Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-06-2012, 08:38 AM
BarneyK

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

You would hope so, after all we all want fairness in this mess :cb

Is there any truth in the 3rd comment in this article?

3
sonofcosmos
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 12:25 AM
#1 seems a story is breaking that duff and co didnt send the cva proposal to all creditors.

I'm sure this has been mentioned before somewhere, though can't remember if it was on here or if it was the C4 dude?
12-06-2012, 08:42 AM
Caversham Green

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigKev

Just a question that's been bugging me... If say HMRC or any other creditor never returned their CVA forms (in effect abstain) do they get included as a yes or no vote? And if you don't return it and it gets voted through anyway can you sue the club at a later date for the full amount?

According to the proposal document "A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy have voted in favour of it."

I read that as meaning an abstention doesn't count at all in the total, so if the total debt was £60m and HMRC held £20m of that, if they don't vote and everyone else does it needs the holders of £30m debt (60-20=40; 75% of 40=30) to vote yes.

If you receive the notice properly then I doubt if you'd be able to sue anyone after the event.
12-06-2012, 08:49 AM
Caversham Green

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Will the yams take a lead from Rapid Vienna?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...osal-1-2350099

I suspect the yams will chase the money given their current circumstances. There's some provision for the SPL paying them out of RFC's prize money, but the legality of that is questionable and if they don't get it through that channel the money is effectively lost whichever way the CVA goes.

On that basis the yams will do everything they can to ensure there's a Rangers in the SPL next season, because there will almost certainly be less money in the league if RFC aren't there.
12-06-2012, 09:06 AM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I suspect the yams will chase the money given their current circumstances. There's some provision for the SPL paying them out of RFC's prize money, but the legality of that is questionable and if they don't get it through that channel the money is effectively lost whichever way the CVA goes.

On that basis the yams will do everything they can to ensure there's a Rangers in the SPL next season, because there will almost certainly be less money in the league if RFC aren't there.

Your starting to sound like Doncaster! .. :greengrin
12-06-2012, 09:17 AM
Benny Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by matty_f

This is why a transfer embargo should be put in place. It's nonsense that a buying club should be able to sell on a player, keep the proceeds yet stiff the club they bought him from.

I detest Rangers.

Totally agree - that was the first thing that struck me when reading that. They really have no morals at all do they.
12-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Kaiser1962

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I suspect the yams will chase the money given their current circumstances. There's some provision for the SPL paying them out of RFC's prize money, but the legality of that is questionable and if they don't get it through that channel the money is effectively lost whichever way the CVA goes.

On that basis the yams will do everything they can to ensure there's a Rangers in the SPL next season, because there will almost certainly be less money in the league if RFC aren't there.

An analysis recently carried out suggested the financial loss to the SPL would be, worst case scenario, £5.76m with Celtic accounting for nearly half that total. Projections(worst case) showed no Rangers would mean a loss to Hibs of around £100k while Motherwell appeared to be the biggest losers at around £700k. These figures took no account of any increased attendances or potential revenue from a cup run.

There was a suggestion that it was easy for Hibs to state "sporting integrity" when they stood to be among the least affected by the demise of Der Hun but I would argue that the fact we are least affected, and more capable of standing independently, is no accident.
12-06-2012, 09:40 AM
ancienthibby

Hactor's THE Man!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18407309

p.s. make that Hector!!
12-06-2012, 09:41 AM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

An analysis recently carried out suggested the financial loss to the SPL would be, worst case scenario, £5.76m with Celtic accounting for nearly half that total. Projections(worst case) showed no Rangers would mean a loss to Hibs of around £100k while Motherwell appeared to be the biggest losers at around £700k. These figures took no account of any increased attendances or potential revenue from a cup run.

There was a suggestion that it was easy for Hibs to state "sporting integrity" when they stood to be among the least affected by the demise of Der Hun but I would argue that the fact we are least affected, and more capable of standing independently, is no accident.

I read that article also, and I'd agree 100% with the part in bold. We have suffered on the park because we have kept out house in order, were as Der Huns have blatantly spent money they don't/ never have had and never will and must now pay the price of "overspend" Just like the rest of us have to do! .......... :rolleyes:
12-06-2012, 09:44 AM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18407309

p.s. make that Hector!!

Like the end part "more to follow" :pray:
12-06-2012, 09:45 AM
Kaiser1962

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

I read that article also, and I'd agree 100% with the part in bold. We have suffered on the park because we have kept out house in order, were as Der Huns have blatantly spent money they don't/ never have had and never will and must now pay the price of "overspend" Just like the rest of us have to do! .......... :rolleyes:

Spot on :agree:
12-06-2012, 09:46 AM
bythecringe

Hector's THE man

9 months from now I can see Hector being THE most popular name for baby boys in many parts of Scotland. Go Hector!
12-06-2012, 09:49 AM
Caversham Green

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

Your starting to sound like Doncaster! .. :greengrin

Thank ****** I don't look like him.

Anyway, he pretty much says no RFC would kill the game, I'm just saying clubs would have less money - and the yams have to chase money more than most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

An analysis recently carried out suggested the financial loss to the SPL would be, worst case scenario, £5.76m with Celtic accounting for nearly half that total. Projections(worst case) showed no Rangers would mean a loss to Hibs of around £100k while Motherwell appeared to be the biggest losers at around £700k. These figures took no account of any increased attendances or potential revenue from a cup run.

There was a suggestion that it was easy for Hibs to state "sporting integrity" when they stood to be among the least affected by the demise of Der Hun but I would argue that the fact we are least affected, and more capable of standing independently, is no accident.

TBH I take these analyses with a pinch of salt, but I do agree that the absence of RFC would be nowhere near as devastating as some would have us believe.

With regard to Hibs, it's certainly no accident that we are less affected than some. Rod Petrie and the Hibs board have put a lot of hard work into ensuring that the club is financially viable and they've taken and continue to take a lot of abuse for their troubles. Seeing Rangers escape lightly from their self-inflicted problems would render all that pointless. I think that's why Rod's taking a hardline approach to this.
12-06-2012, 09:51 AM
Fisherrow_Hibs

Bye Bye

Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug

HMRC to vote against CVA. More soon at http://bbc.co.uk/sportscotland. #Rangers
Collapse

FH
12-06-2012, 10:00 AM
johnrebus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherrow_Hibs

Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug

HMRC to vote against CVA. More soon at http://bbc.co.uk/sportscotland. #Rangers
Collapse

FH

Just reported on BBC Radio Scotland news.

:cb
12-06-2012, 10:06 AM
BarneyK

Am I correct in thinking a no from HMRC would be a no for the CVA full stop?
12-06-2012, 10:08 AM
matty_f

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Am I correct in thinking a no from HMRC would be a no for the CVA full stop?

I think so.:thumbsup:
12-06-2012, 10:10 AM
down-the-slope

HMRC to Vote NO

:not worth:dancer:
12-06-2012, 10:11 AM
BarneyK

Quote:

Originally Posted by matty_f

I think so.:thumbsup:

Got to be. Even with the absence of BTC, they are due 20 odd million.
12-06-2012, 10:11 AM
down-the-slope

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will reject the company voluntary arrangement proposal made by Rangers' prospective owner Charles Green.
Green's consortium hopes to have its CVA approved by creditors when they meet at Ibrox on Thursday so that the club can exit administration.
But the club needs dominant creditors HMRC and Ticketus to vote in favour to avoid the assets being sold off.
The CVA terms suggest a maximum payout of nine pence for every pound owed.
BBC Scotland has learned that administrators Duff & Phelps held a meeting with HMRC on Monday and were told of their decision.
The CVA requires the approval of 75% or more in value of the creditors, and more than 50% in value of the members, voting on the resolution.
Rangers entered administration on 14 February and await the outcome of a First Tier Tax tribunal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh over unpaid taxes - the so-called "Big Tax Case".
Under the terms of the deal struck by Green's consortium to buy Rangers, it will now proceed to purchase the business and assets of Rangers for £5.5m.
12-06-2012, 10:11 AM
JeMeSouviens

The Hun is dead! :greengrin :thumbsup: :na na:

Long live the New Hun? :confused:
12-06-2012, 10:11 AM
johnbc70

So is it liquidation now?
12-06-2012, 10:11 AM
Caversham Green

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Am I correct in thinking a no from HMRC would be a no for the CVA full stop?

Almost certainly. There's a lot of TBCs, including the BTC (:dizzy:) but HMRC have a acknowledged debt of £21m. That means the TBCs excluding the BTC would have to take the total debt up to over £84m for the CVA to succeed.

On a side note, has anyone noticed that 'Rangers Leech' is an anagram of Charles Green?
12-06-2012, 10:13 AM
down-the-slope

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Almost certainly. There's a lot of TBCs, including the BTC (:dizzy:) but HMRC have a acknowledged debt of £21m. That means the TBCs excluding the BTC would have to take the total debt up to over £84m for the CVA to succeed.

Yup and one of those is King claiming £20 million who has stated desire to torpedo Green
12-06-2012, 10:13 AM
Matty_Jack04

Now saying that the consortium buying assets for 5.5m kicks in, is this true even though it was thought HMRC are appointing there own choice of liquidator?
12-06-2012, 10:14 AM
BarneyK

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnbc70

So is it liquidation now?

I guess so. They will still try to shaft the Scottish game but liquidation is ever so pleasing nonetheless. :thumbsup:
12-06-2012, 10:16 AM
BarneyK

Quote:

Originally Posted by down-the-slope

Yup and one of those is King claiming £20 million who has stated desire to torpedo Green

The £20 million King claim seems to me a nonsense. It will be the latest in a long line of outrages if that is considered.
12-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Thank ****** I don't look like him.

Anyway, he pretty much says no RFC would kill the game, I'm just saying clubs would have less money - and the yams have to chase money more than most.

TBH I take these analyses with a pinch of salt, but I do agree that the absence of RFC would be nowhere near as devastating as some would have us believe.

With regard to Hibs, it's certainly no accident that we are less affected than some. Rod Petrie and the Hibs board have put a lot of hard work into ensuring that the club is financially viable and they've taken and continue to take a lot of abuse for their troubles. Seeing Rangers escape lightly from their self-inflicted problems would render all that pointless. I think that's why Rod's taking a hardline approach to this.

Says who :na na:

And that is why many will "never" return to the scottish game... Sad, but true.
12-06-2012, 10:18 AM
BarneyK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty_Jack04

Now saying that the consortium buying assets for 5.5m kicks in, is this true even though it was thought HMRC are appointing there own choice of liquidator?

It could be challenged I think. It clearly does not benefit the creditors in any way.
12-06-2012, 10:18 AM
down-the-slope

1 Attachment(s)

Attachment 8346Time......:greengrin
12-06-2012, 10:19 AM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

Says who :na na:

And that is why many will "never" return to the scottish game... Sad, but true.

Stop spoiling the moment and enjoy watching them squirm for the time being!

(By the way I'll be one of them)

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page