Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't know who owns them, but I suspect their sphincter has been rapidly tightning over the last few days, as from what I've seen they are going to be left high and dry!

They insure against this type of thing, apparently. (see earlier on in this thread, or maybe the other one... losing the plot here )

[blackpoolhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

Paying taxes is a bigger part of ANY economy, i'd bet he'd have more to say about this if it was an english private company trying to weasel its way out of this?

[blindsummit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They insure against this type of thing, apparently. (see earlier on in this thread, or maybe the other one... losing the plot here )

you and me both! This whole thing administration thing and all the possible outcomes is giving me a headache. Which is a vast improvement on how the Old Firm normally make me feel which is completely nauseous

[strummbo]

C'mon hibeeleicester... are you for real...

Salmond or any first minister would not give a monkey for the financial plight of Hibernian

Football is not a major part of the economy at all, its a bit part player in terms of turnover and tax comapred to other industries

Where was he when the fishing industry got rail roaded into EU quotas, where was he when other, more contributory areas towards the state coffers were in plight and headin down the tubes?

No where, he kept shtoom.

re celtic needing rangers... mebbes aye mebbes naw... but if push came to shove and one had to sink... do tesco need M&S, do sainsbury need Morrisons...

business is about driving your competitors out of business and taking them over... kinda like what mercer proposed years back

only this time its whyte trying to abscond from his fiscal responsability to the state via tax etc...

sordid little bunch that they are...

mon the tash and hibs...:

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you and me both! This whole thing administration thing and all the possible outcomes is giving me a headache. Which is a vast improvement on how the Old Firm normally make me feel which is completely nauseous

It's fun, though....and just warms us up for the main event, happening at a bus-shelter near you very soon

[andy1875]

I really don't understand all the ins and outs of the Rangers case but the more I hear and read about this £75 million odd figure, the more I start to believe they are only going to be paying about 10-15% back?

Spend millions of pounds over years whilst clearly not being able to afford tax bills and when the taxman really does come knocking shout......we're skint, let's go into administration!

Is it really that easy to in reality to make a mockery of the tax system? What's to stop any football club or any other business for that matter to spend money, with-hold taxes and then say we can't afford to pay said tax bill then in a nutshell come to an agreement to only pay a fraction of the original figure?

Shocking if this the way of it. I may have misunderstood mind!

GGTTH

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's fun, though....and just warms us up for the main event, happening at a bus-shelter near you very soon

Who are the directors left at Rangers??

I know Greig, the security guy (I kid you not! maybe Anderson?), Bain the MD and MacIntyre the FD, all exited.

Is wrongful trading about to catch all these directors out!?

I can not imagine that 'wrongful trading' is not wholly applicable right now!!

[Hibee87]

had a quick scan of this = http://www.scotprem.com/content/medi...0(CURRENT).pdf but can't see anything to say what will or will not happen. maybe one of the more eagle eyes members will pick somthing up

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's to stop any football club or any other business for that matter to spend money, with-hold taxes and then say we can't afford to pay said tax bill then in a nutshell come to an agreement to only pay a fraction of the original figure?

I think that HMRC will be well aware of the possible issues that accepting a deal would/could cause, and may well push for liquidation if they dont get what they want.

[GreenPJ]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

C'mon hibeeleicester... are you for real...

Salmond or any first minister would not give a monkey for the financial plight of Hibernian

Football is not a major part of the economy at all, its a bit part player in terms of turnover and tax comapred to other industries

Where was he when the fishing industry got rail roaded into EU quotas, where was he when other, more contributory areas towards the state coffers were in plight and headin down the tubes?

No where, he kept shtoom.

re celtic needing rangers... mebbes aye mebbes naw... but if push came to shove and one had to sink... do tesco need M&S, do sainsbury need Morrisons...

business is about driving your competitors out of business and taking them over... kinda like what mercer proposed years back

only this time its whyte trying to abscond from his fiscal responsability to the state via tax etc...

sordid little bunch that they are...

mon the tash and hibs...:

Too be fair when the EU fishing quotas came in my recollection was the SNP did kick up a big fuss but they did not have a mandate or public support at the same levels as they have now.

Football is not about driving your competitors out of business its about beating them in a game. Football may not be a significant contributor to the economy but there is a lot of public interest in it and sadly there is a lot of Rangers supporters therefore the same clamour would be made by 'some' of the electorate if no government comment was made.

None of this detracts from Rangers should pay the price for firstly avoiding tax (assuming its proved) and secondly selling out to a conman (allegedly).

[Keith_M]

I'm really surprised anyone is taking what various politicians are saying too seriously. So far as I know, we've had one SNP and one Labour politician (and presumably others) make meaningless soundbites, saying what they feel they have to so as to sound like they actually care.

The SNP, for example, are scared to alienate any potential voters, as are most other parties. They've tried already to make the independence issue appeal to Unionists/Loyalists by stating that the Queen will still be head of state after Independence. IMHO, what Salmond is doing now is just a continuation of that attempt at vote winning.

[ancienthibby]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

[BroxburnHibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

Surely there's a crime been committed there somewhere - outrageous.

Liquidate them I say

[PaulSmith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I found the administrators completely incredible on the question of cash at the bank, which a number of reporters questioned them on.

Their standard answer was 'we have yet to conduct an examination of that', or words to that effect.

Surely that's about the first thing an administrator gets to grip with - the cash position, all transactions in the past week, month, etc, who authorises payments, what the cash flow is, etc??

On all these, they put up a huge deflect shield.

One thing we did learn was that only a down payment has been made for Jelavic.

I imagine that they have a "pretty good" understanding of the financial position of RFC but have not yet had time to set that out to the eagerly listening World in a manner that deals "safely" with all of the other "issues" (nature and substance of relationship with CW etc) that may or not be "smouldering" at the same time!

The next few days will reveal more I suspect as constant pressure from the media, politicians and fans etc will provoke information release over and above the statutory requirements!

[Hibs Class]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

I suspect you are talking pish, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you post links to salmond's interventions for motherwell, gretna, livingston and dundee and prove yourself right?

[blindsummit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

Just this whole ticketus thing alone stinks of fraud.

[greenginger]

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

If, as has been previously suggested, that the ticketus money was either in whytes sweaty little hands or in escrow prior to the deal being concluded then the little shyster has used an asset as collateral to finance the purchase of the huns. I'm sure the relevant authorities will be looking quite closely at that one won't be an FSA investigation it'll be the fraud squad

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

Maybe this was his way of protecting the football club from the big tax case with HMRC?

[blackpoolhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suspect you are talking pish, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you post links to salmond's interventions for motherwell, gretna, livingston and dundee and prove yourself right?

I think you will wait a very long time.

[truehibernian]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

Add into the mix the Ticketus scenario greenginger, does it not have all the hallmarks of a classic long firm fraud ?

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe this was his way of protecting the football club from the big tax case with HMRC?

Yeah, and in the past I'm sure he has moved cash and bonds off-shore beyond the reaches of U K courts, but they can't easily move a football stadium offshore

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

"David Whitehouse, from administrators Duff and Phelps told a press conference: "Our understanding is that the funds from Ticketus didn't come through the company's account, they went through a parent company account so we haven't got visibility on that.

"Ticketus don't have security on the assets of the club."

Ticketus have refused to comment on the Rangers season ticket deal, citing client confidentiality."

I suspect it to be very unlikely that this ST cash has been lent in a manner which leaves it as Unsecured (similar to the HMRC debts) in a corporate environment that seems to have had "Administration" or similar associated with it since CW was associated with it. The ST cash lender will have some form of security for this cash which it was comfortable with at the time of lending it and I am sure that security would not have amounted to £Nil in value terms!

Ticketus may not be commenting as their client may not be the company in administration despite the "apparent" repayment method for the loan arising from future sales receipts of RFC ST's!

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Add into the mix the Ticketus scenario greenginger, does it not have all the hallmarks of a classic long firm fraud ?

Absolute racing certainty, I'm just hoping there are the means available to prevent this giant tax fraud and they are actually used by the HMRC .

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah, and in the past I'm sure he has moved cash and bonds off-shore beyond the reaches of U K courts, but they can't easily move a football stadium offshore

Ha ha
Maybe his own way of moving Rangers out of the SPL
Play their games in Portsmouth

[HFC 0-7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Ticketus money was with CW's solicitors before the takeover.

Not the full 24.4 million though, when the first payment was due Craig Whyte sold more tickets to ticketus to cover the first payment. I heard that he initially only sold about 16 million worth of ST but when the first repayment was due (about 9M) he sold more to bring the total money to 24.4M. As the second wave of ST sales was to pay for the first repayment, Whyte never actually had the 24.4M.

It does seem that the only bills Whyte has been paying since he came has been the salaries.

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

I haven't looked at the accounts of RFC or any other Group (and therefore related) company but it is the case that assets cannot be moved from one entity to another (particularly related) entity unless they are transferred at "fair market value". Directors of companies which may be, or are likely to become insolvent must be very careful not to permit such transactions or to behave recklessly! This may help people follow this more easily!

"(Fraudulent) preferences" or "transactions at undervalue" are things to look at particularly!

[HFC 0-7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"David Whitehouse, from administrators Duff and Phelps told a press conference: "Our understanding is that the funds from Ticketus didn't come through the company's account, they went through a parent company account so we haven't got visibility on that.

"Ticketus don't have security on the assets of the club."

Ticketus have refused to comment on the Rangers season ticket deal, citing client confidentiality."

I suspect it to be very unlikely that this ST cash has been lent in a manner which leaves it as Unsecured (similar to the HMRC debts) in a corporate environment that seems to have had "Administration" or similar associated with it since CW was associated with it. The ST cash lender will have some form of security for this cash which it was comfortable with at the time of lending it and I am sure that security would not have amounted to £Nil in value terms!

Ticketus may not be commenting as their client may not be the company in administration despite the "apparent" repayment method for the loan arising from future sales receipts of RFC ST's!

If they have loaned the money to another company does that not mean they are NOT effected by the administration? I believe the Ticketus deals mean that they basically sell their allocation of ST's first meaning they get their money back first. If Rangers exit administration will ticketus not just be looking to get their money when ST's for next year are on sale?

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they have loaned the money to another company does that not mean they are NOT effected by the administration? I believe the Ticketus deals mean that they basically sell their allocation of ST's first meaning they get their money back first. If Rangers exit administration will ticketus not just be looking to get their money when ST's for next year are on sale?

That will depend upon the terms of the loan facility documentation and agreement(s) none of which we can guess about with any degree of accuracy !