Homer Thompson Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 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. Yeah, I just went back and checked the CVA figures. I would be even more astonished, then, if the CVA went through. I always had my doubts about how Ticketus would vote, but if its all in the hands of HMRC then there are lots of reasons they would vote against, and not too many for them to vote for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 No. 8 is Alan Thompson? I can take all the other insults and the negative reps but that insult is totally over the top and uncalled for -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 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. a newco precedes liquidation. the point is to transfer the membership before the oldco goes entirely tits up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 No, The Bad House Apologies for the sloppy French. I was thinking "ill" but it looks like it could also be "wrong" or "poorly". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Still nothing on FIFAs latest statement to the Beeb...Nothing? Anybody? Why bother about the organ grinder when you have the monkey - the SFA - dealing with it. No doubt the organ grinder has a limit to its patience. Like yourself it will keep asking the monkey the right question - until it gets the right answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) a newco precedes liquidation. the point is to transfer the membership before the oldco goes entirely tits up. In that case, it cannot be a solvent reconstruction, as the old co is evidently insolvent. ETA: that was my 5000th post. Typically, it is probably as ill-informed and spurious as the other 4999 ETA#2: and my 600th green dot it would seem (cheers for that)! It is a day for milestones, so it is. Let's see what else this fine day might throw up! Edited June 6, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 In that case, it cannot be a solvent reconstruction, as the old is evidently insolvent. I would agree. However, I dont see why the newco couldnt go through under section a) of that rule - a change of legal form with the same owners 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 until it gets the right answer. I am not sure...I don't think a years ban from the Scottish Cup is sufficient punishment but hey ho. If you pay peanuts you get Regan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Yeah, I just went back and checked the CVA figures. I would be even more astonished, then, if the CVA went through. I always had my doubts about how Ticketus would vote, but if its all in the hands of HMRC then there are lots of reasons they would vote against, and not too many for them to vote for. HMRC would surely have more sway over a company that resorted to a CVA in the future? So by accepting it and allowing the club to run on they will be able to command future tax bills get paid on time with severe reprimands if not. Getting rid of a company that supplies £15million + in tax every year is probably not in their interests either. A newco, it could be argued, would not have the same restraints and history so the same problem could arise again and there would be little they could do until it got to this stage again. Not that i actually have a clue if this is right or not, but just seems logical. However nothing about this whole thing or HMRC is logical so most likely i am spouting pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoMaSano Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) I would agree. However, I dont see why the newco couldnt go through under section a) of that rule - a change of legal form with the same owners Part a) is to allow an unincorparated club becoming a limited company without sanctions. It wouldn't hold for transfering membership from one limited company to another. EDIT: At least that was my understanding of this rule, if this isn't the case then I probably shouldn't have posted it as it's not worth the paper it's written on. Edited June 6, 2012 by HanoMaSano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 In that case, it cannot be a solvent reconstruction, as the old co is evidently insolvent. it is a solvent restruction (newco) caused by an insolvency event (admin and pending liquidation). welshbairn is right that it can be either approved or refused by the board but the sfa and spl rules are near enough identical. section (b) definitely makes it possible for newco's to occur in the sfl. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellHappy Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 HMRC would surely have more sway over a company that resorted to a CVA in the future? So by accepting it and allowing the club to run on they will be able to command future tax bills get paid on time with severe reprimands if not. Getting rid of a company that supplies £15million + in tax every year is probably not in their interests either. A newco, it could be argued, would not have the same restraints and history so the same problem could arise again and there would be little they could do until it got to this stage again. Not that i actually have a clue if this is right or not, but just seems logical. However nothing about this whole thing or HMRC is logical so most likely i am spouting pish. I assume that HMRC have had time to look at the proposal in detail now. Why haven't they issued a statement yet? I want to hear them say: "After checking our calendar to confirm that it was not the 1st of April, and that this, believe it or not, is an actual proposal and not a pathetic joke, we would like to formally respond as follows. You are going to die. When you close down your corrupt and diseased oldco and set up an equally corrupt and diseased newco, we will be waiting. A new name will not protect you, one way or the other we will get you. You may manage a temporary stay of execution, but ultimately you are going to die. End of statement." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 No 75% of creditors must agree - 25% can veto. I know 75% can force things through, 25% plus can stop it just on a vote. Something is nipping at me which says that 20% can stop things if the value of their shares, or the value of their money they are owed is devalued by the votes of the other 80%. http://tinyurl.com/79n6nse is where Kevin Doyle ( a well known Edinburgh businessman) had 'less than 25%' of the shares and stopped a sale of the company shares going ahead. He won, and it sold eventually for much more. (think he made about £6million by winning the argument). Maybe someone more expert than me can clarify? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makepeace Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 i just wish theyd go bust..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 newco rangers to just simply be called "Glasgow F.C" imagine the seethe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 RTC poster reporting that all RFC(IA) shareholders called to a meeting at Ibrokes on Jun 14th to vote on one resolution - requirement of Insolvency Act that all shareholders must vote on liquidation proposal. Not looking too braw for that CVA, is it? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoMaSano Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) it is a solvent restruction (newco) caused by an insolvency event (admin and pending liquidation). A solvent reconstruction is essentially a de-merger of a solvent company into new companies prior to winding up the old company. An example could be a club splitting into football company, stadium company or some such. (it is certainly not the case in the Rangers situation) This is from memory, so if someone has a source with a more streamlined definition then post away. EDIT: It's a fairly common term and shows up in contract clauses regularly as something along the lines of: "contract will be considered void if either company goes into liquidation (except for solvent reconstruction or amalgamation)" ie. a merger or de-merger could cause the end in the liquidation of a company but not affect such contracts as they will carry on under the new company. Rangers are not performing a solvent reconstruction. Edited June 6, 2012 by HanoMaSano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I assume that HMRC have had time to look at the proposal in detail now. Why haven't they issued a statement yet? I want to hear them say: "After checking our calendar to confirm that it was not the 1st of April, and that this, believe it or not, is an actual proposal and not a pathetic joke, we would like to formally respond as follows. You are going to die. When you close down your corrupt and diseased oldco and set up an equally corrupt and diseased newco, we will be waiting. A new name will not protect you, one way or the other we will get you. You may manage a temporary stay of execution, but ultimately you are going to die. End of statement." problem is, as we have already seen, whoever it is that comes out and announces anything like this will be on the Rangers 'list'. I'd imagine they would look for political backing but none of those spineless creeps would get involved. The powers that be at HMRC are probably fighting over who gets this plonked on their desk and who will put their name to it. Some poor wee temp worker will be wheeled out trembling to deliver the final damning verdict. Think they have been clever not to get involved in the stramash , we have only heard from H&D about HMRC so so far i believe nothing. oooh sfa release here - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCR Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 oooh sfa release here - Well that was a bit of an anti-climax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Well that was a bit of an anti-climax A few more quid for us diddies will be welcome though.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.