Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

1332195354[/url]' post='6070616']

I think many are like myself and are not willing to hand over our hard earned cash to people who only a couple of weeks ago were backing Whyte all the way and telling the likes of Paul Murray to please go away quietly. Now it has all gone pear shaped they have turned on the Whyte Knight and are now blindly backing the Blue Knights as they have a cooler name...We have no idea what plans TBKs have and i am going to wait to see who gets control and what plans they have before investing.

The thought of Mark Dingwall on the board of Rangers makes my blood run cold

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many are like myself and are not willing to hand over our hard earned cash to people who only a couple of weeks ago were backing Whyte all the way and telling the likes of Paul Murray to please go away quietly. Now it has all gone pear shaped they have turned on the Whyte Knight and are now blindly backing the Blue Knights as they have a cooler name...We have no idea what plans TBKs have and i am going to wait to see who gets control and what plans they have before investing.

The thought of Mark Dingwall on the board of Rangers makes my blood run cold

"i am going to wait to see who gets control and what plans they have before investing."

Give us a break. Investing? This is nonsense talk. You miss the point. You will NOT be investing. If you are daft enough to hand over any money it will disappear down the cludgie that is New Rangers. "Thanks big man" is all you will get, and maybe a certificate to put on your wall.

Still, keep on living in fantasy land if you wish.

You stood back scratching your arse while your club was screwed by Murray and his board (including the esteemed footballer but out of his depth as a director John Greig) and then latterly Whyte. What makes you think anything will change with the tainted vultures circling at the minute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Randall tonight! I assumed this guy was an informed individual but he seemed to think the whole administration issue was down to the "big" tax case. So did his "expert" guest.

One thing I hope they got right was the assertion that the big tax case could rumble on for years. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person to come out of that debate with any credibility is Mark Daly. The rest of the hacks continue to play clueless, even the supposed intelligent ones. As for Gordon Smith :lol: Not only did he not know of any dodgy going ons withing the corridors of power but he wasn't even aware that there were "administration" rumours circling.

That debate did more damage to the Rangers cause than it did good. Don't be expecting any favours from other clubs when it comes to the newco vote lads, you're royally fcuked now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that in court that one of he bidders will walk away fom buying Rangers unless the Ticketus deal was voided. Eh, what has that to do with the case...thought it was supposed to be whether Rangers were due the money or not...not ehat will happen if they are due the debt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We held our own against Marseille who then beat Milan, so it's not quite as far-fetched as you'd like to think. :)

Dundee beat Rangers 4-3 that same season, and Partick Thistle beat you 3-0 that same season.

By your logic, both of these sides would have had a chance

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roddy Forsyth "if Marseille hadn`t cheated, Rangers could have made a European Cup Final" just what were Rangers doing?

This is a misunderstanding that has grown arms, legs and tentacles. In fact, Marseille were found guilty and punished by Uefa for cheating in a French league game against Valenciennes in the run-up to the CL final, not for bribery in the CL itself.

http://www.europeancuphistory.com/bribe.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that in court that one of he bidders will walk away fom buying Rangers unless the Ticketus deal was voided. Eh, what has that to do with the case...thought it was supposed to be whether Rangers were due the money or not...not ehat will happen if they are due the debt

Different court case. The current one is Duff and Duffer trying to get the courts to let them scap the Ticketus deal and install them as a normal creditor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really???

Rangers went undefeated throughout the Champions League..They beat beat the English Champions home and away..They beat the European Champions Champions Home and away just to qualify for the knockout stage.

They drew home and away with the team that eventually beat AC Milan in the final.

They came within the width of a post of reaching that final. There is no way anybody can tell what way the final would have gone but seeing as the team that couldn't beat us beat Milan i would have said we would have been in with a shout.

At the end of the day we didn't get there so it is all hypothetical..IMO the closest we will ever get to the Champions League Final in my lifetime and it was fun while it lasted but ended with the ridiculous sending off of Mark Hately against Brugges...To get the draw away to Marseille without him was a great result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GrahamSpiers To those

Celtic fans who are

near-suicidal at idea of

HMRC 'cutting a deal'

with RFC: it's no

media figment. Duff +

Phelps strongly

hinting.

Graham Spiers hopefully talking out his Arse.

why would they cut a deal, it would just mean any other club with tax liabilities or debt similar to Rangers getting away with a pennies in pound deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Celtic fans be suicidal at the thought of HMRC cutting a deal?

It would be for the small tax case only, as the big one hasn't crystalised (due to it being in limbo).

And besides, the orcs have historically been run at catastrophic losses almost each and every season for the last fifteen and they will therefore be required to cut their cloth accordingly. Not to mention that before a single penny is taken from selling tickets, they need to flog about 24,000 of them beforehand ergo another £11m or so worth of cloth being cut before considering anything else.

Cutting a deal with HMRC to survive would actually be quite funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to tell, really. It seems plausible to me that Haudit & Daudit have to talk up the likelihood of a deal with HMRC otherwise no one sane would contemplate taking the club on. If they get RFC off their hands and HMRC suddenly then demand every penny back, well it's not Messrs H&D's problem.

HMRC are maintaining a poker face though. The only reason for a behind the scenes deal would be political pressure from above, and there was some of that in the early days of the admin from Salmond (before he crunched into reverse gear at a a rate of knots on the issue).

On a separate twitter issue I see Alex Thomson is running the first of his reports tonight, seemingly asking the question as to why the game's administrators / regulators allowed David Murray to run Rangers in the way that he did. Not something you'd find in a Chic Young/ Gordon Waddell opinion piece, right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some reports are true Rangers have already tried to cut a deal with HMRC regarding the big tax case for £11 million quid which was rejected. Assuming an approximate worst case figure of £49 million for the liability including penalties, that's an offer of 22p in the pound. What then would a CVA realistically have to look like for HMRC to "do a deal" as part of that? That's the question that has to be asked if the notion of a CVA as the way out is to be considered.

The answer to that might be "whatever brings in more money than liquidating the assets would". It is HMRC's duty to do what is best for the tax payer. Given the relatively small amount of money we are talking here though, what is best for the tax payer might well be to show that they will not accept a company willfully avoiding tax through illegal misuse of an EBT. That may depend on who is in charge of RFC at the point of attempting to do a deal - bear in mind that regardless of what the administrators say, Craig Whyte is effectively the owner of the business and some reports suggest that as long as he is in the picture there will be no deal.

There is no question that Haudit and Daudit have to play down the potential threat of the big tax case as they are trying to attract potential buyers and investors. There is no point in them saying "let's face it, any buyer is effectively throwing money away". At the same time, HMRC are not the big bad wolf who will want a head on a stick - they will be open to negotiation on how to repay any liability. What I don't see is that this will necessarily be through a CVA - as a business with a potential turnover of 40 million or more (depending on European success) they will see that Rangers could agree to a (fairly aggressive) repayment scheme that would see the liability paid off.

A CVA is the desired outcome for Rangers - for HMRC (and indeed every other creditor) getting their money back in full (or as good as) is the desired outcome. It is on that basis that HMRC will be williing to negotiate - not necessarily on a CVA to "save Rangers". That is not and indeed should not be their concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...