Alex Thomson tweeting D+P making a statement later today, possibly about Craigie Boy's links to Charles Green. Hee hee.
Printable View
Alex Thomson tweeting D+P making a statement later today, possibly about Craigie Boy's links to Charles Green. Hee hee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Crazy Chuck: 1st day at ibrox: ''I have never met Craig Whyte in my life''
Pants on fire ya mouthy old jakey! :thumbsup:
Is this interview with the same BBC that Whyte is suing for saying horrible things about him?
TBH, it's not really that relevant now. It has no bearing on the current club.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Perversely, if it goes "against" the old company, it's the smaller creditors that will suffer.
I was walking past Ibrox the other week when the 'faithful' appeared from everywhere munching on fairy cakes for some strange reason.
Has anyone else suddenly been surround by HUNdreds and thousands?
BBC are milking this more that Hibs marketing on the new tiles.
2nd story of the day
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19979004
Perhaps Green may use the cash raised by a share issue to pay back all the people the oldco stole from........lol or perhaps he may not
Whyte says that he introduced Green to D&P.
In view of the fact that Rangers were sold to Servco for such a low price with no attempt to sell off the assets first. Are the liquidators likely to look more closely at the deal now they are aware Whyte assisted in brokering the deal or would this be flogging a dead horse?
I don't think that Whyte's involvement will affect the liquidators' attitude much. They will (or should) be looking at the asset sale closely in any event.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Now that Whyte has resurfaced, I can't help thinking that this is some sort of attempt at revenge on D&P. He appointed them, in the hope that they would be easy to deal with, particulalry on the question of the security that he claimed to have. However, I think their attitude changed subtly in the Spring.... easy to say in hindsight, of course. That change was, IMO, due to their realising just how high-profile the case was, and that they couldn't get away with doing Whyte's bidding. So, effectively, they shafted him.
The problem is, though, that Whyte probably knows where a few bodies are buried....:greengrin
Liking the sound of this :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:agree: The creditors won't get a lot in any case after D&P and BDO have had their whack. Unless D&P win their case against Collyer Bristow/Gary Withey which is bubbling away quietly in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I had forgotten about that. Do BDO take that over, or will it fall as a result of D&P being removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
There's a distinct smell about it all though. I'm sure Green mentioned that he had been working with D&P around the time Bill Miller put his bid in. And the whole Ticketus thing still doen't hang right, although maybe Craigie's getting his defences up in this interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think BDO still have a duty to recover as much as possible for the creditors, so they will need to take a view on whether the case is likely to succeed or not. The CVA proposal said that the claim 'could be' more than £25m, but without knowing all the details that seems unlikely to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I would guess that BDO will instruct the same legal team to pursue the matter if they think it might succeed.
http://www.thelawyer.com/withey-exit...014897.articleQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Withey was doing a bit of maneuvering in the case the other day. No idea if it is significant. :confused:
This guy reckons admin again may be looming now that Craig Whyte has revealed his links to Green
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/pos...lack-and-whyte
Full interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...ign=sportsound
:lolrangers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-19981266
I can't see how Duff and Duffer can get away with this bullsh*t.
"The Liquidation will not affect the new Rangers as it is a completely separate entity" --------------fair enough,
but he goes on to say " as administrators our primary statutory function was to ensure Rangers continued as a business and this was achieved " and then he says,
" Secondly, we were tasked with finding a buyer for the club and this too was achieved " :confused:
That's not the way I see things, what was sold was the old club assets and everyone else got shafted except the Duffers who got their
£ 3million fees, losing the creditors £ 4 million by trading the company for 4 months.
What odds are the bookies giving on Glasgow's second club winning the Third Division ?
By that I mean Queen's Park.
Surely Queens Park are only the 3rd club in Glasgow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Partick Thistle are the 2nd. :greengrin
If Whyte can back up his claims then it definitely muddies the waters regards Green. Methinks part of this rushed AIM share issue is to try and avoid BDO unwinding the Sevco asset purchase. You have a tainted and conflicted administrator in D&P, a shady newco front man in Green, Whyte lurking in the background, and an ongoing process regards oldco liquidation, along with the EBT and dual contract verdicts to come. Plus the useless carrot Sally in charge of getting the Orcs out of sfl3. Green is obviously making a dash for the cash winning line before these chickens come home to roost.
It's interesting. Is it really possible that Whyte and Green are somehow in cahoots?Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Bill Miller ran a mile from Rangers when he looked further into it. The whole thing stinks.
Here's Traynor on Newsnight by the way, wishing Whyte back into his box.
But Partick Thistle are in the First Division.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Anyone see the Green interview on STV tonight?
Ibrox recently valued at £80m.
It seems perfectly clear that D&P didn't get the best deal for the creditors....
Hmm. Their objectives (and the objectives of any Administration) were:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
a) Rescue the Company as a going concern;
b) Achieving a better result for the Company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the Company were wound up without first being in administration;
c) Realising property for the benefit of secured or preferential creditors.
They failed in the first objective, so their statutory function became objective b). That in no way involves ensuring Rangers FC continued as a business, nor were they "tasked with finding a buyer for the club", their duties were simply to realise as much from the assets as possible for the benefit of the creditors.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was widely predicted that they would fail with a) because of HMRC's stated policy regarding administrations. The CVA failure surprised no-one apart from them and Charles Green. That being the case (with hindsight) they should have pursued objective b) from the outset - that would at least have saved a significant chunk of their fees. I don't believe objective b) was satisfied by the signing of an apparently irrevocable agreement to sell all of the company's assets for £5.5m during the pursuit of a CVA. Objective c) is not relevant in this case.
My view is that Duff & Phelps spectacularly failed to achieve the purpose of their appointment.
And what are the potential repurcussions of such a failure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Could they have their fees slashed, and the savings added to the pot, or are those fees safe?
There argument is obviously going to be that selling Rangers as a going concern (rather than splitting assets) would realise the largest amount of money for creditors, but was this achieved (given the breakdown of what was sold for £5.5m)?
Partick Thistle are Glasgow's number one club :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Sadly, I think the repercussions are likely to be minimal. BDO might question some of their actions which could lead to a lawsuit to recover some of the losses suffered by creditors, but these things are always difficult to prove and expensive to pursue. The creditors have to approve their fees, but I think that has already been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I would agree that selling the club (rather than the company) as a going concern should have realised more than a break-up, but it appears that they tied themselves into the £5.5m deal without properly testing the market. The valuation of all the assets strikes me as ridiculously low and the going concern part - 36,000 ST holders and what Green is now describing as a worldwide brand - was valued at £1.
I also wish someone would challenge Green's contention that he bought the titles and trophies within that purchase price.
"The Liquidation will not affect the new Rangers as it is a completely separate entity" From D&P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Separate Entity = No titles and trophies, surely.
Think I have said it before.... but this is an argument that will rage back and forth for a long time, and probably without resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
On one hand, there is the legal position, and I am with Cav on that. However, as we all know, football isn't just about legalities, it's about emotion as well. Imagine if we were in the same position, with a phoenix-type situation, I am sure that most of us would be arguing that "we are still, and always have been, the Hibs; no matter what the law says".
(this is what is so good about Hibs.net. I have just posted this thought-provoking nonsense, whilst two minutes ago I was praising Sylvia Kristel's tits.)