pollymac
Gold Members-
Posts
3,088 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by pollymac
-
I thought it was quite clear. If they try to sell the assets from the going concern that is Rangers FC for £5.5m then they are very much open to any number of legal challenges, not least: why have player values been written down to £0, where, even the dodgy deals struck in March has them written down to around £10m. HMRC are not the only creditor here and even if they were, they have not said that they'll not challenge it, just that it will now be forced to go down a different route. This may indeed mean that it'll go down the 'second' route as proposed in the CVA doc, or it may mean that there's nary a snowball's chance in hell of it going down the £5.5m route.
-
The problem with that is that the assets are sold from a going concern, albeit one that's unlikely to go for much longer, to some other entity. In such a case, the assets cannot be undersold prior to liquidation of the (previously) going concern, lest they rouse the wrath of Hector. Again. This is a very different scenario from the (not really a) going concern being liquidated, where the playing assets are no longer assets at all ergo much lower asset value (£5.5m).
-
It's worth pointing out that since 2000, Rangers business did not grow at all. In fact, it can easily be argued that it shrunk - CL payments went massively up, yet turnover remained largely static. In fact, in recent non-CL years it had decreased from non-CL years in 02 & 03 by a few million. In contrast, during the same period, Celtic's income had pretty much doubled. I'm not sure who it was, possibly that former director Adams?? who said that the Rangers board was filled with guys there for the social aspect and never had much input in the running of the club. Celtic appointed guys from British-American Tobacco, The Bank of England, etc. Even so, had Celtic maintained the spend of Barnes/Dalglish and early O'Neill, they too would be facing meltdown.