Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Jelle1880 · 11-05-2012 10:41AM

alex thomson ‏ @alextomo
UEFA confirm again they will treat CVAs like NEWCOs ie 3 year bann

So basically there's nothing stopping Rangers from going down the newco route and **** over all the creditors, since the punishments will be the same.

Either that, or he's full of ****.

My money's on the last.

PauloMN · 11-05-2012 10:48AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So basically there's nothing stopping Rangers from going down the newco route and **** over all the creditors, since the punishments will be the same.

History?

Jelle1880 · 11-05-2012 10:53AM

Well yeah, but if (According to him) the punishment between paying off the creditors or ****ing them over and leaving them with nothing is the same...

But obviously he's full of it, UEFA is very clear that the 3 year ban only applies to Newco, not CVA.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 12:12PM

Alex Thomson actually says is that a CVA is a loophole in the Financial Fair Play Rules that UEFA are looking to close. Also a CVA should take about 6 weeks to set up.

EDIT

Going back to Rangers fans bleating on about the transfer embargo and the fines being the harshest punishments possible. As I said, they werent. Consider yourselves lucky.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 12:38PM

Several Tweets from Alex Thomson who has read the Tribunals findings

Get this; “the Tribunal considered whether it should terminate Rangers FC membership of the SFA .”

Yes - the Appeal Tribunal can increase punishments passed on a club

Scathing Tribunal criticism of fmr Rangers directors John McClelland, John Greig and David King...tirbunal says they...

All knew Rangers was off the rails but did nothing about it except resign in some caases

Tribunal - RFC Financial Controller Ken Olverman knew they weren't paying tax and Craig Whyte was orchestrating a cover-up

Be in no doubt McClelland, Olverman and Greig are damned by name by the Tribunal. The men who did nothing when they knew it was wrong.

So no more of this "It was all Craig Whyte, the club is innocent" bullshít. Several officials at the club failed to act in the appropriate manner.

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 12:48PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Several Tweets from Alex Thomson who has read the Tribunals findings

So no more of this "It was all Craig Whyte, the club is innocent" bullshít. Several officials at the club failed to act in the appropriate manner.

Yeah, I can cherry pick too - Can i be a journalist just like Alex?

It also states that Olverman was not authorised to make due payments to tax authorities in September and was told by Whyte that payments to her Majesty's Revenue and Customs were to be suspended.

The report added: "At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC's financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

"In the course of his subsequent communications with Mr Craig Whyte about the payment of these social taxes due to HMRC Mr Craig Whyte stated to Mr Olverman that non payment of the sums due was a tactic or negotiating ploy intended to improve the position of Rangers FC in any attempted negotiation with HMRC of a settlement in 'the Big Tax Case'."

From the Daily Record - it's pretty clear who was calling the shots.

PauloMN · 11-05-2012 12:55PM

Well it seems BK and the BKs are out:

BRIAN KENNEDY and Paul Murray have been turned down in their bid to save Rangers.

Record Sport can reveal after a tense morning of negotiations with administrators from Duff and Phelps, Kennedy has now been told the joint joint bid - believed to be worth in excess of £8.5m- cannot be accepted.

Kennedy and Murray are now expected to officially follow through on their promise to withdraw from the race to save the stricken club from extinction with a press conference being arranged for later this afternoon at an as yet unconfirmed venue in Glasgow.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/05/11/rangers-in-crisis-blue-knights-pull-out-of-race-to-take-over-ibrox-club-after-offer-is-rejected-by-administrators-86908-23855753/

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 12:57PM

^^^Hardly surprised^^^ they've been a waste of time since before Whyte.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 12:58PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Yeah, I can cherry pick too - Can i be a journalist just like Alex?

From the Daily Record - it's pretty clear who was calling the shots.

So the Financial Controller sees that the club isnt paying its taxes, sees that Craig Whyte is putting the clubs future at risk and says nothing, does nothing.

Again back to this shíte that it was all Craig Whyte when in reality, several people said nothing, did nothing and/or quit in a desperate attempt to save face. All these people didnt have the balls to stand up for the club when it mattered. They could have blown the whistle but instead they continued to take a wage and those who quit continued to respect their confidentiality agreements for their golden handshakes.

You are living in lala land if you continue to believe that it was all Craig Whyte when its clear that several people participated in the cover up by saying nothing, doing nothing for financial reward.

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 01:01PM

Dempsey wrote: »

So the Financial Controller sees that the club isnt paying its taxes, sees that Craig Whyte is putting the clubs future at risk and says nothing, does nothing.

Again back to this shíte that it was all Craig Whyte when in reality, several people said nothing, did nothing and/or quit in a desperate attempt to save face. All these people didnt have the balls to stand up for the club when it mattered. They could have blown the whistle but instead they continued to take a wage and those who quit continued to respect their confidentiality agreements for their golden handshakes.

You are living in lala land if you continue to believe that it was all Craig Whyte when its clear that several people participated in the cover up by saying nothing.

it quite clearly says he spoke to Whyte about it, and Whyte claimed it was part of his tactics for dealing with BGT.
What is he supposed to do, run to the media? What's that going to achieve?

If the guy controlling the money doesnt give you access, there's very little you can do.
You have to remember that Whyte wasn't doing anything "Illegal" in a business sense at that stage - football wise, yes - but not in a business sense.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 01:06PM

Eirebear wrote: »

it quite clearly says he spoke to Whyte about it, and Whyte claimed it was part of his tactics for dealing with BGT.
What is he supposed to do, run to the media? What's that going to achieve?

If the guy controlling the money doesnt give you access, there's very little you can do.
You have to remember that Whyte wasn't doing anything "Illegal" in a business sense at that stage - football wise, yes - but not in a business sense.

LOL, just LOL.

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 01:13PM

Dempsey wrote: »

LOL, just LOL.

:rolleyes:

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 02:25PM

Eirebear wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You cannot seriously expect people to believe that nothing could have been done by the people that knew what Craig Whyte was doing? They decided it was easier to take their wages and compensation packages than to stand up for the club for moral, ethical or legal (football/business) reasons. Nobody is going to buy the brand of bull you are trying to peddle here today. You are football's version of Enron and I say that without any exaggeration.

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 02:42PM

Dempsey wrote: »

You cannot seriously expect people to believe that nothing could have been done by the people that knew what Craig Whyte was doing? They decided it was easier to take their wages and compensation packages than to stand up for the club for moral, ethical or legal (football/business) reasons. Nobody is going to buy the brand of bull you are trying to peddle here today. You are football's version of Enron and I say that without any exaggeration.

Why do you feel the need to turn everything into a point scoring argument?
Seriously? You can get to **** with your "Brand of Bull****" nonsense - i'm simply trying to understand what's going on - we can't all be as on the button as you like to pretend you are.

God forbid that someone reads something differently to you while your on your high horse eh? It just so happens that i took a slightly different perspective on things and pointed out that Thomson's slant on things could be seen in another manner.
Why Did Not Authorise Payments, Whyte made the call - no one else.

Your "Moral and Ethical" standpoint is complete and utter bull**** as well - so some accountant may, or may not have been either duped, or in cahoots with Whyte - big ****ing deal. Hell i don't even know if he gave a **** about football in the first place, do you?
if you look further into the report from today you'll see that those who did care about Rangers and/or football resigned

The report states that former Rangers chairman McClelland resigned from the board in October along with John Greig after being given no information about the club's finances and no opportunity to attend a board meeting.

You'll also see that HMRC and Mr Olverman had been in discussions regarding VAT that Ticketus had tried to claim back after their dealings with Whyte.

The report added that Olverman was contacted by tax officials in August about invoices discovered in the business records of Ticketus, which gave the club more than £30million in capital under Whyte, which included £5million in VAT, in return for rights to future season ticket sales.

The report states: "The invoices related to sums of many millions of pounds and the VAT element in each of them had been the subject of offset by Ticketus in the submission of its VAT returns for the last period.

"Such was the size and impact of this offset of VAT which had been paid by Ticketus in respect of these invoices, that Ticketus had made a claim for payment of a substantial sum to it by HMRC by way of recovery of VAT paid.

"Mr Ken Olverman, the financial controller of Rangers FC, had no knowledge of the existence of the invoices purportedly raised by Rangers FC.

"The raising of such invoices was a matter which fell squarely within his sphere of responsibility and it was inconceivable that such invoices for such large sums could be raised and issued from the finance office of Rangers FC without his knowledge.

"He was unaware of any current transaction with Ticketus and knew that no sums of money had been received in recent times from Ticketus into any accounts of Rangers FC.

"In the course of September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman had sight of the said invoices. The nature and format of the invoices was entirely different to that of invoices raised within the finance office of Rangers FC. He was of the view that it appeared as though Clip Art computer processes had been involved in their creation.

"They did not appear to him to resemble any invoices he had ever seen issued by Rangers FC.

"Mr Ken Olverman believed from his conversations with the HMRC official that the invoices were the subject of further investigation. He accordingly took no further action in relation to the invoices."

But don't let all that get in the way of a good point scoring session Dempsey.

PauloMN · 11-05-2012 03:18PM

Glasgow's Green and Whyte

:D:D:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18039281

The group in pole position to buy Rangers is fronted by former Sheffield United chief executive Charles Green.
His group joined the race to rescue the crisis-hit club last week when previous favourite Bill Miller withdrew his bid.
Little is known about the rest of Green's consortium but it is understood there are links to Singapore.
During Green's stint at Bramall Lane the Blades were listed on the stock exchange in 1997, but results on and off the field were disappointing.
He quit a year after the flotation and re-emerged in football shortly after as chairman of the football agency Proactive Sports. The Cheshire-based firm had a number of leading stars on its books, including Andrew Cole, Stan Collymore and Wayne Rooney.

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 03:24PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Glasgow's Green and Whyte :D:D:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18039281

Lex Gold is up next.

BK's press Conference at the moment - looks like "Newco" is as certain as it gets now.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 03:42PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to turn everything into a point scoring argument?
Seriously? You can get to **** with your "Brand of Bull****" nonsense - i'm simply trying to understand what's going on - we can't all be as on the button as you like to pretend you are.

God forbid that someone reads something differently to you while your on your high horse eh? It just so happens that i took a slightly different perspective on things and pointed out that Thomson's slant on things could be seen in another manner.
Why Did Not Authorise Payments, Whyte made the call - no one else.

Your "Moral and Ethical" standpoint is complete and utter bull**** as well - so some accountant may, or may not have been either duped, or in cahoots with Whyte - big ****ing deal. Hell i don't even know if he gave a **** about football in the first place, do you?
if you look further into the report from today you'll see that those who did care about Rangers and/or football resigned

You'll also see that HMRC and Mr Olverman had been in discussions regarding VAT that Ticketus had tried to claim back after their dealings with Whyte.

But don't let all that get in the way of a good point scoring session Dempsey.

Maybe its time you look up the duties of directors and their legal responsibilities towards the business that they are a director of. The bigger picture is that corporate governance at Rangers was virtually non-existent (this happened long before Whyte) and when suspicions of Whyte grew, the people that had the best idea of what he was up to, did nothing and some just walked away without fulfilling their responsibilities.

EDIT

Tribunal Report wrote:

“ …individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public. That may be matter for their long term reflection but it does reduce the mitigatory impact of the suggestion that Rangers FC were innocent victims. “

Eirebear · 11-05-2012 04:04PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Maybe its time you look up the duties of directors and their legal responsibilities towards the business that they are a director of. The bigger picture is that corporate governance at Rangers was virtually non-existent (this happened long before Whyte) and when suspicions of Whyte grew, the people that had the best idea of what he was up to, did nothing and some just walked away without fulfilling their responsibilities.

Ohhh right, now resigning was wrong too! McLelland resigned in protest, and both were Non-Executive Directors at that - so hardly involved in the day to day business. They knew something stunk, and removed themselves due to not being given information

Olverman was not, and is not a director at Rangers - therefore has no reposnsibilities in that respect.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 04:09PM

See the edit above, I wouldnt be looking forward to Wednesday either, I'm expecting Rangers to get a punishment for a frivolous appeal.

super_furry · 11-05-2012 06:12PM

So where do things stand now? Been following the story on the peripherary and everything I hear makes it sound more and more bleak for Rangers.

What league are they likely to start in next season?

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 06:26PM

super_furry wrote: »

So where do things stand now? Been following the story on the peripherary and everything I hear makes it sound more and more bleak for Rangers.

What league are they likely to start in next season?

Its not clear at this time but Brian Kennedy claims that his legal team told him that a CVA cannot be concluded in time for the start of the new season so its increasingly likely they they'll be starting in the SPL with a 10 point deduction as a best case scenario.

A CVA will incur a penalties from SFA/SPL & UEFA. Its unclear what will happen there and UEFA are redrafting rules and punishments regarding CVA's as we speak.

Also according to Kennedy, the newco route would require a £30m startup investment. Again unclear whether a newco would be allowed to stay in the SPL (with penalties) or start in Div3. SPL clubs want to vote on whether they stay in the SPL or start again in Div3.

Its a very complicated mess with a wide range of outcomes at this stage. Everything hinges on whether bidders can actually be installed as owners before Rangers resume paying players their full wage.

Dempsey · 11-05-2012 08:58PM

Chris McLaughlin ‏ @BBCchrismclaug

Brian Kennedy's lawyer contacts administrators warning them that due diligence hasn't been carried out by other bidders

Unreal

PauloMN · 11-05-2012 09:24PM

Something I can't understand in all of this is where the big tax case fits in. How are these bidders able to put figures on what they think they need to invest when that potentially huge bill is not finalised yet. Are they assuming they won't have to pay it? Are they assuming it'll be written off, or partially written off, even if the court decides Rangers are liable for every penny?

Also, with the newco option, is it standard practice to be able to move a company's assets from one company to another without penalty, even when the old company owes a fortune to creditors? Why would the assets of the old company not be sold off to cover some of the money owed to creditors, as a legal obligation?

RoryMac · 11-05-2012 09:42PM

I wonder about that too, Kennedy apparently said in his press conf that the BTC was not relevant to a CVA or something to that effect. He said the HMRC would never agree to a CVA that guaranteed football debts being paid but as far as i know wasn't asked how any prospective owners would overcome this.

Pompey Magnus · 12-05-2012 10:45PM

Just saw this on a Stockport County messageboard:

When Brian Kennedy Arrived, Stockport County Had £4M Debt, But Owned Edgeley Park.

When Brian Kennedy Left, Stockport County Had £4M Debt, But he Owned Edgeley Park.

Dempsey · 12-05-2012 11:14PM

Whilst he does own Edgeley Park, he's not trying to asset strip Stockport at all. I'll bet that Kennedy will sell Edgeley Park back to Stockport County for a nominal fee since the Sharks are off to groundshare at another stadium next season.

Pompey Magnus · 12-05-2012 11:36PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Whilst he does own Edgeley Park, he's not trying to asset strip Stockport at all. I'll bet that Kennedy will sell Edgeley Park back to Stockport County for a nominal fee since the Sharks are off to groundshare at another stadium next season.

I don't think he will. He has an agreement to allow Stockport County to take ownership of the stadium once they stump up £4.5m, not a nominal sum for a team in the fifth tier of English football and made all the more tougher as the club can't get a bank loan as it owns very little assets because he owns the main one, the stadium.

The system currently in place is he takes 30% of all transfer fees received and annual profit until he gets all his money, the club will make no progress until they get him off their back and I don't expect him to stop milking them just because Sharks are moving.

Dempsey · 12-05-2012 11:45PM

How is he doing that when he gave his shareholding to the fans trust?

I know that he's getting the lions share from the corporate facilities on matchdays alright

Pompey Magnus · 13-05-2012 12:08AM

Dempsey wrote: »

How is he doing that when he gave his shareholding to the fans trust?

I know that he's getting the lions share from the corporate facilities on matchdays alright

The Trust signed a very bad deal with Kennedy and the club and current owners have been paying the price for it ever since. The stadium was not included in the buy out, instead they agreed to rent it off Kennedy for £250k per year with a 10 year option to buy it back.

Red Crow · 13-05-2012 12:16AM

PauloMN wrote: »

Something I can't understand in all of this is where the big tax case fits in. How are these bidders able to put figures on what they think they need to invest when that potentially huge bill is not finalised yet. Are they assuming they won't have to pay it? Are they assuming it'll be written off, or partially written off, even if the court decides Rangers are liable for every penny?

Also, with the newco option, is it standard practice to be able to move a company's assets from one company to another without penalty, even when the old company owes a fortune to creditors? Why would the assets of the old company not be sold off to cover some of the money owed to creditors, as a legal obligation?

Yeah, when it's liquidated the assets will be sold off, stadium training ground etc. This is likely to end up under the New Rangers FC hands as who else would buy Ibrox? What other football club could afford the ground?

Also could Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte not also be held personally liable for Rangers debts due to negligent trading or whatever the UK equivalent of directors duties and responsibilities are?

This may be the reason why the potential new owners are discounting any tax case.

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments