Ruling On Latest Fat Mike Court Case – Still Waiting...

Greebo

Well-Known Member
Nobody is posting shite it’s just guess work if Rangers retail limited has the lease for another 5 year then that’s a reason to keep it alive is it not
I'm not sure.

If Rangers Retail is dissolved then surely the lease would end and the club would regain control of the store. That's assuming it's Rangers Retail which holds the lease. I would have thought that stopped when the previous agreement ended and the new one was put in place.
 

bob1873

Well-Known Member
He was a fantastic s***** talker Charles green he would be great in the wrestling business.

There must be something up with that building that’s why it’s no been used for years obviously asbestos or something unused In 30 year or something
Doesn’t change that it needs doing. Like a broken clock is accurate once or twice a day so was Green.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Doesn’t change that it needs doing. Like a broken clock is accurate once or twice a day so was Green.
It's easy to have grandiose plans and talk the talk when you have absolutely no intention of doing any of it. Green was only saying what he knew folk wanted to hear.

Rangers were a shambles when the new board took over and there are far more important matters at hand that require investment before a new ticket office etc.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
It's funny the things you learn reading stuff like this.

What happens to company assets when a company is dissolved

A company is dissolved when its existence is terminated either by its name being struck off the Companies Register, or by being wound up by the appointment of a liquidator and dissolved.

Bona vacantia assets

Before a company is dissolved, its members should ensure that any assets owned by the company are dealt with and transferred out of the company's ownership. If this is not done, all remaining assets, but not the liabilities, at the date of dissolution will pass into the ownership of the Crown as ownerless property or 'bona vacantia'.

Disclaiming assets

The Treasury Solicitor via the Crown Solicitor has the power to disclaim, ie give up the rights to, the assets of a dissolved company. As a matter of policy, the Treasury Solicitor will disclaim onerous property, such as:
  • commercial leases at a market rent
  • any land used in common - eg private roads, amenity land, or common parts of an estate or flats
  • contaminated property or property in a dangerous state and condition
  • property subject to negative equity
  • property which is of limited value (under £1000), or unmarketable, or where it would not be cost effective to attempt a sale
 

bob1873

Well-Known Member
It's easy to have grandiose plans and talk the talk when you have absolutely no intention of doing any of it. Green was only saying what he knew folk wanted to hear.

Rangers were a shambles when the new board took over and there are far more important matters at hand that require investment before a new ticket office etc.
Regards the new board I agree. Regards priorities I disagree after the team the ‘Charles Green’ plan should be next our infrastructure is a laughing stock. Sadly.
 

Quality Control

Well-Known Member
@TrueBluesLoyal: Just been sent this looks like this horrific nightmare is coming to an end bears what a time to be a bluenose let’s retweet this to all bluenoses all over the world ⚪
Oviously looks like very good news.
But it shows how twisted fat boy is that he no doubt has another injunction out, stopping Rangers informing it's shareholders of the truth.
You'd need to wonder about the sanity of anyone investing in any of his initiatives.
 

Stanley Yelnats

Well-Known Member
All what I can add to the conversation is I know absolute nothing on what that means and you can tell the man that tweeted also knows %^*& all.
 

ChiefWahoo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Oviously looks like very good news.
But it shows how twisted fat boy is that he no doubt has another injunction out, stopping Rangers informing it's shareholders of the truth.
You'd need to wonder about the sanity of anyone investing in any of his initiatives.
How does it obviously look like good news?
I've read just about the whole thread and still don't understand it any better.
 

Quality Control

Well-Known Member
How does it obviously look like good news?
I've read just about the whole thread and still don't understand it any better.
That the directors of a company linking Rangers and Ashley, have decided to end the relationship and shut down the company to me is good news.
Will it be without cost? I doubt it. But I'd have to say that the day the final link between both groups is cut will turn out to be a good day for the long term future of Rangers.

"It looks like good news" = If the company does actually get disolved, it is most definitely good news for Rangers long term.
 

Jimmy Mac

Well-Known Member
Had a drive by Ibrox last night and the shop was indeed closed although still full of old Puma gear.
The sig s on the door are just health and safety notices it does seem strange that the place was shut hopefully he is indeed gone.
 

Tim Hunter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Nobody is posting shite it’s just guess work if Rangers retail limited has the lease for another 5 year then that’s a reason to keep it alive is it not
Guess work = uninformed speculation = shite.
The above is a sound piece of natural progression.
 

ChiefWahoo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
That the directors of a company linking Rangers and Ashley, have decided to end the relationship and shut down the company to me is good news.
Will it be without cost? I doubt it. But I'd have to say that the day the final link between both groups is cut will turn out to be a good day for the long term future of Rangers.

"It looks like good news" = If the company does actually get disolved, it is most definitely good news for Rangers long term.
Just going by this thread, I've seen it suggested the SD own 51% and the only 2 directors are Ashleys placeman and Dave King.
If that's the case, would it need the agreement of both directors or would SD being 51% shareholders be able to make that call?

Obviously I'm hoping for good news but the last 7 years have taught me that it's usually followed by a boot in the balls.
 

Quality Control

Well-Known Member
Just going by this thread, I've seen it suggested the SD own 51% and the only 2 directors are Ashleys placeman and Dave King.
If that's the case, would it need the agreement of both directors or would SD being 51% shareholders be able to make that call?

Obviously I'm hoping for good news but the last 7 years have taught me that it's usually followed by a boot in the balls.
Our guys seem to have made various "fuck ups" throughout this depending on who you listen to, or "the only steps available to slowly tighten Ashleys grip", going by others.

I can't see us trying to do this on our own with a 49% stake if MA can just veto it because he has 51% but I really don't know enough to comment further.
I've had companies in UK and abroad, but ultimately that doesn't mean I know shit, like most business owners, accountants will take care of 90% of that side of things and lawyers the rest.
 

kidkoala1872

Well-Known Member
Just going by this thread, I've seen it suggested the SD own 51% and the only 2 directors are Ashleys placeman and Dave King.
If that's the case, would it need the agreement of both directors or would SD being 51% shareholders be able to make that call?

Obviously I'm hoping for good news but the last 7 years have taught me that it's usually followed by a boot in the balls.
Seen this here which suggest we have taken control of the 51% shareholding in 2016

https://www.insider.co.uk/company-results-forecasts/questions-raised-rangers-retail-ltd-9874858.amp

Rangers Retail Ltd's latest annual return, outlining who its current shareholders are, has been listed as “overdue” on the Companies House website since July 13.

However the most recent annual return, filed on July 13 2015 and covering Rangers Retail's 2015 financial year, shows SDI Retail Services Ltd held 49 A shares, and Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd held 26 B shares and The Rangers Football Club Ltd held 25 B shares.

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFC) secured the 26 B shares held by Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd in January after repaying the £5 million loan.

Rangers Retail notes Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley was the ultimate controlling party at the 2015 financial year end.

The ultimate controlling party as of the 2015 accounts being signed off on August 5, 2016 is The Rangers Football Club Ltd, “by virtue of their 51 per cent ownership of the company”.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Our guys seem to have made various "fuck ups" throughout this depending on who you listen to, or "the only steps available to slowly tighten Ashleys grip", going by others.
I'm definitely in the latter group but I can see why there are folk in the former. But it should never, ever be forgotten who left us in this mess.
 

tintin69

Well-Known Member
So much shoite from folk who don't have a clue but pretend to be ITK.
We will find out soon but the situation is very frustrating.
So much for the new regime being open and transparent and keeping the fans informed.
Our club business is as secretive as ever.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
What I meant is the case is closed and we await the judgement being issued.
What case though? If Marty101 finds the whole thing a bit confusing what chance have the rest of us?

In this instance I don't think public statements would help with the confusion or the ongoing struggle.
 

Latest posts

Top