The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Metalface Mark said:
You forget there are secured creditors not on that list and d&p fees in total which are going to be in the region of 5.5m, as usual in any administration, the only guys who do well out it are administators, certainly any time ive lost money as a company despite cva pots, ive yet to see anything from them.
Click to expand...

Would you stop peddling that myth. The £4,967,284 is money for UNSECURED CREDITORS after administrator and supervisory fees as the below summary will show. Unless you think D&P are lying to the creditors. Note that the total is minus the "estimated cost of realisations" i.e. fees & expenses...



Feel free to point out to me using the above, where my calculations are inaccurate...
 
Last edited:
With the numbers as they are (bare in mind they are estimations - but fairly accurate), you require HMRC to issue Rangers with liability of £44.8 million from the EBT case to bring the offer of pence in the £ below 5 in order to win our bet.

Confident?
 
Very confident :)

It's already came out today that duff and phelps fees will be in excess of 5.5 million, you can see they have 3m on that balance sheet, the other 2.5 comes out of unsecured creditors money also.

It's standard practice with administration

All moot of course as Cva will be rejected
 
Metalface Mark said:
Very confident :)

It's already came out today that duff and phelps fees will be in excess of 5.5 million, you can see they have 3m on that balance sheet, the other 2.5 comes out of unsecured creditors money also.

It's standard practice with administration

All moot of course as Cva will be rejected
Click to expand...

So basically you are accusing D&P of lying to creditors and by extension the Court of Session that appointed them and underestimating the CVA costs by nearly 50%? Am I picking you up correctly here?

The unsecured creditors fund is... eh the fund with which the unsecured creditors are paid unsurprisingly - how can administrator fees come out of that when they are not an unsecured creditor?

I can almost sense a desperation in your post for the worst scenario to unfold. You are basically inventing a £2.5 million expense FFS.
 
I don't know If you are in business yourself or not or have dealt with any Cva or liquidations but that is what happens, administrators get their money before unsecured creditors.

You seem to forget that the Cva does show administrators fees to may 28th ( or whatever dated) but does not include the rest of the administration.
 
Last edited:
Metalface Mark said:
I don't know If you are in business yourself or not or have dealt with any Cva or liquidations but that is what happens, administrators get their money before unsecured creditors.

You seem to forget that the Cva does show administrators fees to may 28th ( or whatever dated) but does not include the rest of the administration.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that. Did you look at the summary?

The costs of realising the CVA have been deducted before the sum of £4,967,284 was arrived at. It is there in front of you. Even the articel you linked to quotes a sum of £5.5 million... hmmmm would appear awfully close to the cost of realisation of £5,561,000.

What the article is basically saying is that the administrators will profit by £5.5million which is a falsehood as there are various expenses included in the total cost. Legal fees at £1.8million being 1 (which incidentally is where I believe the difference in incoming transfer fees between creditors report and CVA offer is located).
 
Metalface Mark said:
I don't know If you are in business yourself or not or have dealt with any Cva or liquidations but that is what happens, administrators get their money before unsecured creditors.

You seem to forget that the Cva does show administrators fees to may 28th ( or whatever dated) but does not include the rest of the administration.
Click to expand...

No, those are the final realisation values (estimates obviously), but I would be staggered if there was an additional £500,000 in fees arrived at never mind an additional £2.5 million.
 
Arent you guys getting hung up on semantics? Yes, £2.5 million is a lot of money but in the overall scheme of things, it is a drop in a very large ocean. It might mean a difference of a penny or two in the pound but really, it's not the overall decider.
The administrators are making sure they will get all their money due. So much for keeping the best interests of the club at heart. Looking after number 1 more like.
 
Semantics? If pointing out the facts in the offer as opposed to peddling some fantasy that the offer is worth less than a penny in the £ is semantics then you are correct.

Mark has the numbers in front of him, yet is refusing to believe them and has instead, whether out of denial or hope, invented a sum of £2.5million that doesn't exist and added it to the cost of the CVA.

The Rangers total liabilities are £54.7 million. The unsecured creditors pot is £5million (give or take). There is an as yet unknown liability in the form of the EBT case which is to be determined by the FTT. For the offer to be less than a penny in the £ as Mark has convinced himself that it is, the FTT would have to declare that HMRC's bill in the EBT case was approximately £450million (that is right, nearly half a £billion). Around 6 times the reported maximum that it can possibly be (£75million).

Mark seems a decent enough lad, other than his hate for all things Rangers. I'd happily have a pint with him and debate all things Scottish football. But I wouldn't want him doing my tax returns.
 
Last edited:
Mark seems a decent enough lad, other than his hate for all things Rangers. I'd happily have a pint with him and debate all things Scottish football. But I wouldn't want him doing my tax returns.
Click to expand...
I think that there lies the problem. It boils down to whether you are a rangers fan or not. One side or the other will always be biased for or against them, sometimes to the point of being blinkered. The Rangers fans are defending their team, as they should, to the point of naievity perhaps. Glossing over the fact that they have been mismanaged for years and thus feel victimised.
The others see the chance to put the boot in and are revelling in their misfortune, hoping for a worst case scenario.
Football. Eased to be a game years ago and is much more of a money making business these days. Gone are the days of local guys being discovered and coming up through the ranks. Now it is the best team money can buy with players bought and sold as commercial properties (hell, just look at Hearts, I can't even pronounce most of their team!). I reckon the soul went out of the game a long long time ago.
 
Now I believe of the 55 million debt thats help circa 9 million are for debenture holders Now they can become creditors and get pence in pound or they can opt out of the cva pot and keerp their seat. I know what the vast majority would do. In that case the debt droped to 46million and pence in the pound hits 10p (on paper)
 
Metalface Mark said:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...or-what-charles-green-is-attempting-1-2328188

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18268346

All good fun today. Its also great to see Rangers fans have added St Mirren to the boycott list if we are ever in the same league again :)
Click to expand...

What exactly is the story here? If you remember correctly, Craig Whyte applied to the Court of Session on the Monday (Feb 13th), so there is no surprise that there are e-mails between a potential administrator. HMRC then petioned the court to appoint administrators on Tuesday (14th) at which point the club was placed into administration with D&P being appointed by the court, although at the recommendation of Craig Whyte.

What is it that Daly is trying to say in that piece? Is it because emails are dated prior to the club being placed in admin (by 2 days) and 1 day prior to the club serving a 7 day notice of administration?

It isn't unusual and is, in fact commonplace I believe, for a company director and an insolvency practitioner to have correspondence prior to a business being placed into administration. Given that businesses rarely become insolvent overnight.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom