Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Keep up the fabulous work CWG, these posts are brilliant, imformative yet optimistic and positive. They make my day.

OI!!!! KIDS!!!! We've snared another sucker!!!!!

Ahem.

Thank you for your kind words, DBS. I shall head for bed now with a smile on my face. I need a lot of beauty sleep before the assault on Err the morrow.

[down-the-slope]

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

Vanity? Arrogance? Maybe they assume that HMRC can't possibly refuse the mighty Glasgow Rangers?

Or... maybe they know something we don't. Maybe they know how much debt there really is, and that they can get over 75% of the creditors on side.

Now we all know it football rather than straight business...

But lets assume it just business...why would any creditor agree a CVA when there are millions in assets still with in the company? CVA's are when there is little prospect of getting full payment due to lack of assets.
Do you fancy 10p in the £ Mr creditor...nah i'll just wait on liquidation as i reckon that nice shiney stadium / MP / car park (the one that was going to have Govan Vegas on it) / player contracts are worth a few bob and will get me more........

Discuss

[TornadoHibby]

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

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

[CentreLine]

The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention a new fitted kitchen

[CentreLine]

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

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over the past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

WHAT? For most of us CWG has put accurate and understandable comment on this thread. Perhaps, now that it is morning, you would be good enough to be more specific about what you consider to be "supposition". Then we can all make a judgement as to who we should follow for reliable posts. It is always good to learn from experts and maybe you can join in with something constructive and add to the enjoyment

[CentreLine]

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

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance)

I think you will find that it was one of my uneducated posts, referring to a newspaper suggestion, that HMRC wanted rid of CW. As I recall CWG responded to my comment and if not rubbished it, certainly watered it down substantially.

But clearly you have something to offer this thread so how about picking appart CWG's comments one by one, with informed counter argument, and we call all sit back, enjoy the show and make our own judgement. If, hpwever, you are only prepared to say "your wrong" then it is not helpful or entertaining.

[Leithenhibby]

How is anyone going to stop Whyte 'coming back'? Despite what everyone seems to think, he is the rightful owner unless the club goes into liquidation.

Anyone that wants to buy Rangers will have to deal with Whyte.

[down-the-slope]

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

How is anyone going to stop Whyte 'coming back'? Despite what everyone seems to think, he is the rightful owner unless the club goes into liquidation.

Anyone that wants to buy Rangers will have to deal with Whyte.

indeed...its af it because he is now the bady and SFA say he is not fit and proper (which he will rightly contest) people think he has disappeared. He will want to leave the stage on his terms and with cash in his pocket - and liquidation aside - he will manage that...as he has the aces in being shareholder...even if others want to sue for perceived breaches of trust / undertakings...he could just tie that up in court proceedings while Rangers slowly die

The other bit that has got lost in all this is that the Administrators are court appointed and they have to report to the court....I wonder how they are going to be able to show that they have acted in best interests of creditors...which is main legal duty...wheteher the 'business' survives or not is not their remit other than to serve creditors best interests....

[WindyMiller]

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

indeed...its af it because he is now the bady and SFA say he is not fit and proper (which he will rightly contest) people think he has disappeared. He will want to leave the stage on his terms and with cash in his pocket - and liquidation aside - he will manage that...as he has the aces in being shareholder...even if others want to sue for perceived breaches of trust / undertakings...he could just tie that up in court proceedings while Rangers slowly die

The other bit that has got lost in all this is that the Administrators are court appointed and they have to report to the court....I wonder how they are going to be able to show that they have acted in best interests of creditors...which is main legal duty...wheteher the 'business' survives or not is not their remit other than to serve creditors best interests....

SFA clearly lay the blame fairly and squarely on the people who were desperate to get any buyer they could find.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...gers-1-2165105

[TornadoHibby]

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

I think you will find that it was one of my uneducated posts, referring to a newspaper suggestion, that HMRC wanted rid of CW. As I recall CWG responded to my comment and if not rubbished it, certainly watered it down substantially.

But clearly you have something to offer this thread so how about picking appart CWG's comments one by one, with informed counter argument, and we call all sit back, enjoy the show and make our own judgement. If, hpwever, you are only prepared to say "your wrong" then it is not helpful or entertaining.

If I thought that I could add factual and helpful comments to this thread then I would but so long as this situation is retained "behind closed doors" in the main speculation on speculation is not helpful to anyone IMO!

That's why I haven't posted unless I have (personally) thought that some comments are worthy of highlighting for substance or clarity to be added even if (selfishly) only for me!

I had no intention of spoiling the show for anyone else however!

[Spike Mandela]

More musings from a legalese perspective...........

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...tion/#more-911

[TornadoHibby]

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

WHAT? For most of us CWG has put accurate and understandable comment on this thread. Perhaps, now that it is morning, you would be good enough to be more specific about what you consider to be "supposition". Then we can all make a judgement as to who we should follow for reliable posts. It is always good to learn from experts and maybe you can join in with something constructive and add to the enjoyment

I don't agree that speculation on speculation is either necessarily accurate nor understandable but then that's my opinion and I do understand and appreciate that others are entitled to different views!

Don't bother following me as I won't be posting hypothetical "what if" analysis for the reasons already given!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Now we all know it football rather than straight business...

But lets assume it just business...why would any creditor agree a CVA when there are millions in assets still with in the company? CVA's are when there is little prospect of getting full payment due to lack of assets.
Do you fancy 10p in the £ Mr creditor...nah i'll just wait on liquidation as i reckon that nice shiney stadium / MP / car park (the one that was going to have Govan Vegas on it) / player contracts are worth a few bob and will get me more........

Discuss

I've mentioned a few times that, from HMRC's immediate point of view, they would be better off waiting for liquidation.However, the counter-argument to that is that that may result in shutting off a future revenue stream. I had a situation where I was able to demonstrate to HMRC that pursuing their proposed settlement would result in the taxpayer's bankruptcy and no money for them. By accepting a lower settlement, they were able to recover that amount in full, plus (and this is my point) would secure a future income stream from the business.

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.

Incidentally, I have been saying for a few years now that the only way out for Hearts is liquidation... for the very reasons you mention.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

First of all, I didn't suggest that HMRC want rid of CW. I merely repeated the speculation.

I didn't suggest that RFC might have been "at it" under SDM. I repeated the fact of the two HMRC enquiries.

[s.a.m]

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

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

He's obviously capable of defending himself.........but I think he has made the point that he DOESN'T think that HMRC could demand regime change, but that it has been reported by others that they have. As far as SDM goes, is that not what the big tax case is about? So HMRC have declared that they believe the regime were 'at it', at that time. Or am I missing something?



Edit: and he's beaten me to it..........

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I don't agree that speculation on speculation is either necessarily accurate nor understandable but then that's my opinion and I do understand and appreciate that others are entitled to different views!

Don't bother following me as I won't be posting hypothetical "what if" analysis for the reasons already given!

If we all refrained from speculation and opinion, there would be hardly any threads on Hibs.net.

[TornadoHibby]

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

If we all refrained from speculation and opinion, there would be hardly any threads on Hibs.net.

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally!

[Sas_The_Hibby]

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

I've mentioned a few times that, from HMRC's immediate point of view, they would be better off waiting for liquidation.However, the counter-argument to that is that that may result in shutting off a future revenue stream. I had a situation where I was able to demonstrate to HMRC that pursuing their proposed settlement would result in the taxpayer's bankruptcy and no money for them. By accepting a lower settlement, they were able to recover that amount in full, plus (and this is my point) would secure a future income stream from the business.

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.

Incidentally, I have been saying for a few years now that the only way out for Hearts is liquidation... for the very reasons you mention.

And for SO MANY other reasons!

[TornadoHibby]

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

First of all, I didn't suggest that HMRC want rid of CW. I merely repeated the speculation.

My point exactly, speculation upon speculation!

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

I didn't suggest that RFC might have been "at it" under SDM. I repeated the fact of the two HMRC enquiries.

I think that you'll find that you did in a previous thread from last night when you stated:-

"There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that."

Have you ever considered that the actions now being considered as "not compliant" by HMRC may well have been at the recommendation of a professional advisor, who had examined the tax "mechanism" at the heart of this particular aspect of the Administration and RFC finances and, who had recommended it as a "mechanism" which was tax compliant?

Perhaps if HMRC are successful with the BTC, as it now seems to have been christened, it will be possible to recoup the tax and penalties from the PII of a professional advisor but, then again, that is speculation without having seen the facts on my part!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally!

At the risk of sounding like I am banging my own drum, almost three weeks ago I offered the opinion that CW couldn't have a valid claim to the RFC assets. As things turn out, that is the opinion of the admins, as well as most informed parties I have spoken to on the same subject. So, did I get lucky with that, or was I exercising my own judgement and instinct?

An old boss and mentor of mine once said to me "there are people in this world, and accountants are particularly guilty of this, who have to wait until the last full stop is put on the last piece of paper in the last file before they make a decision. They will never make it in business." That is something that has stayed with me in my own business dealings. Instinct and gut reaction are more important in business than the manuals will admit.

Now, I am out of here. I have Ron to fluff, and sannies to make up for today's wee trip.

[TornadoHibby]

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

At the risk of sounding like I am banging my own drum, almost three weeks ago I offered the opinion that CW couldn't have a valid claim to the RFC assets. As things turn out, that is the opinion of the admins, as well as most informed parties I have spoken to on the same subject. So, did I get lucky with that, or was I exercising my own judgement and instinct?

Lucky IMO unless you are privy to the actual information!

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

An old boss and mentor of mine once said to me "there are people in this world, and accountants are particularly guilty of this, who have to wait until the last full stop is put on the last piece of paper in the last file before they make a decision. They will never make it in business." That is something that has stayed with me in my own business dealings. Instinct and gut reaction are more important in business than the manuals will admit.

I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members!

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

Now, I am out of here. I have Ron to fluff, and sannies to make up for today's wee trip.

Good luck with your tasks and enjoy the trip!

[Hibs Class]

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

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

To what extent is CW relevant? The activities/liability throughout has been that of Rangers Football Club and I would have thought that CW's role as owner/shareholder/director etc. was secondary. Otherwise in similar situations it would be possible to just point at the bad man, say that he's gone now, and please go lightly on us.

[grunt]

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

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally!

3250 posts might suggest otherwise...

[Billy Whizz]

I've enjoyed CWG's updates and views on this. As I don't really understand most of the options on the Rangers situation, his guide is helpful to me

[grunt]

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

I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO ...

Last time I looked, this was a discussion forum. We don't need no facts!

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

... a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members!

Geez. I sure hope CWG isn't gonna charge us for his time!

[Benny Brazil]

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

Lucky IMO unless you are privy to the actual information!



I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members!



Good luck with your tasks and enjoy the trip!

Oh jeez lighten up Tornado.

I have enjoyed this thread - as a mere mortal who knows very little about the ins and outs of accounts,balance sheets, company transactions etc - it has been insightful, helpful and humorous to read CWG's / Cav Greens and everyone else's thoughts and input into the subject. Of course no one on here knows exactly what is going on - but this is a discussion forum and people are discussing it and trying to get a better understanding of what is happening.

[s.a.m]

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

Oh jeez lighten up Tornado.

I have enjoyed this thread - as a mere mortal who knows very little about the ins and outs of accounts,balance sheets, company transactions etc - it has been insightful, helpful and humorous to read CWG's / Cav Greens and everyone else's thoughts and input into the subject. Of course no one on here knows exactly what is going on - but this is a discussion forum and people are discussing it and trying to get a better understanding of what is happening.

[TornadoHibby]

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

3250 posts might suggest otherwise...

Can't disagree with the numbers tbh but why do papers like the Sun, Star, People etc have so many more readers per day than say The Times, FT, Scotsman and Herald?

Something to do with reporting stories with 'an edge' of suggestion in one with the other keen to stick to facts as far as possible!

The second that the 'suggestions' begin to be portrayed somehow as dependable knowledge based facts the whole thing just becomes very silly IMO as people reading may as well conjure up a version that suits them for themselves!

That's my point!

[grunt]

More guff from Duff & Phelps...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...ign=sportsound

Rangers: Tax case outcome 'will not hold up sale'

Joint administrator Paul Clark says the pending outcome of Rangers' tax dispute will not hold up the sale of the club.
Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a tribunal, commonly known as the 'big tax case', relating to payments to employees over a 10-year period. "The big tax is something that is out of our hands," said Clark. "Even if the big tax case decision has not actually been delivered, we still think that we could conduct a transaction with a new buyer." And he added: "Just because we don't have the final extent of the amount that's outstanding, it needn't hold that process up, so it doesn't concern me. "To some extent it's about what that would mean in terms of the deal that was offered to settle the big tax case."

Asked about the possibility of a "deal" being made with HM Revenue and Customs, Clark replied: "We're not at the stage where we can go to any of the creditors with any specifics and so I think that it would be too early for me to say what the chances of a deal with any of the creditors are. "It's something that, when we've got a considered position, when we've got a suitable purchaser, that will be the time to sit down and talk to the various of the stakeholders who at the end of the day will need to make the decisions and that's the creditors."
Clark also reiterated his firm Duff and Phelps' view that the club can avoid liqidation and that the required information was being made available to prospective buyers. "The plan of ours from the outset is to avoid any talk of liquidation," he said. "We firmly believe that Rangers Football Club will continue to operate and that's why we are talking to all these parties and that's why it was so important to get all the necessary cuts in place so that we could keep the club in operation for long enough to enable a party to come in and make an acquisition.
"We have given as much clarity as we can. There are some issues that still need to be dealt. "We believe that we can give that clarity to enable someone to make a considered judgement in a more stabilised environment so that they know what they're buying and that they know what they're getting into."

Meanwhile, former Motherwell chief executive Pat Nevin believes Duff and Phelps's success in reaching an agreement over wage cuts at Ibrox "is a way for Rangers to possibly survive only until the summer". Former Scotland international Nevin, who was at Motherwell during the Fir Park club's period of administration, told BBC Radio 5 live: "There are two ways out; one is a CVA [Company Voluntary Arrangement] then asking HMRC to look for 10p in the pound and the £49m big tax bill and there's a smaller tax bill - which is considerable too.
"If the HMRC do not agree then there is no route out. Nobody is going to come in and pay £60m/£70m to Rangers because that money will never be recouped.

"They still have massive problems."

Well said Pat Nevin.

[grunt]

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

Can't disagree with the numbers tbh but why do papers like the Sun, Star, People etc have so many more readers per day than say The Times, FT, Scotsman and Herald?

Something to do with reporting stories with 'an edge' of suggestion in one with the other keen to stick to facts as far as possible!

I think you'll find it has more to do with the former papers' fascination with naked ladies and soap stars' indiscretions and other "celebrity" claptrap.