Jump to content

bluto

Poor R*ngers Theads Merged.....

Recommended Posts

Charlie Green says it would be a disaster for Scottish Football if R*ngers were suspended or expelled.

I say, naw it f*cking widnae.

F*cking brilliant and hilarious it wid be.

lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif

It would be a disaster for you, half of your subject matter that you specialise in would be wiped out at a stroke.

Your beloved OF will survive as will your constant continuous drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a disaster for you, half of your subject matter that you specialise in would be wiped out at a stroke.

Your beloved OF will survive as will your constant continuous drivel.

And you love it aw punk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So , here we are yet again, another week where the governing bodies & appeals panel will be sitting to discuss this situation.

Does anyone think there will be a final outcome this week ? Does it make any difference as it will only be appealled anyway ?

What`s your best guess as to the final outcome ?

I think Rangers will be in SPL next season , functioning as normal or as close to normal as is possible , with the least sanction applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a disaster for you, half of your subject matter that you specialise in would be wiped out at a stroke.

Your beloved OF will survive as will your constant continuous drivel.

half of your subject matter that you specialise in would be wiped out

And that would be brilliant for us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So , here we are yet again, another week where the governing bodies & appeals panel will be sitting to discuss this situation.

Does anyone think there will be a final outcome this week ? Does it make any difference as it will only be appealled anyway ?

What`s your best guess as to the final outcome ?

I think Rangers will be in SPL next season , functioning as normal or as close to normal as is possible , with the least sanction applied.

I think it will be the end of June/beginning of July before the final outcome is known.

Rongers might decide to accept the original SFA panel's verdict with the news they could face stronger sanctions and let's face it the transfer embargo would in effect be fairly meaningless anyway, they're currently in administration and can't sign any players until they exit. Without European games and EBT's and with all the carry on and investigations would they really be able to persuade players to sign for them anyway ?

I doubt the SPL chairmen would want to make a decision about a newco just now, they'd probably prefer to sit and wait and see what happens with the CVA, SFA appeal and how UEFA/FIFA react to it as well as their own investigation into dual contracts. A lot of the chairmen must be royally pissed off with them as well for going to court.

I doubt the CVA will be passed, 'there will be something between 0p and 9p in the pound' isn't much of an offer when HMRC or ticketus could go to court to try and force liquidation and the sale of ibroxe and Murray park on the open market. They might need to wait a bit longer to receive any money but it would probably be more than the cva is offering.

They might be able to survive all of the above in some form, the dual contract investigation is the one that could kill them. If found guilty they would face more SFA charges and who would bet against expulsion.

I think their best bet is a newco putting as much daylight between the 2 clubs as they can but that would mean starting from scratch and applying to the SFA for admission - but the bears won;t like that. They couldn't start a newco and cherry pick the history they want to keep and if they did without a decision in the big tax case, HMRC would argue it's a phoenix club and still liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be very little supports in the professional services ranks for the CVA being approved. Apparently it is one of the worst CVAs ever put forward. There are so many holes in it it is quite bizarre. The daftest bit has to be the fact that Green's unknown consortium are only offering a loan to scumgers to pay it off. The bog question is probably around deals being done outside of the CVA with the main creditors. Quite a few of the creditors are also Murray companies under the management of the banks. I can't see them signing off on a CVA that has very little chance of actually paying out any money whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a few of the creditors are also Murray companies under the management of the banks. I can't see them signing off on a CVA that has very little chance of actually paying out any money whatsoever.

However it only needs Ticketus and HMRC to accept the CVA and they have the 75% of votes required to pass the CVA... Murray's companies won't have much of a say. (I'm hoping HMRC don't do a deal)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However it only needs Ticketus and HMRC to accept the CVA and they have the 75% of votes required to pass the CVA... Murray's companies won't have much of a say. (I'm hoping HMRC don't do a deal)

It is a messy one...I am guessing that the HMRC and Ticketus have 75% of the value. Don;t forget there are a lot of TBCs in the CVA so if you are basing it on the figures available it may not just be about them. Another interesting factoid is that the CVA can be negotiated at the meeting with a director of the compnay, not the insolvency robbers. It'll be interesting to see who turfs up to do the negotiating. I would have thought that it would still need to be Whyte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a messy one...I am guessing that the HMRC and Ticketus have 75% of the value. Don;t forget there are a lot of TBCs in the CVA so if you are basing it on the figures available it may not just be about them. Another interesting factoid is that the CVA can be negotiated at the meeting with a director of the compnay, not the insolvency robbers. It'll be interesting to see who turfs up to do the negotiating. I would have thought that it would still need to be Whyte.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...