Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[craigkillie]

Remember that there is an extra £1m (ish) prize money for finishing 2nd rather than 3rd, and that the administrators had hoped to be allowed into Europe.

[No8.]

It is their job to cut costs.

And costs were cut.

Anyway it does all stink and i am sure i am not alone in wanting it resloved 1 way or the other and seeing where we all stand at the end of it.

[killingfloorman]

No mention of the necessity to 'save the great institution"! The lamb in Engerland mustn't be as good

They owe about a third of what rapeepul owe, and nobody wants to touch 'em with a bargepole.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/11/portsmouth-administrators-liquidation

The administrators in charge of Portsmouth have warned that liquidation remains a possibility and admitted that no firm offers for the club have been received to date, but expressed confidence that it can be saved.

Trevor Birch, of administrators PKF, said that he still believed a buyer could be found "before the money runs out" as it published a full report for creditors, who are scheduled to meet on 26 April and set a date for a meeting of creditors of April 26.

He said that while PKF had managed to stabilise the situation at the club, plunged into administration for the second time in two years earlier this year, its future remained uncertain.

"This remains a very challenging situation but we have significant amount of experience and a successful track record as football club administrators," he said.

"As things stand, we cannot rule out the possibility of having to liquidate the company if our efforts aren't successful. It would be irresponsible to claim otherwise. However, we want the club to have a sustainable long term future and are working hard to make this vision a reality."

Any potential purchasers, including a consortium of fans trying to raise enough money to put together a bid, are unlikely to make a firm offer until the club's playing future is decided. Having suffered a 10-point deduction, Portsmouth could be relegated this weekend.

"We have been in discussion with a small number of interested parties, although no offers have been received to date," Birch said. The document shows that the club is still owed £14m in outstanding parachute payments from the Premier League.

It also confirms that the owner of the land around Fratton Park, not named but understood to be the club's former owner Alexandre Gaydamak, is continuing to claim that he is due a share of future parachute payments due to an arrangement with those that he subsequently sold the club to. The report says that PKF's solicitors were investigating.

The club owes unsecured creditors a total of around £40.5m, of which around £6.6m are classed as football creditors, which must be paid in full under rules that are currently subject to challenge from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

When the administrators were appointed, the amount owed to "football creditors" stood at £5m, however the figure has increased since and will continue to do so given the deferral of a "significant proportion" of staff and players' wages. The majority of playing staff have agreed to defer 25% of their wages.

Under any Company Voluntary Arrangement, former creditors who agreed to accept a settlement of 20p in the pound during the last administration process would probably have to accept a further dilution of the money they are owed.

Portpin, the vehicle of former owner Balram Chainrai, holds a charge over the club and would not be included in any CVA.

The largest trade debtors include the club's caterers, Lidley Catering Holdings Ltd, and kit manufacturer Kappa. The list of small creditors includes the familiar likes of St John Ambulance (owed a total of £5544), local schools and Hampshire Police Authority.

[Gaspode]

And costs were cut.

Anyway it does all stink and i am sure i am not alone in wanting it resloved 1 way or the other and seeing where we all stand at the end of it.

I must be missing something because i cannot see where costs were cut in the overall running of the club?

We were told at the start that the club was making a loss of almost £1million a month - this was apparently found mainly through wage cuts to players - but then the administrators bill of £1million a month is added taking them back to where they were to begin with?

[pollymac]

As for your above post. How do you know for a fact people wont be willing to invest similat amounts into a Newco. I am not for a minute suggesting they will but how do you KNOW??

Uefa FFP rules, tax rules and football (certainly SPL football in light of blatant bawbaggery) not being as glamorous as it was prevents a good portion of them (Joe Lewis, Dave King, David Murray, not paying tax, not paying tax and the NTL deal).

I suppose you can always do a merchandising deal with Sportsworld or something.

[pollymac]

Remember that there is an extra £1m (ish) prize money for finishing 2nd rather than 3rd, and that the administrators had hoped to be allowed into Europe.

Part of that is also consistent with every other team who have entered administration in recent memory. The administrators would (or certainly should) have been aware that the other part, i.e. Europe, would not be an issue.

[Homer Thompson]

Perhaps I should have lengthened my post:

It is not an administrators job to simply do what is best for the football team without consideration for the business as a whole and certainly not to the detriment of creditors.

Yes, of course. But, Im sure the administrators would argue that keeping players with a resale value is better for the creditors.

As I said, I dont think theyve done as much as they should, but there is justification for some of what theyve done.

It is not there job to make sure players didn't have to be released. It is their job to cut costs.

McCoist you are replaceable by your assistant and have no transfer value, you cost us thousands per week. Goodbye.

Broadfoot, we've a young player who is comparitable to most in the SPL, and he costs £5,000 less than you. Goodbye. etc etc simple arithmetic

Or alternatively - was McGregor's few grand a week wage 'cut' at a cost of £2,000,000 future transfer fee?

And anyway they were in negotiations with the players about a wage cut - absolute nonsence. Derek Adams was told take wage cut or we'll sack you. That is what should have happend

It all stinks.

I think the negotiations were more about how long the cuts would be for and what would happen come the summer when the players were offloaded, rather than just the wage cuts. More like "if you take 50% cut now, we'll let you go for 50% of what youre worth in the summer and you can get a nice, healthy, signing on bonus." Or maybe even, "if you take 50% cut now we'll pay you £x when you're sold."

You're right about the back room staff and the squad players though.

[qpsnapper]

The Administrator at Motherwell got rid of nine players plus some staff after one day.

The Administrator at Rangers believes, for example, that Rangers could not function wihout a football manager. I mean no way could the assistant step up.

It all stinks.

Not forgetting that the administrator at Rangers wanted to add to the wage bill by signing Daniel Cousin as well.

[pollymac]

Yes, of course. But, Im sure the administrators would argue that keeping players with a resale value is better for the creditors.

Rangers currently have 10 players who have very little or no resale value due to them being out of contract at the end of this season.

[sjc]

Uefa FFP rules, tax rules and football (certainly SPL football in light of blatant bawbaggery) not being as glamorous as it was prevents a good portion of them (Joe Lewis, Dave King, David Murray, not paying tax, not paying tax and the NTL deal).

I suppose you can always do a merchandising deal with Sportsworld or something.

Sportsound more like !

[superimp69]

Nope, they'd get their share of the sale of Ibrox and any other assets.

The Court appointed administrators officially value Ibrox and Murray Park at just under £110m.

Do any of the bids to buy Rangers as a going concern offer more financial benefit to the creditors than selling off these assets after liquidating the business?

[T_S_A_R]

The Court appointed administrators officially value Ibrox and Murray Park at just under £110m.

Do any of the bids to buy Rangers as a going concern offer more financial benefit to the creditors than selling off these assets after liquidating the business?

the last set of rangers accounts values ibrox at £110m. that is completely unrealistic.

i think i've read they can't sell murray park. it was set up in a way that any profit from a sale would go to a war memorial trust and the land is only to be used for sport.

[killingfloorman]

The Court appointed administrators officially value Ibrox and Murray Park at just under £110m.

Do any of the bids to buy Rangers as a going concern offer more financial benefit to the creditors than selling off these assets after liquidating the business?

Ask the administrators if they are willing to make up the difference between what Ibrox would be sold for and 110 million

They'd be out of pocket to the tune of about 100 million

[superimp69]

the last set of rangers accounts values ibrox at £110m. that is completely unrealistic.

i think i've read they can't sell murray park. it was set up in a way that any profit from a sale would go to a war memorial trust and the land is only to be used for sport.

The report to creditors from D&P states they have had them valued independently. I'm only taking that figure at face value as they are officers of the court and have officially published a valuation by an independant professional company.

My valuation would be a lot less but irrelevant!

[T_S_A_R]

The report to creditors from D&P states they have had them valued independently. I'm only taking that figure at face value as they are officers of the court and have officially published a valuation by an independant professional company.

it tells you clearly that the values given are from the pre admin january 2012 accounts.

it does say they are having them valued but it doesn't say anything else about the result of that.

[Baxter Parp]

the last set of rangers accounts values ibrox at £110m. that is completely unrealistic.

i think i've read they can't sell murray park. it was set up in a way that any profit from a sale would go to a war memorial trust and the land is only to be used for sport.

Doesn't mean they can't sell it to another sporting organisation or...ahem...another club.

[T_S_A_R]

The report to creditors from D&P states they have had them valued independently. I'm only taking that figure at face value as they are officers of the court and have officially published a valuation by an independant professional company.

it tells you clearly that the values given are from the pre admin january 2012 accounts.

it does say they are having them valued but it doesn't say anything else about the result of that.

[ribzanelli]

Surely these are only the values of the buildings if they are being used by a successful sporting club. The value of the land and the buildings themselves will be worth hee-haw if Rangers are liquidised.

[craigkillie]

Part of that is also consistent with every other team who have entered administration in recent memory. The administrators would (or certainly should) have been aware that the other part, i.e. Europe, would not be an issue.

Which other clubs have entered administration whilst in such a lofty league position? Have any clubs ever done so?

A lot of comparisons have been made to Motherwell. Motherwell entered administration with 2 matches remaining in the 2001/02 season. St Johnstone had already been relegated, and Motherwell were in 11th place, 3 points and loads of goals behind 10th placed Hibs. They were almost certain to finish in 11th, and as such there was no real reason to retain any players who did not have a sell-on value.

When Gretna entered administration, the 10 point deduction left them 21 points adrift of St Mirren with 10 games remaining in the 2007/08 season. The adminstration essentially confirmed their relegation (which was already very likely). Again, there was absolutely no incentive to keep a strong playing squad, and as such they played out the season with a skeleton squad of loanees and a few remaining long-serving players.

Dundee's situation last season was more similar to what Rangers faced. They went into administration in October, with much of the season remaining. Their 25 point deduction was confirmed in November, and left them 20 points adrift at the bottom of the 1st Division. They had 27 games remaining, and as a result still had the possibility of avoiding relegation. Avoiding relegation would have a massive financial benefit, and could outweigh the need to jettison players from the wage bill. Indeed, Dundee got rid of a number of fringe players, but kept on their highest earners, including those who would have little or no sell-on value (eg Lockwood, Douglas, Weston).

[No8.]

I am no expert on the business side of things(or anything else before Henricks tongue adds it) but found this on Follow Follow...I would like others views on this guys take on this whole sorry business...

Craig Whyte’s £27mI understand that Craig Whyte has put zip into the club. However he has a floating charge against the assets of the club. The value of his floating charge is currently assumed to be £0. As he never put a penny into the club

However if Rangers FC default on the Ticketus deal CW is then liable for the £27m or so ..... as he has personally guaranteed the money to ticketus.

At which point he moves from having £0 liability to having a £27m+ liability.

The current bids

The Blue Knights - prefer a CVA route out of administration and they plan to make good the £27m owing to ticketus, through the renegotiations they have already had, plus put £10m in the pot for the creditors (principally HMRC)

Using a CVA would mean Craig Whyte (potentially) receives £0 and would involve somehow removing his shares from him, by some legal process or buying them. A rather tricky process either way.

Bill Ng ($40m) and Bill Miller ($50m) have also both bid, despite some assertions to the contrary, I understand they are considering using another company and/or liquidating Rangers FC.

LIQUIDATION

If Rangers are liquidated Craig Whyte then owes Ticketus £27m (as Rangers no longer exist and will have effectively defaulted on the contract).

At this stage Craig Whyte’s floating charge reappears, as he now has liabilities caused by Rangers FC of £27m. His preferred creditor status means he is paid before all the other creditors and he secures his floating charge against the assets of the club .

If Bill Miller wins the bid (aided and abetted by David Ellis) the $50m goes straight to Craig Whyte, who has no intention of paying ticketus and he pockets the lot.

The decision of the next Rangers owner

What criteria will duff and phelps employ in selecting the owner and how will they value each of the bids

The Blue Knights – £37m ? (or discount the ticketus deal and value it at £10m)

Bill Miller – £30m

Bill Ng – £25m

The real decision

I firmly believe that the D&P are acting on behalf of Craig Whyte, not any of the other creditors, hence there criteria will be

How much will Craig Whyte make from the deal?

Bill Miller - £30m to CW

Bill Ng - £25m to CW

The Blue Knights - £0 to CW (as the club makes good his deal with Ticketus).

Hence Rangers FC will be liquidated and mostly likely Bill Miller will be our next owner, unless he gets cold feet.

DUFF & PHELPS

D&P have acted oddly throughout the administration process,

- Why try to renegotiate the players contracts instead of cut and burn like all other administrators? Was it really to retain value in the business? Or was it to get the maximum sale price in the event of liquidation?

- Why over value the clubs assets at £126m? Is Murray Park and Ibrox really worth £105m?

- Why under value the players at £20m or so?, is it because they are the assets we lose in the event of liquidation?

- Why did D&P include the ‘worst case scenario’ for all potential creditors (£97m for HMRC), but omit any mention of Craig Whyte?

- Why spend time trying to annul the ticketsus contract?, was it really to enhance the sale price of the business? Or was it to cement Craig Whyte’s floating liability, and therefore preferred creditor status?

- Why at the trial did the judge feel the need to remind D&P they had to act in the interests of all the creditors (inc ticketus)? Did the judge feel that they were acting in the interests other creditors (CW?)

- Why have D&P not tried to remove Craig Whyte’s shares from him (when you know he is the source of the problem)?

- Why have D&P not stuck with sorting out the accounts and running of the club, and handed over the tender exercise to someone else, someone cheaper?

- Why have D&P almost always failed to meet their own deadlines, throughout this process, are they trying to take everything to the wire?, if so, why?

I firmly believe we have been robbed by Craig Whyte, but in the weeks to come we will find out he has been aided and abetted by the people who were meant to sort the situation out.

Duff and Phelps will announce a preferred bidder.

After early promise, that preferred bidder will announce liquidation, and the start up of a new company, and we will lose our history

------------------------------

Tell me this cant be true.....Please!!