0
    0

    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  

       

       
       

      upthehoops 

      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

    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 13:53

    You may be right about a lack of RRM, but I wasn't really limiting a rescue package to one coming from a genuine supporter (think Ashley) and there is always the possibility of someone moving in with cash who sees a football club as an entry to the UK business world, though that is obviously less likely now with Brexit, as pretty soon anybody will be welcome as long as they have a good line in money laundering and come with their own personal tax haven (no sniggering emoji coz I'm not sniggering).

    Anyway, by my limited understanding of a pre-pack, a buyer for the business is required, so, no buyer, no pre-pack.

    In truth, if they manage to pull off a pre-pack, I reckon they will slide a bit (10 in a row is going to happen anyway) but, in time, will become a solid second and make a more realistic challenge. Debt is what's holding them back and shedding most of that will serve them well.

    On the other hand, if insolvency is nigh, and they don't achieve a pre-pack, then they will be clinging on for dear life as that wage bill is enormous, and the external debt, that we know of, is rather large, too. 

    So, need to keep paying players, unload players, not honour STs, somehow hang onto the assets tied up in CB security, somehow pay back CB loan then satisfy remaining creditors while, perhaps, unsure of further litigation outcomes.

    If they can't cope with that, the L word crops up again. Cue OC/NC…and breathe.


    In Whose Interests
    Meant to add, I'm not sure how the Close Brothers loan and security might affect any such plans as I believe there are some quite onerous conditions attached in the event of an insolvency event, which if I am not mistaken, even a pre-pack administration would be classed as (insolvency event).

    MA is no doubt keeping a close eye on the situation, too, and might take steps to circumvent a pre-pack, if that is possible.


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 13:21

    I think, as JC has just posted about, a pre-pack administration gives big, and unfair, advantage to the debt-laden company, and, assuming a buyer with a bit of cash is sitting around the corner, may very well offload so much of the debt that the new owner will only have to finance the wage bill. Onerous, but certainly manageable to the right RRM. TRFC would still have to cope with a points deduction and any UEFA fallout, which would both cause financial damage, but the eventual upshot would be a club on a stronger footing than it is currently.


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 11:29

     

    I have to admit I didn't get what PMGB was hinting at with the reference to £750,000, so thanks for pointing that out.

    I'm not sure, but if they do successfully achieve a pre-pack administration I imagine they might prevent many of the ravages, in terms of player loss, that they might otherwise experience, as keeping most of the playing squad would, most likely, be an aim of the pre-pack nature of the process. The Close Brothers' deal/security and Ashley scenario might well put paid to their plans, though.

    UEFA, however, will also not be so accommodating, and certainly questioning of the SFA's pathetic oversight of a known overspending club. Expulsion of the club and a ban from Europe might well follow as a clear breach of FFP regulations will be evident.

    Again we are in the realms of speculation over the financial mess that is TRFC, so let's look forward to a rise in the number of SFM posts, and enjoy.

     


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    StevieBCStevieBC 26th August 2019 at 17:03

    naegreetin 26th August 2019 at 19:40

     

    A very good point there from Stevie about the media coverage of a major event and a huge disgrace to our game. But it comes as no surprise, and while it may be that the boardrooms of all clubs are somewhat complicit by not instructing the SFA and SPFL to take action (though we don't know that no efforts have been made by any or a number of clubs and slapped down), nothing, absolutely nothing, excuses the media for their failure to demand a statement and action from the governing bodies.

    As to them not doorstepping those silent governors, or seeking to get an inside story on this hugely significant event, remember how when Hearts were struggling to meet players' wages they didn't shy away from asking the awkward questions and finding a mole.

    Hearts were not the first football club to fall into financial distress, and won't be the last, but their story falls into insignificance against this first ever meaningful punishment meted out to a club that's been guilty of such a heinous offence for over 100 years.

    Such a story should have the media salivating and camped outside both Ibrox and Hampden while in the meantime getting quotes from all and sundry connected past and present with both Ibrox clubs. 

    It is their job (the media) after all.