Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Jonnyboy]

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

Great. I think we should all push to pay less than a tenth of our tax liabilities in that case.

Yep and if they refuse I'll simply re-invent myself as Newco Jonnyboy

[down-the-slope]

CHARLES GREEN has put himself in line for a potential £4million windfall from his plan to keep the padlock off the front doors of Ibrox.
Record Sport can today reveal secret details of Green’s proposals to save Rangers from extinction.
The plans have been published in a glossy 24-page presentation to prospective investors.(why a prospectus when investors were already in the bag)
Green claims anyone willing to invest in his rescue mission will double their cash as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. (good selling pont for ST sales ...Not)
And the document reveals Green also stands to personally pocket a multi-million pound bonus from the deal, despite not laying out a penny of his own money on the takeover. (its what Rangers owners do...risk anybodys but their own money)
The Yorkshireman is still trying to recruit more financial muscle and hopes to raise as much as £40m from investors. (flap flap oink)
Last week he was scheduled to provide £2.7m – needed, it’s thought, to pay the club’s wage bill until a CVA is accepted in early July – but administrators were left empty handed. (another dudline missed...cant believe D&P still working with tis guy)
However, after a day of talks yesterday, Green delivered enough cash to allow Duff and Phelps to proceed with the proposal to the club’s creditors. (sounds like it was touch and go)
Green will be given time to raise the £8.5m (so he doesnt even have the paltry amount being put into the pot to pay D&P...I mean the creditors)required for the CVA pot but he has now convinced Duff and Phelps the cash is there to keep the club in business throughout June.
In his confidential ‘Investor Presentation’ Green reveals his plan to buy the club through holding company Sevco 5088.
He will then become chief executive and says the club will be floated on the AIM stock market later this year when his group of investors stand to ‘double’ their money.
The brochure says: “Founding investors who put up the first £10,000,000 will receive 10,000,000 additional shares at a value of £1 per share on a pro rata basis effectively doubling their contributions.”
Green also stands to make a fortune as the brochure reveals he is “being incentivised by 10 per cent of the enlarged share capital of the holding company post completion”.
Duff and Phelps confirmed last night the CVA notice will go out this morning but, should that fail, Green outlined his plan B.
In the document it is stated “in the very unlikely event a CVA is not agreed by creditors” Sevco will pick up Ibrox and Murray Park at a knock down £5.5m.
It also describes ‘advantages’ to a Newco being banned from Europe for three years, including slashing the first-team wage bill from £18m to around £11m.(well the Bears can't say they have not been warned)

[Spike Mandela]

Newsnight Scotland gets a couple of financial 'experts' on who have a jolly old laugh at questions regarding the clear discrepancies and valiuations in the CVA but agree it's acceptance is a shoe in. The whole administration process at football clubs is showing to be a sham.

[down-the-slope]

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

Prof Chris Bailey in London seems to think HMRC will take the 9p in the £ offer.

Did you see the lady almost laugh when she said offer could end up a negative p in the £ if tax case and 47 other unknown costs pile in....got the impression she thought CVA offer was a big steaming pile but could not out rightly say so

[johnbc70]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

[Jonnyboy]

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

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

IIRC correctly the punishments available are suspension from competition or removal of membership of the SFA

Either way I hope it hurts

[Mon Dieu4]

Never thought id say this but Mon the FIFA!!

[stokesmessiah]

Am i right in thinking the SPL clubs are meeting up again tomorrow?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

The assistant ref will have his flag up for offside.

[ScottB]

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

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

100%

In fact, are they intending for this to happen? If we assume liquidation to be the desired endgame here, which it is. Green doesn't want blamed for pulling the trigger, Duff & Duffer don't want any more heat on them, so why not make a pointless legal move that is guaranteed to go badly for you, and get you punted out the league. they can then blame FIFA for it, liquidate the club and Green buys what's left and tries to newco his way into the SPL...


Of course it ignores that this action, which going by the Scion case threatens the very existence of Scottish football will **** off all the other clubs, as we are already seeing suggestion of, and that if they annoy FIFA / UEFA enough, they will want to ensure they end up dead and stay dead...

[gramskiwood]

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

The assistant ref will have his flag up for offside.

[lapsedhibee]

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

Did you see the lady almost laugh when she said offer could end up a negative p in the £ if tax case and 47 other unknown costs pile in....got the impression she thought CVA offer was a big steaming pile but could not out rightly say so

I heard her say that too, but couldn't quite believe that I had.

Shirley that's pish?

Even if Green's consortium of squillionaires only puts in a total of £1, and the final debt after the BTC is lost is calculated at £825742052057235913m, the creditors can never be offered a negative amount? Either she was very very nervous about being on the tellybox, or she has yamathematical tendencies.

[hibs0666]

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

100%

In fact, are they intending for this to happen? If we assume liquidation to be the desired endgame here, which it is. Green doesn't want blamed for pulling the trigger, Duff & Duffer don't want any more heat on them, so why not make a pointless legal move that is guaranteed to go badly for you, and get you punted out the league. they can then blame FIFA for it, liquidate the club and Green buys what's left and tries to newco his way into the SPL...


Of course it ignores that this action, which going by the Scion case threatens the very existence of Scottish football will **** off all the other clubs, as we are already seeing suggestion of, and that if they annoy FIFA / UEFA enough, they will want to ensure they end up dead and stay dead...

Why would liquidation be the desired endgame if you can pick up the club for a pound? If Green pulls this off then he is some man.

[Spike Mandela]

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

IIRC correctly the punishments available are suspension from competition or removal of membership of the SFA

Either way I hope it hurts

Or a ban from the Scottish Cup or £100,000 fine.

If the SFA tribunal has option to go softer or tougher punishment which would they choose? I say softer but Fifa pressure Might push it towards suspension.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Or a ban from the Scottish Cup or £100,000 fine.

If the SFA tribunal has option to go softer or tougher punishment which would they choose? I say softer but Fifa pressure Might push it towards suspension.

There are now two "crimes" to be punished. The first one, the disrepute charge, has to be reconsidered. The second one is taking the case to Court.

Higher, higher

[BEEJ]

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

Can't HMRC just get a surveyor in and have Ibrox and Murray Park valued?

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

Why would they? That would cost money. All they need to do is vote against the CVA.

[I'm sorry, this will have been answered before; but for the latecomers to this thread ....]

Would Ticketus (with or without HMRC) not be better off saying no to the CVA and taking Ibrox and Murray Park as assets instead?

They would then be able to secure an income stream indefinitely from whatever form of RFC rose from the ashes of liquidation and needed somewhere to play their home fixtures. Such an income stream over time would be worth more than 8p in the £ today.

Why do the physical assets belonging to RFC only seem destined to go into the hands of Green if the CVA is rejected?

[ScottB]

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

Why would liquidation be the desired endgame if you can pick up the club for a pound? If Green pulls this off then he is some man.

Because the Orange hordes refuse to accept a CVA isn't a total impossibility and hounded out the last guy who dared to suggest otherwise?

[Eyrie]

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

Let me say first of all a lot of this financial and legal stuff has me a bit confused, not my area of expertise.

How can people be asked to vote to accept a CVA when it doesn't specify what they are being asked to accept?

It's like one of these silly TV Quiz shows.

Newsnight at 11pm on BBC2 is going to be good seemingly.

That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

[I'm sorry, this will have been answered before; but for the latecomers to this thread ....]

Would Ticketus (with or without HMRC) not be better off saying no to the CVA and taking Ibrox and Murray Park as assets instead?

They would then be able to secure an income stream indefinitely from whatever form of RFC rose from the ashes of liquidation and needed somewhere to play their home fixtures. Such an income stream over time would be worth more than 8p in the £ today.

Why do the physical assets belonging to RFC only seem destined to go into the hands of Green if the CVA is rejected?

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been?

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

[DH1875]

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

That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

Anyone actually know when the big tax case will be herd. I don't get how the likes of ticketus can vote on the CVA until they know the outcome of that.

[Spike Mandela]

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

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been?

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

My understanding of this scandal though is that the administrators will sell the main assets off cheaply to Green rather than just liquidate and the look for a highest bidder for the liquidated assets. Never in a million years can administration be seen as 'getting the best for the creditos'. It's a giant Legal .con.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Anyone actually know when the big tax case will be herd. I don't get how the likes of ticketus can vote on the CVA until they know the outcome of that.

It has been ongoing for months. Part of the reason for the slow process is that every transaction involving an EBT has to be examined. As we have seen, that is more than a few.....

[jgl07]

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

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

Please explain.

That doesn't appear to tie in with the figures I have seen and the large number of indeterminate figres.

[BarneyK]

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

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

I thought 8.5p was the upper level?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

My understanding of this scandal though is that the administrators will sell the main assets off cheaply to Green rather than just liquidate and the look for a highest bidder for the liquidated assets. Never in a million years can administration be seen as 'getting the best for the creditos'. It's a giant Legal .con.

They can't do that, though. If they try to sell off assets cheaply, any creditor can petition the Court to stop the sale.

[BEEJ]

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

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been?

Sorry, guv!

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

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

Right, that's what I thought. So why does it seem to be assumed that Green will naturally inherit these assets post liquidation for next to nothing?

Ticketus, as a private entity, could seek these assets at their knockdown value in return for some of the money owed to them and then lease the stadium to the next ugly RFC monster to emerge from the slime.

No?

[BarneyK]

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

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been?

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

Isn't it Newco time after the failed CVA? And what assets? The players are free to go at that point, and the brick and mortar appears to exist in a dual universe where it is worth simultaneously hunners of millions and **** all. (Something to do with Quantum Mechanics, I think)

[DH1875]

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

I thought 8.5p was the upper level?

Me to. I thought if the BTC goes against them they were talking about creditors getting negative amounts less than 1p.

[BEEJ]

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

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

Do you mean halve?

If the BTC goes against Rangers the 8.5p becomes just 2p or even less. Or so we were advised by Newsnight this evening.