Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[monrovianmonk]

So why is he getting £100m worth of 'goods' for £5.5m ?

Because that is what happens in a fire sale unfortunately.

[rustyarabnuts]

when is the BTC?

[DuntoiRab]

May I attempt to clarify what MJ said about CVA or newco being very little difference to creditors.

Selling off RFC assets most likely would not increase the pot for creditors in the current recession.

There are numerous problems with the properties which have been mentioned here before.

It is likely that D&P have to go with whoever tries to put a deal together. Given that the Green proposal is so shot full of TBC that creditors have no idea what they might get out of a CVA just shows how toxic the situation is.

Any other company in a similar situation would have ceased to exist long ago, it's just not viable.

The only people D&P can attract are sharks looking to make a buck out of a dead company.

Either way, MJ is correct, he didn't state it explicitly but creditors are shafted, however it ends.

Anything D&P say is smoke trying to get the best out of a very toxic deal, but they are very happy with the £5.5 million income from the job.

[chico]

13.6 and 6.2 of the CVA are where the BTC is included and the date tied to it. Not much point in doing a CVA unless you either get rid of the BTC or are dead certain you're going to win.

The CVA also assumes that the amount secured by Whyte's floating charge is nil both in his hands and implicitly if Ticketus claims it as security for it's guaranty. Lots of talk on RTC about how this might be a huge complication, speculation that Ticketus may have an alternative stratagey etc. no bloody idea how that plays out and can't see a CVA going through unless it's absolutely clear Whyte and the charge have gone or will go away.

Thanks.

That's a few assumptions built on assumptions

[Happy Buddie]

Yes, I saw that. 'In footballing terms' Hughie Green and his 'consortium' are intending to buy Rangers FC. They intend to continue as a football club. Hughie Green stated that Rangers 'would never be in debt again'.

So why is he getting £100m worth of 'goods' for £5.5m ?

More to the point, and as in your face as you'll get, hypocritical even, the money they're putting in is a loan, so how's thaht not more debt? Somebody should put that to him at a news conference.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Because that is what happens in a fire sale unfortunately.

Not when you've got a list of creditors banging at the door, surely.

(Not wishing to threadjack, but when this farrago is finally put to bed, is it not time someone looked at the laws regarding companies in administration because this whole thing is farcical.)

[gaz5]

Looking back at the CVA proposal for a second, I have a question for one of the more knowledgeable legal types:

If the Creditors (Mainly HMRC and Ticketus) reject the CVA and as a result Green buys all the assets for the agreed £5.5m, transfers to newco thus liquidating the current company BEFORE the outcome of the BTC is known, what happens to the case? Is it just dropped by the wayside, or is it still possible for a verdict to be rendered even though the defendant is dead?

The reason I ask is:

The inclusion in the CVA of the BTC monies due to HMRC seems crazy to me. If, as has been confirmed, Haudit and Daudit are in daily chat with HMRC then surely both parties would know already if this was an acceptable inclusion or not.

We know, through what we keep being told, HMRC see this as a "test case" in the UK and that there are a lot of other clubs, mainly in England and who will be due far more money, in a similar position. Could HMRC, in the case of Rangers and in the best interest of the tax payer, be more interested in setting a legal precedent with which to pursue the EBT scam as a whole, than the actual money they will get from Rangers specifically?

Would accepting a CVA, on the premise that Rangers (in whatever guise) do not appeal what surely must be a guilty verdict and hold up any plans to pursue other clubs, be a possibility?

I'm not sure I've worded any of that well, but you'll get the jist of what I'm getting at. Could just be a wild conspiricay running away with me though, especially if the answer to my initial question is yes, the courts can still render precedent creating verdict n if the defendant no longer exists.

[Colin M]

The reason Lawwell came over all as "The Fan's Friend" saying he would be happy with league expansion to 14, but it was the nasty rebel 10 who were blocking it, was that it would cost the Old Firm nothing. They would still split 32% of the TV money and still have their 4 days of wife beating. The dilution of the TV money by bringing 2 more teams into the SPL would be entirely borne by the non OF sides, so isn't going to happen till the 11-1 rule is scrapped, and a fair distribution of revenue established.

My opinion on that is actually not down to Lawwell's recent revelations - but down to comments directly from Stewart Gilmour a year or so ago. Although the Old Firm act in tandem (or have until now, at least), they don't really give a monkeys whether it's 10, 12, or 14 teams in the league, so long as the conditions suit them. I totally agree that voting reform would bring about a change in financial distribution of prize money but I don't think it automatically means we can then restructure the league to suit the rest... because the rest actually all have different views, and that's the problem.

My point here though is that none of the positives are worth selling the principles to allow a newco Rangers in relatively unharmed. Frankly, I don't give a monkeys either how many teams are in the league if it means we're still completely reliant on selling The Old Firm games to fund it. We need to break that dependence and I believe we need an end to the SPL era to try to ensure the sport is properly governed. I don't think there's a compromise to be had here - say yes to newco without severe sanction and that battle is already lost, IMO.

[welshbairn]

It should be fun if they lose the BTC before the creditors meeting, with full penalties and interest. HMRC would have full power to reject the offer on their own, and I can't see them going for possibly less than 2p in the Pound. A bird on telly last night was saying it could even be a negative pence in the pound! Don't know how she worked that out..

[DuntoiRab]

Wait a minute, did the SPL kill the Green CVA?

Look at the conditions.

[Ross.]

A bird on telly last night was saying it could even be a negative pence in the pound! Don't know how she worked that out..

At a guess, if the administrators turned round and said "We've raised £5.5m from the sale of the assets, but our fee's are £6m, so all you folk out there who are owed money, well you better chip in and pay us the £500k it took us to resolve this situation on your behalf...."

[Pull My Strings]

What's this about the cash from Green being A LOAN to Rangers FC?

He wants to acquire the club with cash that he will take back at a later date. If his CVA is agreed, he will basically have got the club for a steal.

That aint right.

No, he's acquiring the club by purchasing it for two quid from Whyte.

Thereafter he's offering a loan to repay the existing creditors of the club. There's nothing particularly unusual or dubious about that aspect of the transaction.

[ayrmad]

At a guess, if the administrators turned round and said "We've raised £5.5m from the sale of the assets, but our fee's are £6m, so all you folk out there who are owed money, well you better chip in and pay us the £500k it took us to resolve this situation on your behalf...."

"And why did you not just get rid of all those players on day one?" would be the only answer required.

[Gaspode]

It was said last night that the main creditors HMRC and Ticketus have the right to ask for more time to consider the CVA offer, surely this then screws up Green's timescale for introducing a NEWCO in time for the season commencing.

It was mentioned on Newsnight that these 2 main creditors would surely need to know the exact details of all pending cases which may increase the CVA pot or decrease the CVA pot before making a judgement on whether to accept or decline the CVA offer.

[Ross.]

"And why did you not just get rid of all those players on day one?" would be the only answer required.

"Because if we'd paid them all off, we'd have got less from young Charles here and you'd owe us more money. And that's another £45 for this response." Would probably be their reply.

[welshbairn]

SPL statement:

Tougher financial fair play rules introduced

All 12 SPL clubs met today at Hampden Park to consider a number of different matters relating to newcos and financial fair play.

It was agreed that, in future, any decision on the transfer of a share to a newco from any club will be considered by all member clubs, rather than the SPL Board, with flexibility to impose sanctions appropriate to each individual circumstance. The resolutions proposing fixed penalties on a newco were therefore withdrawn as being obsolete.

Following the circulation to creditors of CVA proposals, the SPL Board withdrew the resolution to consider a transfer of Rangers FC SPL share to a newco. No newco proposal is currently under consideration by the SPL.

The following resolutions were also approved by the Clubs and come into effect immediately:

– An increase in the sporting sanctions for any Club going into administration in the future, from ten points to the greater of ten points and one third of the Club’s SPL points total in the preceding season;

– An extension of the sporting sanctions regime to the situation where the parent company of an SPL Club goes into administration;

– Updates and extensions to the definition of ‘Insolvency Events’ in the SPL Rules to track recent changes in insolvency law;

– Specific requirements for SPL Clubs to pay their players and HMRC on time and be subject to sanctions if they do not. Clubs must also report to the SPL any failure to pay players or HMRC on time.

The members’ resolution to amend SPL voting rules to an 9-3 vote in all cases was adjourned to the SPL’s Annual General Meeting on 16 July.

SPL Chief Executive Neil Doncaster commented: “The new rules will impose more onerous sanctions on clubs which go into administration in the future. By making any failure to pay players on time a disciplinary issue, the SPL has sent a clear signal of the vital importance of clubs living within their means. Equally clubs which fail to live within their means will be punished proportionately.

“And, if clubs do not keep up to date with their PAYE and NIC, they will be made subject to a player registration embargo until they are up to date.

“This is a progressive and bold package of changes, for which clubs should be congratulated.”

[ayrmad]

"Because if we'd paid them all off, we'd have got less from young Charles here and you'd owe us more money. And that's another £45 for this response." Would probably be their reply.

Aye, like that reply would stand up to scrutiny.

[EdTheDuck]

Hearts are screwed then.

Well, quite.

The blue meanies will sail through this whole quagmire (giggity giggity) unscathed and the first time there's a blip with Hearts (who, remember have paid everyone their dues), they will face the Doncaster Death Ray.

[Pull My Strings]

Looking back at the CVA proposal for a second, I have a question for one of the more knowledgeable legal types:

If the Creditors (Mainly HMRC and Ticketus) reject the CVA and as a result Green buys all the assets for the agreed £5.5m, transfers to newco thus liquidating the current company BEFORE the outcome of the BTC is known, what happens to the case? Is it just dropped by the wayside, or is it still possible for a verdict to be rendered even though the defendant is dead?

...

The liquidation process won't be complete until all the liabilities have been addressed. In practice the money from the sale of the assets would go into the bank until the liquidators were satisfied that there would be no more claims - then it gets divied. There is absolutely no chance of the club being formally wound up prior to the tax case being decided.

[Broccoli Dog]

Tee hee

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2180847/administrators-run-gbp179m-rangers