sergie's no1 fan Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Tell me this cant be true.....Please!! Its not true 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Its not true Phew...Thank God for that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Dundee's situation last season was more similar to what Rangers faced. They went into administration in October, with much of the season remaining. Their 25 point deduction was confirmed in November, and left them 20 points adrift at the bottom of the 1st Division. They had 27 games remaining, and as a result still had the possibility of avoiding relegation. Avoiding relegation would have a massive financial benefit, and could outweigh the need to jettison players from the wage bill. Indeed, Dundee got rid of a number of fringe players, but kept on their highest earners, including those who would have little or no sell-on value (eg Lockwood, Douglas, Weston). Whilst Dundees 25 point penalty was harsh but quite possibly fair, they seem to me at least to be well over admin only 18 months later. I suspect a lot of the local businesses who recieved 6p in the pound would have sooner taken 10p in the pound and saw the club relegated. The administrators ought to do what is best for the creditors, not the football club. I hope Rangers are not out of the woods in 18 months. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Whilst Dundees 25 point penalty was harsh but quite possibly fair, they seem to me at least to be well over admin only 18 months later. I suspect a lot of the local businesses who recieved 6p in the pound would have sooner taken 10p in the pound and saw the club relegated. The administrators ought to do what is best for the creditors, not the football club. I hope Rangers are not out of the woods in 18 months. If the club had been relegated, they might have gone bust and left the creditors with nothing. My intention wasn't to discuss the vagaries of the Dundee situation though, it was to point out that the current Rangers administration isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Dens last year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I am no expert on the business side of things(or anything else before Henricks tongue adds it) but found this on Follow Follow...I would like others views on this guys take on this whole sorry business... Craig Whyte’s £27mI understand that Craig Whyte has put zip into the club. However he has a floating charge against the assets of the club. The value of his floating charge is currently assumed to be £0. As he never put a penny into the club However if Rangers FC default on the Ticketus deal CW is then liable for the £27m or so ..... as he has personally guaranteed the money to ticketus. At which point he moves from having £0 liability to having a £27m+ liability. The current bids The Blue Knights - prefer a CVA route out of administration and they plan to make good the £27m owing to ticketus, through the renegotiations they have already had, plus put £10m in the pot for the creditors (principally HMRC) Using a CVA would mean Craig Whyte (potentially) receives £0 and would involve somehow removing his shares from him, by some legal process or buying them. A rather tricky process either way. Bill Ng ($40m) and Bill Miller ($50m) have also both bid, despite some assertions to the contrary, I understand they are considering using another company and/or liquidating Rangers FC. LIQUIDATION If Rangers are liquidated Craig Whyte then owes Ticketus £27m (as Rangers no longer exist and will have effectively defaulted on the contract). At this stage Craig Whyte’s floating charge reappears, as he now has liabilities caused by Rangers FC of £27m. His preferred creditor status means he is paid before all the other creditors and he secures his floating charge against the assets of the club . If Bill Miller wins the bid (aided and abetted by David Ellis) the $50m goes straight to Craig Whyte, who has no intention of paying ticketus and he pockets the lot. The decision of the next Rangers owner What criteria will duff and phelps employ in selecting the owner and how will they value each of the bids The Blue Knights – £37m ? (or discount the ticketus deal and value it at £10m) Bill Miller – £30m Bill Ng – £25m The real decision I firmly believe that the D&P are acting on behalf of Craig Whyte, not any of the other creditors, hence there criteria will be How much will Craig Whyte make from the deal? Bill Miller - £30m to CW Bill Ng - £25m to CW The Blue Knights - £0 to CW (as the club makes good his deal with Ticketus). Hence Rangers FC will be liquidated and mostly likely Bill Miller will be our next owner, unless he gets cold feet. DUFF & PHELPS D&P have acted oddly throughout the administration process, - Why try to renegotiate the players contracts instead of cut and burn like all other administrators? Was it really to retain value in the business? Or was it to get the maximum sale price in the event of liquidation? - Why over value the clubs assets at £126m? Is Murray Park and Ibrox really worth £105m? - Why under value the players at £20m or so?, is it because they are the assets we lose in the event of liquidation? - Why did D&P include the ‘worst case scenario’ for all potential creditors (£97m for HMRC), but omit any mention of Craig Whyte? - Why spend time trying to annul the ticketsus contract?, was it really to enhance the sale price of the business? Or was it to cement Craig Whyte’s floating liability, and therefore preferred creditor status? - Why at the trial did the judge feel the need to remind D&P they had to act in the interests of all the creditors (inc ticketus)? Did the judge feel that they were acting in the interests other creditors (CW?) - Why have D&P not tried to remove Craig Whyte’s shares from him (when you know he is the source of the problem)? - Why have D&P not stuck with sorting out the accounts and running of the club, and handed over the tender exercise to someone else, someone cheaper? - Why have D&P almost always failed to meet their own deadlines, throughout this process, are they trying to take everything to the wire?, if so, why? I firmly believe we have been robbed by Craig Whyte, but in the weeks to come we will find out he has been aided and abetted by the people who were meant to sort the situation out. Duff and Phelps will announce a preferred bidder. After early promise, that preferred bidder will announce liquidation, and the start up of a new company, and we will lose our history ------------------------------ Tell me this cant be true.....Please!! The bit about Whyte certainly would be an amazing twist in the saga. The whole thing reads a bit like a conspiracy theorist at work. But could, nonetheless, be plausible If the club had been relegated, they might have gone bust and left the creditors with nothing. My intention wasn't to discuss the vagaries of the Dundee situation though, it was to point out that the current Rangers administration isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Dens last year. Why would they have gone bust? They have a very healthy fan base and would have had to adjust their playing budget accordingly. Had they got rid of the high earners while in administration they wouldnt have had to carry anyone in the squad they could afford, relegation or not. They would, almost certainly, have come straight back up too. So, the chances of someone being prepared to bankroll them for a season in the 2nd would be pretty high - much as Livys owners have done. If Rangers administrators were wrong to keep, highly paid, players at the club then, equally, so were Dundees 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If the club had been relegated, they might have gone bust and left the creditors with nothing. My intention wasn't to discuss the vagaries of the Dundee situation though, it was to point out that the current Rangers administration isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Dens last year. Fair doos, I guess it depends how long it takes a team in administration to propose a CVA. A quick search though suggests Dundee proposed theirs on Feb 9th - meaning their league for the following season was almost certainly up in the air. I agree their are many similarities. I just hope that Rangers don't get away with shafting their creditors with a 6p CVA and are then riding high in the same division next season as if nothing had happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If the club had been relegated, they might have gone bust and left the creditors with nothing. My intention wasn't to discuss the vagaries of the Dundee situation though, it was to point out that the current Rangers administration isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Dens last year. Dundee paid off the following players: Paul McHale, Eric Paton, top earner Mickael Antoine-Curier, Colin McMenamin, Scott Fox, Dominic Shimmin, Charlie Grant, Brian Kerr and Njazi Kuqi. As well as the management team. Barry Smith was recalled from his loan at Brechin to take charge of the club. Hardly the same as the current Rangers admin. And that's conveniently forgetting the first time they went into administration when they punted Craig Burley, Ravanelli and Nemsadze as well as half their backroom staff. As well as Livingston in 2004 when they did likewise, punting a handful of players before some others took a pay cut. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) Dundee paid off the following players: Paul McHale, Eric Paton, top earner Mickael Antoine-Curier, Colin McMenamin, Scott Fox, Dominic Shimmin, Charlie Grant, Brian Kerr and Njazi Kuqi. As well as the management team. Barry Smith was recalled from his loan at Brechin to take charge of the club. Hardly the same as the current Rangers admin. Did you read my post fully? I pointed out that players had been released, but that these had mainly been fringe players or underperformers. That was the general consensus on the thread at the time anyway - I have no idea who were and were not performing well for Dundee at the start of last season. By taking part in some brinksmanship with the players, the Rangers administrators convinced them to accept a large pay cut, probably reducing the wage bill by 50% (at a guess). Had they immediately come in and chopped the likes of Papac, Healy and Alexander, then sacked their popular manager, would the players have been as keen to work with them? Would a bigger saving actually have been made? They'd presumably still have kept McGregor, Naismith, Davis and Edu (plus others) given their possible sell-on value, but these players might have been on 100% of their wages. And that's conveniently forgetting the first time they went into administration when they punted Craig Burley, Ravanelli and Nemsadze as well as half their backroom staff.As well as Livingston in 2004 when they did likewise, punting a handful of players before some others took a pay cut. They weren't conveniently forgotten. I mentioned the Motherwell example because it seems to be the one which everyone on this thread has referred to (see the posts about Derek Adams not long before mine), and mentioned the Dundee and Gretna ones as most recent, and most recent in the SPL respectively. The only consistent thing across all of these administrations (and that includes Airdrie, Livingston (again) and probably any others I've forgotten) is that the administrators reduce the club's wage expenditure, whilst simultaneously shafting the club for every penny it's worth via fees. I'm not sure any of the administrators involved in Scottish football have behaved in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Edited April 12, 2012 by craigkillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Was Donald McGrouther not well spoken of after handling the FFC admin in 1998? Mind you, we were the only club who paid back every penny we owed. Maybe we should have cut a 6% CVA as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makepeace Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 its quite incredible how rangers fans can get so raging with such manifestly shite penalties for getting back into the top table debt free. Goes to show how shitty this country is... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 its quite incredible how rangers fans can get so raging with such manifestly shite penalties for getting back into the top table debt free. Goes to show how shitty this country is... Yes, they should be let back in with a £100m fighting fund and a 25 point head start for the next 10000000 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neildrake Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Can anyone explain why Kyle Bartley a player on loan is still at Ibrox. He has no resale value and I presume Rangers are paying his wages. Did he take a wage cut or are Arsenal weighing in with some of his money. I can understand the administrators keeeping players who have value but Bartley has none. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Can anyone explain why Kyle Bartley a player on loan is still at Ibrox. He has no resale value and I presume Rangers are paying his wages. Did he take a wage cut or are Arsenal weighing in with some of his money. I can understand the administrators keeeping players who have value but Bartley has none. He will have a contract that unless Arsenal agree to cancel it he will have to stay till the end of the agreed period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I am no expert on the business side of things(or anything else before Henricks tongue adds it) but found this on Follow Follow...I would like others views on this guys take on this whole sorry business... Craig Whyte's £27mI understand that Craig Whyte has put zip into the club. However he has a floating charge against the assets of the club. The value of his floating charge is currently assumed to be £0. As he never put a penny into the club However if Rangers FC default on the Ticketus deal CW is then liable for the £27m or so ..... as he has personally guaranteed the money to ticketus. At which point he moves from having £0 liability to having a £27m+ liability. The current bids The Blue Knights - prefer a CVA route out of administration and they plan to make good the £27m owing to ticketus, through the renegotiations they have already had, plus put £10m in the pot for the creditors (principally HMRC) Using a CVA would mean Craig Whyte (potentially) receives £0 and would involve somehow removing his shares from him, by some legal process or buying them. A rather tricky process either way. Bill Ng ($40m) and Bill Miller ($50m) have also both bid, despite some assertions to the contrary, I understand they are considering using another company and/or liquidating Rangers FC. LIQUIDATION If Rangers are liquidated Craig Whyte then owes Ticketus £27m (as Rangers no longer exist and will have effectively defaulted on the contract). At this stage Craig Whyte's floating charge reappears, as he now has liabilities caused by Rangers FC of £27m. His preferred creditor status means he is paid before all the other creditors and he secures his floating charge against the assets of the club . If Bill Miller wins the bid (aided and abetted by David Ellis) the $50m goes straight to Craig Whyte, who has no intention of paying ticketus and he pockets the lot. The decision of the next Rangers owner What criteria will duff and phelps employ in selecting the owner and how will they value each of the bids The Blue Knights – £37m ? (or discount the ticketus deal and value it at £10m) Bill Miller – £30m Bill Ng – £25m The real decision I firmly believe that the D&P are acting on behalf of Craig Whyte, not any of the other creditors, hence there criteria will be How much will Craig Whyte make from the deal? Bill Miller - £30m to CW Bill Ng - £25m to CW The Blue Knights - £0 to CW (as the club makes good his deal with Ticketus). Hence Rangers FC will be liquidated and mostly likely Bill Miller will be our next owner, unless he gets cold feet. DUFF & PHELPS D&P have acted oddly throughout the administration process, - Why try to renegotiate the players contracts instead of cut and burn like all other administrators? Was it really to retain value in the business? Or was it to get the maximum sale price in the event of liquidation? - Why over value the clubs assets at £126m? Is Murray Park and Ibrox really worth £105m? - Why under value the players at £20m or so?, is it because they are the assets we lose in the event of liquidation? - Why did D&P include the 'worst case scenario' for all potential creditors (£97m for HMRC), but omit any mention of Craig Whyte? - Why spend time trying to annul the ticketsus contract?, was it really to enhance the sale price of the business? Or was it to cement Craig Whyte's floating liability, and therefore preferred creditor status? - Why at the trial did the judge feel the need to remind D&P they had to act in the interests of all the creditors (inc ticketus)? Did the judge feel that they were acting in the interests other creditors (CW?) - Why have D&P not tried to remove Craig Whyte's shares from him (when you know he is the source of the problem)? - Why have D&P not stuck with sorting out the accounts and running of the club, and handed over the tender exercise to someone else, someone cheaper? - Why have D&P almost always failed to meet their own deadlines, throughout this process, are they trying to take everything to the wire?, if so, why? I firmly believe we have been robbed by Craig Whyte, but in the weeks to come we will find out he has been aided and abetted by the people who were meant to sort the situation out. Duff and Phelps will announce a preferred bidder. After early promise, that preferred bidder will announce liquidation, and the start up of a new company, and we will lose our history ------------------------------ Tell me this cant be true.....Please!! Sounds plausible, true and like good news to me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Re the Rangers / Dundee Comparison: HMRC were minority creditors in the Dundee Admin. There is no chance they would accept any penny in the pound deal with any football club hence Rangers are fucked! Ta ta! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/12/04/12/SOCCER_SPL_Nightlead.html&BID=165 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 HMRC only became tiny minority creditors thanks to the administrator deceitfully putting Melville's donations in as loans on the creditor's list. I wouldn't rule out Duff and Phelps using every trick in the book to achieve the same ends, if a prospective buyer wishes to take Rangers out with a CVA, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They'll need to send for these guys to empty Mordor and Minty Moonbeams park http://www.hauditanddauditremovals.co.uk/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) The Sheep are having a party, The Sheep are having a party, The Sheep are having a paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarty.... The Gers are going bust! Edit: I realise ^^that's immature but I don't care, the pre-match Friday feeling has kicked in already! Edited April 12, 2012 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 It's Thursday. Deadlines for final, final, final, final, final best and final offers were over a week ago. Have Haudit and Daudit the dynamic administration duo announced anything yet? Have any of the bidders made it through to bootcamp, and who will get Simon Cowell as their mentor.... Zzzzzzzz.... the. worst. administration. ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.