Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[johnrebus]

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

The theory of that works for me. I have to get my head around the practice, though. On the face of it, RFC2 are getting a good deal... paying the cost of the business up.

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.

Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,

You and millions of others, John.

I still have trouble believing that HMRC haven't thought this all through.

[Caversham Green]

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

But it was used to pay Rangers Lloyd's debt? Surely they either owe it to CW or to Ticketus? Surely if Ticketus can follow the paper trail to Lloyds they can get their money back.

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

They definitely don't owe it to CW. Paul Clark said as much earlier today.



(edit... nipping down to ER for my Ayr tickets... back soon)

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

That's his opinion.

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

...and the opinion of every accountant and Insolvency Practitioner I've heard talking about it. I can't see how it could be any other way.


Now beat it... I've got tickets to pick up

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

[Spike Mandela]

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

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

[ballengeich]

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

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.

While neither an accountant nor a tax expert I'd reached the same conclusion myself. In practice Rangers could pay some millions of back tax a year to HMRC while maintaining easily the second largest playing budget in the SPL.

Given the likelihood that the foul institution would re-emerge in some equally rancid form if the current company was wound up a staged clearing of tax debt might be the best available all-round solution. I'd like them to disappear totally, but I can't see it happening so we should ensure that as good Christians they follow the precepts of Mathew 22:21

[Caversham Green]

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

There is legislation that covers so-called "phoenix companies", where the owners and officers of the new company are essentially the same as those of the old.

However, I am not sure that it covers situations like this, where the owners are different. Cav thinks there are such provisions. I would hope he's right.

I'm only aware that legislation exists, I have no idea whether it would cover this situation or not. Others seem to believe it wouldn't and I would be prepared to take their word for that until I hear otherwise.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

I need a lie down.

[Caversham Green]

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

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

Presumably it was through the famous Collyer Bristow Client Account, which is where the Ticketus cash apparently went.

[Andy74]

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

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

Isn't there another option?

Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.

[Spike Mandela]

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

Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.

D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.

[Caversham Green]

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

Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

I need a lie down.

I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Isn't there another option?

Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.

That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.

Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?

[Andy74]

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

D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.

As I suggested above. CW used his own cash to pay Lloyds off. Not sure how anyone now thinks that he is due that, it's paid, as a gift to Lloyds surely?

CW seems to have got free cash out of Ticketus. Or has he? If Rangers think they have no obligation either CW is personally up for supplying Rangers STs to them or a guarantee of the cash, which I doubt, or Ticketus have got themselves into a crazy deal where someone has sold them something they don't own and no-one is now responsible for delivering to them.

[Andy74]

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

That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

[Spike Mandela]

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

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?

[JeMeSouviens]

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

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

Don't think so. The charge over Hun assets was definitely reassigned from the Bank to CW's company so surely the Huns must've owed RFC Group formerly Wavetower at that point?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

You're assuming it's a gift. That's very unlikely.

If it were a gift, CW/RFCG wouldn't have registered a floating charge in their name over RFC's assets for "all sums due to them".

[BarneyK]

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

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?

[greenginger]

Was the Ticketus money not paid into Whyte's Lawyers client account (the original £18 million ) to show SDM he had the funds to pay off Lloyds Bank. Only after that was the £1 sale of Rangers made and then the deal for the sale of future season tickets crystallized.It was some days after the take over that Lloyds were paid.

The second sale of future season tickets took place weeks after Whyte moved in and must be Rangers F C 's liability.

[Newry Hibs]

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

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

.

This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?

[Andy74]

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

But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?

Don't tell anyone. It's Hibs it's going to.

[BarneyK]

BBC Sport Chris McLaughlin
"Negotiations continue at Murray Park over wording of wage cut agreement. 3 month deal but ripped up if #Rangers come out of administration."


They are either operating at a £1million loss per month or they're not. Why would they go back to full wage once out of Administration, wouldn't they just go back to losing fortunes every month? Getting too confusing for me now, this business.

[Caversham Green]

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

Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?

That's right - a security fixed on the asset would means he could either prevent RFC from selling it or ultimately enforce its sale. The floating security means RFC are free to trade any assets as long as they don't let their value fall below the amount secured. It only really comes into force in an insolvency event when he's entitled to preferred status from the sale of any and all assets, but not to specific ones.

[Andy74]

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

Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?

Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

[JeMeSouviens]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...n-ticket-deal/

[CropleyWasGod]

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

This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?

<rewinding a bit>

If the admins thought that, by selling the assets, they were maximising the return to the creditors, they would be doing their job properly. In normal situations, though, the company as a whole is normally worth more than the underlying assets. I did say "normal"!!

HMRC can object to the CVA .... in effect that is stopping the company coming out of admin. The prevailing winds, albeit non-specialist journos, are telling us that HMRC won't be objecting.

[BEEJ]

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

Was Donald Rumsfeld (ex USA Defense Secretary) talking about the Gers situation when he was quoted saying -

“The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. “

A very apt - and suitably confusing - narrative to explain the current situation.

I confess to dipping into this thread occasionally seeking enlightenment on the ongoing Ibrox fiasco; only to emerge after 20 mins or so with a bit of a headache and a strong desire to find something more interesting to do - like hoovering!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

Jeezo, Andy, you had me going there for a bit. You had Craigie painted as some sort of philanthropist who would just chuck £18m at his fitba team for no return.

TFIF