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

Can you say where you got that from, it doesn't appear to be on the Companies House page. It only has the notice dated 21st May from what I can see. The previous item is July 2018, the accounts.
You get a couple of warnings before you get to the official strike off threat which is posted at companies house. It’s just like you getting a warning letter telling you to pay or they will take you to court for non payment. I know from experience as my wife had similar issue when she had her clothing manufacturing company
 
You get a couple of warnings before you get to the official strike off threat which is posted at companies house. It’s just like you getting a warning letter telling you to pay or they will take you to court for non payment. I know from experience as my wife had similar issue when she had her clothing manufacturing company
Thanks, I've never been involved in anything like that.
 
Any involvement RRL had should have come to an end with the settlement of the derivative claim brought by SDI along with the settlement of all the original dispute.

RRL’s last accounts in 2018 confirm that the company ceased trading altogether on 20th June 2017. A dividend of about £600k was paid out that financial year, and subsequent to the financial year end but before the lodging of the accounts, a further dividend of over £1m was paid out. The net profit for that last accounting period was about £1m, so it looks like all of the cash was paid out of the company long ago. Again, I would think that happened at the point of the settlement of the various claims in

Generally you would only bother to keep a dormant company alive if you have a claim against it, it is sitting owning some property, or you want to use it to make a claim.

I don’t think there’s a claim against it since it looks like the money has been paid out. There shouldn’t be any claims to be made by the company either since the settlement that resulted in it ceasing trading was in full and final settlement of all claims.

The application was under s1000(3) which means the company registrar asked whether the company was operational and either didn’t get replies or got a reply to the effect it wasn’t operating. (I think I’d previously misread that as s1003, which would be the company itself applying for strike off - but that isn’t the case.)

It’s not very clear what’s going on.

From the 2017 accounts it had been intended to keep the company alive but dormant rather than strike it off, so it may be this is just tidying up the error of allowing it to get this far with the registrar?

Is RRL technically still the tenant in the lease of the store? If they are then the lease would fall if they were struck off - so it could maybe just to keep things correct re that?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
@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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top