers fans in city offer same loan at 8%?
odd that.
Life is simpler with the single truth - not the spin and retreating positions.
Good news - we survived the Wednesday admin claim. phew!
8.) Sammy - you may want to check the rules for subsidiary companies which are included in the consolidated accounts of the parent company
Remind me again who claimed we would be in admin on Wednesday?
You really must give up your obsession with anti rangers bloggers! Phew
JG
9.) Theres that working capital talk again
10.) JG - bloggers predicting admin.
award winning journo, and irish based blogger (who predicted our last admin previously and was correct).
people so important so many of our fans read their posts and call club, which requires statement to be made!
But I can read this and filter out p*sh and rhetoric.
Meanwhile you just repost any board supported elements as verbatim (we will get into Europe next time no issue, accounts will be out soon and are not late?, all is well, bad times behind us, those who walk away don't come crawling back).
Tell me is the "G" in your name Green? because you sound just like him.
My obsession is with my club, and will try to find truth from what everyone says. lots of opinion here, and elsewhere worth reading.
Whyte said accounts would be soon, and we were not in trouble, and walked us straight into admin.
Admin is unavoidable - if no new massive income streams.
It will happen one day, unless we solve key issues.
Laxleys 30% loan (when other fans offered 8%) - how do you justify that that's not crippling?
You say buy shares - but laxley can convert loan to shares at lowest price in next 6 months and dilute any fan purchase. odd that?
give up your obsession with spin.
real fans pull together and find truth. faux fans regurgitate spin
you are clearly a spin merchant.
11.) Sammy better check your arithmetic mate
What letham said was
“I have offered the loan on the same terms but with the interest payable reduced from £150,000 to £75,000. It is my intention to convert this interest into shares. â€
If 150k is 30% APR, then 75k is 15%
You like questions, here's two
If he is that big a fan why is he still charging huge interest rates, why does he not match the no fee no interest agreed on our other 500k credit facility with another fan/shareholder,
That is the best deal of them all, that ain't spin, that's a fact
Also if letham is taking shares is that not diluting existing shares as well?
JG
12.) Jg why should anybody offer loan why should the board not fund the loan after all its there investment an investment that the support should never have heard about the big hitters haven't got enough money to run rangers fc so they should never have got involved
13.) JG. still spinning I see.
"If he is that big a fan why is he still charging huge interest rates"
A City Gers fan offers £1.5m and you criticise him, wow!
So you saying 15% is huge. (did you not think that argument thru, hard when reading a PR statement)
I ask you again HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY 30% APR, secured on our assets!!
When its secured against assets, the rate reduces, it does not double!
You can't see the con, 6 month loan, with security, convertible to shares at any time - should have been 8-10%. not 30%!
yur pals on the board are having a laff.
Sad to see you undermine any fan who tries to help. odd that.
14.) @11 for someone who claims not to read bloggers, sad to see you partially quote from letham out of context. from a blog site. nailed!
does the fully quote not say if club enable to convert to shares. ? etc etc etc.
is this one of the people you don't want crawling back, a guy who is a rangers fan (not someone who says they fan of club x, then of club y to suit situation) and can invest 1.5m in our hour of need.
getting to hot where you are?
15.) Ah the old answer a question with a question trick!
Let's make it easy then
Is letham offering a loan with 15% APR interest - Yes or No
Is 15 between 8 and 10 - yes or no
Where did I criticise him, I questioned why he didn't offer it at 0% as one other person has done! (Which you never answered) Or even at 8-10 as this seems to be your magic number
@ town I don't even know where to begin with that, the board are not elected by the shareholders with the objective that they will stump up the money to keep the company solvent
JG
16.) No jg but its obvious that these big time shareholders never put enough thought or money into rangers or they wouldn't need to get a loan and I also think dave king has got them worried and that's why laxey agreed to cancel loan trying to make them look like good guys eh jharles
17.) JG - According to CompanyCheck, TRFC was incorporated on 29/05/2012 and has yet to file any accounts.
The specify that the accounts were due ON or BEFORE 28/02/2014 and are now overdue.
30 Jan 2014 18:47:54
deeds rumour - I see this thread kicked off again. But who on this site believes RFC have the deeds and can credibly explain why neither Ibrox or Murray Park have been renamed for the desprately needed cash. for this reason I don't thin RFC do have the deeds. and then of course the whole share issue goes down the swanny as fraudulant
1.) Op think it's mostly anti rangers bloggers who hope this fiction to be true
But There are some of the conspiracy theorists, some on here, saying someone (Murray, whyte, etc) actually owns Ibrox
So they (whoever it is) just let rangers use it as they wish and for free, get a grip on reality the lot of ye!
Far too many on here believe what the DR or other anti rangers journos and bloggers write, is the truth, they were all blown oot the water with the BTC after all the lies they published
JG
2.) 30 Jan 2014 20:08:44
Whyte would have to prove he was owed anything from any part he played in the Sevco5088 transaction to have a sniff of the deeds. Sevco5088 took over the deeds - which was then changed to Sevco Scotland by Green. which is now Rangers football club ltd.
So the club has the deeds to Ibrox and Murray park. but Whytes involvment in the D&P / Sevco transaction could cause an issue if Whyte ever decides to go to court.
{Ed039's Note - if he has any claim, remember Green claims to have "shafted" him on this one)
3.) Why is ibrox still called ibrox, why is Murray park still called Murray park simple answer is the people that run the club don't have the authority to sell the naming rights. Anyone who disagrees please explain why when the club is hemreging money the naming rights have not been sold even on a yearly basis to raise some cash, surely that's a no brainier money for nothing
4.) Scotty your wrong sevco 5088 never took over any assets or anything to do with the rangers fc
That's basic stuff and well known that sevco Scotland later to become TRFCLtd took over the assets of rangers fc for 5. 5 m
JG
5.) @4, jg. duff and phelps stated that all assets, history, etc, had been transferred to sevco 5088. it was also confirmed by green in an stv interview. why would they transfer it to sevco scotland who were NOT the preferred bidder?
6.) David Murray is known throughout the business world as being a very tough operator, and very shrewd, Craig whyte was put in place by murray, he then sanctioned the other toerag Green to be Whytes front man, its all as plain as the nose on your face. no name changes to ibrox or murray park simply because the Owner David Murray will not allow it.
7.) Green only shafted the stupid fans into buying season tickets, he never shafted whyte, if the truth be told Murray has shafted everyone.
8.) Just a credible answer on why naming rights haven't been sold - its not an anti rangers bias - the money is needed and Green mentioned it from the word go - Mike Ashley/JJB sports etc etc.
9.) I think the fact that Ibrox HASN'T been renamed is a good sign that the club still owns it. Anyone who bought it as an investment would want to monetise it as soon as possible - and that hasn't happened.
10.) @4 D&P had exclusive deal to sell assets to Sevco 5088, who then transfered without compensation (yeah right!) to Sevco Scotland.
Green claimed to be only director of Sevco 5088 at time, but Companies House have revoked Greens forms - and now only Whyte and Eadie are shown as directors of 5088 at time of transfer.
So whytes claim is that Green illegally moved assets from 5088 to Sevco Scotland, and then had IPO to sell on assets which he did not own.
Its murky as hell, and who knows, this appears to be why whyte claims ownership of assets in first place.
Issue is does he have assets to fund legal fight.
He owes ticketus £18m - and if he owns ibrox he can had it over and still be in the money.
Green said lots JG and you seem to have swallowed most of it in the IPO.
common con is to sell something you don't own.
11.) Sammy - you have cracked the case
If you believe that the admission document is fradulent, then give the fraud squad a wee ring, i'm sure they would take up your complaint especially as it is an open and shut case, then call in the LSE as well
Only one problem, Sevco Scotland bought the assets and changed their name to The Rangers Football Club ltd, the certificate was issued on 31 july 2012 to that effect
JG
12.) Rangers must be aware of the speculation and rumours which are flying around about who owns the deeds. The fact that they haven't produced them to prove they actually own them would to me imply that they know that they don't.
13.) Listen if you all are concerned who owns the deeds, boycott till you at least get an answer. simple
14.) JG. don't understand issue with admission doc being fraudlent (what do you know that we don't. )?
But companies house shows that Green could not have transferred assets from Secvo 5088 to Sevco Scotland as he did not have the right to.
D&P stated they had exclusive agreement with Sevco 5088. so how did they sell to Sevco Scotland?
Rangers Minutes state that Sevco 5088 transferred assets.
So it does not add up, and Greens con of Whyte appears dubious in the least.
I note Green long gone. odd that. departing scene. odd that.
Its not illegal to sell and asset you don't own, if you state in IPO prospectus that there is doubt over deeds (RiFC IPO does this) and state that someone makes claim on it (RiFC IPO does this).
Question is who owns ibrox.
time will tell. Am sure whyte looking for quick deal, given he owes ticketus £18m.
Your "fans buy ipo shares" will save Rfc. continues to look dodgy. if whyte owns ibrox, IPO shares are worthless
Shares fallen from 90p to 20p. odd that doubt about deed ownership will do that. !
19 Dec 2013 20:57:20
as I said before today. AGM complete non-event. no AOB. some questions asked ( apologies ed. ). but come on. why wasn't the obvious question asked. how much money is left?. or no other difficult questions.
Perhaps we had easy questions from plants.
bad day for bears. how much money is actualy left
1.) The question was asked but like many other questions they were never really answered so either you weren't there or you just don't listen
2.) Is it really a bad day? Only time will tell but there's not way this board are going to run us into the ground, can someone tell me why they think they might?
3.) @2 I still can't believe after whyte and green you make quotes like time will tell, I GIVE UP, what's the point anymore trying to convince people like you.
4.) N2 have you been sleeping or trippin for the last 2 years they win agm one day then tell us about cuts needed the next day they will skin us at every chance until they are bought out
5.) @3 and 4 You never answered my question, why would they run us in to the ground? I know what happened in the past two years and I also know that if players are sold in January then alarm bells will start to ring but as it stands we are on track, with a good team, to get back to the top without debt.
6.) N5 they are currently running us into ground players wages amount to 8million staff wages 10million they run us downward then eventually sell to another mob of asset strippers that will get scraps until we are bought up by support or people knowing to to have rangers interest at heart its a long way back unless something happens shortly
7.) N5 the main reason they are running us into the ground is because they don't care about rangers fc or any other club they are only interested in bragging about how much money they have no interest in our club whatsoever
18 Dec 2013 17:00:48
this AGM is going to be non-event of year.
The vote is already cast - if the Chairman has got his head screwed on it will be over in 45 mins - there is no scope within AGM structure for questions from floor or any other business
{Ed039's Note - Surely at the end of the agenda there is an item listed as AOCB??)
1.) Ed. not if the Chairman has got it right - if its not on the agenda then that's it. remember its a PLC AGM for company shareholders - nothing to with club.
{Ed039's Note - I am positive every agenda for every AGM must end AOCB but I may be wrong in thinking that)
16 Dec 2013 12:35:56
SuperAlly gives his 1M shares proxy vote to local RFC who will vote against his current employers. seems strange until you realise that Ally knows that board have 54% of vote sewn up.
1.) 16 Dec 2013 13:45:38
When it was still unclear how the AGM vote would go last month, Ally claimed it would be suicide to vote against the current board.
Then, once it's become clear that the current board are guaranteed a majority of votes, Ally suddenly announces that he gave the proxy to some of his EK Supporters club pals back when he was given the shares and they would use the proxy at the AGM.
Very curious.
Jack Irvine works in mysterious ways.
2.) Oj how do you reach 54%, I have only seen laxey 11% and easdale 26% openly declaring they will support the current board members, where do you get the other 28%from?
JG
3.) Ally's doing a fine job. The questioning of his voting strategy is staggering. Who here would vote themselves out of a job of their dreams? And yeah, don't go saying I'd manage Rangers for free when I have a family to support. Your wives might just disagree on this one.
4.) @ 1 Shouldn't we wait till the vote actually takes place to decide who are going to win? Why- anomaly after anomaly that's why in my opinion. All of us- myself included rush to the mobile phone, desktop or laptop without really thinking things through. Whilst Laxey may ignore the majority of Rangers fans who hold up red cards the Bus Brothers cannot as they have admitted through the rare/ only television appearance last week. The fans hold the power if they boycott season tickets and gate money. The Easdales know that although would that really happen? I am not so sure but uncertainty is not good in any business.
Laxey however are not happy with Stockbridge but all of the current board have come out and backed him. Could Laxey change their opinion if the current board do not share their dislike of Mr Stockbridge? They are backing the current board as they are only interested "in stability". What if the current board get in en masse and there is no stability and the red card protests continue until next season and ticket sales are slow? Some of the fans after Mr Easdales television appearance now think he is an okay guy- he is his own guy and that the 20% or so proxy votes he holds trust him and have no influence over him? Really why the need to telephone them daily/ weekly?
One guy who posts on here has gone from shouting about serious fraud squad investigations and ALLY out at all costs and what a nasty little chap he is to everything is going to be all right with one television appearance by a bus brother and Ally doing the only sensible thing he could do with his shares given the circumstances.
I have no idea how this vote is going to go on Thursday and I suspect most fans are the same. What must be evident is that there is no set of knights of whatever colour riding to our rescue. We are in this ourselves and our club's future will be decided by non fans of the club. By suits in London and elsewhere.
To change that fans have to buy shares if they can it is the only way we can ensure the club's fate is in the hands of people who care and not in the hands of utterly dispassionate faceless wonders some of whom may well being sought by the other blue brigade -the police as in the case of Blue Pitch Holdings- apparently. Thursday is a very important date in our club's history- use your vote wisely- but above all please think things through before you vote. Good luck to you
5.) Some guys are unreal on here. The hatred they have for McCoist is staggering sometimes- and these guys are supposed to be on the same side. If Ally managed to save lives from a motorway pile up, for instance, it would be because he was after the publicity. Some people, eh?
6.) Ally is the manager of rangers nothing else. He does not control finances he does not decide anything to do with anything else except the management of the rangers team. Therefore the only thing ally should be judged on are results on the park and so far he is doing his job. Yes he is no great manager in my opinion but neither is Neil Lennon but they don't need to be. This is Scotland not Spain or England. The most likely thing to cost one of these two there job is the other. Unless ally fails to take us back up to the spfl as soon as and that's never going to happen. Yes some of you might disagree with some of the things he has said about the board and people on it but he is allowed his opinion just like you are allowed yours. And if you don't agree that's fine but why the need for the hate and name calling.
7.) Kfraser well said some will not rest till he is gone they are a disgrace he can't do right for doing wrong on the pitch we are doing great but some just want him to fall flat on his face Rangers supporters?? let him take us back to the top league then we will judge him untill then go Ally go your doing just fine
8.) As everyone knows on this site I am against Ally as manager. I have given people my reasons for this and all are football orientated. I having nothing personal against Ally and when he got the job I was as desperate as any Rangers fan for him to succeed. However I feel longterm he won't and am really disappointed with the lack of youth playing in his team. This has led to a few attacks for other people on here and it's as though your not allowed to have an opinion if it differs from certain people
9.) N1 no sence in your theory if am knew current board would win he would have voted himself voted against board knowing this would make him look good cause if current board win then ally says we tried to remove them and failed so we must now get behind them people would see right through that so let's wait till we know before we make assumptions
1. really in right direction- asking Bears to pay for another 3 shirts.
ED.
Ranger themselves claimed 'sevco 5088 was a subsidury'
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/222380-rangers-claim-control-of-craig-whytes-firm-sevco-5088-ltd/
Something very bad is about to happen -if CW is now a director.
{Ed039's Note - It does not say anywhere on the article that it is a subsidiary company of RIFC. It is very cleverly worded saying "related", probably another part of shafting wee craigie shyte, but nowhere does it say a subsidiary company. Sevco 5088 actaully had notice of intent to be struck off but wee craigie diagreed and its the only reason it still exists today)
Just a credible answer on why naming rights haven't been sold - its not an anti rangers bias - the money is needed and Green mentioned it from the word go - Mike Ashley/JJB sports etc etc.
Again very interesting today that Dave King is saying a new share issue is needed and shares are then offloaded by bucketfull and price forced down. Well Done Dave King - obviously DK has his own agenda to get the shares or any new shares as cheap as possible. another spiv is coming - remember a guy who could have invested before and didnt
{Ed039's Note - He couldnt invest in the originl IPO due to his issues with SARS. He is the one waiting for administration, I have said it all along)
Op - that was the chepo internet deal. but you don't get the point. even if it was 2 grand it would be 'cheap' - but only if RFC could afford it. start looking it this way.
How many fans season tickets does each of these little jaunts cost. and could the money be better spent. Wake up - its the 3rd tier of Scottish football and most of the opposition that day had to be working at their day jobs