Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[nelsjfc]

0-1 v Morton at Dens (twice) hardly a pumping. We gubbed them away.

Ayr only beat us once, the other week, 3-2 thanks to a goal superior to any seen in the SPL this season. Applauded the overhead myself.

When is the dvd out?

[Tio Pepe]

Some desperate last gasp clutching at straws here.

Green has bought Craig Whyte's shares (his floating charge is still lurking out there)

He has a consortium which are funding a CVA backed by the administrators

If the CVA fails his contract states he will buy assets for a fixed price (now what these assets are is subject to speculation) and begin the NewCo process.

If the NewCo is needed and plan is backed by the SPL then it will be backed by the SFA, since it is pretty much the same group of people.

As far as the difference between a newco and cva is concerned, I don't really care. Both are within the scope of the law and SFA/SPL rules. I don't see why people would accept a CVA without boycott but then boycott a newco, it just seems like twisted logic to me. Both are just ways to ditch debt without paying the full amount.

How can he have a contract to buy the assets for a fixed price? To protect the creditors and maximise value surely assets have to be liquidated for the maximum return. The liquidator would have to look for the best price.

[Chazza1910]

When is the dvd out?

As for your lot, you'd be better off with the Dee in the the SPL too.

Don't take the Old Firm money.

Come to think of it, St Johnstone v Rangers is another yaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn. Great for correct score bets, though. You get Saints 0, then just have to decide how many Rangers will score.

[nelsjfc]

As for your lot, you'd be better off with the Dee in the the SPL too.

Don't take the Old Firm money.

Come to think of it, St Johnstone v Rangers is another yaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn. Great for correct score bets, though. You get Saints 0, then just have to decide how many Rangers will score.

You don't have persuade me, I would swap rangers for you lot in a second.

[Granny Danger]

As for your lot, you'd be better off with the Dee in the the SPL too.

Don't take the Old Firm money.

Come to think of it, St Johnstone v Rangers is another yaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn. Great for correct score bets, though. You get Saints 0, then just have to decide how many Rangers will score.

You're making a cunt of yourself. But then again maybe that's what you're trying to do.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Granny Danger

[glasgow-sheep]

They seem to be saying that the SFA did not have the powers to impose a 12 month transfer embargo and therefore will be forced to concede to Rangers' appeal and overturn it.

Yeah I got that.

I suppose what my question was is the original poster correct? On further reading of the RTC blog it would seem that he may not but it could come down the Appeal Panel's interpretation.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Anyone with more detailed knowledge than me have any comment on this from the RTC Blog:

A little bit of reading shows they MAY be correct.

There are lists of specified punishments for breach of certain rules. However not all the rules are explicitly covered and the panel don't explicitly have to state which rules were breached, that is only guidance. There is a lovely piece of catch-all text in the judicial panel protocol.

8.2 Power of Tribunal to rule on its own powers and to deal with objections in

respect of jurisdiction and powers

8.2.1 The Tribunal may rule on:

8.2.1.1 Whether the Tribunal is properly constituted;

8.2.1.2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Case(s)

referred to it;

8.2.1.3 The precise nature of the Case(s) referred to it;

8.2.1.4 The extent of its powers.

The document follows on to say

10.11.3 Without limitation to the authority of the Tribunal to regulate its own

procedure, where at any time in the course of any proceedings, there

has been a breach of procedure, a breach of the rules of natural justice,

or a failure to follow any Direction given, this shall not invalidate the

proceedings or a Determination unless the breach has been such as to

seriously and irremediably prejudice the position of the Alleged Party in

Breach.

So the tribunal can do what it wants as long as it seriously and irremediably prejudice Rangers. In light of the extensive documentation listing the shocking goings on at Rangers and the flirtation with expulsion the appeal panel may say the judgement is less harmful than other available punishments

[Bobby_F]

Breaking news:

'For every one billion Green spends, we will spend two billion.'

- Stewart Gilmour, chairman, St Mirren FC.

Wow! 200% more than The Rangers!

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

How can he have a contract to buy the assets for a fixed price? To protect the creditors and maximise value surely assets have to be liquidated for the maximum return. The liquidator would have to look for the best price.

It is within the powers of the administrators to sell assets. If any creditor feels they have been sold too cheaply I'm sure they can bring a case against Duff and Phelps.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jim McLean's Ghost

[HibeeJibee]

It was indeed, though the Livi fans seem as confused as us about the rationale/legality of such a move: http://www.livilions...ston-to-sue-SFA

It wouldn;t surprise me if Livingston themselves are confused about the rationale and the legality. I still haven't yet figured out what exactly Livingston would be going to the courts about, quite honestly.

[Bobby_F]

what - he's proposing to spend 200% more than Green ???

That's the problem with this thread - make a reply and 5 pages later you find out someone else already beat you to it :-)!

[killingfloorman]

Can someone please explain to me how rapeepul were able to offer Aluko a new contract ffs?

[HibeeJibee]

Has anybody been keeping count?

When the SPL vote on the Rangers newco, Celtic and Hibs definitely against it.

So 9-2 at the moment. Any more, and what does the vote have to be?

Assume Rangers can't vote, so 7-4 will boot them out, yes?

And when is all this going to happen? Fixtures to come out June 18, y'ken.

Both bolds are assumptions/dependants, IMO.

Also 8-4 relates to a vote on a Newco. Not expelling them to aid fixture compilation.

Just watched Petrie on the BBC news and liked what he had to say, just hope some other Spl chairmen take note of what he said, especially about listening to the supporters.

Let's remember that Petrie backs 10-team SPL... despite widespread fan opposition.

It's a position of pragmatism. Also I don't think Petrie categorically said at any point that Newco should be expelled/demoted.

They pretty much said they were last week.

Integrity mentioned, like Hibs...great excuse to get rid of them and more European money for them to compensate for lack of Old Firm games.

They can also bring through young players, rather than having to compete with Rangers all the time. More money saved.

We finished 10th last season. This season 11th. It wasn't due to Rangers, and we weren't competing with Rangers!!

Can someone please explain to me how rapeepul were able to offer Aluko a new contract ffs?

Companies in administration don't have to shed their staff, or stop retaining them.

They can still re-register players 18+ under SFA embargo.

Edited May 14, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[~~~]

Can someone please explain to me how rapeepul were able to offer Aluko a new contract ffs?

Easily, it's a £5k a week deal, only difference being Aluko has to pay it himself.

[Claymores]

Forgive me if I'm missing something simple about Green's proposals, but can the contract with H&D be as straighforwards as this:

1. He offers £8.5m (plus Jelavic money) for a CVA [lets forget whether BTC is decided or not and the total Rangers debt]

2. Should the CVA proposal be declined, he buys the assets (lock, stock n barrel) through a pre-pack liquidation for £8.5m and forms a newco. (the £8.5m under liquidation is split between creditors)

The second part above tries to bear in mind that H&D have indicated that Murray Park has a guesstimated value of £4-6m under an asset-sale liquidation, whilst they assign Ibrox as having no notional value at all in such a sale as a stand-alone stadium without a resident team.

If the above were true, Green could 'blackmail' HMRC into agreeing a CVA in that the public purse would get no more under liquidation (probably less) whilst also putting 200 people out of work and harming a 'Scottish institution' (which would be politically difficult).

Edited May 14, 2012 by Claymores

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Can someone please explain to me how rapeepul were able to offer Aluko a new contract ffs?

I think they typed it up on a computer, sent it through to a lawyer to check it then forwarded it onto his agent. In these modern times who knows if it was even printed out.

[killingfloorman]

I think they typed it up on a computer, sent it through to a lawyer to check it then forwarded it onto his agent. In these modern times who knows if it was even printed out.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Forgive me if I'm missing something simple about Green's proposals, but can the contract with H&D be as straighforwards as this:

1. He offers £8.5m (plus Jelavic money) for a CVA [lets forget whether BTC is decided or not and the total Rangers debt]

2. Should the CVA proposal be declined, he buys the assets (lock, stock n barrel) through a pre-pack liquidation for £8.5m and forms a newco. (the £8.5m under liquidation is split between creditors)

The second part above tries to bear in mind that H&D have indicated that Murray Park has a guesstimated value of £4-6m under an asset-sale liquidation, whilst they assign Ibrox as having no notional value at all in such a sale as a stand-alone stadium without a resident team.

If the above were true, Green could 'blackmail' HMRC into agreeing a CVA in that the public purse would get no more under liquidation (probably less) whilst also putting 200 people out of work and harming a 'Scottish institution' (which would be politically difficult).

Not quite as straight forward as that. For 2. they would get the assets but then D&P (or Green since he owns 85% of the club) would need to go to the SPL and ask for the share transfer to the NewCo. Once that passes, a similar thing would happen at the SFA. Old Rangers would then be essentially worthless and in admin so D&P would then liquidate them leaving creditors with the same amount they would've gotten through a CVA.

It isn't as much black mailing HMRC it is forcing them to deal with the reality of the situation and accepting a CVA is probably better for them in the long run. A properly run Rangers will be contributing a fair bit of tax as well. Rangers are not paying their debts, whether the creditors get less money to slightly inconvenience Green and co is neither here nor there.

[Claymores]

Not quite as straight forward as that. For 2. they would get the assets but then D&P (or Green since he owns 85% of the club) would need to go to the SPL and ask for the share transfer to the NewCo. Once that passes, a similar thing would happen at the SFA. Old Rangers would then be essentially worthless and in admin so D&P would then liquidate them leaving creditors with the same amount they would've gotten through a CVA.

It isn't as much black mailing HMRC it is forcing them to deal with the reality of the situation and accepting a CVA is probably better for them in the long run. A properly run Rangers will be contributing a fair bit of tax as well. Rangers are not paying their debts, whether the creditors get less money to slightly inconvenience Green and co is neither here nor there.

I wasn't suggesting that Newco was straightforwards for Green for the reasons you suggest (and because players can walk away). Far from it. Where I was going with the above was that CVA is almost assured so that route is unlikely if H&D have indeed contracted with him on those terms [since HMRC would be in the public eye for making people redundant for no visible benefit]

In other words, Green may have his easy preferred passage in the bag.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Claymores

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

I wasn't suggesting that Newco was straightforwards for Green for the reasons you suggest (and because players can walk away). Far from it. Where I was going with the above was that CVA is almost assured so that route is unlikely if H&D have indeed contracted with him on those terms [since HMRC would be in the public eye for making people redundant for no visible benefit]

In other words, Green may haver his easy preferred passage in the bag.

In that regard if HMRC and other creditors reject the deal we may see court proceedings to either stop the sale of assets and remove Duff and Phelps as administrators. That could get really messy and a whole new set of unknowns open themselves up.

Craig Whyte's floating charge is a key component to this too. Green's CVA might have Whyte forgo his floating charge or only take a small percentage of it. Green is going to put his money where his mouth is but there is still a good few questions and issues outstanding.