hibs.net Messageboard

View Poll Results: What is your attitude to a new "Rangers" entering at Div1?

Voters
1004. You may not vote on this poll
  • Opposed - and will walk away from Scottish professional football

    533 53.09%
  • Opposed - but will continue to support the game.

    447 44.52%
  • In favour.

    24 2.39%
Page 102 of 1480 FirstFirst ... 252921001011021031041121522026021102 ... LastLast
Results 3,031 to 3,060 of 44390
  1. #3031
    @hibs.net private member johnrebus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Uncle Mort's North Country
    Posts
    3,040
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh ? Wii Code: What ?
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The theory of that works for me. I have to get my head around the practice, though. On the face of it, RFC2 are getting a good deal... paying the cost of the business up.

    Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.

    Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,




  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #3032
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by johnrebus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,


    You and millions of others, John.

    I still have trouble believing that HMRC haven't thought this all through.

  4. #3033
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But it was used to pay Rangers Lloyd's debt? Surely they either owe it to CW or to Ticketus? Surely if Ticketus can follow the paper trail to Lloyds they can get their money back.
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They definitely don't owe it to CW. Paul Clark said as much earlier today.



    (edit... nipping down to ER for my Ayr tickets... back soon)
    Quote Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's his opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ...and the opinion of every accountant and Insolvency Practitioner I've heard talking about it. I can't see how it could be any other way.


    Now beat it... I've got tickets to pick up
    On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

    It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

  5. #3034
    @hibs.net private member Spike Mandela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alloa
    Age
    58
    Posts
    10,789
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

    It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.
    So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

  6. #3035
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.
    While neither an accountant nor a tax expert I'd reached the same conclusion myself. In practice Rangers could pay some millions of back tax a year to HMRC while maintaining easily the second largest playing budget in the SPL.

    Given the likelihood that the foul institution would re-emerge in some equally rancid form if the current company was wound up a staged clearing of tax debt might be the best available all-round solution. I'd like them to disappear totally, but I can't see it happening so we should ensure that as good Christians they follow the precepts of Mathew 22:21

  7. #3036
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is legislation that covers so-called "phoenix companies", where the owners and officers of the new company are essentially the same as those of the old.

    However, I am not sure that it covers situations like this, where the owners are different. Cav thinks there are such provisions. I would hope he's right.
    I'm only aware that legislation exists, I have no idea whether it would cover this situation or not. Others seem to believe it wouldn't and I would be prepared to take their word for that until I hear otherwise.

  8. #3037
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

    It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.
    Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

    So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

    If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

    I need a lie down.

  9. #3038
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?
    Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.

  10. #3039
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?
    Presumably it was through the famous Collyer Bristow Client Account, which is where the Ticketus cash apparently went.
    Last edited by CropleyWasGod; 09-03-2012 at 02:05 PM.

  11. #3040
    Coaching Staff
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    49
    Posts
    27,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

    It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.
    Isn't there another option?

    Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

    That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

    CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

    So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

    It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.

  12. #3041
    @hibs.net private member Spike Mandela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alloa
    Age
    58
    Posts
    10,789
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.
    D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.

  13. #3042
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

    So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

    If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

    I need a lie down.
    I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

    I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.

  14. #3043
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Isn't there another option?

    Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

    That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

    CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

    So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

    It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.
    That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that

  15. #3044
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

    I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.
    Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?

  16. #3045
    Coaching Staff
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    49
    Posts
    27,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.
    As I suggested above. CW used his own cash to pay Lloyds off. Not sure how anyone now thinks that he is due that, it's paid, as a gift to Lloyds surely?

    CW seems to have got free cash out of Ticketus. Or has he? If Rangers think they have no obligation either CW is personally up for supplying Rangers STs to them or a guarantee of the cash, which I doubt, or Ticketus have got themselves into a crazy deal where someone has sold them something they don't own and no-one is now responsible for delivering to them.

  17. #3046
    Coaching Staff
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    49
    Posts
    27,490
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that
    Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

  18. #3047
    @hibs.net private member Spike Mandela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alloa
    Age
    58
    Posts
    10,789
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.
    But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?

  19. #3048
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.
    Don't think so. The charge over Hun assets was definitely reassigned from the Bank to CW's company so surely the Huns must've owed RFC Group formerly Wavetower at that point?

  20. #3049
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.
    You're assuming it's a gift. That's very unlikely.

    If it were a gift, CW/RFCG wouldn't have registered a floating charge in their name over RFC's assets for "all sums due to them".

  21. #3050
    Testimonial Due BarneyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.
    Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?

  22. #3051
    @hibs.net private member greenginger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    LEITH NO MORE
    Posts
    7,062
    Was the Ticketus money not paid into Whyte's Lawyers client account (the original £18 million ) to show SDM he had the funds to pay off Lloyds Bank. Only after that was the £1 sale of Rangers made and then the deal for the sale of future season tickets crystallized.It was some days after the take over that Lloyds were paid.

    The second sale of future season tickets took place weeks after Whyte moved in and must be Rangers F C 's liability.

  23. #3052
    @hibs.net private member Newry Hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's all about separate entities.

    1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

    2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

    .
    This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?

  24. #3053
    Coaching Staff
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    49
    Posts
    27,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?
    Don't tell anyone. It's Hibs it's going to.

  25. #3054
    Testimonial Due BarneyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,149
    BBC Sport Chris McLaughlin
    "Negotiations continue at Murray Park over wording of wage cut agreement. 3 month deal but ripped up if #Rangers come out of administration."


    They are either operating at a £1million loss per month or they're not. Why would they go back to full wage once out of Administration, wouldn't they just go back to losing fortunes every month? Getting too confusing for me now, this business.

  26. #3055
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?
    That's right - a security fixed on the asset would means he could either prevent RFC from selling it or ultimately enforce its sale. The floating security means RFC are free to trade any assets as long as they don't let their value fall below the amount secured. It only really comes into force in an insolvency event when he's entitled to preferred status from the sale of any and all assets, but not to specific ones.

  27. #3056
    Coaching Staff
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    49
    Posts
    27,490
    Quote Originally Posted by BarneyK View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?
    Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

    They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

  28. #3057

  29. #3058
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Newry Hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?
    <rewinding a bit>

    If the admins thought that, by selling the assets, they were maximising the return to the creditors, they would be doing their job properly. In normal situations, though, the company as a whole is normally worth more than the underlying assets. I did say "normal"!!

    HMRC can object to the CVA .... in effect that is stopping the company coming out of admin. The prevailing winds, albeit non-specialist journos, are telling us that HMRC won't be objecting.

  30. #3059
    Coaching Staff BEEJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Age
    64
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighoose View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Was Donald Rumsfeld (ex USA Defense Secretary) talking about the Gers situation when he was quoted saying -

    “The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. “


    A very apt - and suitably confusing - narrative to explain the current situation.

    I confess to dipping into this thread occasionally seeking enlightenment on the ongoing Ibrox fiasco; only to emerge after 20 mins or so with a bit of a headache and a strong desire to find something more interesting to do - like hoovering!


  31. #3060
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy74 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

    They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?
    Jeezo, Andy, you had me going there for a bit. You had Craigie painted as some sort of philanthropist who would just chuck £18m at his fitba team for no return.

    TFIF

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2020 All Rights Reserved
- Mobile Leaderboard (320x50) - Leaderboard (728x90)