Jambomo Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 D&P could liquidate the assets prior to liquidating the company. Rangers Newco 2012 (Paul Murray, Dave King or whoever) could buy the assets (Murray Park and Ibrox, players' registrations) without the debts. Paul Murray's group could get a new company set up.... Glasgow Rangers Football Club 2012 PLC? The Newco can apply for Associate Membership of the SFA. Not a problem. They will also have to apply to the SFA for licence. Despite the SFA rules say that 3 years accounts are required they would just say 'Not trading'..... Licence issued. The Newco then applies to the SPL to have the SPL share transferred to the Newco. Requires approval of SPL Board following consideration by the clubs. Money talks and very nervous Chairmen give it the nod...... Share transferred. All of this needs tobe carried out before Rangers Football Club PLC is necessarily liquidated. It may be that if the Newco plays at Ibrox they could still get involved in Ticketus litigation. So they may decide to play at Hampden until season 2015-2016 What could emerge is a profitable and substantially debt free Rangers with same ground, strip and history. Simple? I think that the tax man can go after the new club as well, so they might not be away that easily. Apparently Duff & Duffer go to court tomorrow to get a hold of Whytes £3-odd million stashed away with Collyer Bristow, i wonder if that is what they have been stalling for because they definatly have been stalling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Bit more clarity from Duffman here.. http://www.rangerstv.tv/ This amuses me slightly The Rangers Football Club plc (In Administration) ("the Company") The affairs, business and property of the Company are being managed by the Joint Administrators, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, who act as agents of the Company and without personal liability. They are both licensed by the Insolvency Practitioners Association. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 D&P could liquidate the assets prior to liquidating the company. Rangers Newco 2012 (Paul Murray, Dave King or whoever) could buy the assets (Murray Park and Ibrox, players' registrations) without the debts. Paul Murray's group could get a new company set up.... Glasgow Rangers Football Club 2012 PLC? And HMRC are powerless to recoup shit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 The B-side to Mistletoe and Wine I believe I think Mistletoe & Wine are replacing Duff & Phelps next week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 D&P could liquidate the assets prior to liquidating the company. Rangers Newco 2012 (Paul Murray, Dave King or whoever) could buy the assets (Murray Park and Ibrox, players' registrations) without the debts. Paul Murray's group could get a new company set up.... Glasgow Rangers Football Club 2012 PLC? The Newco can apply for Associate Membership of the SFA. Not a problem. They will also have to apply to the SFA for licence. Despite the SFA rules say that 3 years accounts are required they would just say 'Not trading'..... Licence issued. The Newco then applies to the SPL to have the SPL share transferred to the Newco. Requires approval of SPL Board following consideration by the clubs. Money talks and very nervous Chairmen give it the nod...... Share transferred. All of this needs to be carried out before Rangers Football Club PLC is necessarily liquidated. It may be that if the Newco plays at Ibrox they could still get involved in Ticketus litigation. So they may decide to play at Hampden until season 2015-2016 What could emerge is a profitable and substantially debt free Rangers with same ground, strip and history. Simple? Unacceptable. The HMRC can pursue the continuation company, if what I understand is correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Playing at Hampden isn't simple as SFL & SPL clubs can't share a grun That's not actually true IIRC: they just have to possess primacy of tenure (that's what tripped-up Falkirk IIRC). However, in practical terms, Hampden would be difficult as it's closed late 2013 into 2015. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) Playing at Hampden isn't simple as SFL & SPL clubs can't share a grun - so that part is maybe a step too far. They could share Parkhead though That isn't the rule. The rule says the SPL club has to have "primacy of tenure" or something to that effect. If they could secure a first call lease on Hampden (which is not owned by Queens Park let us remember) then they'd be allowed in. Even if they couldn't it's not a situation that couldn't be worked around. The proximity of Dens and Tannadice means that regardless of each club having a separate ground, the SPL and SFL have to interact with fixtures. It could be done again if it wasall that stood between the SPL and Rangers being lost to it. It's far more likely that a deal would be struck to use Ibrox anyway. It's in nobody's interest for it to lie idle whilst a reformed Rangers play elsewhere. Edited March 7, 2012 by Skyline Drifter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Hampden? We'll let them play at Love Street. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Unacceptable. The HMRC can pursue the continuation company, if what I understand is correct. Is there a legal definition of what constitutes a continuation company, out of interest? E.g. if for sake of argument Paul Murray and his consortium bought certain assets currently belonging to Rangers - why would they be pursued for the tax liabilities of the company they bought the assets from...? Would courts have to decide to what degree it was "the same company" reconstructed for tax-avoiding purposes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Bit more clarity from Duffman here.. http://www.rangerstv.tv/ Wonder how much it costs to keep running this and paying for the staff. Should have been cut right away IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's not actually true IIRC: they just have to possess primacy of tenure (that's what tripped-up Falkirk IIRC). However, in practical terms, Hampden would be difficult as it's closed late 2013 into 2015. why is it closed ? are they tarting the old slut up again ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 why is it closed ? are they tarting the old slut up again ? A wee event planned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 why is it closed ? are they tarting the old slut up again ? It's being used for the commonwealth games 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's not actually true IIRC: they just have to possess primacy of tenure (that's what tripped-up Falkirk IIRC). However, in practical terms, Hampden would be difficult as it's closed late 2013 into 2015. No, what they said is that an SPL club can't share with an SFL club, becuase it's two different organisations, with two different sets of fixtures, so the groundsharing SPL club can never have primacy of tenure. Which is why ICT were able to share with Aberdeen a year later. They didn't have primacy of tenure of course. Aberdeen did. But because both were under the same SPL umbrella that was fine. It was a fudge. Let's be honest though, the reason we weren't allowed to share with Airdrie was absolutely nothing to do with primacy of tenure. That was just a bullshit excuse not to promote us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Is there a legal definition of what constitutes a continuation company, out of interest? E.g. if for sake of argument Paul Murray and his consortium bought certain assets currently belonging to Rangers - why would they be pursued for the tax liabilities of the company they bought the assets from...? Would courts have to decide to what degree it was "the same company" reconstructed for tax-avoiding purposes? And if this had to be done pre-liquidation, would this include assets such as the Big Hoose etc, which would go to the creditors? So any owner of a Newco would need a shedload to buy what they would need to continue in any 'meaningful' way.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditots Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's not actually true IIRC: they just have to possess primacy of tenure (that's what tripped-up Falkirk IIRC). However, in practical terms, Hampden would be difficult as it's closed late 2013 into 2015. You beat me this time. It's odd how many times in the last few days you and I have posted almost exactly the same thing within seconds of one another! I'd forgotten about Hampden being shut too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No, what they said is that an SPL club can't share with an SFL club, becuase it's two different organisations, with two different sets of fixtures, so the groundsharing SPL club can never have primacy of tenure. Which is why ICT were able to share with Aberdeen a year later. They didn't have primacy of tenure of course. Aberdeen did. But because both were under the same SPL umbrella that was fine. It was a fudge. Let's be honest though, the reason we weren't allowed to share with Airdrie was absolutely nothing to do with primacy of tenure. That was just a bullshit excuse not to promote us. Inverness ground shared for a limited period whilst their seats were put in. It wasn't as long as a season. Falkirk as usual were at it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Inverness ground shared for a limited period whilst their seats were put in. It wasn't as long as a season. It was half a season. And only because they won an appeal to move back once the stadium was ready despite initially agreeing to share for a year and they were allowed to move back once they had played everybody once at Pittodrie. The SPL considered it would have been unfair on clubs who faced two games at Inverness rather than one at Inverness and one in Aberdeen so would only let them move at the halfway point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's being used for the commonwealth games ah of course...I'd forgotten. cheers 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.