Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Paquis]

Phuck off you Numpty!

You having vocabulary, spelling and grammar problems too?

[mozam76]

This Chris Brady guy who was on NewsNight Scotland must have been having a cheeky wee game of liquidation bingo going on. Managed to sneak in "this club is too big to fail".

Also said that he would hate to be the guy in Glasgow that decides to liquidate the club and sell off the assets. What the f**k that has to do with anything, I don't know - if it's the right thing to do, then fear or shitty breeks shouldn't come in to it.

Moron, frankly.

Tracy however -

[Guest]

I see they wheeled out Archie Mcpherson to talk about tha Rainjours on the news. As well as the predictable line about his beloved OF being the lifeblood of Scottish football, he pondered how FIFA could side with an FA who don't know their own rules (he even threw in some shit about Jack Warner to deflect as much as possible). Lets look at what both Rangers and the SFA have done wrong Archie:

SFA

1) Handed out a punishment which isn't in the rulebook, possibly quite a light punishment to protect Rangers whilst looking like they're doing something.

Rangers

1) Went into administration through gross overspending, meaning they won't pay back most of their debt.

2) Not paid for lots of recent signings, leaving smaller clubs in trouble.

3) Been found out for cheating the tax system.

4) Offered a pitiful sum to HMRC to drop the tax case, even though their new owner says he'll put more money in once the tax problem is gone.

5) Put Scottish clubs European places and perhaps the national team in jeopardy by appealing their soft punishment, without any regard for the fact that some of the clubs affected are the same clubs that the transfer ban was trying to protect.

6) All done whilst throwing their weight about trying to worm their way out with a Newco, lecturing others on how much they need Rangers when in previous years Rangers demeaned the whole league by stating they're too big for it.

So aye, it's all the SFA's fault Archie.

[vikingTON]

The FIFA-imposed international ban would be lovely. Affects Rangers, Celtic, and the Tartan Army in one fell swoop. That: that please.

[Bobby_F]

Surely 'Paquis' isn't for real?

Must be a Captain alias?

[steelman65]

If you read the CVA proposal there are a lot of TBC amounts on the creditors list including the "big" tax case and employees and as the costs of administration expenses are not confirmed yet which could be an extra couple of million pounds out of the available funds the picture is not so clear. Creditors best case scenario is 9p in the pound worst case could be 4p in the pound. At 9p in the pound HMRC would be waving goodbye to £19 million of taxpayers money which relates to non payment of PAYE NI and VAT not paid over by Rangers. If Rangers agree the big tax case and include it in the creditors list then they will only pay over around 4p in the pound leaving HMRC £90 million short of what they are owed. £90 million good job we are not in a recession !

Remember Rangers don't do walking away ( unless we are talking about from their debts of course)

[GunnerBairn]

Here's a scenario the CVA goes through HMRC gets its 9p in the pound on its £50 odd million Rangers come out of admin on the 12th, on the 13th HMRC drop the £74 million one on their door wind the place up are the only creditors sell the assets and in total walk away with a lot more than the 4p in the pound they would get on a CVA against the whole debt. Taxman gets maximum for revenue, ramgers fail to exist and everyone is happy.

Perfectly feasible process when done in a timely manner.

[kiddy]

RANGERS CVA KEY FACTS

Crucially, the CVA document does not list a "pence in the pound" offer to creditors, which is the norm for a proposal of its kind - although BBC Scotland has established that the CVA offers unsecured creditors between 8-9p in the pound in a best case scenario

Duff & Phelps claim the income to cover the CVA will come from £8.5m pledged by Green's consortium, income from litigation, and debts owed to Rangers from player transfers.

Whyte's company, The Rangers FC Group Ltd is listed as holding a fixed charge over the club's current assets, but the amount due is unconfirmed.

Administrators Duff & Phelps have accrued operating charges and legal fees of over £5.5m and hold secure creditor status. The finance firm Ticketus is owed £26.7m, while HMRC is owed £21.5m in unpaid PAYE tax and National Insurance.

Green's pledge of £8.5m and the income Rangers claim they are owed would raise the potential CVA pot to just over £10.5m, which would be used to pay the administrators' bill and pay off the creditors.

the CVA document makes it clear the money pledged by Green is a loan to be repaid with interest by the end of 2020.

The total amount of money owed to unsecured creditors is listed as over £55m. The Glasgow club also owes football debts totalling £3.5m to 14 different clubs .

Fees are also due to the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Football League and the SFA amounting to £37,448.

among the club's current assets as Ibrox stadium, the training ground at Murray Park, player contracts, membership of the Scottish Football Association, the company's share in the Scottish Premier League, intellectual property rights, stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank, amounts owed to the club and outstanding player transfer fees.

So, to boil it down, unless they win countless court cases, there is 1.4M to pay out £55M of unsecured credit? Secured creditors D&P get paid in full and footballing debts will have to be honoured. CW will retain Ibrox & MP, whilst the paper shop etc get the shaft.

Is that not the equivalent of, CMIIW, 2.54p in the pound?

In any case, they're snookered.

Edited May 29, 2012 by kiddy

[Cutty Old]

I think the punishment was far too severe. A couple of smaller fines would, perhaps, have been the right measure.

Essentially, Rangers are paying for the failure of the SFA to do their job as regulator properly. The SFA intone that the directors 'must have known what was going on'. Well they did. John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre all resigned from the Rangers board in October of 2011 citing that the had been excluded from corporate governance by CW. Now, when your FD resigns then, to most regulators, that is a red flag.

So what did the SFA do? Yep, you got it, SFA.

Having failed, somebody had to pay. Yep, that somebody was Rangers.

So why did Rangers get punished and not Motherwell. Both were in Administration and both had failed to pay the taxman amongst others. The only answer you ever get to that question is the amount owed. But rules are generally based on principles and are not quantitative.

I would take issue with your contention that it is the responsibility of the SFA to take action when they see a red flag. To my mind, the governing body would not need to learn semaphore if the people you mentioned carried out their duty.

It's all very well trying to abrogate responsibility when you're under pressure but don't pretend for one second that you're club are the innocent party when the authorities don't carry out their duties exactly as you prescribe, while your club have no need to practise good governance.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Cutty Old

[Kyle]

Surely 'Paquis' isn't for real?

Must be a Captain alias?

Not sure about Captain, but I think you're right about him being an alias.

[Sergeant Wilson]

The FIFA-imposed international ban would be lovely. Affects Rangers, Celtic, and the Tartan Army in one fell swoop. That: that please.

......and Motherwell! They could get punished for Rangers administration rather than their own.

[~~~]

I think the punishment was far too severe. A couple of smaller fines would, perhaps, have been the right measure.

Essentially, Rangers are paying for the failure of the SFA to do their job as regulator properly. The SFA intone that the directors 'must have known what was going on'. Well they did. John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre all resigned from the Rangers board in October of 2011 citing that the had been excluded from corporate governance by CW. Now, when your FD resigns then, to most regulators, that is a red flag.

So what did the SFA do? Yep, you got it, SFA.

Having failed, somebody had to pay. Yep, that somebody was Rangers.

So why did Rangers get punished and not Motherwell. Both were in Administration and both had failed to pay the taxman amongst others. The only answer you ever get to that question is the amount owed. But rules are generally based on principles and are not quantitative.

This is a joke right?

Blaming everyone else for this mess, this is the Rangers fans who lapped up everything Craig Whyte said, the same Rangers fans who believed the BBC done a hatchet job on the first Craig Whyte documentary, and then decided to hold a protest outside the BBC because of it.

Rangers fans are more to blame than anyone else for this mess, so please dont try and deflect the blame onto someone else

So apart from Tax cheating, Rangers have screwed fellow football clubs out of money for not honouring transfer agreements that these clubs made in good faith, even in Januray you made a £2M bid for Grant Holt, knowing fine well you didnt have the money to pay this for.

and you really think a transger embargo was too severe?

[Paquis]

If the dual-contracts investigation goes against Rangers, what do you think a fair punishment would be for that?

I know it's innocent until proven guilty and I know the investigation is still outstanding (to the point where all the documents haven't even been handed over to the SFA), I'm just interested in your view.

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one.

At least this time, nobody can say they didn't know about the EBTs. Not the Rangers directors and not the SFA or the SPL. But, it begs the question. If everyone knew about them then who gets punished? Does the regulator (the SFA) have no liability?

[GirondistNYC]

1338327544[/url]' post='6285512']

Davis & McGregor are worth zero, zilch, nada, zip in liquidation - all the player contracts are broken and they simply walk away to another Club for free.

That's my understanding, but in the flurry of twitters and posts today I distinctly recall somebody making a fairly convincing argument that the registration might be passed to One of the governing bodies while a liquidator flogged them, with proceeds going into the pot. No idea if this is correct, but it would obviously change the dynamics.

[GunnerBairn]

This Chris Brady guy who was on NewsNight Scotland must have been having a cheeky wee game of liquidation bingo going on. Managed to sneak in "this club is too big to fail".

The same utter bullshit line spoken time and time again. An entity the size of Lehmans went bust. Rangers are a mere insiginificance in terms of scale. But the ostriches will continue to bury their heads in the sands.

Edited May 29, 2012 by GunnerBairn

[vikingTON]

Does the regulator (the SFA) have no liability?

The short answer to your question is 'no'. The long answer is 'Zero, nada, nul, hee-haw'.

The responsibility is all placed on Rangers. No big bad men did it and ran away.

[TheLip69]

I seem to remember Motherwell signing Stephen Craigan and Alex Burns from rivals Partick Thistle - whilst they were still in administration.

And Motherwell got away with NO PUNISHMENT WHATSOEVER.

Sorry to be pedantic but we were never in administration, we were in Provisional Liquidation.

What happens in that scenario is the liquidators come in pare things to the bone and then decide if the Company is capable of trading out of their troubles. Bryan Jackson decided they were and it was him who kept Motherwell alive and trading, that's how we were able to sign players.

I was working with PwC at the time on a similar project with an Insurance Company in Manchester and I was part of a guest party from PwC invited along to Fir Park for a league match against Hearts.

We weren't punished because there were no rules or penalties at that time, these rules only came into play at a later date largely due to Motherwell's problems.

[Claymores]

Here's a scenario the CVA goes through HMRC gets its 9p in the pound on its £50 odd million Rangers come out of admin on the 12th, on the 13th HMRC drop the £74 million one on their door wind the place up are the only creditors sell the assets and in total walk away with a lot more than the 4p in the pound they would get on a CVA against the whole debt. Taxman gets maximum for revenue, ramgers fail to exist and everyone is happy.

Don't believe that dog hunts............

Green is only loaning Rangers £8.5mill to achieve the CVA. If accepted he will take a floating charge over Murray Paark and Ibrox and would be first in line if a winding-up order were granted. He'd pocket the proceeds of the asset sales and HMRC would get nothing (I think that's how it'd work at least)

[ebeneezer]

If someone owed me £1000 and said they could only give me £300, I'd take this sum and expect the rest to be paid at a later date. I wouldn't just settle for the lesser amount and say we were quits.

It would be galling for the creditors if they received a few measly pence in the pound, only for the club to re-emerge debt free and possibly going on to further success and being worth tens of millions of pounds. That would be disgusting.

Can the creditors not ask for a down-payment and further sums over the next few years?

Edited May 29, 2012 by ebeneezer

[Jambos]

If the dual-contracts investigation goes against Rangers, what do you think a fair punishment would be for that?

I know it's innocent until proven guilty and I know the investigation is still outstanding (to the point where all the documents haven't even been handed over to the SFA), I'm just interested in your view.

Surely thats grounds for expulsion if ever there was one? Its outright CHEATING. They had an advantage over every other team in the SPL...and were rewarded handsomely through their cheating.