Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Captain Neutral]

I am so bored with the whole shenanigans down Ibrox way. This could be a watershed moment for Scottish football. Liquidate Rangers and demote them to the Third Division. TV money will disappear, but we're all in a recession and a bit of reality wouldn't go amiss in the rarified atmosphere of Planet SPL. Perhaps clubs would benefit from having all their games at 3pm on a Saturday, and cater for the paying public, rather than pay them lip service while being dictated to by the satellite broadcasters? Remember how the basic terraces would heave in the 'bad old days' before the Taylor Report cosmetically transformed British football, but not necessarily for the good of the game in Scotland?

Okay, Celtic may as well keep all the trophies for the immediate future, but their supporters will tire of being unopposed and they will eventually have to either go and play somewhere else or, maybe, just give more chances to young Scottish players. This may benefit the National team as the playing field literally becomes leveled and more indigenous youth comes through.

We can but dream…

Edited April 5, 2012 by Captain Neutral

[killingfloorman]

If HMRC are currently owed 15 million and that ISN'T 25%+ of current debt, then debt currently stands at > £60 million. (This is certainly conceivable if Ticketus are to be considered a creditor, otherwise it'd be a bit "How the f**k...."?)

This means that total debt after the BTC is determined could be in a worst case scenario easily > £100 million.

For HMRC to agree to a CVA in that scenario, what would it need to look like? A bid of £10 million would mean HMRC would need to be accepting < 10p in the pound (these are obviously very rough and rudimentary calculations, and don't consider eg paying the administrator fees on top, or indeed paying anything for the shares to own the club too). Is this a likely outcome? If not, what would be needed to "buy Rangers" including a CVA and an agreement to buy the shares from Whyte?

If it is not worst case scenario, there is no liability from the big tax case and HMRC still holds >25% of the debt, then we can assume debt is < £60 million. An offer of £10 million to a CVA still only gives 17p in the pound if debt is even that high. Would that be acceptable to HMRC? In other football club CVAs has anyone ever offered anything like that number?

If HMRC can block a CVA now, you would assume a CVA can't be done before the BTC result is known. Even if they can't block it, you would assume it is daft to carry out a CVA knowing that it could be scuppered by the result of the BTC.

The position of HMRC here seems to determine everything about what will happen. Unless HMRC are willing to "do a deal" and take much less than they're owed if they win the tax case, a CVA just doesn't seem likely.

Even a generous CVA would cost a lot of money. It will be interesting to discover how much debt there actually is, how much of it is owed to the tax man, and how much money is actually involved in these bids, before any money can even be invested in the club itself.

Thank you, you articulated my doubts! Even if Ticketus accepted a CVA (and continued participation in order to get their money back through other means) and Whyte was to disappear (how?), I still don't see how the HMRC goes away.

If they do, i would hope and expect that every other club immediately begins to run up multi million pound tax debts and then tells the govt to fcuk off. Thereby at least creating a level playing field.

[DensDerry80]

If HMRC are currently owed 15 million and that ISN'T 25%+ of current debt, then debt currently stands at > £60 million. (This is certainly conceivable if Ticketus are to be considered a creditor, otherwise it'd be a bit "How the f**k...."?)

This means that total debt after the BTC is determined could be in a worst case scenario easily > £100 million.

For HMRC to agree to a CVA in that scenario, what would it need to look like? A bid of £10 million would mean HMRC would need to be accepting < 10p in the pound (these are obviously very rough and rudimentary calculations, and don't consider eg paying the administrator fees on top, or indeed paying anything for the shares to own the club too). Is this a likely outcome? If not, what would be needed to "buy Rangers" including a CVA and an agreement to buy the shares from Whyte?

If it is not worst case scenario, there is no liability from the big tax case and HMRC still holds >25% of the debt, then we can assume debt is < £60 million. An offer of £10 million to a CVA still only gives 17p in the pound if debt is even that high. Would that be acceptable to HMRC? In other football club CVAs has anyone ever offered anything like that number?

If HMRC can block a CVA now, you would assume a CVA can't be done before the BTC result is known. Even if they can't block it, you would assume it is daft to carry out a CVA knowing that it could be scuppered by the result of the BTC.

The position of HMRC here seems to determine everything about what will happen. Unless HMRC are willing to "do a deal" and take much less than they're owed if they win the tax case, a CVA just doesn't seem likely.

Even a generous CVA would cost a lot of money. It will be interesting to discover how much debt there actually is, how much of it is owed to the tax man, and how much money is actually involved in these bids, before any money can even be invested in the club itself.

Thanks for clearing that up.

rangers are in a far worse state than before whyte took over and no one wanted to touch them then, HMRC will not ever agree to a CVA as that sets them up for being screwed silly by everyone in future,

however liquidation and starting again would attract plenty interest surely, as long as you keep the ground most of the name and the bigotry you would still get 40000 hingers on.

The writing is on the wall imo.

job done liquidate the cuntos tomorrow please, on top of a hill preferably we can then throw eggs at them on sunday!

[Baxter Parp]

I suppose if you added Whyte's "£30m of guarantees" it would add up to about £80m or thereabouts. That's if they exist.

Which all ignores the big tax case, of course.

[the jambo-rocker]

For completely unbiased reasons, I would love West Brom to sign Naismith for £25m, but for Rangers to go bust anyway a few days later. Not sure why that appeals to me so much.

(H)add-on a minute here...

[Colin M]

The thing that I totally forgot to mention above is that as well as owning the shares, Craig Whyte supposedly "paid off" the bank by merely transferring the debt to himself. Should we then assume that he (or his company) are owed 18 million plus? If so then the debt pot just now if Ticketus are included could easily be over 60 million.

I guess the Blue Knights have already got rid of the Ticketus problem in that respect - so Whyte's own position is also key along with HMRC.

[Macshimmy]

The position of HMRC here seems to determine everything about what will happen. Unless HMRC are willing to "do a deal" and take much less than they're owed if they win the tax case, a CVA just doesn't seem likely.

Here are HMRC's guidelines.

They rejected 20p in the pound CVA at Portsmouth as "unacceptably low"

[MEADOWXI]

Here are HMRC's guidelines.

They rejected 20p in the pound CVA at Portsmouth as "unacceptably low"

Good - That means if HMRC accept less than that, whilst in a position to block a CVA (I cannot see how the have less than 25% of debt) then Portsmouth would have a field day. They would take HMRC to court for unfair treatment (sure there is a fancier legal term for it) and it would just be too messy to justify.

[Colin M]

I suppose if you added Whyte's "£30m of guarantees" it would add up to about £80m or thereabouts. That's if they exist.

Which all ignores the big tax case, of course.

Yeah - actually my £60 million might well be well below the current total! The BTC would then become critical in determining the cards that HMRC hold.

If we're talking that kind of money and HMRC are in any kind of position of strength, liquidation just seems not only inevitable but almost the best option for everyone involved.

[7-2]

Do you think you would fill your ground if you make the CL qualifiying pre qualifying round? I hope you lot make it ahead of United that would be unbearable, Lorraine would have a wide-on for weeks!

I would doubt it. I think United will end up 3rd but if by some chance we did qualify, I can't see Saints getting humped by the Moldovian runners up being too much of a draw no matter the competition.

Saints had better hope that the blue bigots don't liquidate and therefore need voted straight back into the SPL with the inevitable 'for' vote from Chairman Steve Brown as our current low crowds may suddenly start looking good in the aftermath.

[thelegendthatis]

I reckon they could make a fortune out of rangers chess, they have all the pieces…almost.

The Queen, obviously.

The King (Dave)

The Knights (blue)

The pawns (clearly the fans who are the rangers equivalent of cannon fodder)

The ( c)rooks – probably far more than the customary 2

The Bishops are going to be a bit tricky though…

The rules of the game are going to have to be adjusted because I think the point of rangers chess should be either to leave a smoking crater or a Tesco on the board; instead of checkmate the winner would call 'checkout'.

Good idea. Think I would rename some.

The King. Cannot be anything other than King Billy. Unless it becomes 'The Big House'.

Pawns = cannon fodder = supporters = or should they be The Bears?

Rooks or Castles? If castles maybe go for Castle Grant, or just a Grant?

And no way can we have bishops. Smacks of funny clothes, big hat and burning incense. Can we not just call them the Moderators as in the Church of Scotland?

So the line up at the back is a Grant, Blue Knight, Moderator, a Billy, THE Queen etc

And there to defend the important people at the back are a line of Bears. Very limited in ability, but will cut a path through the opposition while throwing their lives on the line without question.

Might be an impressive lineup, but vulnerable to a fool's mate.

Edited April 5, 2012 by thelegendthatis

[Paramour]

On the face of it, liquidation seems a certainty, but you can bet your bottom dollar that this won't be the end of them.

For all we can mock the various interested parties, these guys aren't complete idiots. They will have done their homework. The Blue Knights (or their representatives) will be aware of much of the theorising on this very thread. Yes, very probably, posters here are actually doing the hard work. Schadenfruede can have its benefits.

I am not a lawyer, and therefore I am not entirely aware of the legal complexities involved, but I see the following as eventuating. There is a slight chance that any potential buyer will be able to negotiate a CVA with the creditors (even the HMRC, potentially in the form of a long-term payback plan). If this does not occur, barring the late appearance of a saviour capable of repaying the debt and investing in the side, liquidation is the only other viable option.

My concern is that, if we mere mortals are aware of the potential newco path through this, who's to say it's not already under way? I'm hoping that someone posting on here will be able to research Rangers-related company names registered around the time or since the commencement of the administration, or indeed of any company registrations posted by affiliates of the interested parties. A big ask, I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or all of the bidders have already incorporated a company to which the shares and league registrations will be able to swiftly pass should liquidation occur (i.e. should the BTC go against Rankers, which looks fairly likely).

So, my fellow conspirators - and I'm aware I might be doing more work for these guys than I would like - what I suggest as being possible is as follows; the preferred bidder purchases the club and arranges a CVA with the creditors, or a repayment plan. Then, should the BTC come down heavy on them, they liquidate subsequent to a transfer of registrations and assets to a newco, arm-wrestle (with the aid of an ever compliant media) the SFA and SPL into continuing alll competitions with them involved in this new guise, and it's back to square one with the cheating swines and their brothers in crime for perpetuity.

We, as supporters of the Scottish game, can do one of several things. We can sit idly by and guffaw at Mr Custard and the other bungles thus far. We can muse upon the various complexities involved in this case, and kick the ball around with no end product. Or we can start digging for more clues - and not through the media, they've been stitching us up for years - and start to pull the buggers down before they can get to where they want to.

Rant over.

[Sergeant Wilson]

STOP PRESS: Far East Bid is delivered.

[thelegendthatis]

(yesterday) Whitehouse stressed that even liquidation would not mean the closure of the club, which would simply continue to operate as a new entity.

"To achieve that, you would obviously need SFA, SPL and, to a lesser extent, Uefa agreement and buy-in and we have been in dialogue with all those parties," he said.

"What we have also discussed with interest parties is the concept of a hybrid of both whereby they could buy the business into a newco but trade it through the existing company to preserve the SPL share."

Discuss.

What intrigues me about the above statement is the fact that he seems to be leading towards a particular answer. While there may be merit in the administrators clearing the way (with SFA,SPL etc) I would have expected that to be the responsibility of the bidders. After all what the administrators agree isn't necessarily the same as the bidder would want to commit to.

As the administrators have taken this role on themselves the feel is of a preferred bidder being groomed to get an acceptable bid in place. I do hope all the bidders are being treated equally with access to the same information.

The administrators have prepared the way for the hybrid answer which will be the same as the Ticketus (sorry Blue Knights) offer, and between them the can make it stick.

Will hopefully be as successful as Tian Tian and Yang Guang's mating attempt, made more difficult with HMRC throwing buckets of cold water over them.

[Colin M]

What intrigues me about the above statement is the fact that he seems to be leading towards a particular answer. While there may be merit in the administrators clearing the way (with SFA,SPL etc) I would have expected that to be the responsibility of the bidders. After all what the administrators agree isn't necessarily the same as the bidder would want to commit to.

As the administrators have taken this role on themselves the feel is of a preferred bidder being groomed to get an acceptable bid in place. I do hope all the bidders are being treated equally with access to the same information.

The administrators have prepared the way for the hybrid answer which will be the same as the Ticketus (sorry Blue Knights) offer, and between them the can make it stick.

Will hopefully be as successful as Tian Tian and Yang Guang's mating attempt, made more difficult with HMRC throwing buckets of cold water over them.

I don't really get the hybrid scenario - what happens to the debt?

Edit: All that crap about "the club" continuing to operate "as a new entity" is just conceptual drivel IMO. A newco is a newco. Unfortunately I suspect the SPL and SFA will go along with it.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Colin M

[Colin M]

I don't really get the hybrid scenario - what happens to the debt?

Edit: All that crap about "the club" continuing to operate "as a new entity" is just conceptual drivel IMO. A newco is a newco. Unfortunately I suspect the SPL and SFA will go along with it.

Actually, does the "hybrid" just amount to the parent company owning the assets and leasing them back to the existing club? If so would that include the players?

This doesn't seem in line with existing rules - "the club" would then be protected from any financial implications of the parent company.

[sjc]

I don't really get the hybrid scenario - what happens to the debt?

Edit: All that crap about "the club" continuing to operate "as a new entity" is just conceptual drivel IMO. A newco is a newco. Unfortunately I suspect the SPL and SFA will go along with it.

exactly how I read it as well unfortunately.

[Highland Dogma]

Am not a lawyer so will stand to be corrected here...but surely the administrators are there purely to protect the creditors, not rfc and its fans...and trying to find a way towards liquidation and a newco...is fleecing the creditors..??? or am i missing something. Surely the idea that the adminstrators would be willing to surrender the club to a consortium whose intent is to avoid paying debts by going into liquadation is in conflict with their obligations towards creditors?? i would have thought that administrators should only recommend a sale to someone who defo has the cash to pay off debt ( which doesnt seem to include any of the current bidders even before you factor in the btc )?? i agree about the sfa / spl sadly it looks like they are simply going to bend over for a newco thus shattering the last remnants of integrity left in scottish football.

[barney sumner]

apparently craig whyte is expected to attend the hearing tomorrow and that the clubs list of creditors is 60 pages long

[Baxter Parp]

Am not a lawyer so will stand to be corrected here...but surely the administrators are there purely to protect the creditors,

No administration is to protect the company from its creditors, to resolve all debts and leave the company as a viable entity going forward.