Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[thelegendthatis]

That is a ridiculous statement on two levels. Firstly, you make the assumption that the shareholders would want a 'Yes' vote. Your knowledge of the thinking of the Celtic shareholders is probably the same as mine - in other words non existent; so your views are purely speculative.

Secondly, the Celtic board would only need to show that the decision that they took was in the best interests of the club. Whether they vote Yes or No I am sure they would be able to present a credible arguement to support their decision.

Directors responsibilities

Duty to promote the success of the company

You must act in such a way that you feel would be most likely to promote the success of the company (ie. its long-term increase in value), for the benefit of its members as a whole. However, you must also consider a number of other factors, including:

• The likely long-term consequences of any decision
• The interests of company employees
• Fostering the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
• The impact of operations on the community and environment
• Maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct
• The need to act fairly as between members of the company.

Duty to exercise independent judgment

You have an obligation to exercise independent judgment. This duty is not infringed by acting in accordance with an agreement entered into by the company which restricts the future exercise of discretion by its directors, or by acting in a way which is authorised by the company’s constitution.

Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence

This duty codifies the common law rule of duty of care and skill, and imposes both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ standards. You must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence using your own general knowledge, skill and experience (subjective), together with the care, skill and diligence which may reasonably be expected of a person who is carrying out the functions of a director (objective). So a director with significant experience must exercise the appropriate level of diligence in executing their duties, in line with their higher level of expertise.

So all the more reason why directors of all SPL clubs should be reminded of their legal responsibilities, and especially pointing out any negative consequences on their company in trying to get Rangers into the SPL in whatever form.

Petrie's comments were quite apt. He can't speak for his board in a formal sense. All he was doing was explaining what the basis of any decision might be. So he couldn't be accused of trying to influence other directors.

[ReasonableGeezer]

If Green doesn't reveal the names of his "consortium" then I've a feeling that there will be NO cva deal done, NO newco. I think the creditors will be entitled to know the risks before agreeing to anything. According to that article the backers are not willing to come forward till a CVA is agreed. Its not going to happen. It'd be like agreeing to step of a cliff because "somewhere" down there is a safety net, im just not telling you where or who is holding it. Very dodgy indeed. This is all smelling of shite. I dont believe he has anyone 100% behind his consortium. More mirrors methinks.

[monrovianmonk]

HMRC do not do CVA's, they may accept say 70p in the pound now with the rest being paid over the next 2 years, but they would rather wind up as it will ensure more money in the future from other companys, instead of using the precedend set by Rangers if a CVA of say 10p in the pound. Going forward would mean all companys could get away with paying only 10% of their tax, as Rangers were allowed to do it so why not them

Not true, they agree to ~70% of CVAs

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

[Happy Hibee]

I genuinely can't believe how deluded they bigot flumps are on Rangers media.

Apparently them boycotting Easter road (because Petrie is a tarrier b*****d obviously) will see the ground turned into flats within 5 years. Are they genuinely that fucking paranoid and warped they think everyone who thinks they should be punished has an Irish agenda and they actually that fucking deluded they think without 3,000 wankstains once or twice a year we would go under?

I guarantee of they refused tickets for Easter Road we would get a huge crowd in the South stand. More people will go if they Buckie tramps didn't attend and they would also back our clubs stance against them cheating.

[Drooper]

If Green doesn't reveal the names of his "consortium" then I've a feeling that there will be NO cva deal done, NO newco. I think the creditors will be entitled to know the risks before agreeing to anything. According to that article the backers are not willing to come forward till a CVA is agreed. Its not going to happen. It'd be like agreeing to step of a cliff because "somewhere" down there is a safety net, im just not telling you where or who is holding it. Very dodgy indeed. This is all smelling of shite. I dont believe he has anyone 100% behind his consortium. More mirrors methinks.

Aye, you'd have to think that the creditors would have to know who is fronting the money prior to any cooling off period. With so many creditors involved, the chances of their identities (assuming they actually exist) remaining out of the public arena are negligible at best. Green will be under increasing pressure to spill the beans on this over the coming days.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Drooper

[thenolly]

Not true, they agree to ~70% of CVAs

http://www.companyre...the-cva-process

From the site

They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past. In their recent guidelines published at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf they set our their policy.

Think that rules them out

[Jagsman411971]

ive not been on this for a couple of days. The last time i was on the consensus was that rangers are fucked, greene is an asset stripper. but now it seems the consensus is that rangers are gonna get away with all this. whats changed??

I think it could be something like planning for the worst, whilst hoping for the best. Given the organisations playing out this charade, it might not be a bad thing to do.

ps..... the worst being Rankgers get away with it

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jagsman411971

[Drooper]

Not true, they agree to ~70% of CVAs

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

Not with football clubs, they don't.

[donj]

Yep they agree 70% of cva's but further down is an interesting snippet.

However, it should be noted that if you do propose a CVA then you should try and pay as much tax as you can prior to the creditors meeting. It is common sense really as if you are asking for their support then you need to be seen to be doing the utmost in persuading them your business is viable and that you will pay any tax owed in the future.

[monrovianmonk]

If Green doesn't reveal the names of his "consortium" then I've a feeling that there will be NO cva deal done, NO newco. I think the creditors will be entitled to know the risks before agreeing to anything. According to that article the backers are not willing to come forward till a CVA is agreed. Its not going to happen. It'd be like agreeing to step of a cliff because "somewhere" down there is a safety net, im just not telling you where or who is holding it. Very dodgy indeed. This is all smelling of shite. I dont believe he has anyone 100% behind his consortium. More mirrors methinks.

Why would the creditors care who is in the consortium? Surely as long as they get the money they agree to then that will be all they care about.

I have a terrible feeling that people on this thread have lost sight of the fact that we are all about to get royally shafted and the powers that be will do anything to keep Rangers alive in the SPL.

[Drooper]

Why would the creditors care who is in the consortium? Surely as long as they get the money they agree to then that will be all they care about.

I have a terrible feeling that people on this thread have lost sight of the fact that we are all about to get royally shafted and the powers that be will do anything to keep Rangers alive in the SPL.

How naive do you think they are? Once bitten and all that....

[BigBadSaint]

You must act in such a way that you feel would be most likely to promote the success of the company (ie. its long-term increase in value), for the benefit of its members as a whole.

How does not being happy that you are not getting all the information you'd like and simply walking away from it all but not publicising your serious doubts about what is going on?

[ReasonableGeezer]

Even the proposals for the CVA are totally flawed. Dont Rankgers still owe money for Jelavics original transfer to them anyway? Surely they cant promise money that isnt technically theirs to creditors. Also this court case for the money from the law firm. Again its not a given they will win the case. Im of the thinking that a CVA has to be with funds available. Not funds that might be available "If they win a court case". its like promising the bank your mortgage payment - but only if my horse in the 2.30 at Aintree comes in. This is genuinely a complete farce. I cant believe there are people taking this nonsense in and thinking this guy is Kosher. He's as bad if not worse than Lord Whyte.

[monrovianmonk]

How naive do you think they are? Once bitten and all that....

But they will have no influence over who sets up a NewCo if they force liquidation so I don't see how being naive comes in to the equation.

[Owsley]

I genuinely can't believe how deluded they bigot flumps are on Rangers media.

Apparently them boycotting Easter road (because Petrie is a tarrier b*****d obviously) will see the ground turned into flats within 5 years. Are they genuinely that fucking paranoid and warped they think everyone who thinks they should be punished has an Irish agenda and they actually that fucking deluded they think without 3,000 wankstains once or twice a year we would go under?

I guarantee of they refused tickets for Easter Road we would get a huge crowd in the South stand. More people will go if they Buckie tramps didn't attend and they would also back our clubs stance against them cheating.

But maybe not if it's a newco admitted straight back in, causing widespread outrage among fans of all clubs. You could have two boycotts going on.

[Hedgecutter]

Not true, they agree to ~70% of CVAs

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

It says on that site that HMRC may accept a CVA if it's well planned and well thought through. At this rate they'll be lucky to throw a quick draft together without time for a spell-check!

Edited May 15, 2012 by Hedgecutter

[ReasonableGeezer]

Of course the Creditors HAVE to be concerned as to who's paying them. The fact is that Rankgers are running at a massive loss, hemorrhaging money like they still have any!

Im willing to assume that

1. There are no mystery 20 backers and he's devised this amazing feat of ingenuity on the back of a beer mat in his local.

or

2. There are some very very shady characters involved in this and the money may need to go through a wash cycle a few times before it goes anywhere near Castle Greyskulls accounts.

or

3. The guy is a complete media whore and is only doing this for his 15 minutes of fame then he's going to piss off back into obscurity again.

The fact is they CANT shaft us anymore. Its got far too much exposure from ALL angles now. Rangers are still dying, perhaps in a different way but they are still dying.

The other fact to consider is that if you ask any experts (the ones without agenda) they will tell you that the HMRC dont consider CVA's when tax avoidance or evasion is the case. They consider it to be unlawful and as such expect the penalties to be paid or the company is wound up and the individuals sought. They are going to make and EXAMPLE of Rankgers. Smoke and Mirrors wont avoid the inevitable. They are truly finished.

[Drooper]

But they will have no influence over who sets up a NewCo if they force liquidation so I don't see how being naive comes in to the equation.

So what you're suggesting is that the creditors won't be remotely interested in where the money is coming from (assuming it is coming at all)?

Hey, we don't have any issue with funds derived from an Eastern European human trafficking cartel, or a Columbian drug baron. We're sure it will be entirely kosher. We trust Mr Green, he seems like a stright-up kinda guy

Yes, I can just imagine HMRC buying that, can't you?

[WaffenThinMint]

If Mike McDonald (ex-Sheffield United) and Paul Stretford of the Treble S Sports & Entertainment/Management/Events groups (three different flags of convenience) are involved, we can instantly out another two of the supposed twenty investors as being William Shephard and Kenneth Shephard of Treble S, since the Treble S group is the only place Stretford is investing in these days, making it highly unlikely he's doing this alone.

Treble S was previously known as the Synergy Sports & Entertainments Group Ltd, but changed its name after a series of embarrassing headlines concerning Stretford and Kenny Shepherd concerning the Stevens Report in 2006 regarding corruption and bribery within the game in England. Stretford was banned for 9 months from being an agent and Shepherd managed to escape being debarred by getting a licence in Barbados to exploit a loophole in the rules.

Prior to all this, Stretford founded Proactive Sports Management, which once read like a Who's Who of the English football world, with everyone from Stan Collymore and Bobby Robson to Wayne Rooney on their books. But he got greedy and was fired for gross misconduct from his own company when he was caught trying to siphon off clients into a new agency he was creating, three years after floating PSM on the stock market at £30 million (in other words, asset stripping the company once he'd effectively sold it!).

In July 2008 the FA found Stretford guilty of seven of the nine counts against him of "gross misconduct", including making false and/or misleading statements to the police and in court. He was central to the shenannigans at Manchester United in 2010 concerning the protracted "will he - won't he" regarding Wayne Rooney's contract.

You could say that Stretford is just a little bit famous, for all the wrong reasons.

So how much capital does Treble S have to invest in Rangers?

How does the sum total of "f**k ALL" sound?

£1 million. That's what they've got in the bank.

This has all the hallmarks of a gang of bust flushes trying to get back into the big time via a shower of even bigger bust flushes.

Incidentally, if you want any proof that this £1 million is part of what's being squirreled into the London lawyer's offices as part of Charlie Green's "show and tell" to Haudit and Daudit that they've got the money, look no further than the more recent accounts of Treble S.

From £1 million in the bank, suddenly down come March 2012 to only £1 000. Now where could all that money have gone?

(PS. I stand corrected, that £1000 is share capital. Duh!)

Edited May 15, 2012 by WaffenThinMint

[chico]

Meanwhile..

@STVSport: Maurice Edu insists Rangers can challenge for next season's SPL title http://t.co/jnH4B5WY