Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibee92

Probably been talked about but i'm not going through the whole thread.

Will the huns demise effect the coefficient?

---

If they erase their record it actually might improve it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Either RF has got the wrong info, or DC is being evasive.

---

Both of them have previous for these things :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibee92

Probably been talked about but i'm not going through the whole thread.

Will the huns demise effect the coefficient?

---

If our teams do well in Europe then we get a better coefficient, if we get pumped out in the first rounds then we'll get a worse coefficient. But seeing as Rangers were going out at the first round anyway, it'll not be any worse!

Why are HMRC considering going against all they have said and done in the past and possibly removing an objection to a CVA?

Have I got that right, surely they do it once, they'll have to do it for countless others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

This is what I'm getting at. They keep talking about severe cuts needed to run the club and those same cuts will surely be required under a new owner or do they really feel a new guy will just cover it all and happily take on a compmay losing money?

Should they not be ensuring that the club didn't make a further month of a loss?

They can't be betting everyting on a buyer coming along who wants the full staff left as it is because he will pay it all off himself? That seems a quite dangerous and negligent assumption given the overall state of things.

---

There must be doubts about the next old firm game going ahead at Ibrox in the next few weeks, where will the money come from to pay the Police for the high number that will be needed for that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeSince85

Why are HMRC considering going against all they have said and done in the past and possibly removing an objection to a CVA?

Have I got that right, surely they do it once, they'll have to do it for countless others.

---

Ive not read anything from the HMRC suggesting they'll do that. have I missed something?

Is it a pipedream?

Even if television revenues were split evenly...
The breakdown on the revenues from the Annual Report 2010 for Rangers.

Interestingly enough the biggest revenue stream was the gate receipts. The commercial deals/sponsorship will also blow others out the water.

2. TURNOVER
Contributions to turnover, which is derived entirely in the United Kingdom and is related to one activity, are as follows:
				2010		2009
				£’000	%	£’000	%
Gate receipts and hospitality				25,834	45.9	24,228	43.0
Sponsorship and advertising				2,941	5.2	2,835	5.0
Broadcasting rights				3,760	6.7	5,133	9.1
Commercial				21,730	38.6	5,633	10.0
Other operating income				2,022	3.6	1,875	3.3
				56,287		39,704

So if fairer distribution is not the answer what is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Anyone see Gorams collumn in the Sun today?



But why learn from the past...

He goes on to say...

---

Never was the sharpest tool in the box. Tool nevertheless :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Ive not read anything from the HMRC suggesting they'll do that. have I missed something?

---

Roddy Forsyth said it in the Telegraph this morning. And that it had been "sanctioned by the Treasury".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Roddy Forsyth said it in the Telegraph this morning. And that it had been "sanctioned by the Treasury".

---

Interesting.

Dangerous road for the HMRC to go down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Ive not read anything from the HMRC suggesting they'll do that. have I missed something?

---

Neither had I, I'm amazed at that. CWG got it from The Guardian so he says above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Interesting.

Dangerous road for the HMRC to go down.

---

I honestly can't see it. Just last week the Government hammered Barclay's, as a sign that they were getting tough on tax avoidance. And Danny Alexander said to the LibDems conference that they are out to get tax dodgers, and used the words "football club".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Okay.

The reason I don't agree with you is that it presupposes that a CVA was always going to happen. Given that HMRC's policy is to oppose them, that's a helluva supposition to make. I know that Roddy Forsyth has said that HMRC might remove their objection in this case, but CW/AN Other couldn't possibly have forseen this.

If, however, a CVA does happen..... our anger should be directed at HMRC, not Duff & Phelps.

Now my version of "the plan"....

I reckon CW wanted to play this one straight(ish). He scammed the club, sure, by using the Ticketus money to pay off Lloyds. However, he was gambling on there being enough income generated by the club over the next few years to fill that hole. Particularly from the Champions League

That gamble failed the moment Malmo scored way back when.....

---

Yes I have seen you suggest this previously in the thread and a perfectly good suggestion it is backed by an incredible and entertaining knowledge of the financial game. A knowledge that has had us all glued to your posts and learning all the time.

But for me, as a simple observer of this tasteless phenomenon, with no financial background whatsoever, I see conspirecies deeper than CW. I see him as having been placed there to get rid of an impossible debt. A debt that Rangers could see no other way out of but to expose a whole lot of dirty washing in a oner and throw one man to the wolves. No doubt there would be a reward deal under the counter.

After all this is a club that has quite clearly set itself up to cheat the country and cheat the other clubs SPL for their own ends. No scruples whatsoever. So in my fictional case and in the interests of entertainment I see dark figures in the background waiting for the dust to settle, the debt to be gone and, with the help of the Scottish media and a sympathetic SPL/SFA, getting away with it all and carrying on as if nothing had ever happened in a smug and conceited manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I honestly can't see it. Just last week the Government hammered Barclay's, as a sign that they were getting tough on tax avoidance. And Danny Alexander said to the LibDems conference that they are out to get tax dodgers, and used the words "football club".

---

Since when can The Lib Dems stake claim to be able to deliver on their words on matters of consequence :confused::wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeSince85

Neither had I, I'm amazed at that. CWG got it from The Guardian so he says above.

---

The Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...eir-hands.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

Yes I have seen you suggest this previously in the thread and a perfectly good suggestion it is backed by an incredible and entertaining knowledge of the financial game. A knowledge that has had us all glued to your posts and learning all the time.

But for me, as a simple observer of this tasteless phenomenon, with no financial background whatsoever, I see conspirecies deeper than CW. I see him as having been placed there to get rid of an impossible debt. A debt that Rangers could see no other way out of but to expose a whole lot of dirty washing in a oner and throw one man to the wolves. No doubt there would be a reward deal under the counter.

After all this is a club that has quite clearly set itself up to cheat the country and cheat the other clubs SPL for their own ends. No scruples whatsoever. So in my fictional case and in the interests of entertainment I see dark figures in the background waiting for the dust to settle, the debt to be gone and, with the help of the Scottish media and a sympathetic SPL/SFA, getting away with it all and carrying on as if nothing had ever happened in a smug and conceited manner.

---

My fears exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

The Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...eir-hands.html

---

What a tit, I said the wrong paper:greengrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

Yes I have seen you suggest this previously in the thread and a perfectly good suggestion it is backed by an incredible and entertaining knowledge of the financial game. A knowledge that has had us all glued to your posts and learning all the time.

But for me, as a simple observer of this tasteless phenomenon, with no financial background whatsoever, I see conspirecies deeper than CW. I see him as having been placed there to get rid of an impossible debt. A debt that Rangers could see no other way out of but to expose a whole lot of dirty washing in a oner and throw one man to the wolves. No doubt there would be a reward deal under the counter.

After all this is a club that has quite clearly set itself up to cheat the country and cheat the other clubs SPL for their own ends. No scruples whatsoever. So in my fictional case and in the interests of entertainment I see dark figures in the background waiting for the dust to settle, the debt to be gone and, with the help of the Scottish media and a sympathetic SPL/SFA, getting away with it all and carrying on as if nothing had ever happened in a smug and conceited manner.

---

I prefer your version ... it's got a lot more dramatic value than mine :aok:

Who would you get to play Craigie in the film??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I prefer your version ... it's got a lot more dramatic value than mine :aok:

Who would you get to play Craigie in the film??

---

Have no fears, Mr Croppers, that part is reserved for you alone!!

I feel those staring eyes coming through from your every post!!:not worth:not worth:not worth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenhibby

Administrators confirm that Craig Whyte is not the preferred creditor. Not sure where this leaves us?

---

Sorry, GH, I am trying to find this... not doubting you, but where did you see it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

Have no fears, Mr Croppers, that part is reserved for you alone!!

I feel those staring eyes coming through from your every post!!:not worth:not worth:not worth

---

You have just had my two fingers again, ya cheeky get.

Think Warren Beatty, or Jack Nicholson. They're my type of roles.:cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Hmmm.... Roddy Forsyth is of the opinion that HMRC are going to remove their objection to a CVA, and that it has been "sanctioned by the Treasury".

Either RF has got the wrong info, or DC is being evasive.

---

I don't believe it for one moment. Delusion I think.

How would a CVA work without a secured creditor?

There is next to nothing there apart from the balance of the Ticketus cash and the real estate. Would the Treasury accept 1 pence in the pound on a £75 million debt?

The club, if it survived would have no ground, or would have to rent Ibrox, and most of its season ticket money would be in hoc to Ticketus for three to four years.

They would have no access to Europe for at least a year. What support would they get if they put out a team they could afford to pay?

The whole thing will not work without a full liquidation to really clear the debts and get rid of the Ticketus obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You have just had my two fingers again, ya cheeky get.

Think Warren Beatty, or Jack Nicholson. They're my type of roles.:cool2:

---

Understood. Jack N has a post-graduate degree in staring eyes.:agree:

Warren Beatty - nah - he's me!:greengrin

(ps - it's git!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

I don't believe it for one moment. Delusion I think.

How would a CVA work without a secured creditor?

There is next to nothing there apart from the balance of the Ticketus cash and the real estate. Would the Treasury accept 1 pence in the pound on a £75 million debt?

The club, if it survived would have no ground, or would have to rent Ibrox, and most of its season ticket money would be in hoc to Ticketus for three to four years.

They would have no access to Europe for at least a year. What support would they get if they put out a team they could afford to pay?

The whole thing will not work without a full liquidation to really clear the debts and get rid of the Ticketus obligation.

---

A couple of points:-

1. it's "only" £15m that HMRC are in for just now. The BTC, not being settled yet, wouldn't form part of the debt.

2. the real estate wouldn't necessarily be relevant, I don't think. The creditors would be entitled to say "we'll take x% of whatever liquid assets you have, and you can stay at Ibrox" just to get something, and to ensure a continuing future relationship. I reckon they'd be daft to do that.... as you say, there would be more for them in a liquidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Good point. If the SPL decide to dock them points, or worse, they could end up well down the League. That might mean that they owed some of the advance back to the SPL,..... not a good idea.

Sorry, Blind Summit, I've changed my mind. ..... get my rubber gloves, nurse, this one's getting a right good fisting.

---

I am sure it will hurt them waaaaaayyyy more than it will you :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeSince85

Why are HMRC considering going against all they have said and done in the past and possibly removing an objection to a CVA?

Have I got that right, surely they do it once, they'll have to do it for countless others.

---

If they do this for Rangers, then the stench of corruption will be overpowering. I'm not sure that there won't be an enormous backlash, particularly amongst English taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I prefer your version ... it's got a lot more dramatic value than mine :aok:

Who would you get to play Craigie in the film??

---

Can't quite make my mind up if he has to be a villain or a victim at the end of the movie. I think a villain but the real bad guys in my movie would be the former club owner wishing to off-load an impossible debt and whoever is eventually exposed as the Mr Kingpin behind the scheme. Any resemblance to any non fictional characters would of course be purely coincidental and in no way intended to reflect real life:hi:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

There must be doubts about the next old firm game going ahead at Ibrox in the next few weeks, where will the money come from to pay the Police for the high number that will be needed for that game.

---

IMO the decision by the authorities tae allow this game tae go ahead as normal is complete insanity. It`s one thing tae have Killie, ICT et al giving it tae them tight, but Smeltc singing taxman jingles and waving scrawled banners ( most likely mis-spelled ) while doin that nauseating backs tae the pitch pish would be a recipe for utter mayhem. It`ll be chaos.
It should be played behind closed doors although the TV company that runs our game would never allow that.:tsk tsk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindsummit

If they do this for Rangers, then the stench of corruption will be overpowering. I'm not sure that there won't be an enormous backlash, particularly amongst English taxpayers.

---

Could it be that a rash of English clubs are on the brink of following suit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I prefer your version ... it's got a lot more dramatic value than mine :aok:

Who would you get to play Craigie in the film??

---

Has Nick Leeson got an equity card? Ideal candidate. Or maybe Fred Goodwin though the role might be small beer to him.