Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

This was debunked ages ago. See my previous edit. When Whyte took over BANK debt was £18million. This figure reduced to £0 while Craig Whyte was there, as he securitised Season Tickets instead. The £56 million figure you refer to is directly comparable with the £65million from the accounts I have linked. So therefore it looks as though he reduced debt in the period after he took over.

One thing he definitely did not do was increase debt from £18 million to £56 million. And since I have explained this before in reply to you (I have very few rep points so the post in question was very easy to track down (#111314)) I have to assume it is deliberate misrepresentation of the facts on your part.

The debt was simply switched to ticketus and increased to £27m, not mention withholding payments of NI and PAYE etc among other things.

Please put a bit more effort in to your posts, oh great debunker...

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Perhaps you should read the front page again.

£27.1m was the figure for total debt, it is right on the 1st page.

The potential liabilities include £36.5M potential tax bill, which of course turned out not to be a liability at all, you cannot treat this as debt, it was however a noose round company's neck, which seriously affected the sale of the club.

OK, here we go:

The £27.1m (note 25) includes bank debt, finance loans etc. It does not include other liabilities like trade creditors, taxes and accruals which count towards the total amount the company owe. If the company weren't due to pay it, it wouldn't be sitting on the balance sheet.

So the £65 million holds when in comparison with the £56million. That was the total amount Rangers owed at the end, not only the financial debts.

In those statements there is no account made of the potential tax bill, so I am afraid your last sentence is incorrect. P.35 Note 27 'Contingent Assets/Liabilities' only mentions a possible £100,000 inflow with no mention whatsoever of a potential tax bill.

[bennett]

So you would have preferred to go into liquidation mid season, that would have better would it?

And if that happened would you say Sir Davey boy might have been responsible too? Go on you can do it.

The circumstances would have been different then, liquidation may not have happened.

Edited June 11, 2013 by bennett

[bennett]

Forgot aboot him.

Living like a pauper (aye right) in his luxury holiday home in the Cayman Islands after being declared bankrupt for around £11M? oh those poor creditors, someone must have a list, Rico?

They do love their double standards, all the easier to catch them out i suppose.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

He increased the debt to £56 million with the Ticketus deal and by withholding the P.A.Y.E and N.I. Or are we not counting that £27 milllion to Ticketus and £21 million or so to HMRC? Edit too add, he may have paid the £18 million from the Ticketus deal but that still impinged on the overall debt by another £9 million.

I don't know the breakdown of the £56million. I think I got that figure off of you. All I am saying is that the level of debt that Craig Whyte bought into was over £60 million per the accounts, so how could he possibly have increased it by £38million as claimed by you earlier?

I sense once I get a link to explain the breakdown of the £56 million I am going to look like a right twat though...

Any takers?

[bennett]

OK, here we go:

The £27.1m (note 25) includes bank debt, finance loans etc. It does not include other liabilities like trade creditors, taxes and accruals which count towards the total amount the company owe. If the company weren't due to pay it, it wouldn't be sitting on the balance sheet.

So the £65 million holds when in comparison with the £56million. That was the total amount Rangers owed at the end, not only the financial debts.

In those statements there is no account made of the potential tax bill, so I am afraid your last sentence is incorrect. P.35 Note 27 'Contingent Assets/Liabilities' only mentions a possible £100,000 inflow with no mention whatsoever of a potential tax bill.

It's like Hellboy on LSD

Look it's been pointed out to you by many people that under Whyte the debt increased. There are no if's or but's about this, it's a simple fact which can't be ignored or deflected.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

The debt was simply switched to ticketus and increased to £27m, not mention withholding payments of NI and PAYE etc among other things.

Please put a bit more effort in to your posts, oh great debunker...

That's what I wrote. I just mentioned that using Bank Debt as a comparative to Total debt is erroneous.

[youngsy]

I don't know the breakdown of the £56million. I think I got that figure off of you. All I am saying is that the level of debt that Craig Whyte bought into was over £60 million per the accounts, so how could he possibly have increased it by £38million as claimed by you earlier?

I sense once I get a link to explain the breakdown of the £56 million I am going to look like a right twat though...

Any takers?

Let's look at it this way. A person takes over a PLC by borrowing £27 million from a finance company in order to clear the existing bank debt of £18 million. Straight away the original amount of debt of £18 million is still there, plus an additional £9 million. That debt is now £27 million, add to that £21 million unpaid P.A.Y.E and N.I.

That's an overall debt of £48 million plus whatever additional debt he added, off the top of my head i couldn't say. So you have the original debt of £18 million plus £9 million plus £21 million. From those three figures he added £30 million to the debt, nothing was cleared, all he did was add to any existing debt. The £56 million was the sum at liquidation,not including the EBT liability.

Edited June 11, 2013 by youngsy

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

It's like Hellboy on LSD

Look it's been pointed out to you by many people that under Whyte the debt increased. There are no if's or but's about this, it's a simple fact which can't be ignored or deflected.

All I have written is correct. Lifted straight from the accounts. With references so you don't even need to go through the whole thing. No ifs or buts. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

[bennett]

Let's look at it this way. A person takes over a PLC by borrowing £27 million from a finance company in order to clear the existing bank debt of £18 million. Straight away the original amount of debt of £18 million is still there, plus an additional £9 million. That debt is now £27 million, add to that £21 million unpaid P.A.Y.E and N.I. That's an overall debt of £48 million plus whatever additional debt he added, off the top of my head i couldn't say. So you have the original debt of £18 million plus £9 million plus £21 million. From those three figures he added £30 million to the debt, nothing was cleared, all he did was add to any existing debt.

You're wasting your time with this guy Youngsy, it's obviously an alias on the wind up.

[aofjays]

It's like Hellboy on LSD

Look it's been pointed out to you by many people that under Whyte the debt increased. There are no if's or but's about this, it's a simple fact which can't be ignored or deflected.

Got a link for that? (actual evidence mind). Not that I'm doubting a paragon of virtue such as yourself but as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree "it's been pointed out to you by many people" is not really enough. It's been pointed out to you by many people that your old club died because they were cheats but I don't think you're going to take their word for it are you?

ETA: I'm really not on the wind up btw, I'm really really curious how a total liability of 56Million a year after a reported liability of 65Million shows the total debt went up.

Edited June 11, 2013 by aofjays

[bennett]

How many accounts are you using on here Wullie?

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Let's look at it this way. A person takes over a PLC by borrowing £27 million from a finance company in order to clear the existing bank debt of £18 million. Straight away the original amount of debt of £18 million is still there, plus an additional £9 million. That debt is now £27 million, add to that £21 million unpaid P.A.Y.E and N.I.

That's an overall debt of £48 million plus whatever additional debt he added, off the top of my head i couldn't say. So you have the original debt of £18 million plus £9 million plus £21 million. From those three figures he added £30 million to the debt, nothing was cleared, all he did was add to any existing debt. The £56 million was the sum at liquidation,not including the EBT liability.

All I am saying is that Ranger's total debt did not go up from £18million, far from it. It was already way, way, more than that. Per the accounts. If the total liabilities were £56m at the end, then it is not a million miles from where it was when he took over.

And I managed to find this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2126212/Rangers-crisis-Craig-Whyte-claims-Rangers-better-shape.html

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Craig Whyte

Do I win £5?

[youngsy]

All I am saying is that Ranger's total debt did not go up from £18million, far from it. It was already way, way, more than that. Per the accounts. If the total liabilities were £56m at the end, then it is not a million miles from where it was when he took over.

And I managed to find this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2126212/Rangers-crisis-Craig-Whyte-claims-Rangers-better-shape.html

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Craig Whyte

Do I win £5?

Of course it went up from £18 million, commonsense tells you that. He took out £27 million from Ticketus to pay off the £18 million bank debt but that amount was still applied to the PLC plus an additional £9 million, there's the increase. Add to that the P.A.Y.E. and N.I. non payments, there is another increase, that is indisputable. When the liquidation total was formalised it included the debenture bondholders sum total, just under £7 million plus other debts. There is the approx £56 million. I'm afraid you're well out on this. So can you explain how taking out £27 million and withholding approx £21 million due to HMRC doesn't increase a debt.

[captain kirk]

SFA "considering" doing their job

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/229028-scottish-fa-considering-investigation-into-rangers-links-with-whyte/

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Of course it went up from £18 million, commonsense tells you that. He took out £27 million from Ticketus to pay off the £18 million bank debt but that amount was still applied to the PLC plus an additional £9 million, there's the increase. Add to that the P.A.Y.E. and N.I. non payments, there is another increase, that is indisputable. When the liquidation total was formalised it included the debenture bondholders sum total, just under £7 million plus other debts. There is the approx £56 million. I'm afraid you're well out on this. So can you explain how taking out £27 million and withholding approx £21 million due to HMRC doesn't increase a debt.

Because money was going towards other things?

Allow me to explain:

At takeover: Total Liabilities £60million: £18m Bank Debt, £3m HMRC Liability, £39m the rest.

After Takeover: Total Liablities £56million: £27m Ticketus, £21m HMRC, £8m the rest.

Very simply if you get £9m surplus from Ticketus and withold money from HMRC you can use it to pay alot of other stuff off.

[aofjays]

Of course it went up from £18 million, commonsense tells you that. He took out £27 million from Ticketus to pay off the £18 million bank debt but that amount was still applied to the PLC plus an additional £9 million, there's the increase. Add to that the P.A.Y.E. and N.I. non payments, there is another increase, that is indisputable. When the liquidation total was formalised it included the debenture bondholders sum total, just under £7 million plus other debts. There is the approx £56 million. I'm afraid you're well out on this. So can you explain how taking out £27 million and withholding approx £21 million due to HMRC doesn't increase a debt.

You realise all you are doing is moving numbers about, none of this is increasing or decreasing liability? After paying off 18 Million from the 27 Million your old club still had 9 million, therefore the liability is still 18 million. This is Primary 3 level stuff, even young Benny should be able to cope.

[captain kirk]

Because money was going towards other things?

Allow me to explain:

At takeover: Total Liabilities £60million: £18m Bank Debt, £3m HMRC Liability, £39m the rest.

After Takeover: Total Liablities £56million: £27m Ticketus, £21m HMRC, £8m the rest.

Very simply if you get £9m surplus from Ticketus and withold money from HMRC you can use it to pay alot of other stuff off.

You're wrong, rangers were in great shape that's why minty sold them to a asset stripper for a pound.

[youngsy]

Because money was going towards other things?

Allow me to explain:

At takeover: Total Liabilities £60million: £18m Bank Debt, £3m HMRC Liability, £39m the rest.

After Takeover: Total Liablities £56million: £27m Ticketus, £21m HMRC, £8m the rest.

Very simply if you get £9m surplus from Ticketus and withold money from HMRC you can use it to pay alot of other stuff off.

You realise all you are doing is moving numbers about, none of this is increasing or decreasing liability? After paying off 18 Million from the 27 Million your old club still had 9 million, therefore the liability is still 18 million. This is Primary 3 level stuff, even young Benny should be able to cope.

Oh FFS. The man increased the debt, first of all by taking out £27 million from Ticketus, that's an increase on the debt of £9 million or did you think Ticketus were just disregarding that £9 million, that's a liability to Ticketus of £27 million. He also withheld payments to HMRC, those payments become debt, that's irrefutable. It doesn't matter what he used the money for, the debt increased.

[hellbhoy]

So the PLC were never in admin then? not one of your brighter moments Nedbhoy.

Of course the name of the company that owned and operated the club were called Rangers Football club PLC, of course I called them a company, as do the SFA.

Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s [company] share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco [company]. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.

If Sevco Scotland bought the PLC's share in the SPL then why is it not playing in the SPL ?.

Also why did Green pander to the SPL when it had a vote to invite the newco into the SPL if you say Green bought the SPL share with the assets ?.

You've fucked up again Tedi and you can hand out as many reddies as you want FUD !.

The licences belonged to the club which is why Green had to acquire them as the club was an SFA licence which the SFA eventually gave to Green to say your new club was a continuance of an SFA member or it is in fact a completely brand new club.

I'll list this again for you what the SFA & SPL define as newco,oldco & the club

A, Oldco = The PLC in admin

B, Rangers FC = The club in admin

C, Newco = Sevco Scotland

You are all over the place here Tedi .