Pull My Strings

Traynor really is all over the place. He can't finish a single coherent argument without veering off into silly rhetoric and ludicrous strawmen. Rob McLean is just as bad. Here's a tip, Rob, when your colleague is insulting the intelligence of your listeners it's a bad idea to agree with every comment he makes. Having the audacity to pretend that they agree with Pressley when he contradicted every significant point. They've got some gall.

Doncaster's problem is that he genuinely believes that his job is to maximise revenues for the SPL member clubs in the immediate short term, and to be fair to him, in any other type of business it would be. That being the case however he really has no place getting involved in this issue which is about fairness, sporting competition and the long term health of Scottish football. His other problem is that he's clearly a lying cunt.

That bit in bold isn't entirely true though. Those clubs who can't afford to lose Rangers and everything that goes along with them are clearly operating to a broken business plan. Not only that but years of historic overspending prior to the current business plan have put them in a position which is vulnerable to even slight errors in judgement. They've no one to blame but themselves. If any of these clubs were in the black then they could swallow a modest drop in income (and the figures talked about are modest in the scheme of things), redraw their plan and move on without the newco. I include my club in that situation. United overspent terribly to put themselves in this position. They've reigned back well in the last few years and made a dent in the debt but if they can't survive a Rangerless league then it's their own fault. Hell mend them. I've bought my season ticket already, on the back of the baldy shagger's announcement the other week. I shall not be a happy bunny if it turns out he was being coy/dishonest.

When ra peepul come to Tannadice they bring a bigger stand with them! Ra peepul. How they'll be missed. Ho hum.

It's more a general understanding than a personal relationship. Eewww.

If I know Rangers fans (and I do, unfortunately) that was his own pish. The dirty beggar.

Nope. Nope. D&P are still in charge and, in any event, the deal was between Rangers and Green not between D&P and Green. Even if liquidators had already been appointed they'd still have been bound by the contract. You think fulfilling a legally binding contract is a breach of some law? If that was their intention they've had several weeks to challenge the deal. Why on earth would they wait until after the sale has been completed before acting? Jesus, have you not read any of this thread?

Bill Miller's bid was for the assets only until he shat himself looking at the books. In any event, I'm not sure that the absence of bids for something is particularly strong evidence of a high demand.

Ahem.

The Illuminati?

Really. I suppose he doesn't want to get too technical. In any event, he's right. You can't call a newco exactly the same name as the oldco (and, in any event, you can't call a company a plc if it's not a plc) but you can use a very similar name if you've just bought it from administrators and you properly publicise the new name and it's relationship to the old company etc.

Yes, you're missing the fact that the deal to sell the assets was agreed several weeks ago.

Unless you can provide a source for that bit in bold, I'm going to assume you've just made it up.

Ah right. Arthur Andersen were bent though so it's not impossible. Anyway, I take your point. I've no idea whether D&P are padding out their work to earn a little extra but that's a far cry from them being involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the creditors etc.

Nae idea. I just think people are being a little hasty in throwing around accusations about a subject which they really know little about. D&P could be doing a good job in difficult circumstances or they could be doing a relatively poor job in difficult circumstances but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they are doing a terrible job or, worse, are bent.

Are you suggesting that the assets haven't been up for sale for four months?

Very true. It's not impossible that D&P are massively bent I just don't see anything in the public domain which would suggest they are.

Well they can apply to the court to reduce the transactions in the same way as the creditors currently sitting on their hands watching could apply to the court to stop the transaction before it takes place. Out of interest, which part of "the assets have been up for sale for at least four months and this is the highest offer" are people struggling with?

Indeed. But equally it's worth bearing in mind that D&P are a massive global business operating in a tightly regulated profession which demands the highest standards of probity. D&P themselves could buy Rangers and clear all their debts from one years net profit. Taking that into account it's difficult to see why they would leave themselves open to genuine accusations of wrong-doing. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash but there are genuine experts watching the process from interested parties (not least HMRC) and they've not uttered a peep of criticism. Meanwhile fans all over the country are pissing themselves at how shite and/or corrupt the administrators are. On balance, I reckon most or all of the accusations are misplaced.

Not as far as I'm aware. The liquidators will look at the whole process all the way back to Murray's time in charge and including the administrators but by that point it'll be far too late to stop the asset sale. If any creditors had misgivings about the sale price they only need to apply to the Court of Session to stop the sale. Not a single one has done so or threatened to do so. I'd suggest that's because, unlike most of the internet experts, they actually understand the process.

And yet not a single creditor apparently agrees with you. How peculiar.

Absolutely. Schedule 16 to the Enterprise Act covers the appointment and conduct of administrators and makes express provision for any creditor to challenge the conduct of the administrators. In particular check out Section 74 of that schedule. Throughout the process people have been laughing and pointing at the administrators and commenting that they're clearly corrupt and/or incompetent. I'd take all of that with a massive pinch of salt. The fact of the matter is that not one single creditor has challenged their conduct. If D&P were indeed making such a massive arse of it I would expect the creditors to have noticed and to have done something about it by now. It's to keep business running as a going concern if that will provide a better return for creditors than liquidation. Obviously they thought in the first instance that it would but were proven wrong when nobody came forward with a decent bid.

The act has been amended dozens of times but the rule about the use of similiar names in this context has been in place since 1986. The purpose of this rule is to protect the interests of creditors by allowing administrators to sell the goodwill and thereby increase the value of the assets being sold.

Nope. What D&P are doing is entirely legit (despite what most people in this thread seem to think). Rangers/Rangers' Assets have been on sale for months and the best offer came from Green. All this nonsense about the assets being undervalued is plainly wrong. The assets are worth what someone is prepared to pay from them which is £5.5M. What Whyte did was transfer assets out from the company and beyond the reach of creditors in order to commit a fraud against the company and ultimately against the creditors.

That's wrong, I'm afraid. Section 216 of the 1986 Act imposes a general prohibition on the re-use of company names but there are a limited number of exceptions to that general rule. One of the exceptions is when the entire business undertaking is sold by administrators and notice is given to the former creditors and the world at large of the new company and new name etc.