Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Forever_blueco]

49 minutes ago, The DA said:

Where did you see that transfers were funded by loans?  If true, surely that makes a further mockery of FFP rules.

Is your team no deid yet ?

[hellbhoy]

1 hour ago, The DA said:

Where did you see that transfers were funded by loans?  If true, surely that makes a further mockery of FFP rules.

BBC website and also the official Rangers FC website have confirmed that soft loans have been given to the club to limp on until the end of the season.

[hellbhoy]

OK. It's now becoming much clearer now that a good deal for the club is that after having to pay for last years unsold stock as in the old contract they have spun it around to make it look like the club has brokered a new deal more beneficial to the club? So after having to pay for the unsold stock in the first instance Dave & Mike have made a deal in which Fat Mike gets paid twice for the same stock he didn't sell Oh ma sides.

It appears that Fat Mike resigned from "Rangers Retail Ltd" back in June the 3rd this year and the next day funnily enough Dave King was appointed as a director the very next day, I wonder what's going on there?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08142409/officers

I can't wait to see this unfold over the next year or so as details about the deal get leaked where Dodgy Dave probably has pulled another flanker on the Bears.

[Paralytic Critic]

1 hour ago, hellbhoy said:

BBC website and also the official Rangers FC website have confirmed that soft loans have been given to the club to limp on until the end of the season.

Just watched the press video and how can the SFA have honestly passed this club to play in Europe when they are openly admitting that they are surviving on interest free soft loans from the directors. These soft loans should have been declared as money owed and not money gained for the club. Which totally blows the 300k profit they declared and makes them well outside the debt amassed over the 3 years to pass the FFP criteria.

I really do hope Progres Niederkorn are taking note of the goings on.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Paralytic Critic

[muirkirk nil]

Running buses to the megastore on Saturday.These c@nts are unbelievable.

[hellbhoy]

15 minutes ago, Paralytic Critic said:

Just watched the press video and how can the SFA have honestly passed this club to play in Europe when they are openly admitting that they are surviving on interest free soft loans from the directors. These soft loans should have been declared as money owed and not money gained for the club. Which totally blows the 300k profit they declared and makes them well outside the debt amassed over the 3 years to pass the FFP criteria.

I really do hope Progres Niederkorn are taking note of the goings on.

Buy now pay later? It's perfectly legal to buy a player and then settle up at a mutually agreed time.

[hellbhoy]

1 minute ago, muirkirk nil said:

Running buses to the megastore on Saturday.These c@nts are unbelievable.

To buy last years kit that the club had to pay Ashley for because they boycotted buying them depriving their club of much needed revenue. So Ashley is now going to get a percentage from stock he sold to the club and will get paid twice for something he already sold and they are now organising buses to line Fat Mikes pockets by buying last years kit.

Fucking idiots to a man.

[Paralytic Critic]

Just now, hellbhoy said:

Buy now pay later? It's perfectly legal to buy a player and then settle up at a mutually agreed time.

That's all fair and well between two clubs but isn't this a case of a club living beyond it's means to challenge in the league and Europe. They aren't just negotiating a deal for 1 or 2 players with payments over time, they don't have the money and the directors are funding wage bills and player purchases yet the clubs isn't declaring the loans on paper to meet the FFP rules. If they have then the SFA should be getting grilled on why they are letting this go.

[hellbhoy]

25 minutes ago, Paralytic Critic said:

That's all fair and well between two clubs but isn't this a case of a club living beyond it's means to challenge in the league and Europe. They aren't just negotiating a deal for 1 or 2 players with payments over time, they don't have the money and the directors are funding wage bills and player purchases yet the clubs isn't declaring the loans on paper to meet the FFP rules. If they have then the SFA should be getting grilled on why they are letting this go.

This club hasn't ever posted a profit since it's inception back in 2012 and has an operating deficit since then of over £40 million and you wonder why the SFA have allowed them to compete in Europe? They rewrote their rule book so they could create the blue cloned monster and have turned a blind eye on anything that club does because it's only concern was to keep the Old Firm fixture because they feared our game would implode financially. Of course they are going to allow them to compete ffs, it's Rangers don't ya know. 

The SFA's only concern is that can the club limp onto next season without an insolvency event. They won't bother about litigation against the club as long as they are still legally solvent of sorts. They have ran up debts of over £40 million and they are still trading? Surely they have to post a profit over the next year or so or else it's curtains, they are using an unsustainable financial model year in and year out. They will eventually fall short of qualifying for Europe, it's inevitable if they keep running an operating deficit every year.

[Paralytic Critic]

I think I may have been wrong with the profit bit as if not mistaken the so called recent audit they did themselves had just under 300k loss with the soft loans being sneaked in as money in for the club but no mention of it being a loan. 

I agree that it's only to keep the fable of the old firm still existing as this wouldn't be allowed for any other clubs outside of the old firm in Scotland nor any club in Europe to be allowed to operate like this. 

The sooner their bubble burst the better as I would rather have the implosion the SFA try to convince us will happen than follow football in a country where the corrupt powers that be will keep doing anything to allow a myth of the same club, history and trophies won scenario, also turning a blind eye to all the financial goings on with the club just so they can have TV rights on 4 supposed old firm games. 

[Dindeleux]

As a neutral(ish) observer I have a few questions about your post, see below

To buy last years kit that the club had to pay Ashley for because they boycotted buying them depriving their club of much needed revenue.

How much do Sevco need to pay Ashley?



So Ashley is now going to get a percentage from stock he sold to the club

What size of a percentage of stock will he get?


and will get paid twice for something he already sold

How much?

and they are now organising buses to line Fat Mikes pockets by buying last years kit.
Fucking idiots to a man.

Assume you will have these specific's or do you just spend all day dreaming up scenarios about the Sevco?

[The DA]

8 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

Is your team no deid yet ?

Not yet.  Perhaps you could advise me how to deal with things if it happens.  How did you cope?

[Forever_blueco]

f**k sake hellbhoy . If you want a top all you need to do is ask 

[aDONisSheep]

Awwreet Miss Sally, I'll just put my accountancy head on.

Just some clarifications from your friendly neighbourhood anally-retentive accountant.

Soft loans are just loans and do not form part of the Profit and Loss (P&L) of a company (although we're now supposed to call the P&L an 'Income Statement').

At the point the loan is made, you can't make the judgement as to whether a club/company is living outwith its means.  That judgement can only be made retrospectively.

Example

I've got a plan to make the Mighty-mighty-Dons the best team in the world and I figure that over the next five years it's going to require immediate investment of £1bn to buy the players to supply the Goalactico-Rooney.

At the point I made the investment, there is no P&L impact and so no FFP consequences.

So how does FFP work, well; if over the next five years I make £2bn (£1bn profit) because the Dons win the SPFL, CL, European Championship, World Cup, Boat Race and O'Conner gets a place at the Derby.  I have no problems with FFP because I've made money on my investment.

 

If on the other hand, we spend the money on bringing back Kiriakov, Dave Bus and bringing Maradonna out of retirement, and we win fvk-all and I lose the fvkking lot, then that is when FFP comes into play.  

But it is still a retrospective view.

BrandRangersNewco FC are simply making that investment.  It will only be a couple of years hence that we'll discover if it was a good or bad decision, we simply can't make that judgement now.

Yours

Worzel-aDONis

Edited June 22, 2017 by aDONisSheep

[Paralytic Critic]

1 hour ago, aDONisSheep said:

Awwreet Miss Sally, I'll just put my accountancy head on.

Just some clarifications from your friendly neighbourhood anally-retentive accountant.

Soft loans are just loans and do not form part of the Profit and Loss (P&L) of a company (although we're now supposed to call the P&L an 'Income Statement').

At the point the loan is made, you can't make the judgement as to whether a club/company is living outwith its means.  That judgement can only be made retrospectively.

Example

I've got a plan to make the Mighty-mighty-Dons the best team in the world and I figure that over the next five years it's going to require immediate investment of £1bn to buy the players to supply the Goalactico-Rooney.

At the point I made the investment, there is no P&L impact and so no FFP consequences.

So how does FFP work, well; if over the next five years I make £2bn (£1bn profit) because the Dons win the SPFL, CL, European Championship, World Cup, Boat Race and O'Conner gets a place at the Derby.  I have no problems with FFP because I've made money on my investment.

 

If on the other hand, we spend the money on bringing back Kiriakov, Dave Bus and bringing Maradonna out of retirement, and we win fvk-all and I lose the fvkking lot, then that is when FFP comes into play.  

But it is still a retrospective view.

BrandRangersNewco FC are simply making that investment.  It will only be a couple of years hence that we'll discover if it was a good or bad decision, we simply can't make that judgement now.

Yours

Worzel-aDONis

Very well put but still concerned a bit in that they have blown multi millions over the last 5 years for what.Three diddy league wins and a diddy cup win, they are now surviving (and openly admit this) on soft loans to finance a new team and have been paying wages in this way for some time now also.

It is all well and good that they are soft loans and do not impact the P&L, but surely at some point these loans have to be paid back in some way or other? You said investment to make Aberdeen the greatest, but how Sevco are doing it isn't technically an investment as isn't investing meaning you are giving someone the money in the hope that the deal goes well and you make the money back with interest, a loan is a loan and whether they lose or win the loan surely must be paid back.

They haven't got the investers to do this for them and are just relying on the current board loaning them cash.So does this way of operating not break the FFP criteria?

[sugna]

18 hours ago, Sting777 said:

Have the Glib one and Cashley buried the hatchet or just a bunch of the usual bluster you get from Ibrox or perhaps an effort to take the sting out of the potential court case?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40358177

From what little I've read on this, I would be completely confident that the looming court case has indeed figured large in them coming to any new arrangement.

Richard Millet's judgement is very clear (and well worth a read, if you have any interest in dissection and presentation of quite complex matters): he allows a derivative action by SDI to proceed, without pre-judging the likely outcome of that action; but in doing so, he forensically catches King (in particular), Murray and TRFC in some quite extraordinarily "disingenuous" claims.

After reading it the first time, and subsequently, my feeling has been that this would be an absolute slam-dunk for SDI (and RRL) at trial; and that the very clear support for boycotting from King would be viewed as a breach of his RRL-directorship fiduciary responsibilities. Millet makes it clear in several places that RRL directors acting in the interests of RRL had no choice but to support their action against TRFC; and that King's stance in not doing so was not what he was legally obliged to do. For example, in Para 20:

Quote

It is clear to me from the evidence that I have seen and Mr King's response to it that there is, at the least, a strongly arguable case that Mr King has personally endorsed and encouraged the continuation of the supporter boycott in the interests of the Club and TRFC and at the expense of the Company.

The bit in italics says puts King in a very weak position, before the trial actually starts. It's not evidence, but is all that a competent prosecutor would need as a hint when constructing a very robust and indeed damning case against King.

So without getting into the details in any great depth, it is fairly obvious from that judgement that King (and others) had no choice but to approach SDI cap-in-hand and try to salvage what they could.

In that context, the wording on the BBC link is interesting:

Quote

[Rangers] will now receive by far the majority of net profits from the retail operations at the Megastore and Webstore together with an equal share of all net profits from sales through SD. [Rangers] will also obtain a priority dividend on the winding up of RRL.

I can't see anything in there that is not already in place. Any retailer will get the POS profit, of course; and the RRL profit is already equally split (I thought it was 51:49 in favour of TRFC, but perhaps that is another concession to get King out of legal trouble.)

So in short:

• This looks like a tactical withdrawal of hostilities (an explicit "de-backing" of the boycott), to avoid being hit with the full force of the law, particularly on the RRL director duties.
• I can't see what else has materially changed.

Are we all making the same mistake yet again: are we assuming, when there's a statement by or on behalf of King, that there's a possibility that it isn't necessarily all based upon lies and deceit? Because, y'know, he's a big liar.

[aDONisSheep]

9 minutes ago, Paralytic Critic said:

Very well put but still concerned a bit in that they have blown multi millions over the last 5 years for what.Three diddy league wins and a diddy cup win, they are now surviving (and openly admit this) on soft loans to finance a new team and have been paying wages in this way for some time now also.

It is all well and good that they are soft loans and do not impact the P&L, but surely at some point these loans have to be paid back in some way or other? You said investment to make Aberdeen the greatest, but how Sevco are doing it isn't technically an investment as isn't investing meaning you are giving someone the money in the hope that the deal goes well and you make the money back with interest, a loan is a loan and whether they lose or win the loan surely must be paid back.

They haven't got the investers to do this for them and are just relying on the current board loaning them cash.So does this way of operating not break the FFP criteria?

At a fundamental level you are quite right, at some point someone has to pay the ferryman.  

However, how, when and in what way the ferryman is paid, can make all the difference.

What the directors of BrandRangersNewco FC have been saying for a while, is that they'd like to convert loans into equity.  If that's the case, then the loan disappears and those directors gain a bit more control.

The directors may decide they don't want to be repaid or that they would accept payment of their initial investment 50 years hence (when inflation will have whittled away much of the value).

One of the many positives of DeadRangers demise, is that other clubs cleaned up their balance sheets.  Debts were written off, or re-structured (Aberdeen were just such a case).  

Almost all clubs have had periods where their owners have had to dig into their pockets.  Aberdeen were a classic example.  In the 20 odd years before Derek McInnes came in, I would think that Aberdeen only had two or three seasons where they made a net profit.  Losses in all the others.  

Dundee Utd who have traditionally been pretty good at balancing the books made a whopper of a loss last year (circa £2m IIRC), I don't think they had the cash reserves to cover that, so it's either bank debt or soft loans etc.  If others can do it, why do we think BrandRangersNewco FC would be any different.

IMHO there is more justification for BrandRangersNewco FC to do it.  They have the potential to repay the investments/loans of the past few seasons.  They have a big fan-base, and if they can get Waffa Group stages (or beyond), they'll possibly turn a profit.

In fact with the amounts involved even a successful SPFL season where they are challenging on all domestic fronts could be enough.

 

My hope is based on the notion, that so far I think Pedro is a hopeless-haddy.  If I'm honest he got less than Warburton got from that squad.  Hopefully his recruitment will be like Fat-Sally McCoists and that BrandRangersNewco FC will have spunked their cash on shyte.

I live in hope.

Yours

aDONis

[dave.j]

BBC website and also the official Rangers FC website have confirmed that soft loans have been given to the club to limp on until the end of the season.

Absolute seethe from the brown brogues at celtic destroying thrm last season. Douglas Park has given them £15m

[sugna]

Loving your work, aDONis.

As for this part:

26 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said:

What the directors of BrandRangersNewco FC have been saying for a while, is that they'd like to convert loans into equity.  If that's the case, then the loan disappears and those directors gain a bit more control.

I've tried to do find a way of converting the loans to equity using various assumptions. None of them work. I assume for rough calculation purposes that current director loans total £10m and that there are 40 million shares available for issue in the next tranche.

Without disapplication (i.e. in a rights issue, and net of any underwriting), the total loans must be no more than the proportional value of the current holding within the total value of the share issue. That's neglecting the cost of the share issue itself, which might be around £1m (probably not less).

So equity of £10m for loans of that same amount based upon a total loners' holding of 25%, say, would imply a share issue value of £40m. First of all, do me a favour; secondly, that assumes that loans are currently in proportion to holdings; any disproportionality makes things worse. But for a nominal 40 million shares, the price of the issue would then be £1/share, against the recent TAB ruling of 20p/share.

With disapplication, I think that the entire loan liability could be converted against the entire share issue value. But even then the first £10m after costs has to go to repayment; so only sums above that amount count as any money coming in to the club at all. Given that the last (rights) issue raised under £4m, that doesn't seem very propitious.

In short, I have always seen any statements that loans from King and others "will be converted to equity" as pretty blatant lies.

[aDONisSheep]

4 minutes ago, sugna said:

With disapplication, I think that the entire loan liability could be converted against the entire share issue value. But even then the first £10m after costs has to go to repayment; so only sums above that amount count as any money coming in to the club at all. Given that the last (rights) issue raised under £4m, that doesn't seem very propitious.

I agree, but this is the important bit above, and the bit they've tried to push through at the last two AGMs.

The repayment of loans is automatic because the people who made the loans are the people who buy the shares.  There is no new cash introduced, they switch share-capital for loans.

Whether the follow through or not is up for debate, but it's certainly what they've been saying.

Yours

aDONis