Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[HanoMaSano]

Really? I thought ticketus and them were owed broadly similar amounts not including the BTC

They are, ticketus are owed a bit more actually.

However, they are both owed more than 25% of the total amount.

Hence both hold a veto over the vote as 75% is required for the CVA to pass.

Basically all the small fry's mean hee-haw with regards to the CVA passing, as is fairly often the case.

[HanoMaSano]

What - so if an unincorparated SFL club decides to become a limited company, or another club for one reason or another wants to conduct a solvent restructuring, they'd need to quit the league and spend a year entirely out of football ? Catch-alls are avoided for the very reason that they, often unfairly, catch-all.

I actually quite like the SFL's rule on a transfer of membership:

13. MEMBERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRABLE

Membership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be

transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form

(whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise

where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially

identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the

purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board

upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the

proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of

considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant

same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

EDIT: Reading it closer. While the gist of the rule is good and would hold up with regards creating a newco to ditch debts, I do question the wording of "substantially identical" which is unclear and actually a bit of a contradiction.

Edited June 6, 2012 by HanoMaSano

[Florentine_Pogen]

re Leggo:

What the hell is an 'unreconstructed Celtic fan'?

I was thinking about this. Perhaps Leggo is advocating Conversion Therapy, just replace homosexual / homosexuality with Catholic / Catholicism.

Conversion therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is a type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual.[1] Conversion therapy has been a source of intense controversy in the United States and other countries.[2] The American Psychiatric Association states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[3] The most high-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be conservative Christian groups and other religious organizations.[4] The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); however, NARTH often partners with religious groups.[4]

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Nice, also quite like the Sham (1)69(0) for the Green Brigade suggested above

Listening to 5 Live this morning, and the shenanigans going on at Cardiff - basically, Malay investor says "fair enough, I'll put in 100 million (or whatever). That makes the club my toy, and my toy will be playing in red next season, with a new Dragon badge to symbolise good fortune."

Wouldn't it be brilliant to win Euromillions, buy the currants, deck them out in green and change the badge to a harp?

Also, on the spread-related Newco names: Just Wanchors.

[DXBBud]

We either need to speed up or slow down the rate of posting on this thread to make sure the hammer finally falls on Rankers on Page 1690.

Will that be at 2.35pm today when the SFA announce that they are to suspend the h**s for a year, thus triggering the exodus of players and hastening Green's loss of interest in actually going through with his crack-pot scheme, or will it be at some undefined point in the future when another milestone in the demise of one half of one of the most odious double acts in history is reached?

Edited June 6, 2012 by DXBBud

[Fife Saint]

What's wrong with Silver Sands and a tournament with some junior clubs in Ayrshire?

Coupled with the recent stay at Dunblane Hydro, before their match in Perth, this is galling.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Fife Saint

[MEADOWXI]

See, it's no just me. There's that German thing kicking in again. And where are they going for their pre-extermination, sorry, pre-season tour? Hvns. I rest my case.

Is the tour not being called the Stefan Klos Memorial East Bavarian Tour, or Stefan Klos Memorial EBT for short.

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

What's wrong with Silver Sands and a tournament with some junior clubs in Ayrshire?

Coupled with the recent stay at Dunblane Hydro, before their match in Perth, this is galling.

They managed to limited themselves to Malmaison when they stayed in Edinburgh. Budget-tastic.

[Homer Thompson]

Well quite, but if someone's already in a position where they're thinking of selling to someone not fit-n-proper, will that particularly bother them?

I'm just thinking of this in Murray<>Whyte terms... would it have changed anything? Arguable.

That is the flaw, obviously. However, in Rangers case, there were plenty on the existing BoD who were against Whytes takeover and who would have refused to sign anything approving him as the new buyer.

It clearly CAN'T be achieved, though - nobody with even a passing acquaintance with their marbles thinks the CVA will be approved. Even if you think there's a chance it can, D&P's contingency planning seems to be a clear breach of their responsibilities - if the CVA fails, Rangers' assets must be worth more than £5.5m, so the plan to sell them to Green for that figure is a huge failure in their duties. It would result in a return of zero for the creditors, so a fire sale would likely be a better option, and in any event can't possibly be a worse one.

I wouldnt disagree. However, D&P thinks it can and none of the creditors have, yet, challenged it

HMRC are already owed enough to veto the CVA by themselves, regardless of the BTC outcome.

Are you sure? Last time I checked the figures they had just 0ver 20% of the debt. That may have been against D&Ps earlier "projections" though

I actually quite like the SFL's rule on a transfer of membership:

13. MEMBERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRABLE

Membership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be

transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form

(whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise

where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially

identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the

purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board

upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the

proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of

considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant

same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

EDIT: Reading it closer. While the gist of the rule is good and would hold up with regards creating a newco to ditch debts, I do question the wording of "substantially identical" which is unclear and actually a bit of a contradiction.

I think the important part of the rule, is that whatever the reason for transfer, it has to get SFA board approval

[T_S_A_R]

I actually quite like the SFL's rule on a transfer of membership:

13. MEMBERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRABLE

Membership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be

transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form

(whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise

where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially

identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the

purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board

upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the

proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of

considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant

same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

EDIT: Reading it closer. While the gist of the rule is good and would hold up with regards creating a newco to ditch debts, I do question the wording of "substantially identical" which is unclear and actually a bit of a contradiction.

part b allows newco

[Drooper]

Can the SFA AGM actually make a decision as to what sanction Ragners will now face?

I thought it had to go back to the appeal panel.

[Drooper]

part b allows newco

Would the newco be a 'solvent reconstruction'? Whatever that means.

ETA: surely a newco would follow liquidation, in which case it wouldn't be a reconstruction at all, but an entirely....well....new co.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Drooper

[Happy Buddie]

Would the newco be a 'solvent reconstruction'? Whatever that means.

Don't let Leggo see that. He'll have it down as an unreconstructed solvent reconstruction.

[Claymores]

Are you sure? Last time I checked the figures they had just 0ver 20% of the debt. That may have been against D&Ps earlier "projections" though

Total debt to HMRC as expressed in the CVA proposal is approx £21m out out a grand total of £56m (about 37%).

Either HMRC or Ticketus can blow it away.

[HanoMaSano]

Well quite, but if someone's already in a position where they're thinking of selling to someone not fit-n-proper, will that particularly bother them?

I'm just thinking of this in Murray<>Whyte terms... would it have changed anything? Arguable.

Wouldn't have made any difference to what happened, but would have changed where the blame was placed.

I think this is just the SFA making it clear "If you want to sell to a dodgy b@stard, go ahead. Just nobody gets to blame us when it all goes pete tong"

[Hipster Dufus]

They managed to limited themselves to Malmaison when they stayed in Edinburgh. Budget-tastic.

The Sick House!

[Bobby_F]

Oh right

So no comments about the Mass hysteria on here and the various blogs about all clubs being thrown out of Eiropean Competition...The Scotland team thrown out of the World cup.

It was commneted on that FIFA had put Regan and the SFA straight on their disciplinary procedures.

Good stuff...Sorry i missed that humble pie feast.

Hmmm.

I don't think anyone ever thought that FIFA were going to arrive in Glasgow with a bunch of heavies at this stage.

What people were expecting was FIFA to tell the SFA what their responsibilities were, and that they were aware of the situation.

I took from the statement that the FIFA had done precisely that.

So I've no idea why you're getting your Union Flag Boxers in a twist over this as if there's been some kind of conclusion and FIFA have said they're not bothered what Rangers and the SFA do?

Strange person.

[Happy Buddie]

The Sick House!

No, The Bad House

[stonedsailor]

Tweeting on BBS Sportsound page that SFA passed a rule to require an investigation into prospective mew owners for a club.

Who the fcuk left that stable door open?

Not sure the horse has bolted yet, the sale of Rangers to the Green Brigade has not yet completed. Shrewd move by the SFA, if they suffer any lossses due to clubs being sold to incompetant people the club could be held responsible, it would stop the fans greeting that the SFA never protected their club from 'billionaires' only taking cash out of their club without putting any in.

[welshbairn]

part b allows newco

The Board may refuse such application or grant

same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.