The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
- Status
And yet any if any of the creditors could have demostrated this 'fact' they could have petiotioned the court to have Duff & Phelps replaced. Funny that none have.
Didn't they agree a deal for Green to buy the assets of the club even if they did not receive the CVA, which meant Rangers would become a newco as in Bill Miller's plan? Would this newco then come under the new rules that the SPL have recently voted through or the old setup?
Think the old rules, since this administration is in process at the time of the rules update. Although that has yet to be fully clarified as far as I am aware.
The updated rules regarding newco's are a little baffling in any case. I can sort of understand looking at it om a case by case basis. But if at some point in the future a club falls foul of these rules and deems their samctions to be overly harsh in comparison to a previous newco, then it could again open up a legal minefield. What is wrong with having rules written down and adhered to?
Flexibility is all well and good, but rules still have to adhere to the laws of the land as has been demonstrated this past week.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
You said "why should Rangers be treated any differently and more harshly" - They have been treated exactly the same as other clubs in administration under the current rules.
I dont think many people think Duff and Phelps have done a particularly good job with the administration, Rangers fans included in the main, my own feelings on what should have happened isnt about Rangers being treated differently, its what should have been the best result for the creditors, which was liquidation and selling of the assets, which would have cost less and would have given more money for the creditors from the outset. Obviously they had to see if someone would come in with decent money but it was fairly obvious early on that that wasnt going to happen and the doors should have been shut.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
I agree, by the sounds of it, they are leaving themselves open to a lot of legal problems with the "we will take it on a case by case basis".
They will use the new rules for Rangers when the newco happens though, so we will see soon enough.
But YOU are advocating they be treated harsher, by having assets seized etc. are you not?
How would that have been better for creditors?
Have you looked at the CVA document? The money for unsecured creditors is? NIL in the event of liquidation.
If you think the sale of Murray Park and Ibrox would have seen proceeds gp to creditors I think you are forgetting Craig Whyte's floating charge.
The only thing that wod have been better for creditors would have been of administration had occured during an active transfer window which would have allowed administrators to sell players with the proceeds becoming part of a CVA. As I have already pointed out, the players contracts become worthless to creditors should the business be liquidated.
Ehh what Mark is talking about has nothing to do with football.
It seems he wants the taxman to actually get his money for schools, hospitals etc by seizing the assets. Nothing to do with football.
I assume that if you are against seizing assets in order to pay bills that Rangers have already ran up, then you also oppose the Bill Miller style newco which is essentially hiding assets from creditors.
Have you read the CVA document? Right now they don't have a figure of what they may get. Therefore to say that a CVA is better than liquidation is a complete nonsense. In fact, there are several, quite important debtors, whos debt is 'Unknown' such as the aforementioned Craig Whyte.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
Not by the SPL!
The reason that its nil is because D&P have already wasted 5.5m, do you feel they have been good value for that amount?
Liquidator should have came in, looked at the players that were worth money, punted them at a reduced rate, built up a decent pot for creditors, and then let anyone that wants to create a newco buy the other assets for around 10m, even 5m say, it would have raised over 10m for creditors and wouldnt have cost anything like 5.5m (which will probably be nearer to 10m by the time the administration is finished).
Liquidators would have been unable to punt any players - what part of this are you misunderstanding? The players have no intrinsic value as assets. Only their contracts do. The minute liquidation process is started, these contracts become null and void. Therefore not only would they be unable to raise any money, but each player would then have become an unsecured creditor, adding I dont know say £50 million in debt to the creditors list (based on a wage bill of £18 million with each player having an average 3 years remaining on contract)
Not to mention that administration commenced on February 14th and we have established that nobody could be sold until June 9th within Scotland or July 1st to an club in a cross border transfer.
Tell me hkw that would be better for creditors? By doubling the debt (with the EBT case still to be resolved) meaning each credotor would receive half of the available pence in the £ that they otherwise would.
Last edited:
Jesus, you just keep pulling figures out of thin air don't you.
The £5.5 million is not Duff & Phelps fees - it is made up of D&P's fees, legal cost and other expenses. It is their in the CVA proposal to creditors. A final realisation cost of the CVA of £5,561,000.
How can that figure suddenly become over £10 million?
You are tying yerself in knots here man!!!
I have read the CVA document, yes. From start to finish. Have you?
Seems you are a little confused by the terms creditors and debtors though, that much is clear.
Just to clear that up for you - a debtor is a person or company OWING money to the party in question!
The reason the creditors do not know the final pence in £ value of the offer is that it is yet to be eatablished pending the final bill issued to Rangers via the FTT on behalf of HMRC. Each creditor will be well aware, however what figures will be on offer (pence in the £) on a sliding scale with the EBT case factored in. They wont be voting on the CVA blindy for crying out loud.
It is just that legally the administrators are prevented from publishing a quantum until such time as it is determined. The ability or non-ability to give a final quantum of pence in £ to creditors is outwith the Rangers or the administrators control, as I am sure you are well aware.
Last edited:
So clubs in Scotland haven't managed to offload players the past few transfer windows??
Indeed they have so they will be ok if there are buyers for their top earners what if they can't?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
They could have sold players prior to going into liquidation, D&P could have accepted a 2m offer for Naismith but it was rejected.
Yes, the 5.5m is Duff and Phelps fees, which include legal fees, just because they split them on the balance sheet does not mean they are their fees.
Or get NIL lol hmm tough choice...
Players are worthless as stevie said, also HMRC have to do what's best for the taxpayer it is not up to HMRC to pass judgement on people that is for the law, procurator and police. We are talking company law here not some moral case.
Morally they should face some sort of punishment but this isn't judge judy. Unlike the SFA, HRMC can't make up the rules as they go along.
Like I've said what is the benefit of saving Rangers to the cost of having them folded and sold for scrap?
HMRC have to ask this question shall I take my p in the £ now or have Rangers as a going concern to make me £££ over the next year.
Like I said 40K season tickets @ £350 X 20% VAT = 2.8 M PER YEAR
This is what HMRC would throw away to make a point and have a share in a possible firesale of rangers assets which you think maybe 10 million
. You really think that makes good sense?
Well £2.8 million a year in vat IF THEY PAY IT!
It is equally important to make an example of them to deter any and all other clubs from doing the same thing which would certainly cost them an awful lot more than they would make from one club.
There's too many Rangers fans feeling hard done by the SFA. Your lot didnt just get caught wigh their hand in the till, they ripped the entire ATM out of the wall with a digger! Do you think Rangers should escape punishment because "big boys did it and ran away"? The whole court thing may very well blow up in your faces and you will end up with a far worse sanction. Did DnP even consider that FIFA might be a wee bit ****ed off at them for going down that route?
Mind you the utterly ineffectual SFA/SPL will no doubt come up with some other pathetic sanction. A bit like getting community service but not enforcing it.
If you poke the big dog long enough with a pointy stick, don't blame the dog if it turns around and bites you.
It is equally important to make an example of them to deter any and all other clubs from doing the same thing which would certainly cost them an awful lot more than they would make from one club.
There's too many Rangers fans feeling hard done by the SFA. Your lot didnt just get caught wigh their hand in the till, they ripped the entire ATM out of the wall with a digger! Do you think Rangers should escape punishment because "big boys did it and ran away"? The whole court thing may very well blow up in your faces and you will end up with a far worse sanction. Did DnP even consider that FIFA might be a wee bit ****ed off at them for going down that route?
Mind you the utterly ineffectual SFA/SPL will no doubt come up with some other pathetic sanction. A bit like getting community service but not enforcing it.
If you poke the big dog long enough with a pointy stick, don't blame the dog if it turns around and bites you.
If the SFA want to have any authority left after all this then they need to come down hard on Rangers. Unfortunately they've already got themselves in a hole by saying expulsion would've been too severe, even after saying it was second only to match fixing. A fine + cup ban wouldn't be enough for many fans though that's the penalty I think we'll see unless the SFA say FIFA told them to do it.
Last edited:
In which case they will be back in court for dishing out a punishment that they have already admitted is "too severe" for the 'crime'.
FIFA statutes say that each association has a clear path for appeals reaching the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The SFA's statute deems their own appeals panel as FINAL (their wording). Therefore the CAS has no jurisdiction, which is blatantly at odds with FIFA.
Rangers had no other choice but to take the case to a civil court, other than to accept an unlawful punishment - which any right minded person would surely admit is not fair.
Put it this way, as an individual, say you were caught speeding and the judge gave you life in prison, despite it not being 1 of the available punishments, would you appeal it on those grounds? I think everybody knows the answer.
- Status