The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Metalface Mark · 7 Jun 2012 at 20:54

If Rangers are banned it will be the most spectacular own goal since Chris Woods punched the ball into his own net against St Mirren in 1988

Nauggie · 7 Jun 2012 at 20:57

Dailly record reporting Craig Whyte to sue SFA for defamation. Some interesting quotes in the article lol.

So hmrc putting in place own liquidators. Assume means they will be voting no for CVA.
So if green has this buying clause what do hmrc get to liquidate? Will they block the asset sale?

Metalface Mark · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:13

You would imagine so, obviously Haudit and Daudit wanted to do the liquidation.

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:19

chameleon said:
Well I certainly think Rangers should receive a suitable severe punishment. Does that make me a Rangers hater too? As I have already established, I am not a football fan at all but I do feel the punishment has to be severe enough to send out a warning to all other clubs both north and south of the border that ****ing away ludicrous amounts of money and living far outwith your income or means to win silverware has to stop. I reckon the banks could probably foreclose on have the teams in the UK. They can't all have a sugardaddy like Man City to pay for all their extravagances. Oot all finances have been in cloud cookoo land for years and it's about time they all came back to reality.

I wonder, will Rangers fare as well now they will have to live with their means and not spend £10 million a year more than they bring in? If they do then I for one will applaud them.

Im sorry, and I will excuse the fact you are not a huge foot fan... But Rangers being in administration is nothing to do with chasing or winning silverware. We are in administration due to events since Craig Whyte's takeover (May 2011). Most notably the non payment of VAT, PAYE and NIC to HMRC. Rangers have not won any silverware since! So your point is invalid.

Yea, punishment is neccesary. But you seem to be ignoring the mitigating circumstances. The mitigating circumstances that even the SFA seem to be acknowledging with their rule changes regarding change lf ownership of mber clubs.

Metalface Mark · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:22

What are the mitigating circumstances? A big boy did it and ran away?

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:22

Metalface Mark said:
It wasnt proven that it wasnt fair, only that it wasnt on their list of punishments, two completely different things altogether.

They can be too severe and also reasonable, no two ways about that, theres ramifications for expulsion or suspension.

Ive said before that I dont want to see Rangers die, only to be punished correctly, if that turns out to be death, then I wont lose any sleep over it.

Are you for real? Do you even understand the definition of the word 'fair'?

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:24

Metalface Mark said:
What are the mitigating circumstances? A big boy did it and ran away?

Even you cannot be that thick or bitter as to not understand the mitigating circumstances.

FFS, even the SFA have belatedly acknowledged this with their rule changes regarding change of ownership. Unless you think that is just a coincidence?

chameleon · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:25

It could get awfy messy if (or when, depending on your point of view) the cva gets rejected. tbh, I don't think I've ever heard of one being for less than 10p in the pound. Thought that was the minimum.
Could boil down to a choice of a creditors pot of £5.5 million versus a liquidation sale of assets worth up to £115 million. If I was owed, think I know what I would go for. It'll all hinge on the legality or otherwise of Greens deal for a newco. Pretty sure HMRC will dig their heels in on THAT one!

Oh and Steve, I beg to differ. If Rangers weren't living so far above their income, perhaps they wouldn't ended up in so much debt? Maybe Murray (and possibly Whyte) might not have needed dodgy contracts or withholding tax payments to keep afloat?

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:36

chameleon said:
It could get awfy messy if (or when, depending on your point of view) the cva gets rejected. tbh, I don't think I've ever heard of one being for less than 10p in the pound. Thought that was the minimum.
Could boil down to a choice of a creditors pot of £5.5 million versus a liquidation sale of assets worth up to £115 million. If I was owed, think I know what I would go for. It'll all hinge on the legality or otherwise of Greens deal for a newco. Pretty sure HMRC will dig their heels in on THAT one!

There is no liquidation sale of assets for £115 million. As I said, I will excuse the fact you claim not to be a huge footy fan. But you could at least do some research regarding the inolvency process. Craig Whyte and Rangers Football Group (Liberty Capital PLC) own the floating charge over the real estate assets of Ibrox and Murray Park. As I have pointed out, the only other tangible asset that the club has is the players contracts which are invalidated the second the liquidation process is started, so offer no value to creditors. So the only asset the club has left is approximately £3million cash in the bank - by the time the administrator is paid, guess how much is left for creditors!?!?

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:38

chameleon said:
It could get awfy messy if (or when, depending on your point of view) the cva gets rejected. tbh, I don't think I've ever heard of one being for less than 10p in the pound. Thought that was the minimum.
Could boil down to a choice of a creditors pot of £5.5 million versus a liquidation sale of assets worth up to £115 million. If I was owed, think I know what I would go for. It'll all hinge on the legality or otherwise of Greens deal for a newco. Pretty sure HMRC will dig their heels in on THAT one!

Oh and Steve, I beg to differ. If Rangers weren't living so far above their income, perhaps they wouldn't ended up in so much debt? Maybe Murray (and possibly Whyte) might not have needed dodgy contracts or withholding tax payments to keep afloat?

Rangers, at the time of the takeover were £18million in debt. Approximately 40% of their annual turnover. There are clubs in the UK with debt well over 100% of their annual turnover. So again, what is your point?

Metalface Mark · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:42

steve1873 said:
Even you cannot be that thick or bitter as to understand the mitigating circumstances.

FFS, even the SFA have belatedly acknowledged this with their rule changes regarding change of ownership. Unless you think that is just a coincidence?

Im asking what the mitigating circumstances are, in your eyes as a Rangers fan?

From where I see it, Rangers fans think they shouldnt be punished because of the actions of Whyte (and Murray with the EBT's I guess) but these are not mitigating circumstances, these are the kind of decisions that have been taken by people in charge of the club and where we are at now is the result, its Rangers fault, no matter who it was that was holding the smoking gun.

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:57

Metalface Mark said:
Im asking what the mitigating circumstances are, in your eyes as a Rangers fan?

From where I see it, Rangers fans think they shouldnt be punished because of the actions of Whyte (and Murray with the EBT's I guess) but these are not mitigating circumstances, these are the kind of decisions that have been taken by people in charge of the club and where we are at now is the result, its Rangers fault, no matter who it was that was holding the smoking gun.

Really? I am a Rangers fan, as are a few others on this thread. Which 1 of has said we should not be punished?

The mitigating circumstances are pretty self explanatory. But since you insist I will point them out for the hard of learning:

Rangers Football Club were in essence, hijacked by a person who had no intention and made false promises regarding taking the club forward.

Directors were excluded from the governance process due to tbe omission of any board meetings in Craig Whyte's 10 month reign. Those that spoke out against him were sacked. If he was willing to sack directors on several hundred thousand £ a year salaries, do you honestly think the lrdinary employee in the accounts department was going to go up against him?

But aye, I guess none of that is mitigating regarding the non payment of PAYE, which is the rule breach that the club is being punished for. In Rangers previous 139 year history how many times did it have the same charge levied against it?

chameleon · 7 Jun 2012 at 21:59

Rangers, at the time of the takeover were £18million in debt. Approximately 40% of their annual turnover. There are clubs in the UK with debt well over 100% of their annual turnover. So again, what is your point?

Ok, I'm being a wee bit presumptious here but they also have a potential extra debt of up to £75 on top of that £18. That and the fact they were spending more than their income then surely they were on a slippery slope? How were they going to pay back their debts if they didn't even have enough to survive day to day?
I'm sure rangers are not the only club in this position, hence my earlier comment about an awful lot of teams being at the mercy of the banks.

Nauggie · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:05

chameleon said:
Ok, I'm being a wee bit presumptious here but they also have a potential extra debt of up to £75 on top of that £18. That and the fact they were spending more than their income then surely they were on a slippery slope? How were they going to pay back their debts if they didn't even have enough to survive day to day?
I'm sure rangers are not the only club in this position, hence my earlier comment about an awful lot of teams being at the mercy of the banks.

Yup I see King has put in for £20 million - he was TBC on the CVA.

In fairness to Whyte Murray only sold his shares for £1 because you he knew the house the cards was about to collapse.

McRod · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:16

steve1873 said:
Really? I am a Rangers fan, as are a few others on this thread. Which 1 of has said we should not be punished?

The mitigating circumstances are pretty self explanatory. But since you insist I will point them out for the hard of learning:

Rangers Football Club were in essence, hijacked by a person who had no intention and made false promises regarding taking the club forward.

Directors were excluded from the governance process due to tbe omission of any board meetings in Craig Whyte's 10 month reign. Those that spoke out against him were sacked. If he was willing to sack directors on several hundred thousand £ a year salaries, do you honestly think the lrdinary employee in the accounts department was going to go up against him?

But aye, I guess none of that is mitigating regarding the non payment of PAYE, which is the rule breach that the club is being punished for. In Rangers previous 139 year history how many times did it have the same charge levied against it?

Steve, no matter how simple you make it for them, the haters don't want to see it.

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:16

chameleon said:
Ok, I'm being a wee bit presumptious here but they also have a potential extra debt of up to £75 on top of that £18. That and the fact they were spending more than their income then surely they were on a slippery slope? How were they going to pay back their debts if they didn't even have enough to survive day to day?
I'm sure rangers are not the only club in this position, hence my earlier comment about an awful lot of teams being at the mercy of the banks.

Again, prior to May 2011 the club had met all its obligations and had enough money to run day to day.

The potential £75million debt is just that. Potential. If the club was found to owe £75million it would have entered administation at that point anyway. This insolvency event is totally unrelated to any potential liability found to be lwed due to EBT's.

chameleon · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:19

Heh, in fairness to Murray, Whyte didn't just collapse the house of cards, be poured petrol all over it, burned it down n left a huge great jobbie in the remains.

Yes Whyte was a law unto himself but whose fault was it he was there in the first place?

Metalface Mark · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:19

McRod said:
Steve, no matter how simple you make it for them, the haters don't want to see it.

At the same token, no matter how much sense people talk, Rangers fans dont want to hear it.

steve1873 · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:19

Nauggie said:
Yup I see King has put in for £20 million - he was TBC on the CVA.

In fairness to Whyte Murray only sold his shares for £1 because you he knew the house the cards was about to collapse.

Dave King has no say in whether the CVA is accepted, unless he challenges the sale of share to Charles Green and can substantiate his claim that he has first refusal. As far as his shareholding goes, if 85% of the shares are worth £1, how much do you think Dave King's shareholding is worth?

McRod · 7 Jun 2012 at 22:19

Nauggie said:
Yup I see King has put in for £20 million - he was TBC on the CVA.

In fairness to Whyte Murray only sold his shares for £1 because you he knew the house the cards was about to collapse.

Naugie,

Lloyds forced Murray to sell. His MIH empire was on the line and his hand was forced.

Remember we were only circa 18m in debt when Whyte took over and we were all led up the garden path. The nail in the coffin was failure to gain entry to the CL. This is when we should have went in to administration.