Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Apologies if already posted, no real new news in it..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18294684

the thing is we are looking at suspension and expulsion just for a bit of non tax payment by Whyte whilst none of the juicy stuff (EBTs / bungs to Souness etc) has even been looked at yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's not how I read it.... but feel free to slap me down :greengrin

I read it as 1. as you say, there is no CVA without SPL or SC football, but also

2. the WHOLE DEAL, ie "if the CVA fails, we buy the assets..." is also off if there is no SPL/SC.

So... it's (a) if there's SPL/SC next season, and the CVA works, then bingo. (b) if there's SPL/SC, and no CVA, we'll buy the assets. (c) if there's no SPL/SC, we are out.

Thoughts?


Edit.. I have just had another thought. If there is no CVA, they buy the assets, and then the SPL says "you're no getting in".... then does the deal have to be reversed?... or has CG just got the bargain of the year?

---

Reading the proposal again, para 4.22 says the conditions include "Approval of this Proposal"; acquisition of the Group Shares for a quid and consents for participation in the leagues and cups.

Para 4.23 then says "In the event this CVA is not approved" Green must purchase the assets and business for £5.5m.

My reading of that is that only the CVA carries the condition of playing in the competitions, particularly since the obligation to buy is contained in a new paragraph.

As far as the bargain is concerned, Green is either going to get an operating and debt-free Rangers FC for nothing (the £8.5m is an interest-bearing loan that will be repaid in eight years) or he's going to get Ibrox, Murray Park, all the fixtures and fittings (apart from the pie heater apparently), all the training equipment, vehicles etc and the contracts of whichever players are willing to move across - that could include Naismith and McGregor - for £5.5m. Either way he's getting a helluva bargain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Reading the proposal again, para 4.22 says the conditions include "Approval of this Proposal"; acquisition of the Group Shares for a quid and consents for participation in the leagues and cups.

Para 4.23 then says "In the event this CVA is not approved" Green must purchase the assets and business for £5.5m.

My reading of that is that only the CVA carries the condition of playing in the competitions, particularly since the obligation to buy is contained in a new paragraph.

As far as the bargain is concerned, Green is either going to get an operating and debt-free Rangers FC for nothing (the £8.5m is an interest-bearing loan that will be repaid in eight years) or he's going to get Ibrox, Murray Park, all the fixtures and fittings (apart from the pie heater apparently), all the training equipment, vehicles etc and the contracts of whichever players are willing to move across - that could include Naismith and McGregor - for £5.5m. Either way he's getting a helluva bargain.

---

Okay, I am not convinced about the backing-out bit... but moving on... :greengrin

Am I right in saying that, in the event of the £5.5m buy-out being triggered..... any creditor can then say "hold on, we can get a better deal elsewhere"? Because, if there is a better deal out there, D&P aren't fulfilling their duties.

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...houl.html#more

Arf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...houl.html#more

Arf

---

Clocked that earlier, amazing how quickly they turn on "one of their own" when they don't tow the party line is'nt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...houl.html#more

Arf

---

Suddenly HIS son is affected and he starts to talk sense. What a transparent wally he is.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.



I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

---

But it beggars belief that D&P/Green/RFC would risk everything going to the CoS if the signing embargo was negotiable. I'm heartened by the post referring to RTC text quoting what was said at Court. That seems to suggest that it IS open to the SFA to impose the harsher penalties of expulsion/suspension despite what the two Panels previously thought about those being too harsh. But does the SFA have the balls to do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

But it beggars belief that D&P/Green/RFC would risk everything going to the CoS if the signing embargo was negotiable. I'm heartened by the post referring to RTC text quoting what was said at Court. That seems to suggest that it IS open to the SFA to impose the harsher penalties of expulsion/suspension despite what the two Panels previously thought about those being too harsh. But does the SFA have the balls to do that?

---

The two panels both insisted any punishment should be a deterrent. I think most clubs would risk losing a year in the Scottish cup to avoid paying £14m in PAYE and other debt. The decision the panel should make is clear.

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Okay, I am not convinced about the backing-out bit... but moving on... :greengrin

Am I right in saying that, in the event of the £5.5m buy-out being triggered..... any creditor can then say "hold on, we can get a better deal elsewhere"? Because, if there is a better deal out there, D&P aren't fulfilling their duties.

---

The terms of the £5.5m deal are confidential so there may be a back-out clause in that, but I remain convinced that the CVA document doesn't make the purchase deal contingent on SPL membership or cup competitions - we can agree to differ.

And yes, the creditors can challenge the deal - it becomes a straight liquidation as far as they are concerned and they would have the usual legal remedies (I don't actually know what they are though...). I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC or Ticketus were already taking steps to ensure that D&P don't get the liquidation gig if they're not going to approve the CVA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

---

I am sure the creditors can challenge the liquidation price leagally if they so choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

---

What you say is in the CVA offer document. As Cav says, and I agree with him, the creditors do have the right to challenge the £5.5m deal if they think there are better deals out there.

Thus far, though, I haven't seen anything that looks fraudulent in D&P or Green's activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.

---

Well added to 3 years out of Europe (if the still arrogantly beleive they would be in the SPL and even then have any hope of qualifying) when Euro income was part of all the various potential purchasers cash flows at least in years 2 + 3....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

---

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by down-the-slope

Well added to 3 years out of Europe (if the still arrogantly beleive they would be in the SPL and even then have any hope of qualifying) when Euro income was part of all the various potential purchasers cash flows at least in years 2 + 3....

---

They would probably get a better return on £5.5m worth of lottery tickets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

---

I did notice that Rangers have circa £3.5million 'cash at bank' currently - convieniently the same as D&P's fees (the additional £2million being legal fees / expenses)

There is plenty odd stuff - but the strangest is that they CONTINUE to trade (with D&P at the helm) and are still running up a tax bill and not paying....

I would have had HMRC kick my door down by now if thats how I was operating :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

---

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

---

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

What you say is in the CVA offer document. As Cav says, and I agree with him, the creditors do have the right to challenge the £5.5m deal if they think there are better deals out there.

Thus far, though, I haven't seen anything that looks fraudulent in D&P or Green's activities.

---

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs13681

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it.

---

Doesn't this all depend on the outcome of the creditors vote after the first D&P report? There was a proposal in there which, if accepted, would allow D&P to agree a deal on behalf of the creditors without referring back to them for approval. I would have hoped that at the very least HMRC and Ticketus would have voted against that proposal, but since we've never been told the outcome of the creditors meeting, we don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs13681

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

---

It's a good question and a difficult answer... I remember at the beginning having a look at the laws around asset stripping and what you mention is VERY CLOSE to that..... the problem seemed to be that none of that type of argument is black and white so obviously open to some wriggle room :-( ..... all comes down to how much of a gamble Duff and Duffer want to take with their OWN business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs13681

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

---

The admins have a duty to get a.better return for the creditors than they would get in a liquidation . If the 5.5 m deal is as good as they would get elsewhere , so be it. If there is a better deal out there, the creditors would have to demonstrate that to have the sale reversed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

---

Sounds a bit shifty - can't see Rangers Newco (or Oldco) touching that with a bargepole.










:fibber:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

---

As would Princess Anne.

Its really starting to get on my wits end. So much so that if this all ends up going the way I think it will, I'm starting to think I'll jack it all in. Could be a free ST up for grabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

---

Except he's a Hun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cropley10

Except he's a Hun

---

I would imagine there could be a bit of coaxing from AMcC & fellow fans for the 'free agents' to stay and not desert the sinking ship.

I'm wondering whether any fine levied by the SFA would fall within the CVA, or if it would be a liability to be paid in full? Could make it worthwhile for the SFA to wait until the CVA vote is held, then hit the Huns with the maximum fine both for the original charge and for going to court.

Meanwhile any intelligent Hun (insert your own jokes) should be in favour of a newco starting life in Divison Three, which can't be punished for any of the sins of the current Huns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

---

Or a bigger slice from the club buying him at a knock down price.