Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Paquis]

Rangers, despite what their followers may think, are small fry in HMRCs big battle. If they get nothing they won't care, as was said 500-odd pages back, every other sports club in the UK will start paying their PAYE and NI on time.

Just needs one to go.

You mean other clubs haven't been paying on time

Quick, punish them.

[GunnerBairn]

http://www.goal.com/ ...lowing-transfer-

Which crappy shitebag journo wrote this article? They completely missed out the possible sanctions of suspension and expulsion.

[vikingTON]

I for one hope Rangers get their CVA through. Because when they do, the club will still be liable for the Big Tax Case, which would do the job of finishing them in a manner that SPL and SFA don't have the stones to do.

It all amounts to a massive waste of time and effort. Which is why their real aim has been to guilt-trip the authorities and fans into accepting a NewCo all along.

Edited May 29, 2012 by vikingTON

[p&b is a disgrace]

It is a logical conclusion if the CVA is knocked back. Rangers go Newco.

What happened to liquidate and raise maximum for the clubs assets?

[Cutty Old]

I am disappointed but not surprised by the pessimism on this thread and in particular the criticism of the SFA. I would make the following points:

Few of us thought the original sanction would be as severe as a 12 month signing embargo. Remember this was only punishment for a part of Rangers' actions.

Many people on this thread were absolutely convinced that the SFA appellate tribunal would not uphold the embargo - they did.

I'm convinced that both the initial panel and the appellate tribunal acted in good faith; and they were chaired by highly qualified people. If their interpretation of the SFA powers was flawed Christ help the rest of us trying to understand this.

The SFA imposed the sanction in the belief that they had the right to do so, from what has been reported thus far they now have the option of imposing a lesser OR greater sanction. I'm pretty sure they will be considering their credibility in the event of imposing a lesser one, especially since their requirement to rethink this is as a result of Rangers going outwith SFA procedures.

I was one of the few who thought it would be more severe. In the current context of Rangers' financial problems, the hardship of a 12 month embargo is negligible. The wording of the decision by the panel seemed to suggest that they wanted to hand down a punishment that was more than was available to them without going to the extreme of expulsion. It was unfortunate for them that the COS disagreed that their discretion stretched to the embargo but I don't think they've left themselves open to criticism. They made what was a reasonable judgement and I saw it as fair but on the lenient side.

They made it clear that they considered expulsion and because of the intent involved I think it would have been justified. This was no oversight, it wasn't bad management, it was deliberate rule breaking.

I can't agree with the officials and supporters of Rangers who take the line that it was one individual and the club is therefore not culpable. If that was the case, it would give the green(sorry) light to any club to break the rules by merely putting up a scapegoat to take the heat.........in the knowledge that there would be no particularly harsh punishment.

I don't see any problem in the panel, after careful reflection, deciding that expulsion is, after all, a reasonable punishment. I don't think it's contradictory. It's a harsh punishment but a deserved punishment and it should serve as a detterent to any other club considering this type of conduct.

There is a groundswell of opinion among the lifeblood of the game that Rangers' actions have had an extremely detrimental impact on scottish football and it will have a long lasting effect. There must surely be a certain amount of appeasement for the people who make this game what it is, the supporters, and if not, how can our nation's sport ever recover.

A 12 month embargo was the platform for Rangers to show regret and humility by accepting their punishment gracefully or alternatively to stand up to their detractors with aggression, threats of reprisal and arrogance. They decided on the latter and we are asked to accept them back as one of our own. I am confident that this will never happen so if things go the Rangers way, they should be prepared for life in scottish football as lifetime pariahs in the eyes of the important people, the fans.

[Paquis]

Won't matter once the EBT's are proven.

The EBTs are proven. Nobody has ever denied their existence and they were disclosed in Rangers annual reports.

The questions are

1) should they be taxable ... and

2) do they constitute a second contract.

[DeeGeeOneHamer]

What I don't get is the assumption that a newco will all of a sudden assume the undying support of the current Rangers support?

Why would you if you were Bear?

[p&b is a disgrace]

Jim Delahunt tweeted earlier,

@JimDelahunt: CVA 4.22.6. RFC has to be in all domestic leagues and competitions it currently in. Condition of CVA. If not, C.Green gets to buy for £5.5m

And how can H&D introduce that condition? Their role is to maximise the return for creditors - not to orchestrate a stitch up.

[Claymores]

What happened to liquidate and raise maximum for the clubs assets?

Well if you believe H&D's assessment, an asset sale liquidation realises only £4.5m which is the least of the CVA, Newco, liquidation options (see Schedule 4 of the CVA proposal). Creditors would need to raise a successful challenge that this assesment understates the true potential

[madeirabhoy]

The investors will pay as little as they can get away with. That is business. And, if the creditors refuse, they will liquidate and pay out even less. That is just the way it works in real life.

And any other team in the same position would probably do the same.

well actually, any other team would have paid their taxes in the first place.

[itzdrk]

I for one hope Rangers get their CVA through. Because when they do, the club will still be liable for the Big Tax Case, which would do the job of finishing them in a manner that SPL and SFA don't have the stones to do.

It all amounts to a massive waste of time and effort. Which is why their real aim has been to guilt-trip the authorities and fans into accepting a NewCo all along.

would it not be better for them to die set up the newco gloat etc then BOOM big tax case! kills the newco

[chrismcarab]

I assume the insults are because you don't really have a point

Alternatively, you could be lacking in vocabulary

The point is you're the one who keeps making noises about just how independent an appointed panel can be, while inside the big hoose there are most incestious business relationships between Craig Whyte, D&P and Ticketus than you could shake a David Murray leg at. The administrators we're 'independently' appointed by Craig Whyte. Ticketus and D&P 'independently' knew about a deal to buy Rangers but claim no conflict of interest when it came to taking up the administrators position. Hardly a beacon of impartiality when it comes to being objective on 'independent' matters.

Also, for the record, the insults are just a bonus for the rest of the readers who also think your a fud and has very little to do with my limited vocabulary, they just seem to fit better than accusing you of being just another nefarious neanderthal.

[Andy H]

Could it be that the Taxman is playing smart.

What if they agree to the CVA without the BTC being decided. 12 July Rangers come out of Admin, 13th July BTC decided and they are totally fucked

[Monkey Tennis]

OJ was acquitted

Whooooosh! seems such a puny term at times.

[Paquis]

well actually, any other team would have paid their taxes in the first place.

Factually incorrect. Motherwell didn't, Dundee didn't, Hearts have been late, etc. etc.

[GunnerBairn]

I think that's a BIG red herring - I'm sure Green would drop the stipulation of the buns being in the Scottish Cup in a heartbeat.

Red herring based on what. You saying Delahunts' making this up?

[No8.]

Minus 153.. :lol:

Diddies are not taking this too well

Imagine what it is going to be when we win the Big Tax Case.

Rangers back bigger and stronger than we have been in years.

[dee eff cee]

The EBTs are proven. Nobody has ever denied their existence and they were disclosed in Rangers annual reports.

The questions are

1) should they be taxable ... and

2) do they constitute a second contract.

And remember the decision is based on balance of probabilities (civil), not beyond reasonable doubt (criminal)

(I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure how it works)

[p&b is a disgrace]

Well if you believe H&D's assessment, an asset sale liquidation realises only £4.5m which is the least of the CVA, Newco, liquidation options (see Schedule 4 of the CVA proposal). Creditors would need to raise a successful challenge that this assesment understates the true potential

Davis & McGregor will realise more than 4.5 million.

[hellbhoy]

The investors will pay as little as they can get away with. That is business. And, if the creditors refuse, they will liquidate and pay out even less. That is just the way it works in real life.

And any other team in the same position would probably do the same.

TEAM you say ? Hmmm ! does Greenback actually own rangers yet ? so as yet he's not part of the team.

Baron Greenback is only a huge vulture just circling around the massive dying animal waiting for it's death before he'll actually do anything at all.I'd wager he's actually waiting for liquidation and then swoops in talking out his erse saying to the fans ??? picture the prime minister here "We are all in this together" ha fcuking ha ha.You'll pay for the worst team rangers have had EVER had and you'll be bringing in free agents galore on cheapo deals.You the fans are worth at least 500K a month to him and his imaginary investors,he is there to fleece the club and then sell it on when the fans disappear ! and they will after a few seasons.