Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Homunculus.


    14th October 2018 at 16:14  


    I don't think that's right.

    Once the club was in administration it had to get out of it. Administration cannot last forever it is a temporary measure to try to assist survival. It gives a company a bit of breathing space to try to survive.

    The options are 1, Pay your debts, which is possible if a benefactor comes in 2, Get a CVA agreed, then pay an agreed portion of your debts 3, Liquidation, which is what is happening.

    For Rangers to have survived then 1, or 2, would have to have happened. If either did then they would no longer have the tax bill. Debt to HMRC is no different to any other unsecured creditor. 

    Homunculus Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    14th October 2018 at 19:09  

    Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.


    That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 


    Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

    They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

    The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

    I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    Big Pink 

    14th October 2018 at 15:23  


    I can explain why no-one got credit for the rescue.

    It didn't happen.

    White tried, they got knocked out of Europe, he stole tax money to pay inflated wages, that led to administration and now liquidation.

    Deep down they know it, not that deep down actually. 

    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    14th October 2018 at 12:14 


    I think it goes back further than that. The EBTs came later because tax avoidance was the only place they had left to go.

    Rangers spent money that the club simply wasn't generating, ending up tens of millions in debt. Was it not about £80m at one time (back when £80m was a lot of money).

    They then had a failed share issue, which Murray had under-written so he had to come up with about £50m, which he did via MIM allied to smoke and mirrors.

    Rangers' downfall was due to a hubristic need (not want actual need) to dominate Scottish football. They had to win and didn't care what it cost or how it was paid.

    The new club has run at a loss in every season of its existence and is relying on loans and dilution of the shares just to keep going.

    Recent Comments by Homunculus

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Ex Ludo 9th December 2019 at 09:24


    In other news and perhaps more apropos to the broader church that is SFM, the John James site is suggesting today that a meeting took place in London with a specific remit of getting the Murray family involved again with *Rangers. It’s not an outlandish suggestion as many of the assets of the collapsed empire of SDM ended up in the hands of his family, so why not *Rangers too (two)?


    He seems very certain 

    Infrequent Commentator says:

    December 9, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    If this is true, there has to be money making angle.. Murray has been detached for too long to appear without an upside.

    JJ: 100%. Incontrovertible.


    I await this development with huge interest. I would have said I would be extremely surprised if David Murray wanted to be involved with the new club, after what had happened with the previous one. Surely he has learned his lesson. He can't possibly be this "new investment" the PLC are talking about. 

    Then again, I have no inside intelligence or sources. Just my take on what seems likely. 

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Timtim 1st December 2019 at 01:11


    Surely if there is a release clause in his contract then any "bidding war" would relate to the players wages / signing on fee rather than the price of his registration. Why would anyone pay more than the release clause, better to spend the money on securing the players signature on a contract.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Cluster One 29th November 2019 at 18:58


    As stated above I believe Club 1872 had two purposes, one to buy shares and lead to some sort of fan ownership. The other to provide money for projects as agreed with the club. The money was going to be spent equally on both, after 5% was taken for administration. This was the basis on which people signed up to it. 

    Given the club was desperate for money to stay afloat it was decided that buying shares could also be a "project" and most of the money has been spent on buying shares. Demonstrating pretty well just how much control the club has over the Community Interest Company, they use the money donated for basic day to day operations.

    Unfortunately due to the dilution when lenders converted loans to equity their percentage holding has actually dropped rather than increased, so neither purpose is really being met. 

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 28th November 2019 at 12:12


    Assuming they were ever going to be invited to join in. The feeling I get is that if there is investment it will be specific people doing it, resolution 8 which I believe relates to pre-emption, was passed. 

    I don't think the board has any particular problem with Club 1872's holding being diluted and only sell them shares when there is no-one else with cash they are willing to put in. 

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    I have read the comments with regards Dave King having to put his money in so early in the season, I believe that originated from PMG. That would suggest a cash flow issue, in addition to a turnover one. 

    That loan is I believe part of the way in which they are dealing with the £10m shortfall . People have questioned why it would be needed so early in the season, surely cash flow issues would come later on.

    I think it is generally agreed that this shortfall was caused by the purchase of two players, Kent and Hellander if memory serves. Basically they bought players they couldn't afford in order to compete and have had to borrow the money. 

    It does occur though, what terms were the players bought under. If they have to come up with so much of the money straight away, and to clear the debt within the season that would suggest that the other clubs have not given them very much by way of "time to pay". Though to be fair the structure of these deals is not something I am particularly up on.