Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[cabbageandribs1875]

the slippery ones reps have apparently served a writ on the beeb


Meanwhile, Mr Whyte’s representatives said on Friday that a writ had been served on the BBC over a documentary and subsequent reports he had carried on the Rangers owner.

The action is over claims made in a documentary broadcast last October, as well as more recent reports by the corporation on Mr Whyte’s business history.

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: "We can confirm we have received a writ from Mr Whyte. We stand by our journalism, all of the allegations made, and will defend any action vigorously."

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Floating an idea here ....

The parent company probably then shifted that money to a third company which used it to pay off the indebtedness to Lloyds, whilst acquiring security over Rangers assets.

So the parent company is a debtor of the football club and the third company has a valid charge. If the parent had simply lent the ticket back to the football club it would have wiped out the loan it received and so there would have been nothing to secure.

I was actually scribbling this last night, but got too tired and gave up....

It makes sense on the face of it. However, would the third company not have their claim challenged on the basis that they were party to a fraud?


No charge is registered at Companies House.

[TornadoHibby]

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

Floating an idea here ....

The parent company probably then shifted that money to a third company which used it to pay off the indebtedness to Lloyds, whilst acquiring security over Rangers assets.

So the parent company is a debtor of the football club and the third company has a valid charge. If the parent had simply lent the Ticketus money back to the football club it would have wiped out the loan it received and so there would have been nothing to secure.

Not if it lent RFC enought to repay the Lloyds Banking Group £18million under loan documentation with a bond and floating charge over the RFC assets granted to it to secure 'repayment'!

Just saying likes!

[TornadoHibby]

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

I was actually scribbling this last night, but got too tired and gave up....

It makes sense on the face of it. However, would the third company not have their claim challenged on the basis that they were party to a fraud?


No charge is registered at Companies House.

It still could be though!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Not if it lent RFC enought to repay the Lloyds Banking Group £18million under loan documentation with a bond and floating charge over the RFC assets granted to it to secure 'repayment'!

Just saying likes!

Wouldn't it be paid direct to Lloyds? CW claimed that "he" paid off the bank.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It still could be though!

Should've been registered months ago.

Not that that means it doesn't exist, of course.

[TornadoHibby]

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

Wouldn't it be paid direct to Lloyds? CW claimed that "he" paid off the bank.

Still retaining the 'hypothetical angle', yes it could have but the loan documentation would record that in terms of why it was being directly to LBG on behalf of RFC I would imagine!

[Seveno]

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

Still retaining the 'hypothetical angle', yes it could have but the loan documentation would record that in terms of why it was being directly to LBG on behalf of RFC I would imagine!

Under FOI, could we not ask LBG who paid them ?

[Ozyhibby]

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

Under FOI, could we not ask LBG who paid them ?

No, although we own a big chunk of LBG they are still regarded as a private company and therefor exempt from freedom of information requests.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

No, although we own a big chunk of LBG they are still regarded as a private company and therefor exempt from freedom of information requests.

They may be getting a pile of mail from Duff & Phelps, the Insolvency Service, Strathclyde Polis, the FSA and the SFA

[Beefster]

Weird that Whyte's solicitors blank the SFA's requests for information on the 'fit and proper' test for months but as soon as Whyte is no longer in control of the club they launch an 'inquiry'. Spineless ****ers.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Weird that Whyte's solicitors blank the SFA's requests for information on the 'fit and proper' test for months but as soon as Whyte is no longer in control of the club they launch an 'inquiry'. Spineless ****ers.

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.

[PatHead]

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

I can only guess that the BBC have seen the Ticketus agreement. Someone (on here) did say that Ticketus have dealt with a club in (or close to) administration before, so perhaps there is a transfer clause to cover them in that event.

I have my doubts though.

South coast club

[Caversham Green]

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

I don't think there is a great deal of merit in debating the 'suspected' terms of the RFC 'deal' with Ticketus as no-one posting on here has seen the actual loan/sale documentation as far as I can see.

However, your accountancy assessment is flawed in that the balance sheet would balance in the scenario you describe. The balance sheet would show a debit for the GROSS sale proceeds (in respect of the amount due to be paid for the tickets) and a credit for the VAT liability amount with the net (future year) sales amount being the balancing balance sheet credit entry!

The bit you allude to as being the amount of the 'balancing item' relates, I think, to the receipt of cash for the sale which would be a credit against the GROSS sale proceeds debtor (as above) and a debit to the bank account if cash is received by RFC or a loan (debtor) account in the name of the recipient of the cash in cleared funds if not RFC. That balances too but is a separate element from the sale itself and the book-keeping for that!

Just saying likes!

The Ticketus statement (see post#1117) clearly lays out the nature of the deal. Regardless of the detailed terms it looks rather foolish IMHO

As I already said
'if taken at face vale'.

CWG has addressed the accounting points briefly, but the normal expected entry would simply be Dr Cash/Cr Deferred income. The deferred income would then be released to sales over the term of the deferral (Dr Deferred income/Cr sales). The point I was making was that no cash had come in and nobody seemed to know where it had gone therefore no debit entry could be identified. The last part of my relevant paragraph was

I've already said this too
until they can identify where the money did actually go.

Just saying likes.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

South coast club

I just can't think.....

I can see that, in an administration, the Ticketus arrangement could be continued under the new regime. After all, that is the same company.

In a liquidation, though, or a sale to a third party (eg Paul Murray).... what would be the implications?

[HFC 0-7]

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

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.

IMO, they shouldnt let someone take control of a club until the checks have been done and are satisfied.

[Beefster]

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

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.

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

IMO, they shouldnt let someone take control of a club until the checks have been done and are satisfied.

hibs13681 is pretty much on the nail. Either that or have a timescale that, if all the checks haven't been satisfied within 2 or 3 months of takeover, they'll be declared unfit. To be scrambling around 9 months after the takeover and then only launch an 'investigation' after he loses control, despite countless allegations against him since the takeover, is spineless IMHO.

[TornadoHibby]

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

The Ticketus statement (see post#1117) clearly lays out the nature of the deal. Regardless of the detailed terms it looks rather foolish IMHO
CWG has addressed the accounting points briefly, but the normal expected entry would simply be Dr Cash/Cr Deferred income. The deferred income would then be released to sales over the term of the deferral (Dr Deferred income/Cr sales). The point I was making was that no cash had come in and nobody seemed to know where it had gone therefore no debit entry could be identified. The last part of my relevant paragraph was

Just saying likes.

I thought that point you were making was that the balance sheet didn't balance until the location of the cash was known?? I'd hoped that I had established that was not in fact the case (it isn't the case) but you've raised a red herring I think to muddy the waters just a bit!

Fair enough but irrespective of where that cash sits, the balance sheet is not 'unbalanced', simply missing the double entry regarding reduction of one debtor and replacement by another or increase in cash balances or reduction in net debt!

Hypothetical chit chat on what might or might not be the case ultimately becomes slightly tedious for some if not others!

[Caversham Green]

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

I thought that point you were making was that the balance sheet didn't balance until the location of the cash was known?? I'd hoped that I had established that was not in fact the case (it isn't the case) but you've raised a red herring I think to muddy the waters just a bit!

Fair enough but irrespective of where that cash sits, the balance sheet is not 'unbalanced', simply missing the double entry regarding reduction of one debtor and replacement by another or increase in cash balances or reduction in net debt!

Hypothetical chit chat on what might or might not be the case ultimately becomes slightly tedious for some if not others!

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

The administrators said on the radio that they have received some information about "certain transactions", which they will be assessing over the next few days.

I'll no sleep.....

[stokesmessiah]

I don't get these administrators at all, for a start they do not sound impartial to me and nor do they sound like they have the creditors best intentions at heart.

And how is it they can keep on insisting on there being no liquidation when they can't find £24mil and the result of the big tax case has not been announced. If that were to happen on Monday and it was worst case £75mil scenario for Rangers then there is no way they could go on it would be game over.

[TornadoHibby]

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

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

I'm now totally confused at you still trying to "make good" your point about balance sheets not balancing for the reasons you noted in the original post. Even at the point of the original post it was possible to balance the balance sheet by putting the "unknown element", assuming the accountant responsible for the task was confident that Ticketus had transferred the funds to an entity connected with RFC and "Suspense" might have done meantime depending upon the nature of and audience for the accounts hypothetically speaking. If there is doubt that any cash has been transferred to any RFC related entity then the second leg of your accountancy point is irrelevant at that stage.

The point I think you were trying to make was that the recipient of the cash is actually not known and I think that the point went way off track (waters became muddied perhaps?) when you started the point about the balance sheet "not balancing"! The subject matter in your point from the original post is not accountancy but "where is that Ticketus cash now?" and I was simply trying to steer things back from the brink of that misguidance to non accountants trying to understand what you were actually saying!

I think the idea that some people seem to think that they are accurately identifying what has happened here when no-one posting seems to have an awareness of the actual legal documents or funds flows concerned is interesting in the hypothetical sense but only to a point.

I'm as interested as the next Scottish football fan to find out what has actually happened here but not to the extent of trying to work out exactly what CW and his associates and advisors have done without the help of actual papers and facts when there are already Administrators and possibly now others already on that particular case who will doubtless make the actual circumstances known to all stakeholders including fans in due course!

PS: Something up with the Octopusinvestments .com web site today!

[tony]

You could look upon all of this as a watershed for Scottish Football. A chance to get itself into a shape to mover forward, as this situation is just another example of our steady decline, in terms of quality, excitement, organisation etc etc.

It would be great to make sure that all teams cannot operate outwith their means - as Rangers have been beating us by spending outwith theirs for years now. Clubs can only pay what they can afford, meaning they have to stop bringing in journeymen and start bringing up youngsters. The big clubs will always be big, but with a more even playing field we might end up with tables that reflect the last years of the old first division and the first few of the SPL. Forget Europe, forget England. Lets get a 16 team league playing twice a year and save our game. Who knows, in five/ten years we might actually have a game worth watching and worth getting excited about.

Ok, time to come out of dreamland...........though it was nice for the five minutes I was thinking about it........

[ScottB]

Would be very interesting indeed if Whyte has given Ticketus some sort of deal that guarantees them their money regardless of what Rangers do...

In a way it makes sense, if that wasn't the case, why wouldn't they have any kind of guarantee against the clubs assets or any kind of back up to cover them if Rangers hit the wall? When they did the deal it was clear Rangers were in trouble, and 'The Big Tax Case' was on the horizon. So perhaps this was the price for Rangers getting so many years worth of ticket cash upfront? Not sure how that would work on a legal basis, but if it is true... Rangers are stuffed no matter what they do!

[Caversham Green]

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

I'm now totally confused at you still trying to "make good" your point about balance sheets not balancing for the reasons you noted in the original post. Even at the point of the original post it was possible to balance the balance sheet by putting the "unknown element", assuming the accountant responsible for the task was confident that Ticketus had transferred the funds to an entity connected with RFC and "Suspense" might have done meantime depending upon the nature of and audience for the accounts hypothetically speaking. If there is doubt that any cash has been transferred to any RFC related entity then the second leg of your accountancy point is irrelevant at that stage.

The point I think you were trying to make was that the recipient of the cash is actually not known and I think that the point went way off track (waters became muddied perhaps?) when you started the point about the balance sheet "not balancing"! The subject matter in your point from the original post is not accountancy but "where is that Ticketus cash now?" and I was simply trying to steer things back from the brink of that misguidance to non accountants trying to understand what you were actually saying!

I think the idea that some people seem to think that they are accurately identifying what has happened here when no-one posting seems to have an awareness of the actual legal documents or funds flows concerned is interesting in the hypothetical sense but only to a point.

I'm as interested as the next Scottish football fan to find out what has actually happened here but not to the extent of trying to work out exactly what CW and his associates and advisors have done without the help of actual papers and facts when there are already Administrators and possibly now others already on that particular case who will doubtless make the actual circumstances known to all stakeholders including fans in due course!

PS: Something up with the Octopusinvestments .com web site today!

The main point of my original post was that the deal with Ticketus was by their stance definitely not a loan - that was different from how I and others had previously regarded it. The accounting aspect was secondary but the basic point was that The Rangers Football Club PLC had an identifiable credit - the deferred income - but no identifiable corresponding debit - no cash, no expense, no identifiable asset. You can't make a balance sheet balance in those circumstances (at least not in a way that is acceptable under any accounting standards). I don't think my reasoning was in any way flawed. Prior to the Ticketus statement I could see a situation where RFC were simply guaranteeing the debt of another company on the strength of their future ST sales, but didn't have a specific liability, in which case there would have been no balance sheet entry at all.

[mca]

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

[truehibernian]

** pedant alert.....*****

Oh dear...........seems the Rangers fans have been getting lessons in 'banner making' from the Celtic fans.

http://willievass.photoshelter.com/g...000nNZibM6GU2o

[Steven_Hibs]

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

So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending

Here's hoping

[Moulin Yarns]

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

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

Well, they could be money launderers of course

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

I heard the press conference on the radio. I didn't hear any indication that the journalists had been given the information, and had been gagged. I heard, as you did, that there was new information (from solicitors) which would be assessed over the next few days.