Jim McLean's Ghost
-
Posts
7,963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jim McLean's Ghost
-
-
Kennedy. Bill Miller gracious to withdraw quickly.
0 -
Journo, if you aren't bidding why should we care?
Murray, we felt misrepresented and needed to get our faces on camera one last time. We all have Rangers at heart.
Kennedy, wanted to show our credible(?) plan to the world and make sure that people know that a different bid is better. We need a team of lawyers in Ibrox tomorrow to deliver a CVA before the start of next season. Substantial quantum and deliverability.
0 -
Kennedy.
This is boring pish since we won't be buying Rangers. We would have slathered over a bit of paper some meaningless tripe about not spending more than we earned. If 90% of the fans backed them they would've gone ahead with the deal.
Paul Murray has nothing to add. Except, We are walking away!
0 -
Kennedy.
Beauty Parades to build Global Brand. No names mentioned.
Experts to run the football side, WALTER and Souness would have run football side. Ally would still manage.
0 -
Kennedy on strategy.
Marathon not a sprint.
Board structure of businessmen and charlatans. Rangers wouldn't spend money, introduce a biscuit tin, reduction in succulent lamb, break even year one. Gordon McKay and Eammon Hegarty would have lead Rangers. McKay rescued the SRU, turned them a profit.
0 -
Brian Kennedy to discuss the Quatum... Paul Clark told them to f**k off only hours ago.
£5.5M for Whytes shares and CVA, plus £2M from Europe in the next few years (lol). Taking on £3.5M of future debt gives a total of £11M. £3M owed to Rangers, but BKs would have paid for cash flow from June.
0 -
Blue Knights - we care about the club, we wanted a CVA, NO TO NEWCO, we have no money. Rangers family bla bla bla... broad based ownership.
The Blue Knights are Paul Murray, Douglas Park, Paul McKenzie, Scott Murdoch and Ian Hart featuring Brian Kennedy and this will be our final performance
0 -
Ticketus – the London ticket company now one of the main creditors of Rangers and major shareholder Craig Whyte, have just told me they are not part of any current bid for Rangers.
"We're out of all that – and happy to sit on the sidelines," said their spokesman.
They've other fish in the fryer. Later today expect them to file a legal claim for £27m against Mr Whyte for season tickets he "bought" from them.
They insist the money was for tickets only, not for buying the club as has been reported elsewhere.
They expect a "long and protracted" legal case. But what if Mr Whyte should lose and does not have money like this?
"Well we know he has a large house in the Highlands of Scotland and another in the south of France. We know he has a web of financial arrangements based in the British Virgin Islands tax haven and we're very patient about all this," said the PR company who represent Ticketus.
What does this even mean? Do they think Whyte needed £27M to pay for tickets to be printed? The money wasn't used to buy the club, I'm sure even Craig Whyte can muster £1.
Ticketus are payday loans for event organisers and just like folk who use Wonga etc undoubtly one of the main uses is to pay off current debt. Take a CVA, write off the debt and claim whatever they need to on insurance. Ticketus should have known better than to deal with such a troubled affair. Their bluster make them look even more foolish.
0 -
Dont be so fucking tedious, these guys were that stupid they didn't know it wouldn't explode, they thought it would, and that was there intent. IT WAS A BOMB.
A gun is still a gun if it hasn't any bullets in it, isn't it?
Is a gun made of Play-Doh really a gun?
0 -
The club's emergency funding runs out in 3 weeks time yet a CVA would take a minimum of 6 weeks to organise (with no guarantee of success). Who finances Rangers in the meantime? If any credit is extended to them, that is more debt for any prospective buyer to pick up....not to mention the administrator's fees.
Does anyone seriously believe the statment from Duff & Phelps tonight saying that the club will be in the hands of a new owner by the weekend? Where have these "buyers" been hiding?
They can start to sell players on June 1st. Agents will be well aware of the negotiated release clauses and will have been making sure that other clubs know too. If Alan McGregor is available for £2.5M or so I'm sure there would be at least 5-6 Premier League and Championship clubs in for him. Expect a few quick sales that have been pre-arranged by agents.
If a deal is done by the end of the week then I will be surprised but there at least seems to be progress now compared to a few weeks ago.
0 -
According to our friends in England, HMRC will always refuse doing a CVA with a football club.
I'm still convinced HMRC are looking to make a bit of a statement by putting a club out of business to scare the rest. Obviously they wouldn't do it with an EPL team, but Rangers are a big enough diddy club in a diddy league.
The situation in England is different. HMRC have a grievance with the "Football Creditors" aspect that means they are getting less money than they think they should get. No such thing exists in Scotland so Hearts, Dundee United and whoever else will be treated like everyone else (apart from Craig Whyte, he hopes). I'm not saying HMRC will be easy to deal with but their is definitely a deal to be done. Ultimately they want to maximise how much they can get out of Rangers
0 -
Surely the re-sale value for Rangers assets (the stadium, training ground, players etc) would be worth more than the 10p of the pound they'd get from a CVA?
I know these assets are only worth what someone is willing to pay, but still.
There are a few more unknowns in this too. Craig Whyte is still asserting his preferred creditor status to the tune of £18m which he could fully enforce during any liquidation, leaving HMRC and other creditors with little more than a pot to piss in. Any CVA will come with a payment to Whyte for his shares too with the rest going to the other creditors, if his amount is substantially more than any liquidation value then the creditors should take it. Obviously HMRC will try and force up the value they are willing accept but there is definitely scope for negotiations.
0 -
Because HMRC will tell them to stuff their CVA.
HMRC are in the business of getting the most money. If a CVA gives them more money that liquidation then they will take it.
0 -
If the players agents had been on the ball, most will be able to walk at the end of the season with some sort of package. I wonder if they will soon become creditors to be paid out of the prize money before it reaches the club?
It really is very odd that nothing appears to be transparent. Do we know exactly what fee D+P are demanding? what where the exact promises given to the players?
Why is everything so hidden from the fans and the public?
The only person having had the slightest glimpse behind the curtain has run a mile.
I dont know what the exact deal there was for the replica kits, but was money taken for a certain amount of years ? could that become a debt now?
Really the big tax case is obviously quite a threat and is looking like finishing the club off.
What is the difference between not being able to pay back £50M and not being able to pay back £150M? If the best outcome for creditors is that someone gives them a wad of cash greater than the cash value of assets then that someone will own the club. It should be remembered that CVAs do not necessarily end immediately, the last set of Motherwell accounts included final payments to creditors and that CVA happened ages ago.
0 -
EXCLUSIVE!
New consortium is Sam Hammam, Peter Risdale, Ken Bates and that Kebab shop owner who once owned Portsmouth.
0 -
So 'settled' does not mean repayed?
I might mean paid though...
0 -
rather than sounding like a troll, why not point out, that when you read the articles of association it states that the allotment or issue of a share requires a special qualified resolution which in turn requires an 83% vote or 10-2 majority if you prefer.
you can word it any way you like, allotment or issue of a share is a special qualified resolution requiring a 10-2 majority.
edit; it is infact a qualified resolution reqiring a 90% vote
If that is what they were voting on then that is what would be required. They are voting on changing the rules on who gets to vote on the transfer of a share and penalties associated with that transfer. Rule changes require an 8-4 majority.
When Bill Miller or whoever comes out with Rangers in their pocket, if they want to set up a new company they will know the penalties associated with that and that will be a 11-1 vote. Some people call this a charter for cheats but it is unfair to have unspecified punishments and at least if everything is put on paper then no one can claim Rangers were treated differently and given preferential terms to continue as a newco.
0 -
83 days since they went into administration... 88 days until season 12/13 kicks off - chances of it being sorted?
Er, and what happens if it's not?
Rangers will start next season in administration and have a 10 point penalty.
0 -
My understanding of EBT's is that once the benefactor has been in place two years at the company they are liable for tax/NI on all income as they are classed as employees and the 'loan' as taxable income. With regards to the loan it has to be proved there was no intention to repay the 'loan' as evidenced by the existence or not of an agreement to repay. Therefore it is up to HMRC to prove their was no intention to repay. Recently the head of the student loan company was caught out by this type of thing . In addition my understanding is that the way rangers structured it was not entirely in line with HMRC guidelines. I'll dig out the links after I have a wee search for them
HMRC 2009
and I quote
"Spotlight 5: Using trusts and similar entities to reward employees - PAYE and NICs, Corporation Tax and Inheritance TaxHMRC are aware that companies have been seeking to reward employees without operating PAYE (Pay As You Earn)/NICs (National Insurance contributions) by making payments through trusts and other intermediaries that favour the employees or their families. The arrangements usually seek to secure a Corporation Tax deduction, as if the amounts were earnings at the time they are allocated, and also defer PAYE/NICs or avoid them altogether. HMRC's view is that at the time the funds are allocated to the employee or his/her beneficiaries, those funds become earnings on which PAYE and NICs are due and should be accounted for by the employer."
So either their tax advisor was a bloke in a pub or they knew it was illegal and didn't give a feck
2009 is pretty late in the game to be honest. Rangers are accused of using EBTs since the early 2000s (maybe even earlier)
The main point is that even if Rangers have to pay the tax on those EBT payments the SFA/SPL or whoever will be judging the double contracts case need to prove that these earnings were contracts and if they needed to be lodged. They also need to decide an appropriate and enforcible punishment.
0 -
he was live on clyde1, says "like most board votes it will be 8-4 majority", surprising considering it's always been 11-1
I'm surprised you feel the need to comment when you don't know the facts of the situation.
36. Except where the Act specifies that a particular resolution of the Company requires otherwise or as otherwise provided in these Articles, not less than 66% of the Members of the Company who are entitled to attend and vote at a General Meeting of which notice has been duly given (whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not) shall be required for the passing of all Ordinary Resolutions of the Company and for the giving of all consents, approvals or the like considered at a General Meeting.From the SPL Articles of Association
0 -
The whole case is that EBTs were not illegal per-se, but their application as employed by RFC was a deliberate attempt to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The fooball case is that they were not disclosed as a 2nd form of remuneration which rendered player registrations invalid.
Rangers argument is that the EBTs were not remuneration but loans made to the players. It would seem to me to be a very tricky case for the authorities to pursue even if HMRC is successful in court. Rangers would almost certainly sue the SPL and contest any sanctions in court.
There is also the outcome that the improper registrations could be resolved with a fine rather than a forfeit of the match. There is nothing to say that the matches must be forfeited.
0 -
Hibs would have won the league in 94-95 if all the results against rangers were null and void...
And that is why trying to rewrite history is stupid. Rangers can't be removed in isolation, if you want to strip of the championships they won and declare them vacant then fair enough but you can't just decide that runners up would've won if Rangers were removed.
How does awarding Aberdeen players a treble in 92-93 solve anything or have any purpose above petty points scoring, you can't erase peoples' memories and the players will certainly get no joy from getting some almost posthumous honour.
What happened happened. No one will let Rangers or their fans forget that they have cheated to win championships.
0 -
so if Rangers cant buy players for a year if this Bill Millar is succesful will the pressure be put on him to keep the players they have? Unless they are on contracts that are too high which I suspect a lot of them are,
Rangers could be screwed over this. They renegotiated all the players deals when they took wage cuts to include release clauses that were very favourable to the players so expect a lot of them to move on for little money. The transfer embargo is a very effective punishment in that regard and it is one punishment even a newco can't get out of. If a lot of first team players leave then they might be in trouble.
I personally don't see it as a big problem for Rangers, some players will stay on and they can still get under 18s in on loan so if they can work a few deals then they certainly shouldn't be getting relegated next season. Some players will not get anywhere near the amount they earn at Rangers, is Steven Whittaker getting £25K per week at any other club? Davis and Naismith are injured and also are on big wages. We may see most of the current Rangers team return for next season despite the contract clauses, whether they are forced to move on because of those large wages only time will tell.
0 -
Just so everyone is on the same page. Bill Miller is going to create (or have the administrator create) an incubator or more commonly known as a Hive Down company which he will then buy giving money to the creditors.
What is a hive down?- A hive down is a form of reorganisation of a company whereby a business or businesses are transferred to a subsidiary company. It is a common restructuring technique whereby the profitable parts of a business, or valuable assets of an existing company are transferred or hived down to a newly formed subsidiary of that company
- It is the simplest possible form of company reconstruction. A company in formal insolvency proceedings will sell its business – for a monetary price or shares - to a wholly owned subsidiary which does not have the burden of the liabilities incurred by the original company. It is then possible for the new company to be transferred or sold to the creditors as part of a voluntary arrangement.
- The old company will be left with its historical debt & the new company will have assets & a clean balance sheet.
- As soon as the old company has completed its restructuring it will own all the shares in the new company. These will have been issued at a value which is representative of the shares which it transferred to the new subsidiary company.
- The new company will be protected from the risks & liabilities of the original business following the hive down. This means that if the original company later goes into liquidation its creditors will have no claim on the assets of its new subsidiary.
- There is less risk of the valuation regarding the transfer of assets to the new company from the old being challenged in a hive down than with other options, & this is one of the main advantages of using this process.
- The main disadvantage of a hive down is that as the old company will remain a shareholder of the new, if the old company went in to liquidation, the liquidator would control that shareholding & thus also the new company.
- The process of hive down is therefore mainly used as an interim measure in order to protect the major assets of the original company prior to their transfer either to a third party or another company belonging to the parent company owner/s. In effect it allows the ultimate purchaser to acquire a 'clean' company which does not come with any bad history or unforeseen risks & liabilities.
- This method of reorganisation may also be used to preserve the benefit of trading losses in the original company.
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Murray. Everyone bemused by the process, D&P sitting on their arse for 3 months. No issues resolved for unconditional bid to be made.
Journo: is D&P operating a high risk strategy.
Kennedy: We are in a position to execute quickly.
Murray: We need to start tomorrow, legalities of getting a CVA (for next season) very complex and tight.
Kennedy: Hoping a credible bidder comes along to own Rangers tomorrow. This isn't about us owning RangersFootballClub