Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Kyle]

Hold on... is the Collyer Bristow case not meant to be heard in October?

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

1338281980[/url]' post='6282710']

Hold on... is the Collyer Bristow case not meant to be heard in October?

Yes.

In other Rangers litigation news, the 'gonnnae let us sign some players' case starts at 10am.

[Enzo Francescoli]

I've never been on Rangers media until today when I was catching up on this thread. What a vile, horrible place. Some really awful specimens on there.

I had a good laugh reading a thread recently - they (on Rangers Media) think Follow Follow is bigoted!

Dinosaurs with keyboards.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep thinking 'Billy loves fitba' every time they see a reference to Billy Dodds?

I can't understand what Dodds is doing here. The reason for his breaking cover has to be the fact that he stated publicly on Radio Scotland some time ago that he had never had an EBT, then Daly's programme names him, fans forums pick up on it and wee Billy begins to suffer from some anal leakage. He then contacts some of his buddies in the Weegia to see if they'll do an "interference" piece on him to try and keep him in the good books of RaPeepul.

Instead, his piece in The Herald is a classic of the "foot-in-mouth" genre of journalism. It might even be on a par with Jonathan Aitken's "Sword of British justice" pronouncement before he was taken to the cleaners by The Guardian.

Wee Doddsy is now a definite candidate for the Witness Protection Programme.

Two former Rangers players have now breached the EBT omerta - Dodds and Marvin 'Man of God' Andrews. Both have made comments that appear to be saying "Ah wis only daein' whit Mr. Murray asked me to....."

Pleasing.

Edit :- Just read that Paul McConville piece. His assertion that Dodds could be a "Witness for the Prosecution" and the "Smoking Gun" is priceless - please, please, make this happen, God.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen

[Enzo Francescoli]

The 'Nuclear' story is being drip-fed - The Moustached Beast mentioned as having received WAY more than the £30K Daly alluded to.

Apologies if aleady mentioned.

[Handsome_Devil]

The piece from BD seems idiotic because he can´t have it both ways that both he and Rangers are completely innocent. It reads so badly because his first instinct (quite correctly) is to protect himself and his own reputation and in fairness to him, I think he has a point - he was due the rest of his contract paid up, Rangers asked him if he could do them a favour by receiving the correct amount after tax in a certain way. Perhaps he should have been more suspicious and maybe I´m naive but if a massive, multi-million pound company asked me the same favour, while my instinct would say while there would no doubt be some benefit to them, I would assume they have checked it out with very expensive lawyers and accountants so that it remains above board. I would not for a second suspect they were just pocketing money due to the tax man with apparent reckless abandon. Sadly for Dodds he didn´t have the guts to come out and say openly that he was deceived as he was scared of the reaction of the *** hordes turning on him - trying to defend Rangers the way he did here just makes him look stupid.

[Mark Connolly]

Look what happened to BOSMANs footballing career when he went to the courts! He won his case but his career was pretty much over. Rangers may win their case but FIFA will make sure they receive proper punishment or expulsion.

Bear in mind that he was also 31 by the time of the ruling. Add that to not having played in a few years, and you could argue his career was effectively over BEFORE the case started.

[Charlie Harper]

I'm addicted to The Big R*ngers Admin thread and The R*ngerstaxcase.com

Are the any support groups available?

[Claymores]

Thought it was based on the list of creditors as issued a couple of months back. This included the BTC as it has already been lost, the FTT is an appeal. So £134m.

There is a pdf of the document sent out to the first creditors' meeting some time back. That document cites the total creditor amount at the much lower level with only the amount of VAT & NI shown as owing to HMRC. The £134m figure was never presented to creditors or included in the creditor sum.............altho we all know their guesstimate of the possible upper amount.

Also, I think it's misguiding to say BTC has previously been lost and is on appeal. That suggests a prior finding in favour of HMRC. What has really happened is that HMRC presented a bill to Ranjurs for all they reckon they are owed and Ranjurs have disputed ('appealed') that they are NOT liable and the bill is unjustified. All or part of that bill may be found to be valid (or in the unlikely worst case, Ranjurs may not be found to be liable at all!)

Edited May 29, 2012 by Claymores

[Bobby_F]

I never said split in regards to the TV money for the league.

I stated the home team retains the rights to market their own fixtures, therefore any cash from television rights would go to the away team.

Therefore if Celtic do not want to televise their home games - that's their decision. I have already stated you can keep the tv revenue from your own games.

Celtic fans would happily pay for a live stream from Parkhead say £5 per game.

Given technology and internet platforms today I am sure it achievable. Other clubs would be free to the same.

Advertisers would still pay for their products to be showcased (you know the ones that pay the tv companies and Sky for the slots)

Whilst this will never happen - I am simply illustrating where the funds would end up eventually because despite the 'other teams' protests about a fair split, they know full well what the attraction to the 'product' is. I agree that the current regime is not fair but neither is an absolute equal split of all tv monies.

Simply stating both extremes are wrong ... but a better compromise should be reached .. that I agree with.

You think?

How come droves of them don't bother to turn up for games they've actually paid for then? Oh ah, wait a minute, those games aren't against Rangers.

Can't imagine many Celtic fans parting with extra cash to watch home walkovers on TV against the diddies.

[beermonkey]

From Barcabhoy on RTC.

Seems to dispel some of the wilder excesses of imagination from recent days, but also focuses the attention beautifully...

Barcabhoy says:29/05/2012 at 6:33 am

29

2

Rate This

there has been a lot of speculation surrounding the news that more is to come out about Rangers and the seriousness of what is still to be revealed.

the first thing however is to dispel some of the wider rumours that have been doing the rounds.

this is not about match fixing, its not about bribing referees, its not about political interference , its not about banks behaving inappropriately or illegally .

I have absolutely no knowledge of any of these things.It is also highly unfair that individuals who have not been involved in any wrongdoing are speculated about. As i posted earlier the information I alluded to is not my story. I can therefore only provide a little bit of information at this time. When I am allowed to I will post more. Timing is not in my control.

The BBC documentary touched on EBT beneficiaries and the amounts they received. The nuclear information takes this further. I am able only to give you this initial bit of information just now, however the significance is enormous .

“Graeme Souness received much more than just the 30k Mark Daly mentioned. Rangers supporters, Scottish football administrators, and the legal authorities in Scotland deserve to know why he received this money a decade after leaving Rangers’ employment?”

Maybe Mr Souness could enlighten us, or maybe one his chums in the MSM could provide him with a platform to deny this.

Interesting he doesn't rule out the money laundering rumours that've been doing the rounds the last few days.

[Alert Mongoose]

For those with the time, or who can be arsed, there are a number of CVAs online to look at to see how they are done.

Here is JJB & Blane Leisure's: Click

And here is the entire lot of notices, proposals etc for Oddbins from Deloitte: Click

Some interesting stuff in that cheers. Unfortunately reading between the lines it is possible for the administrators to include ridiculously skewed 'assumptions' such as winning the Collyer Bristow case as part of potential future earnings in an inflated CVA;

"This Proposal contains certain statements and statistics that are or may be forward-looking. The accuracy andcompleteness of such statements is not warranted or guaranteed. These statements typically contain words

such as "intends", "expects", "anticipates", "estimates" and words of similar import. By their nature, forwardlooking

statements involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to events and depend on circumstances

that will occur in the future. Although the Directors believe the expectations reflected in such statements are

reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove correct."

Christ no wonder they have to put these caveates all over the document;

"The contents of this document are not to be construed as legal, business or tax advice. Each creditor andshareholder should consult his own independent legal, financial or tax adviser for legal financial or tax advice"

"Any parties making such investment decisions should rely on their own enquiries

prior to making such decisions."

And my own personal favourite;

"Nothing in this Proposal may be taken as an admission of any fact"

[TheTodd]

Anyone else think that P&B will go into total meltdown if the CVA is accepted, and they somehow win the court case?

Both are unlikely scenarios but I'll resemble this guy > if it works out for them.

Rangers winning their transfer ban appeal is bad news for Rangers - the SFA will have to dish out a different and possibly harsher punishment. Add to that UEFA and FIFA will be watching very closely.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

If Rangers somehow get out of this then they should build a f**k off big statue of Craig Whyte. It was his professional skills as a fraudster were keen enough to get in there and appoint D&P ahead of the HMRC's choice and set this long stalling process in motion.

On the early subject of baptism The Mormons apparently practice posthumous baptism so even if you think you're a Catholic or Presbyterian all your life you might turn out to have been Mormon all your life.

Possibly the highest profile case was Dutch diarist and failed drummer Anne Frank who turns out not to have been Jewish after all.

That leaves those Nazi's looking a bit silly doesn't it.

[Paulmcc12]

Some quick thoughts from the financial wizard Sir David Murray on how much was needed to give a reasonable chance of having a CVA accepted, and what this could mean for Mr Green's profits.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/how-much-money-chance-of-success-in-rangers-cva-how-does-mr-green-make-a-profit/

[Bobby_F]

Then what are you worried are about? ... that would our problem not yours !!!

Who said I was worried?

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

1338283705[/url]' post='6282756']

There is a pdf of the document sent out to the first creditors' meeting some time back. That document cites the total creditor amount at the much lower level with only the amount of VAT & NI shown as owing to HMRC. The £134m figure was never presented to creditors or included in the creditor sum.............altho we all know their guesstimate of the possible upper amount.

Also, I think it's misguiding to say BTC has previously been lost and is on appeal. That suggests a prior finding in favour of HMRC. What has really happened is that HMRC presented a bill to Ranjurs for all they reckon they are owed and Ranjurs have disputed ('appealed') that they are NOT liable and the bill is unjustified. All or part of that bill may be found to be valid (or in the unlikely worst case, Ranjurs may not be found to be liable at all!)

Ok, I stand corrected. As the Duffs have not actually published the CVA proposals, am mired in guesswork.

However, the Buns admitted liability for the Wee Tax Case (IIRC) and then the HMRC hit them with the big one. Hence the FFT is widely viewed an an appeal.

[MEADOWXI]

Boycott list for MARS if they weren't there already.

Taking the piss a bit isn't it....Bringing out a Limited Edition M&M's to celebrate the end of Rangers?

Get em quick before the Big Hoose guy waddles to the shops!

M&M s should be M&W s (Murray & Whyte)s bag full of peaNUTS

[Florentine_Pogen]

Then I fail to see the point of your reply ...

Get a feckin' room you two, eh ?

[Claymores]

Ok, I stand corrected. As the Duffs have not actually published the CVA proposals, am mired in guesswork.

However, the Buns admitted liability for the Wee Tax Case (IIRC) and then the HMRC hit them with the big one. Hence the FFT is widely viewed an an appeal.

I honestly wasn't gettin at ye - I just think it's best to keep our feet on the ground and be clear!!! All indications are that they will be found liable on the BTC, ar at least be found liable for a large proportion of the bill! The unfortunate bit is that we'll get some yahoos who have not read or tried to understand the whole fiasco as much as P&Bers grab things out of context. These yahoos tend to discredit the wghole thing when they go too far ("youz lost the BTC already ya muppets" I've seen posted on Ranjurs Rumours for example).

On the other bit, I'm 99% certain that the CVA will be using the lower creditor total previously cited in the first creditor meeting (excluding BTC and aboots £50-60m I think).