Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: Romford, Rio, Gnome, Northern Paulo, Lost Hammer, bonehead, chalks, goes2eleven, Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus, bristolhammerfc, Wheels, sicknote

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Fri May 04, 2012 12:55 pm

Wembley1966 wrote:Too many unknowns - and too much going on in the background. Also the whole thing still very dubious (as it has been for the last few years) and a big question is who is Miller being the front man for?

The answer to that is what will make Miller's potential bid walk away like the others. Which is very easy for him to do and won't cost him as he has not paid anything to achieve preferred bidder status.

How does an US businessman that does not have a passport and never seen Rangers play 'soccerball' suddenly come up with such a wheeze that no-one else has thought of? The ONLY information about what's going on in this deal is coming from Duff & Phelps - and they were the guys that advised Murray and Whyte on last year's sale of Rangers for £1! It's now extremely dubious!

The plan all along has been to liquidate the Club - better that it is done by someone that has no assets in this country that could potentially be a target of very disgruntled fans.
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Gnome on Fri May 04, 2012 1:30 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:Can someone who knows about these things explain how, if Rangers have assets which can be transferred to a 'newco', these assets aren't being liquidated to pay the creditors, and how it's legal to transfer them leaving Rangers with all the debts and Rangers(2012) with the shiny assets? If I were owed money I'd be pretty cheesed off at this course of action.


To try & put this into simpler terms it's all about the status of Rangers when the assets are sold. The assets can't just simply be transferred to a newco without newco paying for them - if that happened they'd be looking at the offence of "preference" - which is something the courts tend to take a dim view of.

As it stands, although in administration Rangers are trading and operating so they are technically what is known as a "going concern". If you buy assets from a going concern you're expected to pay market value for them - if they are sold to you at below market value the courts again would probably take action. So the general plan is that assets would be sold to newco who pays Rangers. Rangers pay off creditors with the cash received (presumably with a CVA if there isn't enough to pay off everyone in full). Newco absorbs Rangers to keep the name going (or Rangers sells the name to Newco as part of the assets sold earlier) and carries on operating.

On the other hand, if Rangers are forced to liquidate their assets directly by creditors, they will become a “gone concern”. As such any assets would just have to be sold for as much as the liquidators can get. Unlike a going concern, the liquidators of a gone can’t walk away from a potential sale if they don’t like the price. They have to take whatever they can get which is always below market value. (Think of those government auctions where you can pick up stuff at knock-down prices. You’d pay a lot more for a telly if you were buying it direct from its former owner).

In the latter situation the amount that goes into the pot for creditors is a lot less than they’d get if assets were purchased for full market value.

In the Leeds situation I believe that to pay off their creditors they set up a CVA. A CVA has to be approved by (I think) 75% of the creditors by value – so someone owed say £850,000 out of a £1m debt for example will always get their way. With Leeds the biggest creditors were HMRC and the club’s solicitors (who were/are very pally with Bates). It was the club’s solicitors whose vote swung the result in favour of accepting the original CVA. HMRC appealed and recalculated the amount they were owed hoping that that would give them enough voting power. All that happened was the solicitors put in another bill to increase the club’s debt to them and restore their supremacy in the vote and the CVA went through again. There was only so far HMRC could legitimately go so they gave up at that point.
User avatar
Gnome
Quite eloquent for a garden ornament
 
Posts: 13806
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:27 pm
Location: Hither Green

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Fri May 04, 2012 1:40 pm

Gnome

Cheers another explanation that we can understand.

One proposal put forth (and Rangers have like a lot of clubs, "experts" even though the PL would believe everyone wears a flat cap and has no education) by some knowledgeable people on FollowFollw suggests that they won't transfer assets back but will instead lease the stadium to the NewCo. Would on the face of it be a problem with that scenario ? (Presuming of course the assets could be moved). I honestly don't see D & P flogging off Ibrox which I think because of the front of it is a protected building (or whatever they are called) because any NewCo would need somewhere to play and train.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby QuintonNimoy on Fri May 04, 2012 3:26 pm

Gnome wrote:To try & put this into simpler terms it's all about the status of Rangers when the assets are sold. The assets can't just simply be transferred to a newco without newco paying for them - if that happened they'd be looking at the offence of "preference" - which is something the courts tend to take a dim view of.

As it stands, although in administration Rangers are trading and operating so they are technically what is known as a "going concern". If you buy assets from a going concern you're expected to pay market value for them - if they are sold to you at below market value the courts again would probably take action. So the general plan is that assets would be sold to newco who pays Rangers. Rangers pay off creditors with the cash received (presumably with a CVA if there isn't enough to pay off everyone in full). Newco absorbs Rangers to keep the name going (or Rangers sells the name to Newco as part of the assets sold earlier) and carries on operating.

This is the thing though isn't it, on the face of it £11 million seems like it might be low for all the facilities Miller is supposedly in line to get, but if there's no one else even interested and certainly no one bidding at a significantly higher value right now who's to say that's not the market value? Is it within a court's power to force a more general sale of the facilities to people who aren't interested in the club as a whole? I don't see that they've got much more value to anybody else, but just theoretically speaking.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Fri May 04, 2012 3:42 pm

Thanks Gnome for that clear explanation.

It sounds very like the old Wonderful Leatherland World taking loads of deposits, going broke, then as if by magic Wonderful Leatherworld Land appears in the same showrooms with the same Bentleys parked outside, and so it continues.

The whole thing stinks.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 9205
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Fri May 04, 2012 5:54 pm

And QN

It's a protected building or whatever it's called so it's not exactly as if someone can come in an flatten it and build a supermarket and car park...
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Sun May 06, 2012 12:01 am

from the beeb site today

But Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston thinks it is likely they will remain in the top flight, even if it is in the guise of a newly formed company. "Members see the commercial benefits of having Rangers, even as a newco," Johnston told BBC Scotland.

"The clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits may outweigh that."


What a load of b*llocks..financial gain outweighs sporting integrity..Tells you all you need to know about Scottish Football...

:evil:

Coincidence that the meeting deciding on what goes on with punishment to clubs that hey diddly diddle was put back..

Coincidence my arse...
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Sun May 06, 2012 12:51 am

"The clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits may outweigh that."


So match fixing is OK then?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 9205
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby the pink palermo on Sun May 06, 2012 7:11 pm

There's an excellent piece on this saga here by channel 4's Alex Thomson .

I make him right , and for other clubs Directors to be commenting that the cash matters more than the integrity of the competition beggars belief .

If Rangers survive in the top flight I hope Celtic fans punish all the other clubs by a boycott .

Have a look at Rangers attendences in the years prior to Murray splashing the cash .........Aberdeen, Dundee et al were doing just fine then .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27704
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: So will you bury my soul where the dust meets the sea

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Mon May 07, 2012 5:04 am

Scottish football couldn't exist without Rangers and the Old Firm clashes.

Just as we couldn't live without ManYoo, Citeh, the Bin Dippers, Spuds, Chel$ki and L'Arse this year...

Oh wait....................................

My money is on no bans, no div III, no financial extras 10 points this season none next. Just like the auditors said that they believe Miller has received assurances that no further action will be taken. They can't envision a SPL without them. Or Murdoch. Remember they SPL deal is void without the Big Two. So everyone's piece of the pie gets smaller.

Integrity my arse.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby QuintonNimoy on Mon May 07, 2012 10:34 am

the pink palermo wrote:There's an excellent piece on this saga here by channel 4's Alex Thomson .

I make him right , and for other clubs Directors to be commenting that the cash matters more than the integrity of the competition beggars belief .

He very nearly Godwin's his piece but manages to stop just short of Hitler with his comparisons to the Rangers press conference. Nothing annoys a reporter more than denying them their 30 seconds in the limelight by asking a "difficult question" and hopefully getting themselves thrown out, even to the point of making their opening salvo almost unreadable *****.

Unfortunately his efforts to suck up to Craig Whyte in the hopes of getting an exclusive at some time in the future stop him pointing out the obvious irony of the situation, that completely subverting the sporting structure in favour of money puts them entirely on a par with Whyte and that by getting rid of him they become him - if they do this to artificially keep Rangers alive and pass whatever law changes are necessary in pursuit of Sky money then they're effectively as bad as him.

The whole situation is laughable, but I think via the Sky money there's a good chance that many of the clubs have planned heavily on the Old Firm matches keeping the cash coming in. Rangers going under probably wouldn't take them down with them, but if the Sky deal is renegotiated to a much lower level you might see a treat or two knocked off the sumptuous corporate box lunches, and we all know that's what really matters right? Tightening the belts doesn't go down well with the blazers anywhere in football.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Mon May 07, 2012 1:35 pm

Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson has described the scenario as a "lose-lose situation" amid fears over income falling without a Rangers in the SPL. "This season we got £1.4million from the SPL," he said. "If we only get £200,000 to £300,000, then how do we fill the £1million?

"But fans are talking about boycotts."

Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston expects leniency towards Miller's proposed new Rangers.


Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston, whose team could be relegated tonight, believes a new club should start in the Irn-Bru Third Division, but he expects to be a lone voice.

He said: "Everyone agrees that there should be severe punishment, but there are a number of chairmen who will look at the financial thing and say, 'do we want an SPL without Rangers?'

"It will be a question of sporting integrity against financial necessity."


Rangers manager Ally McCoist says he can understand the argument that Miller's newco club should start in the bottom tier.

But he added: "It's not just as simple as that because I do believe there would be a threat to the livelihood of maybe some other clubs in the SPL if that were to happen.

"The right thing to do might be the wrong thing in the long run. It's a big problem."
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Mon May 07, 2012 3:49 pm

Not sure why you're underlining stuff, and using bold and italics, CH. You might be underestimating our reading ability.

Meanwhile, the SPL has delayed its decisions on financial fair play and voting rights again to the 30th May.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Mon May 07, 2012 3:52 pm

York

Apologies ..imagine everyone has to have the same squintey eyed view I do when typing..

:oops:

Just seems to require emphasising a bit...maybe there should be an emoticon with a bull horn !!!!!

lolz
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Norbert_Up_Norf on Tue May 08, 2012 5:08 pm

User avatar
Norbert_Up_Norf
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:54 am
Location: Chav Corner, St James Park, Newcastle (a long way from home)

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Tue May 08, 2012 5:10 pm

And his excuse - Bill Miller: 'after hearing the msg from Rangers supporters...loud & clear ("Yank go home"), I notified admin I have withdrawn my bid'.

That's why no-one from Rangers went to the SPL meeting yesterday and why Duff & Phelps wanted any decisions adjourned. They've got no buyer for the club so liquidation looms.
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue May 08, 2012 5:23 pm

If the liquidation process gets underway, what happens to the 'loans' made to players? Presumably they'll be called in by the liquidators?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 9205
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Tue May 08, 2012 5:27 pm

^^ - The loans were actually not paid by Rangers - they were made by a independent third-party trust (although the trust was financed by Rangers). Any repayments of the loans would simply go back to the trust - and they as a completely independent third-party would keep the cash.
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby QuintonNimoy on Tue May 08, 2012 5:29 pm

Wembley1966 wrote:And his excuse - Bill Miller: 'after hearing the msg from Rangers supporters...loud & clear ("Yank go home"), I notified admin I have withdrawn my bid'.

That's why no-one from Rangers went to the SPL meeting yesterday and why Duff & Phelps wanted any decisions adjourned. They've got no buyer for the club so liquidation looms.

And also:

"By late Monday night, it became clear to me that preliminary information, discussions and analysis were, unfortunately, more optimistic than reality."

Which might translate into realising that all kinds of barriers to the exotic plan of the new Rangers company exist with no real prospect of overcoming them.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue May 08, 2012 5:31 pm

Wembley1966 wrote:^^ - The loans were actually not paid by Rangers - they were made by a independent third-party trust (although the trust was financed by Rangers). Any repayments of the loans would simply go back to the trust - and they as a completely independent third-party would keep the cash.


Much obliged.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 9205
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaronhammer, AlfieG, claret and bobby, dwilliams, EastleighHammer16, fjthegrey, Jayhammer, Odessa, patricklambe, pharaoh, plas, robdf2, Rocketron, snooperpooper, SpongeBob's Pants, wolverine, Yahoo [Bot] and 93 guests