Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[H_B]

Inverness ground shared for a limited period whilst their seats were put in.

Uhhh... what?

And of course Gretna also groundshared with Motherwell, which indeed, due to their shambles of a pitch led to Celtic playing Gretna at IIRC Livingston's ground (SFL club)

The SPL make up rules and requirements as they go along. This is known, as the Dothraki would say.

[HibeeJibee]

You beat me this time.

It's odd how many times in the last few days you and I have posted almost exactly the same thing within seconds of one another!

Great minds, Skyline, great minds...

[chico]

Uhhh... what?

And of course Gretna also groundshared with Motherwell, which indeed, due to their shambles of a pitch led to Celtic playing Gretna at IIRC Livingston's ground (SFL club)

The SPL make up rules and requirements as they go along. This is known, as the Dothraki would say.

It was called a dispensation. Those clubs could prove they were going to build stands or put seats in.

Falkirk at that time had no intention of doing anything other than fanny about at the shyberry.

[welshbairn]

Great minds, Skyline, great minds...

[HibeeJibee]

It's taken 247 pages for the spectre of "Falkirk wuz robbed" to it's raise hoary head.

Disappointing performance, gents. Disappointing.

[T_S_A_R]

Let's be honest though, the reason we weren't allowed to share with Airdrie was absolutely nothing to do with primacy of tenure. That was just a bullshit excuse not to promote us.

plus north lanarkshire council never actually agreed to it.

[MacWatt]

Is there a legal definition of what constitutes a continuation company, out of interest?

E.g. if for sake of argument Paul Murray and his consortium bought certain assets currently belonging to Rangers - why would they be pursued for the tax liabilities of the company they bought the assets from...?

Would courts have to decide to what degree it was "the same company" reconstructed for tax-avoiding purposes?

HMRC are legally barred from pursuing tax debts where the debtor has become insolvent. If the phoenix company takes overall the assets and has the same Directors then HMRC may issue a personal liability notice to pursue the debt from a particular Director. Not all phoenix companies are rogue companies. Paul Murray is not a Director of Rangers Football Club PLC. So a separate company with separate Directors is home free.

Edited March 7, 2012 by MacWatt

[7-2]

SPL clubs used to only be allowed to ground share with other SPL clubs which is why Inverness had to use Aberdeen instead of McDiarmid, their first choice, as we were still in the First Division at the time.

If Rangers 1690 couldn't use Hampden, are there any other SPL clubs in Glasgow with a ground big enough for 45000 supporters they could share?

[chico]

HMRC are legally barred from pursuing tax debts where the debtor has become insolvent. If the phoenix company takes overall the assets and has the same Directors then HMRC may issue a personal liability notice to pursue the debt from a particular Director. Not all phoenix companies are rogue companies. Paul Murray is not a Director of Rangers Football Club PLC. So a separate company with separate Directors is home free.

He claims he was a director previously so you can forget that.

[itzdrk]

He did come across as a decent sort. I don't remember him swigging Baileys mind you.

banned for spitting on an opponent =not decent

[Highland Dogma]

for those who keep thinking that a newco could survive happily in sfl3 and steamroller its way to spl glory, perhaps worth looking at it from a busines perspective. i used to work in cinema management and ive gone through some of our old p&ls. bear in mind an average cinema has only just over 2000 seats and maybe 30-40 staff on min wage...with 5 or 6 mgrs on £15000 to £30000....

we looked at annual payroll of between £600k and £1 million ( no footballers to pay for ). Maintenance costs run from £100k pa upwards ( again for a site of only 2000 ish seats and 40K sq footand frankly we didnt have rangers fans coming in doing god knows what damage ) Leccy bills were around £150k pa ( no floodlights to worry bout but the projectors were expensive due to xenon bulbs ) gas about same, water not far off. this is before you start getting into business rates, costs of goods, stationary, etc etc. currently ibrox has about 150 ish staff ( most would be on more than min wage ). anyone that thinks that newco rfc playing against annan, stirling , east stirling week in week out could cover those costs from ticket sales for AT LEAST 3 years is mad. that means trying to buy a current ( hell lets use the word ) franchise ...will then have to have a small stadium which they could fill and be sustainable in...but wont be able to generate enough revenue to chase celtic ( maybe not enough to cover payroll for players to get to spl ). I honestly believe the admins ( maybe due to their aherm relationship with whyte previously ) have gambled on liquidation and re entry to spl.....i dont see any chance of a sustainable business model outwith spl.

[H_B]

It's taken 247 pages for the spectre of "Falkirk wuz robbed"

Who has said anything of the sort?

I pointed out that "primacy of tenure" was a bullshit excuse, which it was. This was proven when Gretna were allowed to play at an SFL ground in Livingston, a ground they had no tenure over at all, because Motherwell's paddy field was as usual completely unplayable.

If Newco Rangers applied to play using Hampden, the convenient nonsense concocted at the time would be just as conveniently forgotten.

Falkirk's application was never going to be a successful one. It was the equivalent of trying to get into a nightclub and being told "we don;t like your shoes". If you go home, change your shoes and go back, the reason will change also.

[AND180Y]

Is there a legal definition of what constitutes a continuation company, out of interest?

E.g. if for sake of argument Paul Murray and his consortium bought certain assets currently belonging to Rangers - why would they be pursued for the tax liabilities of the company they bought the assets from...?

Would courts have to decide to what degree it was "the same company" reconstructed for tax-avoiding purposes?

Below refers to a "normal company", I think there is something about the league membership that might make it more tricky.

There would be no continuation company, if a phoenix company was to buy the assets of the current The Rangers Football Club it would be renamed as for example Rangers Realisations (retaining the company number SC004276) the new co might be formed with a name like New Rangers and a company number SC4XXXXX. (Both companies submit name change requests at the same time). Name and assets transfer to newco (now The Rangers Football Club) and liabilities remain with oldco (now Rangers Realisations) which would be liquidated.

It wouldn't be the same company so no risks unless the board of directors was essentially the same.

FYI

The administrator must initially perform their functions with a view to achieving the first tier, which is to rescue the company as a going concern. Potential purchasers are often unwilling to buy the shares of a company in administration as this would involve them taking on the liabilities of the insolvent company. Consequently, in practice, this first limb is rarely achieved.

If it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the first limb, an administrator may perform their functions with a view to achieving the second purpose. That is, to get a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely were the company being wound up without there being an administration first. This limb can often be achieved by the administrator selling the business as a going concern, where a higher purchase price is paid than if the assets were sold on a break-up basis, which often happens in a liquidation scenario.

If the second limb is not reasonably practicable, and only if the interests of the unsecured creditors as a whole will not be unfairly harmed as a result, the administrator may perform their functions with a view to realising the property, in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors. Even if this is the only limb of the statutory purpose that can be achieved, the administrator must still act in the best interests of all of the creditors of the company.

As discussed below, the administrator will set out in their proposals (which are circulated to all known creditors of the company) how they intend to achieve the statutory purpose.

Duties of an administrator

An administrator must be qualified to act as a licensed insolvency practitioner and be eligible to act in relation to the particular company. When consenting to act as an administrator, they must consider whether there is any conflict of interest or other reason why they should not act as administrator and also declare any prior professional relationship with the company. A prior relationship may include advising the company and its directors prior to the administration, even where that advice is in relation to the administration (see Coyne and Hardy v DRC Distribution Ltd [2008]).

Whether the administrator is appointed by the court or by the directors, the company or the holder of a qualifying floating charge (using the out-of-court route), that administrator will be an officer of the court (paragraph 5, Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act) and therefore must act honourably and fairly (see Ex parte James (1874)). The administrator cannot prefer a particular creditor because they were appointed by that creditor.

The 1986 Act states that the administrator is required to manage the affairs, business and property of the company in accordance with the proposals, which have been circulated and approved by the creditors at the initial meeting of creditors. The proposals must include all prescribed matters stipulated in the Insolvency Rules 1986, including how the administrator intends to achieve the statutory purpose, the expected dividend to creditors, what fees and expenses have been incurred and the basis upon which the administrator will be paid.

An administrator can only deviate from their proposals if they consider the change not to be ‘substantial’ or the court directs how they must act. Consequently, it is important for creditors to give careful consideration to the proposals and whether they wish to approve or vote against them. Under paragraph 68 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act, in certain circumstances, administrators are permitted to sell the business and assets of the company prior to the proposals being approved. There are also circumstances where the administrator is not obliged to hold an initial meeting of creditors. However, these topics are beyond the scope of this article.

[AND180Y]

He claims he was a director previously so you can forget that.

Not at the time of the insolvency event nor for most of Whytes tenure?

[Dunning1874]

This is known, as the Dothraki would say.

Sticking with A Song of Ice and Fire, let's get back to Rangers. Valar Morghulis.

[~~~]

If Rangers 1690 couldn't use Hampden, are there any other SPL clubs in Glasgow with a ground big enough for 45000 supporters they could share?

[chico]

Not at the time of the insolvency event nor for most of Whytes tenure?

He's been involved with both, so proves continuity.

[WaffenThinMint]

D&P could liquidate the assets prior to liquidating the company. Rangers Newco 2012 (Paul Murray, Dave King or whoever) could buy the assets (Murray Park and Ibrox, players' registrations) without the debts.

Paul Murray's group could get a new company set up.... Glasgow Rangers Football Club 2012 PLC?

The Newco can apply for Associate Membership of the SFA. Not a problem. They will also have to apply to the SFA for licence. Despite the SFA rules say that 3 years accounts are required they would just say 'Not trading'..... Licence issued.

The Newco then applies to the SPL to have the SPL share transferred to the Newco. Requires approval of SPL Board following consideration by the clubs. Money talks and very nervous Chairmen give it the nod...... Share transferred.

All of this needs to be carried out before Rangers Football Club PLC is necessarily liquidated.

It may be that if the Newco plays at Ibrox they could still get involved in Ticketus litigation. So they may decide to play at Hampden until season 2015-2016

What could emerge is a profitable and substantially debt free Rangers with same ground, strip and history.

Simple?

If any of the above were true, don't you honestly think Whyte or Sir David Murray would have tried that wheeze themselves?

The above completely skips over the various HMRC issues, the Stock Exchange issue, the EBT issues, the lying to the SFA over secondary contracts issues (perhaps with the acquiescence of Campbell Ogilvie during his last time at SFA HQ, which could create a real s**tstorm at UEFA), as if they'll magically go away and taking over Rangers can be like starting a new game of Football Manager or whatever with a completely clean slate - "oh, that wasn't working well, I'll just start again from scratch with all my cheats in place" - never mind the current UEFA crackdown on clubs and football associations far bigger than some diddy team in a diddy league with delusions of grandieur.

The Orcs have got themselves into such a massive mess that their only survival chance is someone coming along agreeing to buy up the club and pay out the back debts, and in the middle of a global recession that's not going to happen.

They are, in effect, beyond saving.

[AND180Y]

He's been involved with both, so proves continuity.

It doesn't. He was booted off the board for asking financial questions and therefore would escape culpability.

[Mouse]