Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[jimbo1872]

i still dont understand how we have creditors for payments that havent been missed yet, i think thats fucking stupid, can these clubs not opt out of being a creditor until we default on the payments or something, as you say the likes of Rapid etc accepting 5p in the pound or whatever is daft

thats the thing, you arent required to pay your tax until the end of the financial year, Rangers could argue (indeed that wee crook whyte did argue) that it was going to be paid but they ran out of money

i know whyte did it on purpose but it will be mighty hard for HMRC to prove that as the tax year maybe only finished at the end of march or april, by that time we were in administration

Corporation tax is due annually but PAYE, NI and VAT are due quarterly.

[sydney]

i still dont understand how we have creditors for payments that havent been missed yet, i think thats fucking stupid, can these clubs not opt out of being a creditor until we default on the payments or something, as you say the likes of Rapid etc accepting 5p in the pound or whatever is daft

They are creditors because Rangers have a contractual obligation to make the payments. They know that they cannot afford to pay them when the time is due (very soon) so they must be part of the CVA. you could say the same of Tickitus as they are not due to be paid till the season tickets are sold surely, but they are still contractually entitled to be paid.

thats the thing, you arent required to pay your tax until the end of the financial year, Rangers could argue (indeed that wee crook whyte did argue) that it was going to be paid but they ran out of money

It depends on how Rangers paid their taxes and how the PAYE was accounted for. However, if it was clear that Whyte & Co knew they would be unable to pay their tax bill and were using the tax deductions from players and staff to keep the club running whist knowing that there wasn't a hope in hell of HMRC getting paid at year end that administration was just round the corner (a review of the books should clear that one up), then there's no real excuse. And remember, they already held their hands up to the "wee tax case" and have been found guilty of the "big tax case" which is now under review following appeal. I think arguing that there's no history of tax indiscretions is pretty weak to be fair.

i know whyte did it on purpose but it will be mighty hard for HMRC to prove that as the tax year maybe only finished at the end of march or april, by that time we were in administration

see above- he knew there wasn't a hope in hell of being able to pay HMRC- he used the PAYE deducted from staff to keep the wolves from the door for w wee bit longer - would have known the club was technically insolvent.

Edited May 15, 2012 by sydney

[Jacksgranda]

Because Lawwell made some statements earlier about not needing Rangers and Lennons comments haven't been walked back I think a large majority of Celtic supporters assumed we would vote no. Given how the situation has developed they will be very, very, very angry if Celtic caves and Rangers emerges Playing in the SPL. I think Lawwell is quite aware of this and will avoid a public yes vote at all costs. It's not as if Rangers are going to hate Celtic more and Parkhead isn't a game they'll boycott (and it would sell out anyway). Celtic loses little if they vote no and still get in compared to other clubs.

I know the Green Brigade is neither representative nor terribly popular here but they had a big banner on Sunday calling on Lawwell not to change position and they have said they wont take their allocation if Celtic allows Rangers back in the SPL. Most ordinary Celtic fans seem to agree with that general sentiment. Ticket sales would certainly be impacted.

A cynic would say they'll vote no but mean yes. If sufficient teams publicly indicate they will vote no so Celtic looks like the deciding vote the pressure would be incredible not to go along with a resuscitation. Guessing under those circumstances they'd vote no but cold be very, very wrong.

[dons tin helmet]

See - all this talk of Abhergreen must be right.

[mps02]

Brilliant. And I agree Reids time is up. two up and two down. Not good enough for four seasons. Anyway I digress. Rangers will die. And hopefully the other half will wither away soon after.

[PeeTeeJag]

I just do not share everyone's optimism that we are seeing the final death throes of Rangers FC. I have a very bad feeling that the SFA panel will bottle it tomorrow and suspend the transfer embargo for three years or something to let the new owners prove they aren't crooks. I also have a nasty feeling that Whyte has this stitched up so that a CVA will be accepted. If it is not then I still don't think its the end for Rangers as the SPL will vote them back in as new co. Over the years I've lost all faith in the powers that be in Scottish football to do the right thing.

Just saying....

I think if rankers had made an error of judgement once or twice then maybe it would be suspended. But they have so monumentally screwed everyone that for the panel to suspend it (ie. in effect just cancel it) then uefa would be on the phone in seconds wanting heads to roll.

For example, say I own A.N. Other Co. and through being a complete tit by trying to be a big time charlie, I own a porsche, big house, fancy watch, and money in the bank coz I havent paid my taxes and other assorted bills. Once it all comes out in the open and everyone demands their money (rightfully), can I just hand the company over to my brother and walk away scot free? Eh no!!!

Would my brother be able to turn around to all the people I owe money to and say "look instead of giving you the £1,000,000 I owe you, I'm going to buy a £1,000,000 Bugatti Veron with the company name on the side. This will bring in more business, and then I'll be able to give you your money back."

[monrovianmonk]

I think if rankers had made an error of judgement once or twice then maybe it would be suspended. But they have so monumentally screwed everyone that for the panel to suspend it (ie. in effect just cancel it) then uefa would be on the phone in seconds wanting heads to roll.

For example, say I own A.N. Other Co. and through being a complete tit by trying to be a big time charlie, I own a porsche, big house, fancy watch, and money in the bank coz I havent paid my taxes and other assorted bills. Once it all comes out in the open and everyone demands their money (rightfully), can I just hand the company over to my brother and walk away scot free? Eh no!!!

Would my brother be able to turn around to all the people I owe money to and say "look instead of giving you the £1,000,000 I owe you, I'm going to buy a £1,000,000 Bugatti Veron with the company name on the side. This will bring in more business, and then I'll be able to give you your money back."

I hope you are right

[PeeTeeJag]

when I worked at the bank a few years ago we were taught the problems that can occur for some people when they cash a cheque to themselves.

Say I write a cheque for cash to myself for £20, but only have £10 in the bank. The cheque guarantee card would in effect mean that I was good for the money when it came out of my account 4 or 5 days later. But 4 or 5 days later the cheque would come off and I would be overdrawn by £10 and get a charge of £15 for being overdrawn. So the day before I would go to a bank and again write a cheque for £20, then go to my own bank and put the money in, which would mean I could cover my first cheque, but then 4 or 5 days later...............................and so this cycle would continue until payday and everything would be fine.

But what if payday never came?

Europe never came for rankers.

[Happy Buddie]

Oh, oh - does any of this sound at all familiar!:

http://www.express.c...ts/view/320185/

If this so-called fighting fund is avaliable, after the dust has settled, it's going to leave a very bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of people, particularly if a CVA is agreed at c.5p in the pound. In that scenario RFC continue as is, then, as soon as the transfer embargo is annulled/served/reduced (whatever) they become big spenders again, using money that should rightly have been made available to give more to the original creditors. SHOCKING HYPOCRISY!!! (but no surprise, considering it is Rangers)

[Drooper]

HMRC can scarcely afford to be lenient towards Rangers given their get tough stance with other British clubs in recent years.

This article is quite an interesting read in that respect:

Grauniad Article

I don't think they have any scope to adopt a softly-softly approach with Rangers. This notion that they would disregard previous wrongdoing by former owners doesn't stack up at all. They will regard any attempt to circumvent paying what is due with hostility, regardless of who is at the helm.

*edit: typo*

Edited May 15, 2012 by Drooper

[Victor E Sheep]

There is something off on that article with the man McDonald, he makes it out that it was Greens' idea to buy Rangers and that Green had all the plans. But, didn't Green state he was asked by others and was reluctant to take on the idea?

Which is it, was Green approached by others, or was it Green doing the approaching?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Victor E Sheep

[Drooper]

There is something off on that article with the man McDonald, he makes it out that it was Greens' idea to buy Rangers and that Green had all the plans. But, didn't Green state he was asked by others and was reluctant to take on the idea?

Which is it, was Green approached by others, or was it Green doing the spproaching?

Good point.

Yet another anomaly in the scenario that has been painted.

In other news (apologies if already posted). Regan gets tough

We Demand Names!

Edited May 15, 2012 by Drooper

[)typically]

Apparently the reason why a CVA will likely be agreed is because un the CVA HMRC, Ticketus and everyone else will get something, if the club is liquidated then Whyte gets first dibs on 18million quid, then whats left after that is divided up amongst the creditors

Now considering that the players can supposedly walk for nothing in a liquidation scenario, that simply leaves Ibrox and Murray Park as sole Rangers Football Club Assets, which you most likely not get much for simply because MP can't be used for housing etc and Ibrox has a listed front part and would take significant finance to develop into something else.

Its to do with Whyte's floating charge that he has, or something like that

I havent a fecking clue and im just sitting back waiting for it to end one way or another, but above is the theory of why a CVA is quite a possibility

This is what I have been thinking for a while but independent experts seem to always say that a CVA wont be accepted. Someone posted earlier in the thread that on last episode of Sunday Politics they were speaking to a financial expert and he said that neither he nor any of his colleagues that he had spoken to on the matter thought that a CVA would be possible. That said D&P seem to think that it will be. Its always the same, conflicting information.

[Sting777]

If this so-called fighting fund is avaliable, after the dust has settled, it's going to leave a very bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of people, particularly if a CVA is agreed at c.5p in the pound. In that scenario RFC continue as is, then, as soon as the transfer embargo is annulled/served/reduced (whatever) they become big spenders again, using money that should rightly have been made available to give more to the original creditors. SHOCKING HYPOCRISY!!! (but no surprise, considering it is Rangers)

I just hope the three man panel have a good read at that Express article. Talking of War Chests while ordinary working folk have been waiting months for even payments of less than £100, sums up why everyone outwith the bigot family hates this club. DISGUSTING!!

[shull]

Souness getting interviewed by Keys and Gray on Talksport shortly.

The only subject being the despicable Blue Vermin.

[Sting777]

Souness getting interviewed by Keys and Gray on Talksport shortly.

The only subject being the despicable Blue Vermin.

Sounds like a sexist bigotfest of a programme....will give it a miss!

[The Left Wing]

Celtic will vote against.

NOT for any reasons of sporting integrity, but simply because Lawwell knows that the lie of the land is almost certainly going to be a large vote in favour from the other clubs, meaning Celtic can vote against, thereby looking like heroes to their fans, when in reality it's the last thing they would want.

However, I suspect if you hear one or two other chairman coming out and suggesting they might vote against, you'll probably find Lawwell shuts the f**k up for a while and plays it very cagily.

And therein lies the 'Diddy Clause'. Where all the diddy teams say Celtic voted NO because they knew everyone else would vote yes, thereby appeasing Celtic fans.

If you do the right thing, do your reasons matter?

As for Mr Lawwell's vote, he is simply an employee and frontperson for the board. He will do as he is instructed.

[Victor E Sheep]

I've an idea. It will go against the grain of the (legitimate) anti-gers sentiment here, but, why don't we do a deal with the buns. Rangers buy the debts of all other SPL clubs, then they put through their CVA and we all get to start from a clean slate, all fair and square and even.

... and if, for some reason they don't get the CVA through, well .... *shrugs* thems the breaks.

[madwullie]

And therein lies the 'Diddy Clause'. Where all the diddy teams say Celtic voted NO because they knew everyone else would vote yes, thereby appeasing Celtic fans.

If you do the right thing, do your reasons matter?

As for Mr Lawwell's vote, he is simply an employee and frontperson for the board. He will do as he is instructed.

Celtic are a PLC. Anything other than a yes vote would be contrary to the wishes of the shareholders. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you think, and if it was, frankly Lol would have said so in his nothing interview the other week

[shull]

Souness on now.

[shull]

It's a Blue Vermin shagfest on Cocksport.

Nearly threw up in my Cab.

FUCKEM !