Jump to content

Poor R*ngers Theads Merged.....


bluto

Recommended Posts


CVA has been drawn up on the assumption that the Big Tax Case still won't have ruled by the time the meeting takes place meaning Ticketus are the biggest creditor (roughly £27m) and HMRC are second biggest creditor (roughly £21m). If the Big Tax Case does conclude and find in HMRC's favour then HMRC will be the biggest creditor. The size of the pot for the CVA will stay the same meaning that if HMRC win the Big Tax Case before the creditors vote then they will get a bigger share of the £5m total available to all creditors.

But what about the TBCs - how can they get away with that when the vote is dependent on values. There are around 43 TBCs in the CVA document, not just HMRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the TBCs - how can they get away with that when the vote is dependent on values. There are around 43 TBCs in the CVA document, not just HMRC.

There's more than that. There is all the Debentures TBC. My dad bought his house about 10 years ago from someone with the same Surname. He recently recieved a letter asking him if he wished to accept the CVA as the previous occupier had been a debenture holdier. The guy is deed and has been for about 15 years. I wonder how many of the debenture holders are still around. I believe the debenture is no transferable (but don't know for sure). Their inclusion on the CVA is a blatent attempt to load the dice in D&P's favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more than that. There is all the Debentures TBC. My dad bought his house about 10 years ago from someone with the same Surname. He recently recieved a letter asking him if he wished to accept the CVA as the previous occupier had been a debenture holdier. The guy is deed and has been for about 15 years. I wonder how many of the debenture holders are still around. I believe the debenture is no transferable (but don't know for sure). Their inclusion on the CVA is a blatent attempt to load the dice in D&P's favour.

Sounds like an election in a third world puppet democracy!

I do hope you are right as, should it come to light, jail sentences may follow...... follow!whistling.gifpunk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some changes from the SFA in relation to clubs being responsible for vetting their owners. Difficult to guage how that is possible. One owner sells to new owner....the club gets held responsible - the club gets punished not the previous owner or the current owner that makes a bawz of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some changes from the SFA in relation to clubs being responsible for vetting their owners. Difficult to guage how that is possible. One owner sells to new owner....the club gets held responsible - the club gets punished not the previous owner or the current owner that makes a bawz of it.

It means that if D&P sell to Green and Green turns out to be a Whyte then Rangers will be held responsible and will be punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some changes from the SFA in relation to clubs being responsible for vetting their owners. Difficult to guage how that is possible. One owner sells to new owner....the club gets held responsible - the club gets punished not the previous owner or the current owner that makes a bawz of it.

600 odd cic pledgers to be vetted plus the 87 club members and anyone else involved ? it's a bonkers rule - i can't see the real reason for it - which will be hidden by the major headline - but i'll work on it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

I think auld charlie Green is hoping for a reprieve and walking back into the spl, or he and his consortium have budgeted on taking the transfer fees from selling their current players on, and coming back to the spl after the SFA takeaway their licence for one year.

Financially it would be a better prospect than trying to pay big salaries, with small gates in Div 3 and so on for minimum three years?

I think they've planned for that as the most cost effective route as the transfer fees they will get in represent an instant profit on their investment, and they just sit out one season that would have cost them a paket just to stand still?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem any investor has is that Rongers run at a £10 million oer annum loss. There are realtively few cost cutting oppertunities. Reducing the player wage bill is likely to see them fall behind "other" teams which will reduce their profitability. Equally there are relatively few new income strands. Uping the price of season tickets, or player sales will again impact profitability.

D7P should have tried to demonstrate that there was a potentially profitable buisness there and they have manifestly failed to do that. So any investor in rongers needs to budget on a £10 million per annum loss for the short term. With no credit facilities that would meed going back into administation pretty quick unless someone has deep pockets.

This is why Greene is the only "bidder" and basicallyy he is just dicking around. What has become crystal clear is that in their current set up Rongers are not viable. The only way out I can see is playing a youth team in the 3rd diviision and ground sharing with Partic thistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Just read about a guy who avoided paying the tax authorities £600,000 http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-18352528

A mere pittance compared to the Rongers bill.

He got 5 years' jail.

On that scale, how should Rongers be punnished?

It means Whyte should get around 175 years for the amount of PAYE & NI that he avoided paying. Mind you he only did this for around 1/4 of the time that the guy in today's news was at it for so I guess 44 years would be sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the most significant revelation in this whole saga for quite a while is the fact that Duff and Duffer had been usurped as liquidators and BDO put in their place by HMRC.

I think this would mean that Green would not have carte blanche to take Rangers fixed assets for a pittance and that the grounds may be sold off to maxaimise the return for the creditors. This may raise enough to pay those owed as much as 90 pence in the pound. A big difference to the 2, 3 or up to 8% the CVA was destined to return.

I also suspect that more revealing facts as to the relationships between Green&Whyte and Duff&Phelps is set to come to light.

I do hope Whyte's sentences run concurrently as he has been so good to us!punk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

totally correct mate the CVA is basically legalized robbery. The sale of the players would raise more cash than the the total amount. Also the CVA money would not arrive all up frount but in drips and drabs. If Greene puts the club back into administration then the creders would once again be looking at a pence in the pound settlement. I don't doubt that was Greens plan. Buy the club on a promise sell the players, then go back into administration and give the creditors a pence in the pound settlement on £5million. When you look at it in black and white I almost wish greene would get his CVA accepted. It would be hilarious to watch scumgers go back into admin and ahave a repeat of this next year. Although it is starting to get a bit boring

Edited by insaintee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read a letter in The Record this morning that The Drovers Hotel is in danger of being closed down due to monies owed to HMRC.The writer suggested changing the name to Glasgow R*ng*rs Drovers Hotel and they'll be able to stay open for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular bikers stop-off, the Drovers.

Always seemed a bit out the way in terms of attracting reliable custom, but the odd time I've been in there, it's a decent place for a quick drop-in.

Sorry....off topic.

Are they dead yet?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular bikers stop-off, the Drovers.

Always seemed a bit out the way in terms of attracting reliable custom, but the odd time I've been in there, it's a decent place for a quick drop-in.

Sorry....off topic.

Are they dead yet?!?!

They get a lot of business from the campsite across the river, popular with hillwalkers too, a real shame if it goes :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye.

Is that The Drovers on the left-bank of upper Loch Lomond with the double-headed stuffed sheep and stuffed Bear (very apt) in the entrance hall?

If it is, its great place. You can have the history as a starter, atmosphere as a main course and have the ambience (Sp?) as a dessert!

Edited by Vambo57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the Rankers rumours website

08 Jun 2012 13:18:19

CVA to be accepted but with a string of conditions!

I was told this morning by a taxi man who does the airport that main creditors are prepared to accept the CVA but that they will impose a load of conditions to maximise the return for creditors. He heard them talking about it in his cab.

A deal will be done and we're out of admin but if we don't deliver to creditors we're back in Admin again in 3 months.

Best news I heard since we won in the Court of Session last week.

Saved at the last minute . I knew it would work out ok in the end.

Happy days

Shull your a very naughty man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may well be naughty but i'm not an Airport Cabbie.

Even i widnae have the brassneck to charge a couple SIXTEEN f**kIN QUID to go from the Airport to the Southern General Hospital which happened last week.

I took the couple back to the Airport and the fare metered at an acceptable £7.40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the most significant revelation in this whole saga for quite a while is the fact that Duff and Duffer had been usurped as liquidators and BDO put in their place by HMRC.

I think this would mean that Green would not have carte blanche to take Rangers fixed assets for a pittance and that the grounds may be sold off to maxaimise the return for the creditors. This may raise enough to pay those owed as much as 90 pence in the pound. A big difference to the 2, 3 or up to 8% the CVA was destined to return.

I also suspect that more revealing facts as to the relationships between Green&Whyte and Duff&Phelps is set to come to light.

I do hope Whyte's sentences run concurrently as he has been so good to us!punk.gif

Yeah this was fabulous news.

Also Utd's Thomson today talking about chairmens positions hardening because of the lack of any remorse was great to hear.

All in all it's been a great day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the most significant revelation in this whole saga for quite a while is the fact that Duff and Duffer had been usurped as liquidators and BDO put in their place by HMRC.

I think this would mean that Green would not have carte blanche to take Rangers fixed assets for a pittance and that the grounds may be sold off to maxaimise the return for the creditors. This may raise enough to pay those owed as much as 90 pence in the pound. A big difference to the 2, 3 or up to 8% the CVA was destined to return.

I also suspect that more revealing facts as to the relationships between Green&Whyte and Duff&Phelps is set to come to light.

I do hope Whyte's sentences run concurrently as he has been so good to us!punk.gif

I'm not an expert on administration/liquidation but I was wondering why HMRC would nominate their preferred liquidator when the vote on the CVA is a week away.It may be normal practise but I'd have thought, as one of the main creditors they were positioning themselves for a no vote. Maybe some accountant would know better ?

from the Rankers rumours website

08 Jun 2012 13:18:19

CVA to be accepted but with a string of conditions!

I was told this morning by a taxi man who does the airport that main creditors are prepared to accept the CVA but that they will impose a load of conditions to maximise the return for creditors. He heard them talking about it in his cab.

A deal will be done and we're out of admin but if we don't deliver to creditors we're back in Admin again in 3 months.

Best news I heard since we won in the Court of Session last week.

Saved at the last minute . I knew it would work out ok in the end.

Happy days

Shull your a very naughty man

There are 2 main creditors who can block this with their own share of the vote, what are the chances of having people from Ticketus and HMRC together in a cab discussing how they will vote ? With HMRC in particular and how the civil service works, it would need to go to meeting after meeting before a decision is made.

This coul dwell have been a sellik supporting taxi driver at the wind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...