Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "football-related creditors", though, is an irrelevance in Scotland.

Or have I misunderstood your point?

Wasnt sure who D+P designated as "Football Related Creditors" CWG.

The amount that D+P suggest is due to FRC appear to only be the debt oweing to Scottish clubs and authorities and the figure published in the document under that category does not appear to include money owed to Vienna, Chelsea or Manchester City.

While I realise that money may well be paid to the national clubs out of SPL prize money UEFA will undoubtedly frown (more than frown hopefully) on the money owed to other European clubs, especially if it isnt paid in full.

Duff and Phelps statement here

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles...~174334,00.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wasnt sure who D+P designated as "Football Related Creditors" CWG.

The amount that D+P suggest is due to FRC appear to only be the debt oweing to Scottish clubs and authorities and the figure published in the document under that category does not appear to include money owed to Vienna, Chelsea or Manchester City.

While I realise that money may well be paid to the national clubs out of SPL prize money UEFA will undoubtedly frown (more than frown hopefully) on the money owed to other European clubs, especially if it isnt paid in full.

As I understand the law, though, it's irrelevant what UEFA think. All creditors are entitled to be treated the same, FRC or not. I know that the FA have different rules, but I am not sure how they manage to trump the law in that respect.

As far as the Scottish clubs are concerned, they should be treated in the same way. If any money is due from the SFA or SPL, that should go into the pot for the benefit of all creditors. If I were, say, Glasgow Council, I would be very angry if that money was diverted and the clubs paid in full.

[Seveno]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Speaking with a friend who is a senior member of HMRC in Scotland , while refusing point blank to discuss RFC which is understandable, he made the point that " .... cannot describe the level of embarressment , at HMRC , over the failure to get a verdict in the Harry Redknapp case and they certainly will not be wanting a repeat with RFC "
Take what you like out of that

I like your friend.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That says to me that it has been settled.

I know.

Its just that D+P designated it should have a line all to itself amongst the creditors that states TBC. Maybe it has been confirmed and it's dealt with.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I understand the law, though, it's irrelevant what UEFA think. All creditors are entitled to be treated the same, FRC or not. I know that the FA have different rules, but I am not sure how they manage to trump the law in that respect.

As far as the Scottish clubs are concerned, they should be treated in the same way. If any money is due from the SFA or SPL, that should go into the pot for the benefit of all creditors. If I were, say, Glasgow Council, I would be very angry if that money was diverted and the clubs paid in full.

Does the same not apply to any deal brokered with Ticketus which would then get their approval for a CVA?

For example can the Blue Knights strike a deal with Ticketus that would net them (Ticketus) say 50p in the £ and in return Ticketus, as 48% creditor, vote their approval of the CVA that might net the rest of the creditors considerably less?

[Brando7]

Been reading into this Bill Murry “incubator” idea n please someone tell me i'm wrong but i'm reading into this is the the heart moving to an incubator he means to me is

The heart means the club assetts (Ibrox & murry park) which D&P have stated a value of £109m and making that the newco, Leaving current Rangers in administration until a CVA is agreed then will move the heart back & close the newco however if this is not agreed he has to liquidise Rangers but however the main assets (Ibrox & murry park) cannot be used to raise money as they are part of the new company & creditors get bugger all & the newco reforms debt free with £109m fixed assets in place

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Been reading into this Bill Murry “incubator” idea n please someone tell me i'm wrong but i'm reading into this is the the heart moving to an incubator he means to me is

The club assetts (Ibrox & murry park) which D&P have stated a value of £109m and making that the newco, Leaving current Rangers in administration until a CVA is agreed then will move the heart back & close the newco however if this is not agreed he has to liquidise Rangers but however the main assets (Ibrox & murry park) cannot be used to raise money as they are part of the new company & creditors get bugger all & the newco reforms debt free with £109m fixed assets in place

In another universe, Ibrox and Murray Park might have a value of £109m.

That aside, moving the assets in the way you suggest, before liquidation, would be a complete no-no. A liquidator would demand them back.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does the same not apply to any deal brokered with Ticketus which would then get their approval for a CVA?

For example can the Blue Knights strike a deal with Ticketus that would net them (Ticketus) say 50p in the £ and in return Ticketus, as 48% creditor, vote their approval of the CVA that might net the rest of the creditors considerably less?

HMRC usually insist that all creditor are treated equally. They can block any CVA which does not achieve this.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HMRC usually insist that all creditor are treated equally. They can block any CVA which does not achieve this.

It's the law, not HMRC, that insists that all creditors are treated the same. HMRC can only block a CVA if their debt is 25% of the total.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HMRC usually insist that all creditor are treated equally. They can block any CVA which does not achieve this.

Which does not achieve this officially.

Did the Blue knights not suggest something like they had done a deal (only they hadnt) with Ticketus in that Ticketus were receiving £17m over a period of time in return for their supporting the BK?

The cynic in me read that as buying their support for a CVA.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which does not achieve this officially.

Did the Blue knights not suggest something like they had done a deal (only they hadnt) with Ticketus in that Ticketus were receiving £17m over a period of time in return for their supporting the BK?

The cynic in me read that as buying their support for a CVA.

By striking a deal, Ticketus would remove their claim as a creditor. In turn, that would improve the return to other creditors.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HMRC wrote off, in their minds anyway, most of their debt a while ago. Even a solvent Rangers couldn't pay the sums being talked about.

There's no-one sniffing glue at Ibrox.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By striking a deal, Ticketus would remove their claim as a creditor. In turn, that would improve the return to other creditors.

If they dealt with Ticketus, who were then removed as a creditor, HMRC would then be owed more than 50% of the debt that was left and there would then be little or no chance of them getting their CVA? Is my thinking correct?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they dealt with Ticketus, who were then removed as a creditor, HMRC would then be owed more than 50% of the debt that was left and there would then be little or no chance of them getting their CVA? Is my thinking correct?

That seems sensible to me.

[YehButNoBut]

From todays Scotsman, McCoist saying that they will be scrapping it out for a top 6 place next season at best, doubt they will even be in the SPL.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...oist-1-2248805

ALLY McCoist fears that the best-case scenario for Rangers next season could be scrapping it out for a place in the top six.
Even if the Ibrox club exit administration through a Company Voluntary Arrangement, they are likely to lose major playing assets. In return for 75 per cent wage cuts, all the high earners had clauses inserted into their contracts that will allow them to leave in the summer for modest fees. With none of the prospective new owners promising major investment, most players are likely to activate these clauses.

Even if Rangers are not liquidated, McCoist’s hopes of making a trophy-winning impression as manager will involve having to work with a squad with youth at its core.

Hibernian under Tony Mowbray flourished with a young side in the mid-2000s, finishing third and fourth, but McCoist fears even that may be beyond Rangers.
“You’d have to say that it’s a possibility [that Rangers will field a very young team]. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be. I’m not in control of the situation in terms of bringing players in or selling players. We don’t know the finances, if and when we get a new owner.

“It’s not always gone badly when kids have been thrown in but you’d have to say there’s absolutely no way we’d reach any level of where we have been, if that was the case. Certainly for the foreseeable future, and the next two, three, four years could be challenging. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
“Hibs did well with young players but they arguably had the best batch in the last 20 or 30 years in Scottish football. I’m not saying our batch are anything as good as that. So fourth might not even be remotely possible.”

If Rangers became as irrelevant to the title race as the club were in the early 1980s McCoist admits it would become the “biggest test” of a support who largely deserted the club during that fallow period.

“I really do [think the fans would continue to back Rangers]. In a perverse way, they like adversity, a challenge. I think they’ve been sensational. I don’t think there are many clubs in the world who could get 48,000 for an old boys’ game. Now it could be about getting 48,000 for a young boys’ game.

“Ever since administration, the fans have turned up to Inverness and wherever we’ve been. I just think they’ve been great.

“It would be our biggest test, there is no doubt about that. It would be an absolutely massive test but I really don’t think it would scare them. It would galvanise them, be an act of defiance.”

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From todays Scotsman, McCoist saying that they will be scrapping it out for a top 6 place next season at best, doubt they will even be in the SPL.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...oist-1-2248805

ALLY McCoist fears that the best-case scenario for Rangers next season could be scrapping it out for a place in the top six.
Even if the Ibrox club exit administration through a Company Voluntary Arrangement, they are likely to lose major playing assets. In return for 75 per cent wage cuts, all the high earners had clauses inserted into their contracts that will allow them to leave in the summer for modest fees. With none of the prospective new owners promising major investment, most players are likely to activate these clauses.

Even if Rangers are not liquidated, McCoist’s hopes of making a trophy-winning impression as manager will involve having to work with a squad with youth at its core.

Hibernian under Tony Mowbray flourished with a young side in the mid-2000s, finishing third and fourth, but McCoist fears even that may be beyond Rangers.
“You’d have to say that it’s a possibility [that Rangers will field a very young team]. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be. I’m not in control of the situation in terms of bringing players in or selling players. We don’t know the finances, if and when we get a new owner.

“It’s not always gone badly when kids have been thrown in but you’d have to say there’s absolutely no way we’d reach any level of where we have been, if that was the case. Certainly for the foreseeable future, and the next two, three, four years could be challenging. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
“Hibs did well with young players but they arguably had the best batch in the last 20 or 30 years in Scottish football. I’m not saying our batch are anything as good as that. So fourth might not even be remotely possible.”

If Rangers became as irrelevant to the title race as the club were in the early 1980s McCoist admits it would become the “biggest test” of a support who largely deserted the club during that fallow period.

“I really do [think the fans would continue to back Rangers]. In a perverse way, they like adversity, a challenge. I think they’ve been sensational. I don’t think there are many clubs in the world who could get 48,000 for an old boys’ game. Now it could be about getting 48,000 for a young boys’ game.

“Ever since administration, the fans have turned up to Inverness and wherever we’ve been. I just think they’ve been great.

“It would be our biggest test, there is no doubt about that. It would be an absolutely massive test but I really don’t think it would scare them. It would galvanise them, be an act of defiance.”

Absolutely gutted to hear this!

Had me thinking though that a great adventure from the third division may take a little longer than people are thinking. And whose to say very promising youngsters would want to stay? Even longer still :-)

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I understand the law, though, it's irrelevant what UEFA think. All creditors are entitled to be treated the same, FRC or not. I know that the FA have different rules, but I am not sure how they manage to trump the law in that respect.

As far as the Scottish clubs are concerned, they should be treated in the same way. If any money is due from the SFA or SPL, that should go into the pot for the benefit of all creditors. If I were, say, Glasgow Council, I would be very angry if that money was diverted and the clubs paid in full.

I'm wondering if it could be argued that the SFA/SPL money is not Rangers' entitlement, but it belongs to the SFA/SPL to distribute as they see fit within their rules. Those rules include a clause allowing them to divert money from a defaulting club direct to a creditor club, so creditors like Glasgow Council (or even non-Scottish football clubs) can whistle.

[jonty]

Its Sunday.

Can they not just die already.

(although to be fair, it does give something interesting to read during the week)

Scottish football needs it arse kicked and the two main offenders at the moment and Huns and mini-huns. One of them needs to be sacrificed before the end of the season, the other before the start of next.

How disappointing it would be to turn up at Hampden only to be told Hearts no longer existed.
Ah well - every cloud and all that!

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In another universe, Ibrox and Murray Park might have a value of £109m.

That aside, moving the assets in the way you suggest, before liquidation, would be a complete no-no. A liquidator would demand them back.

Funnily enough, the value of freehold properties in the accounts is £112m and the attached note says "The Directors determined the valuation of freehold properties based on their recoverable amount as at 30 June 2010." (My underlining).

Badly worded for sure, but a pedantic creditor could argue that that is the sort of figure the administrators should be looking for in a sale or transfer to a Newco. Otherwise there's an accusation of false accounting against the directors...including Paul Murray.

[greenginger]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315845/


If there is any truth in this article its time some people broke ranks and killed these behind the scenes deals.

Where's Vlad when you need him. This has all the ingredients for Monkeys, etc rant.

[s.a.m]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Funnily enough, the value of freehold properties in the accounts is £112m and the attached note says "The Directors determined the valuation of freehold properties based on their recoverable amount as at 30 June 2010." (My underlining).

Badly worded for sure, but a pedantic creditor could argue that that is the sort of figure the administrators should be looking for in a sale or transfer to a Newco. Otherwise there's an accusation of false accounting against the directors...including Paul Murray.

'mon the pedantic creditors!

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315845/


If there is any truth in this article its time some people broke ranks and killed these behind the scenes deals.

Where's Vlad when you need him. This has all the ingredients for Monkeys, etc rant.

In the article, the journalist states that the newco would take ownership of the clubs assets, specifically mentioning Ibrox, Murray Park and the players.

Clark then re-iterates this further down without mentioning the specific assets.

How does this stand with 3rd party ownership of player contracts?

[R'Albin]

I can't really be bothered looking for what's happening, and I don't really understand the financial stuff.. So what's happening with them at the moment?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315845/


If there is any truth in this article its time some people broke ranks and killed these behind the scenes deals.

Where's Vlad when you need him. This has all the ingredients for Monkeys, etc rant.

I don't think it's Doncaster's call to do these "deals". At best, he can promise to put it to his Board, or the other clubs, with a recommendation that they accept it.

The other thought that I have is that this article is merely meant to put pressure on the Knights to up their game.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't really be bothered looking for what's happening, and I don't really understand the financial stuff.. So what's happening with them at the moment?

As each week passes, RFC have less cash. There is therefore a lot of pressure on to do a deal with somebody very soon. Bums are squeaking.

The end.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm wondering if it could be argued that the SFA/SPL money is not Rangers' entitlement, but it belongs to the SFA/SPL to distribute as they see fit within their rules. Those rules include a clause allowing them to divert money from a defaulting club direct to a creditor club, so creditors like Glasgow Council (or even non-Scottish football clubs) can whistle.

Hmmm... you may be right. Struggling, though, to think of an analogy in the "real" commercial world.

Is it like, say, a "contingent debtor".... ie will only be paid if certain conditions are met?

[Caversham Green]

Alex Thomsom's take on it:

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...r-rangers/1236

[Squealing pig]

How many posts do you have on this thread cropleywasgod?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How many posts do you have on this thread cropleywasgod?

*ifano. Why?

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hmmm... you may be right. Struggling, though, to think of an analogy in the "real" commercial world.

Is it like, say, a "contingent debtor".... ie will only be paid if certain conditions are met?

Can't really help you with the analogy thing, but the SPL is an association of clubs - a co-operative if you like. Its role in this respect is to collect income and then distribute it according to the rules - the money belongs to everyone and no-one within the association until such time as it has been handed out. As the rules cover a default in payments between one member and another the SPL board can recalculate the distribution accordingly. Not so much a contingent debtor, more like an assignable one.

I think that makes sense.