Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
The real question is not "then what?", it is"first what?". How will payroll be met this week?
I'm confused. Are you are saying that the club owes lots of money to the company so that if the company goes under, so will the club? I have to say that I find this whole club/company thing a bit spurious anyway. Everyone knows it is just a legal fiction to try to separate the operations from the debt, but if it is no longer doing that, what purpose does it serve?
I'm still waiting for clarification about the case in the law courts where Lord Nimmo Smith saw off the green crayon brigade.
Has Lord Nimmo Smith ever been involved in a court case with Sevco or Rangers? Not aware of such a case.
One of them is me :)
I don't believe it was a blunder. I think it was done to try to get five players off the NUFC wage bill and to try to increase Sevco debt prior to the new Board coming in.
There seems to be a growing consensus that Rangers 2 is rooted. Some people are suggesting that if (when?) the inevitable happens, the holding company/same club wheeze will just be played again. But will it? Last time, the assets were owned by the dead company. It was easy to negotiate a sale to a new company at very low value because the administrator was interested only in getting money quickly and easily. This time, the assets will be owned by businessmen who will want to extract maximum price for them. Plus, it has been demonstrated that the assets are worth much more than was paid last time. Also, last time, there were people ready and willing to pump in 17m of equity (plus the 5m price for purchasing the assets) - mostly with starry eyes and hope of a better future. Would people be so idealistic and generous in funding a new company - especially when a much greater sum is likely to be required to buy the assets? And last time, the SPL, SFL and SFA seemed to be willing to make up new rules to facilitate the new company (albeit tempered by less enthusiasm from other clubs). The idea was to recreate a Rangers, playing to full houses of 50,000 and competing on "old" firm games. This hasn't worked and the new Rangers has been an embarrassment to Scottish football with new scandals on an almost weekly basis. The support has not halved, and further time in lower leagues for this incarnation or the next will surely see that support erode further. Meanwhile, Scottish football has not collapsed without the real Rangers - it may have suffered a bit in terms of international prestige and ranking but the clubs are by and large in a good financial state and competition has been more open and entertaining. Would the regulators want a Rangers 3? Moreover, letting a club keep rebooting and replaying its first seasons in fast forward until one of the tries is successful sends a wrong message to other clubs - and a wrong message to creditors if it becomes clear that debts can just be wiped at will. By all accounts, the stadium needs serious and expensive work that would have to become a competing priority for resources - sucking resources away from development of a team. Yet, with further erosion of support and lesser aspirations for the future, a Rangers 3 would have less and less need for the capacity of a large stadium that just sucked up money in maintenance. For these reasons, I wonder whether the "Game Over - Try Again?" model could work more than once.
Do you really think the regulators (SFA and SPFL) would permit another newco after the debacle that this one has been?
But Stu - doesn't that just mean Sevco is even further behind than their fans think?
If you have a Port Ellen 4th Annual release then that is well worth opening - although more rich and chocolatey than peaty. I started out on Laphroaig many years ago but gradually started to appreciate the more subtle Highland and Speyside malts. But Talisker is a special favourite and the 18yo, when available, is an absolute steal.
Also, for information, I have worked hard all week and am now enjoying the start of my weekend with a glass of Talisker in hand. Your taxes do not pay for me.
However many threads you start on this, the case was not heard.
You tell me that there was a ruling by the Court of Session. All the articles located on Google say there was a settlement reached ahead of a hearing. I am happy for you to provide references otherwise - perhaps I missed it as the story was not covered by my local media.
Do you have a weblink to such an order? I've tried Googling to no avail. All I found was an out of court agreement between the parties.
I don't live in Scotland. There was no hearing in this case - it was settled by discussion between the lawyers. Sevco agree not to use Ibrox for security for a period of three weeks. I would contend that this was designed to save face on both sides - it saved Sevco having the ownership of Ibrox probed; and it allowed the RST to claim a pyrrhic victory.
To be fair - the shares have been suspended, the club is on the brink of oblivion and shareholders are likely to be left with empty pockets. It's no wonder the overall balance of posts right now is "anti" Sevco. Or should we have a quota of "everything rosy in the garden" to balance things out?
But there was no hearing - the case did not proceed.
Sorry Amateur - I'm not familiar with this case. Are you suggesting that the customers managed to stop the company using its assets as it wished? If the company owns assets with no encumbrance it can do what it wants with them - regardless of what customers might want. Are you sure you have your facts right?
Why would Rangers fans have anything more useful to say about this stock than anti-Rangers trolls? Glad to see some homophobic insults - it's like a throwback to the 1970s when the original Rangers still existed and actually won things. Still, I am sure if I used the B word I would pick up another ban. Hypocrisy rocks!
You have not got it wrong. Installing the new Board was a very, very bad idea.