Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[GirondistNYC]

1338330423[/url]' post='6285741']

Don't believe that dog hunts............

Green is only loaning Rangers £8.5mill to achieve the CVA. If accepted he will take a floating charge over Murray Paark and Ibrox and would be first in line if a winding-up order were granted. He'd pocket the proceeds of the asset sales and HMRC would get nothing (I think that's how it'd work at least)

Yup - but it's irrelevant because the BTC is explicitly included in the CVA anyway. Your analysis would govern any other monetary claims against Rangers that emerged after the CVA though.

I still find it hard to believe HMRC would agree to a CVA on these terms. Hard to see how accepting a artfully crafted lowball bid makes sense when the deterrent value of playing hardball to scare others into compliance is backed by a host of other factors. And that's before we even get to whether D&P's liquidation value is accurate (as opposed to defensible).

[Florentine_Pogen]

This whole thing is draaagging sack.

As illustrated...

Yeah I'm quite bored

Feck, I thought that was Buster Gonad's bawsack.........

[No8.]

Yawn. You're just as much a WUM as him. I aint biting.

You just did

[NorthBank]

I think the punishment was far too severe. A couple of smaller fines would, perhaps, have been the right measure.

Essentially, Rangers are paying for the failure of the SFA to do their job as regulator properly. The SFA intone that the directors 'must have known what was going on'. Well they did. John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre all resigned from the Rangers board in October of 2011 citing that the had been excluded from corporate governance by CW. Now, when your FD resigns then, to most regulators, that is a red flag.

So what did the SFA do? Yep, you got it, SFA.

Having failed, somebody had to pay. Yep, that somebody was Rangers.

So why did Rangers get punished and not Motherwell. Both were in Administration and both had failed to pay the taxman amongst others. The only answer you ever get to that question is the amount owed. But rules are generally based on principles and are not quantitative.

Directors of a Company have legal responsibilities. Just chucking it does not constitute taking responsibility. Many members of staff knew of illegal goings on but no-one reported it. The SFA could not act until someone had reported something which they all failed to do. Just like at my last place of employment when people wanted a certain member of staff disciplined but no-one would report them to HR hence nothing happened. Hugh Adam reported something about the illegal use of EBTs and they are now being investigated. Try reading this from 2009. Even then Hugh knew that Rangers were a dodgy business and he is the only person to report anything. Shame on all the other employees.

[Claymores]

Not so sure if Murray Park can be touched. My understanding is that the Scottish Sports Council has first digs on that asset,

If you look at Schedule 4 of the CVA proposal, it illustrates the scenarios for Murray Park - the Sports Council would essentially get first refusal to purchase at market value. If they pass, the Standard Security the hold over the proerty must be bought-out at a cost of £650,000 (ie. in any liquidation, at whatever time, Murray Park will be worth only what is could raise on the open market minus £650,000)

[Jambos]

You're right - I think the SFA do have an accountability in this, but they're not the ones who are primarily culpable. Rangers are to blame, if they are found guilty, but the SFA will have to hold their hands up and acknowledge they should've taken a closer look at how these EBTs were being used before the HMRC became involved.

My worry for Rangers (and this is a worry - I'm after justice in this case, not blood) is that this could be their absolute end. I genuinely don't want to see that happen, but couple this with with what they've been found guilty of already, along with the administration and also now pissing off the SFA by going through the Civil Courts, it doesn't look too great for Rangers. The civil courts have spelled out the sanctions available to the SFA, and it doesn't seem that relegation is one of those options. All other sanctions, other than expulsion, seem too lenient when you consider the prescedent set with the previous tribunial and today's case. This is all hypothetical at this stage obviously, just my thoughts on the worst case scenario for Rangers.

That's my thoughts. Although I DO want blood. I Absolutely 100% do not want this sickening entity to exist in the future.

[chico]

The Tash has already made his position clear, a Tash-Romanov United front against the cheating Weegies would be spectacular viewing.

Maybe they were leading a grand council of diddy chairmen and scheming the next moves whilst the weegie meeja were distracted.

[madeirabhoy]

So what is the role of the SFA? Why have 'fit and proper' rules at all? The people mentioned did carry out their duty. They resigned and made public the reasons for it.

Rangers, like many Scots clubs, were owned by a single individual. That person, in any business, has absolute power. If the SFA or UEFA/FIFA want to impose any kind of financial fair-play rules then they need to take their regulatory role a lot more seriously.

My comment also needs to be seen in terms of the reasoning behind the SFA punishment. Apparently, the directors 'should have know'. I was merely pointing out that they did know and made that fact public. The SFA chose not to act on it until much later.

isnt that like blaming the police for all robberies and murders?

[Caff]

1338331090[/url]' post='6285790']

You just did

Telling someone that you know they're on the wind up is biting? You really are a clueless fucknugget!

[Paquis]

You're right - I think the SFA do have an accountability in this, but they're not the ones who are primarily culpable. Rangers are to blame, if they are found guilty, but the SFA will have to hold their hands up and acknowledge they should've taken a closer look at how these EBTs were being used before the HMRC became involved.

My worry for Rangers (and this is a worry - I'm after justice in this case, not blood) is that this could be their absolute end. I genuinely don't want to see that happen, but couple this with with what they've been found guilty of already, along with the administration and also now pissing off the SFA by going through the Civil Courts, it doesn't look too great for Rangers. The civil courts have spelled out the sanctions available to the SFA, and it doesn't seem that relegation is one of those options. All other sanctions, other than expulsion, seem too lenient when you consider the prescedent set with the previous tribunial and today's case. This is all hypothetical at this stage obviously, just my thoughts on the worst case scenario for Rangers.

The SFA have dug a bit of a hole for themselves here.

On the one hand, they wanted to hand out a sufficient punishment for Rangers that would keep most people happy that they were doing 'something'.

On the other hand, they did not want to take the commercial risk (TV money, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc.) of actually losing Rangers to Scottish football. Interestingly, while quite a lot of Rangers fans like the idea of starting again in the 3rd division, the SPL seem hellbent on keeping us in the top division. And you can be sure they are not doing that out of the kindness of their hearts.

By winning in court, Rangers have put the SFA in a difficult position; caught between a punishment that some see as too lenient and others as too harsh. Probably the best 'out' is to suspend all punishment and get the parties to agree to go to the CAS which, as we know, can take a couple of years to rule. By which time, emotions have cooled.

[Paquis]

isnt that like blaming the police for all robberies and murders?

Generally, the police act a bit quicker than the SFA when they are confronted with evidence.

[blanco]

Don't believe that dog hunts............

Green is only loaning Rangers £8.5mill to achieve the CVA. If accepted he will take a floating charge over Murray Paark and Ibrox and would be first in line if a winding-up order were granted. He'd pocket the proceeds of the asset sales and HMRC would get nothing (I think that's how it'd work at least)

It looks like CG has been sending out some "double your money, get rich quick" letters,and some "businessmen" have taken him up on his offer.

He's buying the club via a loan and was looking to guys like mike mcdonald to buy them players.

This guy's a spiv of CW proportions, it'll probably get a lot more entertaining if they survive and we get to laugh at them struggling and the orcs revolting when they realise he's just another chancer.

[GunnerBairn]

The SFA have dug a bit of a hole for themselves here.

On the one hand, they wanted to hand out a sufficient punishment for Rangers that would keep most people happy that they were doing 'something'.

On the other hand, they did not want to take the commercial risk (TV money, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc.) of actually losing Rangers to Scottish football. Interestingly, while quite a lot of Rangers fans like the idea of starting again in the 3rd division, the SPL seem hellbent on keeping us in the top division. And you can be sure they are not doing that out of the kindness of their hearts.

By winning in court, Rangers have put the SFA in a difficult position; caught between a punishment that some see as too lenient and others as too harsh. Probably the best 'out' is to suspend all punishment and get the parties to agree to go to the CAS which, as we know, can take a couple of years to rule. By which time, emotions have cooled.

[Claymores]

Yup - but it's irrelevant because the BTC is explicitly included in the CVA anyway. Your analysis would govern any other monetary claims against Rangers that emerged after the CVA though.

I still find it hard to believe HMRC would agree to a CVA on these terms. Hard to see how accepting a artfully crafted lowball bid makes sense when the deterrent value of playing hardball to scare others into compliance is backed by a host of other factors. And that's before we even get to whether D&P's liquidation value is accurate (as opposed to defensible).

Aye right enough about the BTC - that's why the original proposition I was replying to doesn't apply at all - BTC, whilst unquantified, is listed in the CVA proposal and will form part of any agreement. I won't be dumped-upon them a second time after July 12.

Folk should also be aware that's why talk of 9p in the £ is noddy too - add in the potential upper amount of £74million from the BTC and it's really 4p

[7-2]

This could be an interesting turn.............

brian mclauchlin‏@BBCBMcLauchlinAn SPL chairman tells BBC Scotland there is an increased animosity towards Rangers after they take case to court of session. #BBCSportsound

12 point penalty it is then.

[ReasonableGeezer]

You may be right.

Of course, there is all kinds of cheating so lets not stop here.

It could be failure to pay wages or it could be a manager of club 1 (lets say Aston Villa) signing a player from a club 2 (lets say Celtic) for an inflated fee when he has a financial interest in club 2.

All hypothetical of course. But if we are serious about stopping cheating then lets have a root and branch clean-out.

Oh you mean like Mr Souness? (Might be a good idea to have a look at the RTC blog to see the Nuclear news). Your club are toxic. Biggest cheats ever to scourge our game, your whataboutery is just showing how arrogant you and your support are. Its time they were wiped off the football map permanently. If your club dying kills the SPL, then so be it. There's not a club in this country that will just "give up". It'd be the best thing to happen to the game in this country.

TIck Tock.

[Solitaire]

Nice.

I really hope all you biased, whinging , self-serving, jealous, bitter and hypocritical no-marks are raging about this.

And given your postings you are.

Words cannot express how much I despise almost of you and your small-minded, hypocritical nonsense regarding Rangers.

But to cheer you up:

It's nothing to do with FIFA: the SFA are in more bother than Rangers.

Rangers will receive the fine....not the suspension.

The SPL will delay till the CVA takes effect.

Rangers will be back fighting fit for the start of the season.

Oh it will happen.

Sickens you doesn't it....get used to it.

But:

The Rangers fans won't forget you miserable, spiteful and pathetic lot who call yourselves SPL fans.

We'll now let you rot just as you would have had us do.

It will happen.

And the irony is.....with all your pathetic crap about sanctions, relegations, punishments etc....

You'll have stuffed your own clubs.

You reap what you sow.

GIRUY!

Edited May 29, 2012 by Solitaire

[one m in Motherwell]

Indeed.

[GunnerBairn]

Nice.

I really hope all you biased, whinging , self-serving, jealous, bitter and hypocritical no-marks are raging about this.

And given your postings you are.

Words cannot express how much I despise almost of you and your small-minded, hypocritical nonsense regarding Rangers.

But to cheer you up:

It's nothing to do with FIFA: the SFA are in more bother than Rangers.

Rangers will receive the fine....not the suspension.

The SPL will delay till the CVA takes effect.

Rangers will be back fighting fit for the start of the season.

Oh it will happen.

Sickens you doesn't it....get used to it.

But:

The Rangers fans won't forget you miserable, spiteful and pathetic lot who call yourselves SPL fans.

We'll now let you rot just as you would have had us do.

It will happen.

And the irony is.....with all your pathetic crap about sanctions, relegations, punishments etc....

You'll have stuffed your own clubs.

You reap what you sow.

GIRUY!

Where the f**k do I even begin with this one.....

[No8.]

Telling someone that you know they're on the wind up is biting? You really are a clueless fucknugget!

And again :lol: