Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[HanoMaSano]

£47m in EBT payments comes directly from rangers accounts as does approximately £231m in wage and salary payments from 2001 until 2010.

£47m tax free equates to around £85m gross (using income tax clculator) giving a saving of £38m

So, in total it still gives a saving of around 17% regardless of whether it went on player or director wages, it is still a saving on the overall wagebill.

Yes it's a saving on the overall wage bill, but I thought the discussion was about what punishment would be right and proper in terms of the double contract investigation.

While payments for directors and other club officials may be eventually deemed as taxable and HMRC will try and claim back that money. This has no impact on the degree to which Rangers cheated in terms of the SPL rules.

In any case I would agree with you that the statement that only a 6% saving was made seems in the wrong ballpark. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is a fairly common occurrence)

[Fife Saint]

Why are FIFA confirming this via fax? A little antiquated is it not? I can imagine the SFA blazers jumping out of their seats to huddle around the fax machine when it bleeps to indicate an incoming communication from HQ.

[Homer Thompson]

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?

That looks like an argument over shares, not a CVA. CVA is pretty clear, 75% by of unsecured creditors by debt value have to vote yes for it to go through.

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.

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.

So, if you are correct on both counts - and Ive no reason to assume you're not - then theres no way Green can transfer the SFA membership to his newco.

[stonedsailor]

• <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">#SFA recieved fax from FIFA today saying they are not breaching rules re #Rangers @BBCchrismclaug 16 minutes ago
• #Stewart Regan says it's down to #Rangers administrators to make sure the Charles Green is fit and proper person to run club.@BBCchrismclaug 17 minutes ago

Couple more tweets off BBC, the ruling about the clubs being responsible appears it will relate to Green taking over Rangers.

The first one really depends the what content the rest of the fax said from FIFA. of course they are not breaching rules as they haven't

done anything concrete yet. Ah well another non news day.

That first tweet reads as though the SFA are not breaching any rules, I thought No.8 was trying to tell us that the SFA were getting their erseholes reamed by FIFA for not having their house in order?

[Homer Thompson]

Yes it's a saving on the overall wage bill, but I thought the discussion was about what punishment would be right and proper in terms of the double contract investigation.

While payments for directors and other club officials may be eventually deemed as taxable and HMRC will try and claim back that money. This has no impact on the degree to which Rangers cheated in terms of the SPL rules.

In any case I would agree with you that the statement that only a 6% saving was made seems in the wrong ballpark. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is a fairly common occurrence)

It does, but only to the extent where the money saved on other salaries was used to fund player EBTs.

[T_S_A_R]

In any case I would agree with you that the statement that only a 6% saving was made seems in the wrong ballpark. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is a fairly common occurrence)

were the payments into the EBTs recorded as staff costs in the accounts?

[LanarkJag]

That first tweet reads as though the SFA are not breaching any rules, I thought No.8 was trying to tell us that the SFA were getting their erseholes reamed by FIFA for not having their house in order?

You are correct in your assumption. Someone has asked the question on his twitter account. The reply was that the comment is in relation to the SFA rather than Rangers.

[LanarkJag]

The AT will sit again when a panel can be assembled. Could be the same members sitting on the panel. From Chris McL's twitter

[blanco]

Yes it's a saving on the overall wage bill, but I thought the discussion was about what punishment would be right and proper in terms of the double contract investigation.

While payments for directors and other club officials may be eventually deemed as taxable and HMRC will try and claim back that money. This has no impact on the degree to which Rangers cheated in terms of the SPL rules.

In any case I would agree with you that the statement that only a 6% saving was made seems in the wrong ballpark. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is a fairly common occurrence)

The whole purpose of the EBT's was to allow greater spending on the playing squad and directly impacts on the extent of their cheating.

The only point i was making was that 6% was a gross underestimate.

[Bobby_F]

That first tweet reads as though the SFA are not breaching any rules, I thought No.8 was trying to tell us that the SFA were getting their erseholes reamed by FIFA for not having their house in order?

Indeed it does.

You could read it as FIFA saying that they thought the SFA were quite within their rights as a football organisation to apply whatever sanctions they saw fit to one of their member clubs - including, say, a 12 month transfer embargo.

That would be consistent with FIFA's public position on non-football courts.

[Ivo den Bieman]

We'll rocket past 1690 pages well before the fresh AT, at this rate. Some of the CVA chat has been really interesting in the last few pages tho'.

[HanoMaSano]

So, if you are correct on both counts - and Ive no reason to assume you're not - then theres no way Green can transfer the SFA membership to his newco.

No, the rules I quoted was from the SFL. (ie. the diddy Irn Bru leagues)

I wasn't saying that it would affect Rangers, I was just pointing out that I thought that the rules they have with regards transfer of share were better than the SFA or the SPL.

Sorry for the confusion!!

[stonedsailor]

You are correct in your assumption. Someone has asked the question on his twitter account. The reply was that the comment is in relation to the SFA rather than Rangers.

Well I'd say that is not non news as the op alluded to, it's quite important in the grand scheme considering Rangers' and their fans have been bleating about SFA procedures.

[stonedsailor]

Indeed it does.

You could read it as FIFA saying that they thought the SFA were quite within their rights as a football organisation to apply whatever sanctions they saw fit to one of their member clubs - including, say, a 12 month transfer embargo.

That would be consistent with FIFA's public position on non-football courts.

Not sure we can read that deeply into it until the SFA give us more info.

[HanoMaSano]

were the payments into the EBTs recorded as staff costs in the accounts?

I've not read Rangers accounts, maybe there someone else on here that has more info.

The whole purpose of the EBT's was to allow greater spending on the playing squad and directly impacts on the extent of their cheating.

The only point i was making was that 6% was a gross underestimate.

A fact I agreed with, I put it closer to 14%.

I just think including director payments in the calculations kind of muddied the water.

Either way they're cheating bandits!

[Homer Thompson]

No, the rules I quoted was from the SFL. (ie. the diddy Irn Bru leagues)

I wasn't saying that it would affect Rangers, I was just pointing out that I thought that the rules they have with regards transfer of share were better than the SFA or the SPL.

Sorry for the confusion!!

Ooops

[killingfloorman]

If we can't lock the thread on page 1690, I suggest that the whole page be reserved for posts that only contain the following words:

Die R*angers Die

We can then lock the thread on page 1872

[squidger]

Is there not some kind of meeting between the Green and assorted fans groups today, to discussing his long-term 'plan' for Rangers?

Could be fireworks yet...

yey all is not lost, was just reading up on that, about RFFF wanting to get clarity before saying ST sales should be deemed ok by them.

This brings back the question of ticketus though who probably thought the idea of ST sales where futile 6 weeks ago and would the launch

another legal battle to claim those particular monies as theirs?

Any Rangers fan that buys a ST and gets burnt really should have a good long look at themselves.

[welshbairn]

Is there not some kind of meeting between the Green and assorted fans groups today, to discussing his long-term 'plan' for Rangers?

Could be fireworks yet...

Green will offer Fatty Dingbat a place on the board and unlimited pies, and will be declared a true and loyal bluenose..

[Happy Buddie]

No, the rules I quoted was from the SFL. (ie. the diddy Irn Bru leagues)

I wasn't saying that it would affect Rangers, I was just pointing out that I thought that the rules they have with regards transfer of share were better than the SFA or the SPL.

Sorry for the confusion!!

I'm just waiting for the Irn Bru ad which rips the p1$h out of the SPL (or RFC mibbe) given their habit of slightly controversial campaigns. I remember with fondness they had a big blonde running starkers round Love Street for one.