Jump to content
pozbaird

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

Recommended Posts

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. :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by ebeneezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsnight was absolutely appalling.

You get the self employed lawyer who doesn't seem to ever have a clue what she's talking about, and then some English talking head from the "Greenwich School of Managament" (Jesus, sounds like something from The Daily Mash) who's sole contribution seemed to be that the creditors would take what they were given because it was the best offer (!?!?) ... oh, and that they'd get a bullet through their heads if they were responsible for shutting down the Big Hoose.

And it all was headed by a voice over saying that "Creditors will get shafted.... but Green gets a company with £100m in assets for £200k... and the fans still have their club".

Feck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsnight was absolutely appalling.

You get the self employed lawyer who doesn't seem to ever have a clue what she's talking about, and then some English talking head from the "Greenwich School of Managament" (Jesus, sounds like something from The Daily Mash) who's sole contribution seemed to be that the creditors would take what they were given because it was the best offer (!?!?) ... oh, and that they'd get a bullet through their heads if they were responsible for shutting down the Big Hoose.

And it all was headed by a voice over saying that "Creditors will get shafted.... but Green gets a company with £100m in assets for £200k... and the fans still have their club".

Feck!

Greg Ioannidis was quite good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So what is the role of the SFA? Why have 'fit and proper' rules at all? The people mentioned did carry out their duty. They resigned and made public the reasons for it.

Rangers, like many Scots clubs, were owned by a single individual. That person, in any business, has absolute power. If the SFA or UEFA/FIFA want to impose any kind of financial fair-play rules then they need to take their regulatory role a lot more seriously.

My comment also needs to be seen in terms of the reasoning behind the SFA punishment. Apparently, the directors 'should have know'. I was merely pointing out that they did know and made that fact public. The SFA chose not to act on it until much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is draaagging sack.

As illustrated...

sack.jpg

Yeah I'm quite bored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RANGERS CVA KEY FACTS

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.

I know ! shocking or what.

Newsnight guest seemed to put forward that many will accept that because they may have already written it of in their accounts.

Also heard Rangers are like the RBS of Scottish fiba "TOO BIG TO FAIL".

Now I know why the orcs are out in force because they think they will escape but shafting creditors and that HMRC will actually accept pennies in the pound.

What next ? Messi signs 5 year deal at Ibrox and will be paid by legal loopholes while Barca accept a CVA payment for him :blink:.

This thread is going too easily break 5,000 pages :ph34r:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be an interesting turn.............

brian mclauchlin@BBCBMcLauchlinAn SPL chairman tells BBC Scotland there is an increased animosity towards Rangers after they take case to court of session. #BBCSportsound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means he gets the whole shooting match that is Rangers (it's assets, goodwill, etc) for £5.5mill and walks them off into a newco.................unless someone offers a higher prepackage or else the creditors make a successful case that more could be realised through an asset sale liquidation. The purchase price of £5.5m goes towards winding the company up (including payments to creditors).

However, H&D argue that creditors get less from a newco or liquidation. The most salient part of the CVA proposal is Schedule 4 which summarises their case and contends:

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through CVA £4,967,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through Newco £953,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through liquidation £Nil

I have a dream...

Hector gazzumps Greens newco by offering £6M (He will get some of this back anyway) , sells Murray Park to the SFA for use as a centre of excellence and closes down Centre 1 in East Kilbride.

Renovates Ibrox into offices with a lovely big car park in the middle where the pitch used to be and has a massive big HMRC sign emblazoned across the front of the Ibrox facade. (Dosen't matter the cost as no matter how expensive it will be worth it.)

oh yes...

Edited by Walt Kowalski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Not so sure if Murray Park can be touched. My understanding is that the Scottish Sports Council has first digs on that asset,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

firstly, a couple of smaller fines that you wont pay anyway? are you being serious? you could easily have afforded to pay your PAYE but to do so would have meant selling some of the expensive team you bought even though you knew you had a big tax bill coming.

the problem with your, and by your i mean the whole rangers management and support and media's 'big bad boy swindled us' argument is that whytey did exactly what his predecessor and successor did/will do.

SDM borrows the money to buy the club, doesnt put in any money, steals money, shafts the taxman (by way of the ebts) shafts other clubs by way of having an illegal advantage

sells it to..

CW who at least pays the whole amount to buy the club, 1 pound, but borrows the money he needs against it, steals money, shafts the taxman (by not paying PAYE) shafts motherwell and nearly shafts celtic by having an illegal advantage

and the administrators come in, take lots of money (from the taxman in practice...shafted again)

and sell to....

CG who's borrowing money to buy the club, taking the money back out of the club so making the fans buy the club for him, not illegal but morally dodgy, shafting the tax man (by way of making the ebt case irrelevant) shafting other clubs by not paying debts to them and creating an immoral advantage coz the club will have avoided all their debt whilst still keeping a squad that they only managed to buy in the first place by cheating the tax man and other clubs...

you have to admit, theres a wee bit of a pattern here. add in dave king, paul murray and lets face it rangers have been a den of iniquity for a long time. in fact lawrence malborough, the owner in possibly your most successful period was the only owner to ever run you on a morally decent keel (his predecessors being bigots) and actually made profits. doesnt that tell you something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the CVA will get accepted by the creditors. Rangers will come out of admin and we will all have to accept it. We all know the SFA can't handle the pressure and don't want to lose a club with probably the most amount of fans in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It's not 100% Captain style, but they've both been busy on the PC today... Can't help wondering if it's the same one :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be an interesting turn.............

brian mclauchlin@BBCBMcLauchlinAn SPL chairman tells BBC Scotland there is an increased animosity towards Rangers after they take case to court of session. #BBCSportsound

He's based in Embra. I wonder who's been through in our capital city..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You may be right.

Of course, there is all kinds of cheating so lets not stop here.

It could be failure to pay wages or it could be a manager of club 1 (lets say Aston Villa) signing a player from a club 2 (lets say Celtic) for an inflated fee when he has a financial interest in club 2.

All hypothetical of course. But if we are serious about stopping cheating then lets have a root and branch clean-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

You're right - I think the SFA do have an accountability in this, but they're not the ones who are primarily culpable. Rangers are to blame, if they are found guilty, but the SFA will have to hold their hands up and acknowledge they should've taken a closer look at how these EBTs were being used before the HMRC became involved.

My worry for Rangers (and this is a worry - I'm after justice in this case, not blood) is that this could be their absolute end. I genuinely don't want to see that happen, but couple this with with what they've been found guilty of already, along with the administration and also now pissing off the SFA by going through the Civil Courts, it doesn't look too great for Rangers. The civil courts have spelled out the sanctions available to the SFA, and it doesn't seem that relegation is one of those options. All other sanctions, other than expulsion, seem too lenient when you consider the prescedent set with the previous tribunial and today's case. This is all hypothetical at this stage obviously, just my thoughts on the worst case scenario for Rangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is draaagging sack.

As illustrated...

sack.jpg

Yeah I'm quite bored

A picture conveys a thousand words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsnight was absolutely appalling.

You get the self employed lawyer who doesn't seem to ever have a clue what she's talking about, and then some English talking head from the "Greenwich School of Managament" (Jesus, sounds like something from The Daily Mash) who's sole contribution seemed to be that the creditors would take what they were given because it was the best offer (!?!?) ... oh, and that they'd get a bullet through their heads if they were responsible for shutting down the Big Hoose.

And it all was headed by a voice over saying that "Creditors will get shafted.... but Green gets a company with £100m in assets for £200k... and the fans still have their club".

Feck!

Yep, truly risible attempt at reporting a huge story. No Scottish TV journos worth their salt. Would love to see Paxman v. Craig Whyte & Hughie Green in the studio. That alone would be worth the TV licence fee, not that it will happen........ <_<

Share this post


Link to post
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...