Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[huckleberry]

@BBCAlLamont: Charles Green: "We are buying this club on Thursday whether Mr King likes it or not."

Boom!

Rangers shareholders are having a meeting right after the CVA meeting. I'll wager HMRC has the liquidators in before Green gets his hands on the club.

[Claymores]

@BBCAlLamont: Charles Green: "We are buying this club on Thursday whether Mr King likes it or not."

Boom!

The latest Paul McC blog suggests otherwise - he seemed convinced that HMRC had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent H&D simply flogging the assets to Green on the quiet.

http://scotslawthoug...pril/#more-1256

Asset Sale to Newco – This is believed by many to be the actual preferred route, if not of D&P, then of Mr Green. For one, it is cheaper and gives more of a chance to dump the penalties liable to be imposed on oldco.

This though is where it gets tricky. On one view Resolutions 17.1.4 and 17.1.8 are inconsistent.

Taking the latter first, I think 17.1.8 only applies to give D&P authority to sell the assets without further consultation, if a CVA has been agreed successfully. If not, then there is no authority under 17.1.8 to sell the assets and business without creditor consent.

What about 17.1.4 though? It states, read with the preamble attached:-

“The Joint Administrators propose the following – that the Joint Administrators can explore any and all options available to realise the assets of the Company without recourse to creditors. The Joint Administrators be authorised to conclude a sale of the whole, or part of the business, property and assets of the Company without having to obtain the sanction of the Company’s creditors at further creditors meetings, upon such terms as the Joint Administrators deem fit and they be authorised to liaise with all relevant parties, bodies or organisations which they deem relevant for achieving that purpose.”

Does this make sense? The second sentence in the paragraph is key. On one reading, which involves running that sentence on from the preamble, it does authorise the Joint Administrators to conclude a sale. However, the plain reading of the paragraph suggests that something has been missed out, or that the clause has been framed very badly. There are typographical errors elsewhere in the document. There could be one here.

In addition, if D&P are authorised to sell assets etc if a CVA has been approved, as per 17.1.8, why would that clause be needed if they had the power to sell anyway?

I think that HMRC has taken the view that clause 17.1.4 is uncertain and therefore void. If D&P attempt to carry through a sale to Mr Green, who is now the only show in town, under that clause, I suspect that HMRC will be at court to stop it in a flash.

Therefore, without further approval by creditors, I submit that D&P have lost the power to conclude a sale to Mr Green.

I have seen a discussion ongoing on Twitter re this issue. I think I can clarify matters. (I hope).

The plan of Craig Whyte, as revealed by me, involved an asset sale AND A CVA OF THE EXISTING COMPANY. That was Bill Miller’s plan. It is perfectly possible that Mr Green wants to pursue some version of this, in the event that the “original” CVA fails. I believe that a pure asset sale to a newco does require creditor approval.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Claymores

[P45]

Green is assuming that, because he hasn't heard from HMRC, they are going to accept the CVA.

What a fruitloop.

Maybe he is hoping that with the amount of time HMRC have taken with this they've forgotten about them.

[No8.]

No. Wrong. "only match fixingin its various forms might be a more serious breach"

Totally different from "the panel consider this a more serious crime".

So the panel can whack them with whatever they want as long as it is on the list.

FFS...I already said they can use ANY punishment within the rules. I cant see how they can throw Rangers out the game for a less serious offence than match fixing when other clubs have been relegated around Europe for match fixing

[T_S_A_R]

Let's go back to the original point because I think we are getting crossed wires here.

The only way Rangers can dispute any sanction from the appellate now, which is taken from the well documented possible sanctions, would be to appeal that Lord Glennie's decision to send the matter back to the appellate is wrong and the matter should be sent back to the original disciplinary panel. Rangers only have 21 days from the date of Lord Glennie's statement of decision to do this. If, as we are led to believe and has been reported, the SFA wait until after the 21 days have expired then Rangers are bound by law to accept the appellate's decision, there would be no return to the CoS.

i don' think this is correct. they only went to court about the panel setting their own punishment. challenging other aspects is still open.

if they have a document from the panel saying expulsion/suspension is too harsh and they get that as punishment regardless then they would be able to go back to court to argue that the panel's findings have been contradicted.

again i think the fact that the sfa's own qc made this argument is telling.

[chico]

The latest Paul McC blog suggests otherwise - he seemed convinced that HMRC had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent H&D simply flogging the assets to Green on the quiet.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/duff-phelps-finally-release-the-results-of-the-creditors-meeting-on-20-april/#more-1256

I think it'll be an interesting weekend

Counter salvo due from King.

[WaffenThinMint]

Well Mr Kennedy has a few quid. Buying Dunfermline is not that expensive compared to buying out Rangers. A few years as Dunfermline Rangers then a move to Glasgow. 12000 every home game and the whole thing becomes more managable.

Greens Rangers wont last if it even happens.

Yeah. With Jim Leishman as the current Provost Of Fife, it will be an absolute cinche to get through.

Quite aside from the SFA and SFL would not tolerate it, the locals would string them up from the lampposts if they came within 10 feet of East End Park - Dunfermline are no Clydebank.

Even Leggo on his tenth bottle of supermarket whisky wouldn't come out with an idea as ludicrous as this one.

[No8.]

Let's go back to the original point because I think we are getting crossed wires here.

The only way Rangers can dispute any sanction from the appellate now, which is taken from the well documented possible sanctions, would be to appeal that Lord Glennie's decision to send the matter back to the appellate is wrong and the matter should be sent back to the original disciplinary panel. Rangers only have 21 days from the date of Lord Glennie's statement of decision to do this. If, as we are led to believe and has been reported, the SFA wait until after the 21 days have expired to reconvene the appellate panel then Rangers are bound by law to accept the appellate's decision, there would be no return to the CoS.

I suppose we could always go to the court of arbitration

[blanco]

They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough.

Under what basis?, any of those punishments are eligible for bringing the game into disrepute. Do you honestly think they would see the inside of the court room if they actually get handed a punishment that is prescribed within the rules.

[stonedsailor]

i don' think this is correct. they only went to court about the panel setting their own punishment. challenging other aspects is still open.

if they have a document from the panel saying expulsion/suspension is too harsh and they get that as punishment regardless then they would be able to go back to court to argue that the panel's findings have been contradicted.

again i think the fact that the sfa's own qc made this argument is telling.

Lord Glennie has stated that the appellate should deal with the matter and he quoted the appellate's view that the sanction of suspension would have to be considered in the context of lesser sanctions being unavailable ergo he has given the appellate the green light to use such a sanction and the only way RFC can dispute this in the CoS is to appeal Lord Glennie's decision to send the matter to the appellate and not the disciplinary panel.

ETA Lord Glennie was quite specific about the SFA making set punishments for the offence being the crux of his decision basically saying there is no point in specifying them if they can use other punishments, by the same argument there is no point in Lord Glennie quoting the appellate unless he found it to be significant in the case, Lord Glennie also stated that when the SFA's QC used the telling argument you are stuck on that he was incorrect in that argument.

Edited June 8, 2012 by stonedsailor

[chico]

@BBCAlLamont: Asked whether he'd had any indication from HMRC as to how they'll vote on CVA: "They've had document for over a week. Each day that passes..

@BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now."

<chico rubs hands>

Boom!

[stonedsailor]

I suppose we could always go to the court of arbitration

Okay, maybe not the only way.

[mozam76]

@BBCAlLamont: Asked whether he'd had any indication from HMRC as to how they'll vote on CVA: "They've had document for over a week. Each day that passes..

@BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now."

<chico rubs hands>

Boom!

Wait a minute - I thought he'd already "had the nod"??

[chico]

@BBCAlLamont: CG: Any season ticket money goes into secure account, which I and admin can't touch. But that money will be used to run club, as is normal.

[Mr Waldo]

@BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now."

Rangers have consistently ripped the P out of HMRC for years, especially over the last year - they are still doing it.

If you were HMRC - what would you do?

[P45]

@BBCAlLamont: Asked whether he'd had any indication from HMRC as to how they'll vote on CVA: "They've had document for over a week. Each day that passes..

@BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now."

<chico rubs hands>

Boom!

To be fair to Green I would like HMRC would tell everyone now as well.

Has anyone even opened their 3p in the £ CVA letter?

[Claymores]

@BBCAlLamont: Asked whether he'd had any indication from HMRC as to how they'll vote on CVA: "They've had document for over a week. Each day that passes..

@BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now."

<chico rubs hands>

Boom!

You have to laff at Green - if HMRC haven't specifically said "no" (earlier than they need to), then that must mean "yes" - Triffic logic!

[jambopompey]

@BBCAlLamont: CG: Any season ticket money goes into secure account, which I and admin can't touch. But that money will be used to run club, as is normal.

so that would mean that the £500K that is due to Hearts in July will be paid in full then.......

[T_S_A_R]

Lord Glennie has stated that the appellate should deal with the matter and he quoted the appellate's view that the sanction of suspension would have to be considered in the context of lesser sanctions being unavailable ergo he has given the appellate the green light to use such a sanction and the only way RFC can dispute this in the CoS is to appeal Lord Glennie's decision to send the matter to the appellate and not the disciplinary panel.

legally they are only dealing with one aspect at the moment. challenging the punishment chosen is still open to them.

glennie gave no opinion on whether suspension or expulsion could be challenged legally. quoting the appellate tribunal was to tell the sfa qc that he was contradicting his own evidence. glennie says 'does not neccesarily' which means they might not get a more lenient punishment but also that they might.

i think that people who are hoping to see a 12 month temporary punishment replaced with a terminal punishment are going to be disapointed.

[thelegendthatis]

i don' think this is correct. they only went to court about the panel setting their own punishment. challenging other aspects is still open.

if they have a document from the panel saying expulsion/suspension is too harsh (you making this up as you go along?) and they get that as punishment regardless then they would be able to go back to court to argue that the panel's findings have been contradicted.

again i think the fact that the sfa's own qc made this argument is telling.

Again logical fallacies all over the shop.

Read this . Please