Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Allyjambo.

    Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 16:50  


    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.

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    1. View Comment
    2. Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 21:48  




      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.

    3. ______________________
    4. I do not think the intent of parliament was to provide businesses with a way of shedding debt currently going through the courts by going into administration before a final ruling is made (on the contingent debt). At the same time I think it would be equally wrong for a contingent creditor to be able to vote and block a CVA when it might later be found to be owed nothing. I suspect that in a case where a CVA is achievable, but a contingent liability exists, that the purchaser of the company would have to accept the contingent liability as part of the deal. It would then be up to the purchaser to decide whether or not he considers the risk worth it. Like you, Homunculus, I have no knowledge on the matter, but, if I am wrong, then however it might work, someone would surely be unfairly disadvantaged.


    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01


    …The other group that were in for the club (Paul Murray and his partner) I believe would have lived within their means and done what I and other fans wanted – build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the 'journey'. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder and 'everyone is out to get us' mindset I'm sure there would not be the same hatred towards us now, and certainly not the financial basket case we are! So yes, that's why I hate Green and hold him second only to Murray for the problems of recent years…



    A very good post, DBD, but this part is very much something that didn't happen, and it didn't happen because the people involved did not come up with enough money to satisfy the CVA (they were a long, long way off) and, as far as we know, did not offer anything in the event the CVA failed. They only wanted the real Rangers football club, and, as men (in your opinion) were not steeped in the same level of spivery as Charles Green, and so did not have the crass dishonesty to come up with fanciful claims of continuation.


    It was Bill Miller, the American, who first came up with the 'incubator' idea, but, from memory, his idea was to buy the 'club' before the CVA was refused. Even his idea was fanciful and was built on his own experiences of the American Football franchise system. It was, of course, the support that you suggest would have (eventually) accepted an impoverished club that chased him away.


    As things stand, there is no evidence that anyone other than Charles Green was going to buy the club's assets in the event of no CVA, and with the media and everyone surrounding Rangers accepting that no CVA meant no Rangers, it took a liar of the highest degree to push the media to change their minds without explanation.


    Charles Green came up with the £5.5m for the club's assets, no one else came close to that figure, nor did they offer their cash upfront – even for the club as a going concern. So the idea that someone else would have been able to cobble it all together, convince those they had to convince that it was the same club, then keep enough supporters onside to finance a team and the upkeep of that crumbling stadium can only be wishful speculation.


    Whether or not we accept the idea that Charles Green 'saved' Rangers, he was the only man who came up with enough money, at the most critical moment, to buy the assets and to continue with a club playing out of Ibrox. Had he not done that in the manner it was done, then a process of buying the assets (advertised as the assets of RFC(IL) would have taken place and, if dealt with properly, it could have taken months, or even years, to complete, and there would now be no club playing out of Ibrox claiming to be the continuation of your beloved club.


    By the way, the name Brian Kennedy has hung around as a potential buyer almost from the off, and continues to be named from time to time as an incoming Blue Knight, but has never put hard cash on the table, and even if he had, there is no evidence to suggest he would have done a great job, just ask the Stockport County fans, who see him only as an asset stripping publicity seeker!


    In short, Charles Green was the only man in a position to continue (almost seamlessly) with a football team at Ibrox, and for anyone who believes that Rangers still play there, it must surely be considered that he did 'save' the club.

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29 2 0 Rate This Allyjambo / Upthehoops, I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall.



    Ah, but do they hate him for it? For they surely hate everyone else they see as culpable in their club's demise.


    Having had no 'Rangers' supporting acquaintances for quite some time now, I have no way of knowing how one would talk now of Murray (the last one I knew, at the time of LNS agreed that the decision not to strip titles was wrong but would not hear a word said against Murray 'because he was doing what was best for Rangers at the time') but from what I can gather from social media any criticism of him would always have a 'but' in it. A 'but' recalling all the trophies won, mitigating his guilt (it would never be 'guilt'), leaving all those others to take the hatred that really belongs to Murray!

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Couple of points on what's recently been posted. The colts thing is just about making TRFC more relevant – whether it happens or not – and people who give thumbs down without justifying them with posts arguing their displeasure are just cowards.


    Please give me loadsa thumbs down and then hide!

    Accountability via Transparency.
    wottpi 3rd May 2019 at 10:11


    “What would [revealing what team you support] give? I think the majority of match officials are from the Central Belt. Would there be a benefit? I think it would just increase the scrutiny."

    "In this area, the majority of people support two teams and you are going to get people who cast aspersions over what team you supported, what school you went to. You can’t control that."



    What an incredibly self-defeating (of the point he was making) 'argument' he makes in these two paragraphs. The obvious response to what he says being, 'why then don't you ensure that the majority of referees come from an area not blighted by this phenomenon?' But, of course, a PR piece like this doesn't include awkward questions of the type that really need asked.

    There is also another, even more obvious, question that needs to be asked. 'Why is it that these referees, from an area where the majority support one of two teams, the vast majority of our referees support only one of those two teams?' Again, only in a PR exercise would such questions not be asked.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    I just have to say that that goal, by No5 Simunovic, could not have been more fitting on today, of all days. If I believed in heaven, then I'd be certain Billy McNeill was looking down, smiling at a goal like so many he scored.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    easyJambo 26th April 2019 at 19:38


    Apart from the obvious take from that report – that Petrie and Maxwell are idiots – it would appear that the delegates from those lower leagues are less inclined to kowtow to the SFA turds than their counterparts in the SPFL are.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 19th April 2019 at 08:29 Shug@07.19 The take away for me from the PMGB article is the admission in court that there is no money currently available to settle any damages (and court costs presumably). Serious stuff.


    I suspect, should any damages be as substantial as some commentators say, or even just half-way towards substantial, that new loans will be required, and that this time round Close Brothers will be seeing their rather healthily high (from their point of view) interest payments continuing for some time to come. What's more, should TRFC face some insolvency event (not necessarily administration but don't ask me what else it might be) as a result of this case, then don't Close Brothers have an interesting wee bit in their security where the assets under charge automatically go to them? If that was to ever come about it would mean more than just lost revenue for the club, for as well as losing some heritable assets, car park and a dilapidated building, a part of Ibrox infrastructure would no longer be under the control of the club, making, I am sure, Ibrox as an asset less valuable to future club investors/buyers.

    At some point, surely, the chickens have to come home to roost, where one of the many court cases has the kind of impact we've long anticipated, and maybe that point is fast approaching?