Handsome_Devil

Smith and Souness would have been in charge of 'football board' on part-time, non-exec basis, while McCoist remained manager. ga

No wonder they got told to f**k off, chancers.

£5.5m cash up front (having secured CW shares)...£2m more depending on Euro success...football creditors in full (take on debt of £3.5m) = total value of £11m. Inherited £3.5m of debtors which could arguably have been taken off value of bid...but this would have been used to fund from June 1. Then any further shortfall made up by Knights.

Would imagine Murray Park is for the players pre-match press conference rather than Duffman who is at Ibrox?

How come? Alasdair Lamont is going through the note of reasons and tweeting interesting bits...obviously the appeal board may take a different view to the original trio but they used seriously damning language and it would be a major about turn for Rangers to now get off with this.

Theoretically yes but I find it hard to imagine they would do so. Shame as it would be bloody brilliant.

Rangers appeal to the SFA regarding signing ban etc will be heard on May 16 (next Wednesday).

Ha ha, sadly not. Changed my mind half-way through. Bit like Bill Miller really.

I reckon they'll still Newco in the SPL for the time of next season.

They can spin it all they want but the fact is (to save the company) you need to flush a minimum of £10m (and that's a very, very generous minimum) down the pisser to take over a business which loses £1m a month, can't strengthen the playing squad and has already mortgaged away revenue streams such as season ticket money, catering and merchandise and has devalued their main playing assets to survive for the last three months. Beyond that they are already visibly weaker than their only true competitor and won't get money from Europe for at least one and maybe three years. An absolute Rangers die hard may consider this a good deal, no one else in their right mind will consider it. If they can find some group of people willing to take them over and save them then fair play, they'll have played a blinder. All players and management, D+P and the fans would have been much better acknowledging they were beyond saving within about a week of going into administration. Their focus would have been much better spent on ensuring a return for creditors and Rangers could continue, at Ibrox, in any form at any level of the Scottish league system next season.

The prospective buyer could either fund the business during the six weeks or the administrators could sack players to bring the wage bill down. I'd assume selling players, if you could get someone to pay cash immediately, could also be used to fund the going concern rather than being considered liquidating an asset for the creditors but you'd need a legal/financial opinion on that. D+P are being very careful with their words and the sports media aren't picking them up on it. Rangers cannot be under new ownership by the weekend, it is legally impossible. You can have a preferred bidder in place or someone who has bought assets and moved them to a Newco.

Douglas Fraser ‏ @BBCDouglsFraser Ticketus close to lodging legal claim against Craig Whyte, calling in £27m in personal guarantees for last year's #Rangers financing deal Expand Reply Retweet Favorite Interesting one that...probably not a huge surprise but would surely make it unlikely Whyte is agreeing to hand over his shares on the cheap until he knows the men with bats won't be knocking on his door.

Quickest turnaround for a CVA is six weeks - 14 days notice for the first meeting/proposal, 28 days to consider appeals, cooling off etc. Even Duffman admitted (in so many words) one of the reasons as a CVA is difficult right now is this would require the proposed buyer to fund the club to the tune of seven figures during this time. And, unlike those in football, HMRC are pretty good at keeping their intentions quiet so unless the CVA bid involved serious cash which was very likely to be accepted, this is a massive gamble.

I don't think the tax people would have been that hard to deal with on the big and wee cases had Rangers not dicked them around so much. Given the circumstances I don't see how they could consider accepting less than what wasn't paid since last May, by the time you chuck in Ticketus and others getting some cash, you're looking at a minimum of £20m to get a foot in the door (and I think that's with HMRC being 'nice').

I actually think the SPL (other than Celtic) would be delighted if Rangers went bust never to be seen again. They'd probably prefer a CVA of course, then they can just continue. If they don't and form a Newco they're in the lose-lose position of having to make a decision which will piss off some people hugely either way. But if Rangers go bust, well...problem solved. There's a big difference in the meeting with the bank manager when you can go in sweating, tie loosened, begging for mercy and a little more time to say here's how we'll cut budgets, here's the player we'll sell, here's our plans to raise money and we hope the league will become more competitive when Celtic shrink to being hauled in and asked what the f**k are you doing writing off guaranteed income and a television deal when you're X million in debt? I think the banks would see a difference between clubs being pushed over the edge and grabbing for life and taking a running jump with no idea if there's a safety net.

Maybe...but they've been up for sale for how long (for a quid) and only Whyte took them. They've been up for sale in admin (with almost unlimited power to tear up contracts and cut costs to make them more appealing) for three months and have hit this stage. Like you, I think someone will eventually take punt but with the sanctions they'll get even if they stay in the SPL, it will be a really long-term project while receiving nothing but grief from the Rangers fans who can't accept a Newco/failing to challenge Celtic. The fact Rangers folk, staff and fans, are still eyeing cash investment in the team with a view to winning things shows they still don't realise what their situation is and until they all accept that simply existing, in whatever form in whatever league, for the next three years is a major achievement I think a lot of folk will think it's not worth the risk and hassle.

WE're talking about the tax case but more importantly Rangers throwing the toys out of the pram and not paying PAYE, NI etc since May last year. I could just about imagine HMRC would be happy with winning the tax case and setting the precedent - Rangers then can't put their hands on all that old money owed so let's not be vindictive, call it 10p in the £ over some years and they can live. However, I doubt there's a chance in hell HMRC will reward any organisation who it is in dispute/amicable negotiations with, for simply not paying what's due on a monthly basis while the other issues are settled. Even if Rangers won both tax cases, why should HMRC encourage the practice of abandoning normal tax due? Regardless of what Rangers have or haven't done, simply choosing not to pay their tax since last May was outrageous...I hope HMRC don't settle for a penny less than what they're owed even if it means doing a repayment deal over a number of years.

No, what they deem to be fair for Portsmouth under their circumstances may not be what they deem fair for Rangers under their circumstances. However, what we can see is that they almost never accept a pence in the pound deal while football looks after its own by insisting those bills are paid in full. There's no football creditor rule in Scotland as such but while the players would potentially be on their arse if owed money, the SPL/SFA and UEFA seem likely to insist Celtic, Dundee United, Rapid Vienna, Manchester City etc get their money in full. Which I suspect, even ignoring whether HMRC is being vindictive about Rangers behaviour, does not bode well.

In sporting terms (going into admin, going into liquidation, handball on the line) then you're right. In terms of the HMRC though, if you think they can't/don't/won't be in a position to decide each case on the merits then you're kidding yourself on.

That's nonsense I'm afraid. Why would HMRC be interested in showing bias to one club or another? They'd judge each case on the merits but would have shown, if you are a complete chancer who clearly seem determined to diddle them out of tens of millions like Rangers seem to be, there is no easy way out. If you're a diddy club living hand to mouth which operates in good faith but falls behind, they can still cut a deal. Only a Rangers fan would reckon that's anything other than completely reasonable.

As ever, they could use discretion...but when Rangers use a borderline scheme, making no provision for when it goes wrong (and they've been facing this possibility for years, how about sticking the Jelavic money in a just-in-case-account rather than making another expensive signing), try to pull a fly one by deliberately not paying money that was definitely due, then try to run away from absolutely everything, no one can complain at all if the tax man shut them down. If another club falls on hard times, HMRC could then decide if they were well-meaning but a wee bit incompetent/unlucky and worthy of a second chance or if they should get hammered as well. But I bet the message being sent of 'take the piss and we will close you down' will tighten a lot of practises and ensure people keep some in reserve in case avoidance schemes fall on the wrong side of the line.

HMRC (with good reason) hate football clubs. As is well documented, they're also obsessed with you 'not getting away with it' if you're a big fat chancer. A £9m CVA doesn't come close to covering what they're owed from last May never mind the longer term tax cases. They're in the business of funding the government to the tune of billions and billions, writing off a few million here is probably an excellent investment for them. If Slater has sources he should run a story, if he doesn't he's looking like a fantasist.

He seems more of a business than sport type and has actually had some decent comments in the past iirc. But f**k knows what he's thinking on that one.

£11m was effectively buying the assets, goodwill etc. He'd have still had to do a deal with creditors (using the £11m in cash now in the company as a starting point). The £19m is £9m for creditors and then the starting amount needed to run the business.

I think it's laughable to suggest HMRC would entertain a CVA totalling £9m.