Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Jussy]

We should get T Shirts made. Profit to a deserving charity of us diddies choosing. Div?

That's a beauty! I want one!

[~~~]

We should get T Shirts made. Profit to a deserving charity of us diddies choosing. Div?

You should donate one of these to the scottish football museum

[Claymores]

Assuming Green doesn't do a runner and also they are still in admin so "NUFF n HELPS" will have to acquire capital to keep the club running as I'm sure Greens cash is only for the creditors only.

But that, by definition, is continuing to run an insolvent business by deliberately flogging off its remaining assets................thereby reducing the possible funds available to creditors when liquidation occurs. Don't the Administrators have a duty to wind up the business in those circumstances (before all the assets are frittered away and there nothing left to compensate creditors)

I'm really suggesting that the consortium should be funding running costs and any new transfer income reserved for the creditor's pot.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Claymores

[wunfellaff]

@davidhillier's proclamation that HMRC are likely to agree a CVA on the basis that the regime has changed concerns me greatly:

"HMRC CVA policy: when an insolvent firm has new owners, history of nonpayment is not important. New owners are what matters."

I am always hearing how HMRC consistently reject CVAs, but the above statement could be significant.

Are they actually insolvent? In administration, yes, but they couldn't trade if insolvent??? No?

[ray_of_licht]

........and I can't see how it could claim any rights to SPL share or past honours.

Me either but then I guess that's because we are not rapeepul. Regardless of the cold, hard facts a certain section of their support (that section measures 99% of rapeepul) will continually trumpet about how many championships they won etc etc blah blah ad infinitum

[Claymores]

Are they actually insolvent? In administration, yes, but they couldn't trade if insolvent??? No?

I think they are technically insolvent after May (see my post above). They should be wound-up UNLESS new buyers/owners are funding running costs.

[wunfellaff]

I think they are technically insolvent after May (see my post above). They should be wound-up UNLESS new buyers/owners are funding running costs.

So the

"HMRC CVA policy: when an insolvent firm has new owners, history of nonpayment is not important. New owners are what matters."

might not matter a hoot if HMRC get a move on then, the statement means nothing unless they were insolvent.

[hellbhoy]

I think they are technically insolvent after May (see my post above). They should be wound-up UNLESS new buyers/owners are funding running costs.

I think you maybe right there and I don't see Green paying the players their FULL wages either as well as running costs.This means putting money in that will probably sink into a black abyss.

So it looks like the order to liquidate come June to get as much as possible for the creditors.

[LongTimeLurker]

Think you guys are going to have to come to terms with the idea that Rangers are probably still going to be around next season. Whyte's shares have been transferred, Green and co have provided money for a CVA and are talking about a newco as plan B with no conditions attached where the SPL and SFA are concerned. Not out of the woods yet by any means given the uncertainty over whether the share of SPL membership would actually be transferred to a newco but Rangers are in way better shape than they were a week ago.

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

I think they are technically insolvent after May (see my post above). They should be wound-up UNLESS new buyers/owners are funding running costs.

they are insolvent in every sense of the word, they cannot pay their bills as and when they are due and their liabilities exceed their assets, they have been trading insolvently since craig the messiah negated to pay tax liabilities.

[hellbhoy]

Yes well I think it is a good idea. Look below though, what is it?

[Jussy]

Green and co have provided money for a CVA and are talking about a newco as plan B with no conditions attached where the SPL and SFA are concerned. Not out of the woods yet by any means given the uncertainty over whether the share of SPL membership would actually be transferred to a newco but Rangers are in way better shape than they were a week ago.

Just because he's talking about it, doesn't mean it'll happen. As you say, SPL conditions are up to the SPL, same with the SFA. Just because a buyer demands it, they are in no way obligated to give it. Very unlikely the SFA will go for this "no conditions" nonsense IMO. The same is true of the revenue regarding CVA, even more so in fact.

Chill, they're still going to die.

[P45]

@Bass_Cadet: HMRC normally only don't agree when they feel CVA proposal cannot be delivered or they have been unfairly dealt with.

David Hillier isn't saying anything new there. He's an ugly bassa tho.

[Claymores]

I think you maybe right there and I don't see Green paying the players their FULL wages either as well as running costs.This means putting money in that will probably sink into a black abyss.

So it looks like the order to liquidate come June to get as much as possible for the creditors.

That seems so logical and straightforward - after May they are completely out of money, broke. (a.k.a insolvent) and with higher wage costs to boot. Allowing the business to continue after then can only diminish the amount available to creditors in an insolvency event. The only way I can see that they should be allowed to operate is if these investors are putting in the necessary cash out their own pockets as additional spend by them.

If these investors are not gonna pay running costs oot the hipper, then liquidation day surely has to be June 1

Edited May 14, 2012 by Claymores

[realmadrid]

Just think at this point in time 4 years ago the Rangers fans were having a party in Manchester.

[wunfellaff]

Think you guys are going to have to come to terms with the idea that Rangers are probably still going to be around next season. Whyte's shares have been transferred, Green and co have provided money for a CVA and are talking about a newco as plan B with no conditions attached where the SPL and SFA are concerned. Not out of the woods yet by any means given the uncertainty over whether the share of SPL membership would actually be transferred to a newco but Rangers are in way better shape than they were a week ago.

There are those on RM that agree with you, indeed would think you are underplaying it

Rangers FC

Treble Winners 2012/13

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

Rangers are in way better shape than they were a week ago.

don't bank on it, charles green has offered nothing but soundbites and certainly no substance. his backers remain mysterious, he talks about taking anybody's money as long as it's clean, and his track record is nothing for the orcs to get excited about. i won't be one bit surprised if charlie boy doesn't leave the orcs harking on about the good old days under craigie whyte.

[GirondistNYC]

1337024722[/url]' post='6236816']

@davidhillier's proclamation that HMRC are likely to agree a CVA on the basis that the regime has changed concerns me greatly:

"HMRC CVA policy: when an insolvent firm has new owners, history of nonpayment is not important. New owners are what matters."

I am always hearing how HMRC consistently reject CVAs, but the above statement could be significant.

The debate is skewed because in football insolvencies they generally (never?) have had a blocking percentage of the debt so voting against the CVA is a cost free warning marker for them. Also, they hate the football creditor rule which applies in England so thy appear to have a policy of voing against hen that comes into play. They also vote against if by feel they are being deliberately done over by people connected to the original misconduct.

Hillier has been saying consistently HMRC will do a deal if it's facially reasonable and new people are involved. Given that nobody wants to buy the place once they look at the books £12 mil or do may actually be viewed as a reasonable market deal.

I'm not sure Hillier is taking into full account the weirdness of football as a market, though, with "market value" after the transfer window is shut being much lower than even short term market value in the hands of others. Also, this is a high profile case with football clubs all over the UK watching and non-football watching taxpayers paying more attention than they otherwise would.

If Green were to sell a post CVA Rangers for a tidy profit a year or two after shafting the taxpayer I'd suspect people, and not just football fans, would be outraged. And any fan in he boardroom type chairman would be sorely tempted to cheat the taxman going forward on the theory if they didn't kill Rangers they'll never, ever kill any football club.

[wunfellaff]

That seems so logical and straightforward - after May they are completely out of money, broke. (a.k.a insolvent) and with higher wage costs to boot. Allowing the business to continue after then can only diminish the amount available to creditors in an insolvency event. The only way I can see that they should be allowed to operate is if these investors are putting in the necessary cash out their own pockets as additional spend by them.

If these investors are not gonna pay running costs oot the hipper, then liquidation day surely has to be June 1

Do they have enough reddies to cover the next tranch of tax? that I am sure somebody said was due 17/05??? that MUST be paid, and wages get paid when in the month?

[Drooper]

Are they actually insolvent? In administration, yes, but they couldn't trade if insolvent??? No?

There is also the small matter of them not having a new owner.

Certainly not yet.