Sting777 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Because he's owed f**k all. Try tellin the Judge that!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Imran won 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Can someone please explain to an idiot over this (me) in simple terms what's happened today to Sevco? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Sounds like you were right. What did he have to prove here? As I understand it, he failed last time because Rangers were able to establish that there was no significant threat of insolvency. This time, it looks like he also had to establish that he had a genuine claim to the money too, hence the citing of letters from Green etc. Does this mean that he's successfully established both parts? It's certainly reminiscent of the ruling Bain secured last time. It wasn't that he had to show that he had a genuine claim, just that there was a likelyhood that given the basis of the claim that Ranger's at the time of ruling would not have the resources to pay any judgement in Ahmed's favour. This is in no way reflective of his chances of success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It wasn't that he had to show that he had a genuine claim, just that there was a likelyhood that given the basis of the claim that Ranger's at the time of ruling would not have the resources to pay any judgement in Ahmed's favour. This is in no way reflective of his chances of success. Yes, that's what I thought, given how the ruling was presented last time. The tweets today however seemed to indicate that he was attempting to prove the validity of his claim, alongside the fact that Rangers might soon be incapable of honouring it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It wasn't that he had to show that he had a genuine claim, just that there was a likelyhood that given the basis of the claim that Ranger's at the time of ruling would not have the resources to pay any judgement in Ahmed's favour. This is in no way reflective of his chances of success. He doesn't need to succeed. He can go along way to ensuring they go tits up, leaving them in admin and available to all and sundry again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolf Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 So Money! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Hearts still 7/5 to win the league I see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Hearts still 7/5 to win the league I see... Right..... So for those of us who have no idea what that means.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatwad Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Ian Fleming was right, you do only live twice... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Right..... So for those of us who have no idea what that means.... Chances of you going into admin again just jumped up. Leaving the hearts to win the championship at 7/5 a cracking bet. I trust this clarifies matters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolf Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Right..... So for those of us who have no idea what that means.... It means "free money". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Is that like one of those clause thingies in a contact ... How does all this work with the Orcs belief that all the assets being sold to Sevco constituted continuation, is the club now split? Are there more than one club now? Holy f**k this is a complex issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Am I right in assuming Sevco have to hand this money over to the courts who hold on to it until a decision is made on the case? If so let's hope its one of those cases that drag on and on, with appeal after appeal...lol Edited September 5, 2014 by Sting777 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Chances of you going into admin again just jumped up. Leaving the hearts to win the championship at 7/5 a cracking bet. I trust this clarifies matters. Oh i know about the admin but on the 7/5 thing i'm still none the wiser. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Yes, that's what I thought, given how the ruling was presented last time. The tweets today however seemed to indicate that he was attempting to prove the validity of his claim, alongside the fact that Rangers might soon be incapable of honouring it. I don't use twitter so I am not sure what has been tweeted. Perhaps his lawyer, given the previous cases, thought that this would help convince the judge. I am sure that there was a previous hearing when Ranger's attempted to have the case thrown out (I might be having a senior moment here) but failed. The case is going to go ahead of that there is no doubt. It is about the court protecting both sides in the most reasonable way and the hearing today has shown that there is a distinct possibility that Rangers will be out of business by the time the case comes to court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 The promised land Some amount of spin going on. The whole thing has been all about spin and a pretty unsophisticated version of it, at that. The promised land is very distant for Rangers. Top flight income would be better, but not to nearly a big enough extent. The income from European qualification could be decent, but again not nearly enough to offset current losses. It would take CL qualification to generate what's needed, but that would require expenditure they'll be in no position to meet in the meantime. As for debt-free claims, a child could see through them. Rangers are largely debt free because nobody will lend them money. To present the hitherto failure to repay the small amounts loaned by insiders as a looming triumph is surely insulting in the extreme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Sorry but there is no basis for this. There is nothing in either the Designs, Copyrights and Patents Act or the Trademarks Act that allows an administrator to terminate a licence should the licensor go into administration. The terms of the licence is all important and I would assume that Ashley will have ensured that he holds the aces should such an event happen. It would be normal for both the parties to protect themselves from the other getting into financial difficulty. Such an agreement would normally consist of the right to buy the licence in the event of insolvency and would only be able to be over-turned by a court on application by the administrator for a ruling as an "undervalued sale" that shows that it was detrimental to the other creditors. Maybe I didn't express myself well. When I said 'sit tight and re-let the merchandising contract'. I meant they honoured the current contract and licence terms, but because they (RIFC in most likely hood) still owned the IP they'd be able to use it in the future. I think, we're pretty much agreeing. I didn't say they could terminate the licence, I said the administrators could play hard-ball, meaning they would try to re-negotiate the contract or worst come to worst liquidate TRFC Ltd, and sell on the assets to SevCo 5089 (owned by a friend of RIFC Plc), leaving Ashley with a worthless contract (anyone for Ticketus or a Debenture Seat). Yours aDONis P.S. GET-IN Chuckles friend. Edited September 5, 2014 by aDONisSheep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Oh i know about the admin but on the 7/5 thing i'm still none the wiser. In simple terms it means that you can bet 72p on Hearts and buy the naming rights for Ibrox with the profit. Edited September 5, 2014 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Ashley company is the sole licensee for the majority of those entries when it comes to retail, I imagine he is trying to protect his deal to sell anything connected to those brands (in a retail sense) Rangers have seen it as a way to cut costs, 50 staff + Rent, Rates and running costs for the retail arm is not insignificant, however I have no doubt the arrangement is more profitable for Ashley and other individuals than it will be for Rangers. You are a complete plonker at times Tedi, you argued black and about supposition and conjecture earlier today in the thread but here you are posting your own pile of pish that has no substance and can only be construed as made up pish without knowing the full facts chump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.