Jim McLean's Ghost

Probably means that anyone that thought HMRC would scupper the Green Newco shouldn't get their hopes up. Looks like the £5.5M sale will go through.

I would imagine the creditors meeting won't happen now and that Green will take possession of assets today or tomorrow. Obviously he now needs to come up with the £5.5M, begging for season ticket money seems perhaps desperate but I think he will get the funds. An emergency SPL meeting must be called to vote on the share transfer, or do Rangers transfer the share to the Newco and have that ratified by an SPL vote? Anyway liquidation ahoy. I wonder what assets are left to sell after Green has cherry picked the important ones and will Craig Whyte now be asserting his floating charge so that all the liquidation money goes into his pocket or even mount a legal challenge to selling Ibrox. Certainly more interesting but still odds on that Rangers are playing at Ibrox in the SPL next season.

Why was he supposed to hand over money? Usually a buyer wouldn't pay out money until a cva is agreed or is it security for the assets if a cva goes tits up.

Whitehouse and Clark will probably keep their snouts in the trough for triple time plus holiday pay.

An open sale takes time, which runs up more costs as well as administering any tender process. The administrators have accepted £5.3M so I there will be little movement above that figure. Green's money is certain, it could become a shambles where a delay costs creditors money.

Realistically? Time. Rangers have no money to run for the month and would be taking on large expenses so if he CVA fails Green gets his bid accepted immediately. The process of ending this administration is too far along now to entertain other bidders as that will just run up more costs. The ticking time bomb of full wages has set this timescale.

I think people are getting carried away too. Ranger were wrong in going to court however the court was very restrained. They did not void the punishment and did not determine what the punishment should be. They told the SFA that their rules were incompatible with the law and the tribunal had overstepped its powers. Rangers punishment will still be decided by he SFA, even if a court has told them their rules limit the options. If a transfer embargo were an explicitly mentioned sanction then the court would have agreed with the SFA.

No the payment to cover costs will be a gift into the cva pot. He isn't legally compelled to pay the money but it is a solid way of handling the running costs for a month. Basically if the cva succeeds it will be as if green owned the club from the day the cva was accepted. In normal trading there should be a surplus from player sales, season tickets and spl money. If admin continued players would be sold to meet costs which is obviously unattractive for green so this arrangement is at his request. Season tickets sales can begin immediately with fans safe in the knowledge the money is going to the future of the club. It seems a risk free way to realise the full cva since player sales can't be guaranteed and season tickets wouldn't be bought while the administrators get the money

Once again the BBC fails to read the cva. Charles Green will cover costs from the cva being accepted to it being implemented which takes around a month. These costs are covered from player sales, season ticket sales and spl cash which goes into a green controlled account which he will then use to pay back expenses run up over the month back into the cva pot. There are a few clauses but essentially this plan means that unless the cva is immediately accepted then Rangers will be liquidated/newco'd.

Was the question What is the name of Craig Whyte's son?

Not really, some people on here can read a balance sheet, but look below Not all the charges and fees go to Duff and Phelps. Page 1331, Welsh Bairn has posted a balance sheet, £3M admin costs plus £0.5M to administer the CVA got to D&P.

If the CVA doesn't get accepted then most of those fees don't occur, but regardless. It is a simple fact. Paul Clark is correct and the BBC are wrong, the administration fees have not increased tenfold over the £500K limit proposed by Craig Whyte.

The BBC is being disingenuous then because they are comparing the £500K top fee proposed by Craig Whyte to total admin costs. Even if Craig Whyte's loopy plan had worked out there would still have been other professional who would needed to be paid outside of Duff and Phelps. Duff and Phelps are due £3M, lawyers and other professionals get paid as well but that money does not go to D&P so Paul Clark is correct when he tells the BBC that costs aren't 10X the expected amount (which btw was for a very quick admin)

You can definitely ignore any contributions made by Ric

According to the balance sheet posted by Welsh Bairn on page 1331 D&P are due £3M... only 6 times more than the £500,000. Other necessary legal and profession fees push up the total admin costs. So it seems the BBC are wrong.

Well if you believe they have lost £24M. For a start Ticketus have insurance on their investment.

I thought he owned the shares. The CVA is to get control of the company which is currently being run by D&P so it is a moot point really since he can't do anything legally until administration concludes. Green did represent Rangers at the SPL meeting today though and I'm sure he said that the shares had been bought.

Because the company he owns is going to be liquidated along with all its assets because of the debts. He is starting a new company and buying assets from the old one.

The court ruled that the clause that allowed the tribunal to set any punishment was illegal since it gives unlimited powers of punishment. I' sure a court would find a clause that precludes going to court also illegal.

Why do you think that? Even if they lose the BTC, lose Collyer Bristow court case, fail to get a CVA, lose an SFA appeal over the transfer embargo etc. The fact remains that Charles Green's group will buy the important assets for £5.5M and have the SPL share transferred to a NewCo. The SPL have accepted this as a legitimate means of restructuring the football club so Rangers (in some form) are more than likely going to be playing in the SPL next season.

Once a CVA is agreed all debts accrued to that point are paid by the CVA. If Rangers lose their appeal then the BTC is paid from the CVA fund and Rangers are in the clear but it doesn't void the case or debt, it just means HMRC get more of the CVA pot.

What nonsense. you would have thought someone on accountancy age might be able to get their head around a balance sheet. If Rangers exit admin through a CVA the total admin costs are £5.5M If Rangers exit admin via a newco a liquidator is needed then total costs are £6.2M If Rangers liquidate and don't newco admin costs are still £6.2M These are 3 separate possibilities, not amounts to be added together. The administrators outlined 3 scenarios to show creditors that the CVA was the best deal and that selling assets to Green for £5.5M for a newco still gets creditors a better return than just liquidating.

A loan is standard in these cases. Green owns 85% of the club, they aren't allowed to issue new shares so there isn't really another way to invest capital that isn't a loan. Makes no difference anyway, Green's group are essentially loaning money to themselves, so it isn't really new debt, it is investment capital. I had a look at what it cost Motherwell for administration cost which lasted nearly 2 years. Total cost was £407,000 a mere fraction of Rangers admin costs. While Motherwell admin was not as complex we did have litigation with the Inland Revenue and had to deal with Failkirk trying to cheat their way into the SPL. Administration and legal costs at Rangers are so high that they get more than the creditors. (C&B lawsuit pending)

Sorry TV and Film forum readers and indeed readers of jambo-rockers excellent reviews I have some terrible news to bring you. jambo-rocker is a plageriser. He does write his reviews, but much like a student copying from a textbook he merely changes words, flips around some sentences but these are not his thoughts. It isn't really surprising though since the quality of the reviews are good and a standard that he doesn't maintain throughout his other posts. You see the occasional rough paragraph where he throws in his own thoughts but they are never as insightful as the rest. I dare anyone to read this review and compare it to jambo-rocker and come to any other conclusion. Direct lifts, the overall structure, even some of the witty comments are taken straight. I have had a quick look back through some other reviews and the same pattern arises. How long did you think you could get away with it? You are copying Alan Sepinwall, one of the most well known internet TV reviewers. For Shame