It's imperative that Rangers are saved.
We don't want thousands of morons wandering about the West of Scotland with nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon.
No more than usual that is.
Printable View
It's imperative that Rangers are saved.
We don't want thousands of morons wandering about the West of Scotland with nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon.
No more than usual that is.
Perhaps CavG or CWG can explain if these figures ensure that HMRS can vito a CVA. Also how are they counting such a big figure for Ticketus if their deal doesn't kick in until tickets are due for sale? Finally, where is CW in all this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
If HMRC have at least 25% of the debts they can veto a CVA.
There have been suggestions in the past that clubs have over-stated their non-HMRC debts to dilute the shared owed in taxes. This appears to have happened at Portsmouth whereone company was put down as a creditor when they were in fact a debtor.
I think the admins have basically said that they can tear up the contract that allows ticketus to have first dibs on future ST sales and stick them into the pot with unsecured creditors with a debt of 27 million meaning they have to accept x amount of pence in the pound.Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
The Great Rock n Roll Swindle!
So, it's actually been in the interests of Duff and Phelps for Rangers to have racked up more non-tax debt during their stewardship. This would also help explain the sudden dramatic increase in the declared debt. The more non-HMRC debt they can claim to have, the less likely that HMRC can block any CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I wonder if the bills for their own services are added to the debt or is that one particular expenditure (1.2M and counting) that's guaranteed to be paid in full :hmmm:
Ask yourself who is in charge of the cheque book at Ibrox at the moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
I think HMRC already have 25% of the debt with the confirmed debt figure of £55 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
It would be like being surrounded by "walkers" from The Walking Dead!
That would be an interesting read...Quote:
Para 5.4 Due diligence in relation to the acquisition was undertaken for Liberty Capital by Saffery Champness
[Edit] And it seems that they weren't even paid for the work.
:agree: Isn't that what we have out of town shopping centres for?Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Hi. I'm on ma holidays, so haven't read the last few pages in great detail. Pyramids take preference over Hibs.net :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
1. yes, HMRC could veto the CVA on those numbers.
2. Ticketus will have made a claim to the admins, so they have to be included. I think, though, that all claims have to be "adjudicated" before any payment, under a CVA, could be made.
3. CW is not in there because he is not an unsecured creditor. In his opinion, he is a secured one... although, in the admins opinion (and mine) he isn't. If, by some fluke, he is proven to be secured, then he gets paid before any unsecureds.
There are plenty other posters on here who have a decent handle on what's happening..... so dinny bother me again, eh? :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Rangers FC (official) figures over the last ten years (2000-2001 till 2009-2010) amount to ;
Income £454.8m
Wages £307m
P/L (87.7m)
Given that they also raised £51.4m in a share issue in 2004 it beggars belief as to what has been going on.
It is also worth noting that these are all prior to Craig Whyte's involvement.
Aye good point. Wecome back though and so very glad my fears are unfoundedQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Finance professor reckons a CVA is feasible...
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...d-through-cva/
I have checked every British and European newspaper and I can find no trace of the headline Huns bid for Huns. This I feel should be raised at the Leveson Inquiry and the journos and editors who so shamefully and negligently failed to spot this opportunityshould be hauled over the coals.:greengrin
He doesn't explain why this low level of repayment would be accepted. Wouldn't surprise me if he was correct however.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
I have thought for many years that administration is just a convenient financial tool used consistently by football clubs to get out of large debt. Let's face it Motherwell have had a pretty good run since the 'pain' of administration.
Every football club should do it. Makes our prudence even more ****ing ridiculous.
What a load of tosh!Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Like HMRC are going to accept 8 pence in the pound on a CVA for their £75 million debts (after the big tax case tribunal reports).
I think Motherwell is an unusual case in that the vast majority of their debts were owed to John Boyle. When he wrote his share off, which allowed them to exit administration through a deal with the other creditors, they were debt free. They've ran their club well since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Most other clubs that have gone into administration are in a worse state now than before - eg Dundee, Gretna, Livingston, several English examples.
If the alternative is getting 5p in the £ through a liquidation fire sale, they might.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Erm so.... Is it likely or not rangers are gonna go bust or not? :greengrin :greengrin
HMRC are not interested in clawing back a few quid from a CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
They want a big scalp. Making Rangers insolvent would send out a message to all and sundry that they mean business and they will take no **** from anyone. As the French used to say: kill a general from time to time 'pour encourager les autres'.
If HMRC accept a CVA of around 10 pence in the pound, this will send out a message to the effect that you do not need to pay tax as you can do a deal to pay less than 10% of that owed.
There are few bigger scalps on offer in British Football than Rangers. HMRC will not less this one pass.
Who do you have in mind? Not many clubs are bigger than Rangers. Man United, Liverpool, maybe Arsenal and Celtic. Richer clubs than Rangers is another matter, of course, with the EPL having been awash with money for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
From the valuation figures given liquidation looks like it would net about 80p in the £. The values for the land assets look a bit fanciful though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Of course all these figures are dwarfed by the amount they are morally due the supporters of all the other clubs they have played, at least over the last 10 years, as they have cheated from match to match. And not for just matches against them but all matches in all competitions they have participated in.
Maybe someone with a legal and accountants background could put together a case so that we can all make a claim.
PS I do see the problem with the first bit where morals are mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
The valuation will be based on replacement costs not what Ibrox and Murray Park would fetch on the open market.
Perhaps if they assets would offered for sale individually it would force a better bid from the likes of David Murray who would have to do something to at least save Ibrox for the club.
Not just the last ten years. I'm positive I saw Henry Kissinger coming out of the Hibs dressing room just before the 1993 LC Final. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
On Sportsound last night. In amongst a quite interesting discussion including his evident discomfort when the other panellists started talking about the lamb diners and lap dog media.
When they were talking about the fact that Rankers would be facing the same problem even if CW had not bought the company, Chic claimed the last audited accounts shown they were making a profit but was corrected by the others. His ignorance, bias and lack of interest in detail is quite amazing.
This fabrication about him being a St Mirren fan has to laid to rest now I think.
Sent from another universe!
Instead of that excuse for a comedy show that he does at NY, Jonathan Watson should have a go at doing Chic's job for a year. Guaranteed to be a better investigative journalist than (a) comedian and (b) Chic.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby