Duff & Phelps – Have Delays In Administration Made Winding Up of Rangers Certain?

 

A blog post in which I pose some questions for Duff & Phelps regarding their plans and court actions, future funding, and whether they have taken sufficient steps to obtain information from all parties regarding Rangers’ affairs. If so, have Mr Whyte and Mr Ellis committed a criminal offence, and if so, have Duff & Phelps done anything about it?

Whilst a lot of work has been done by them in eleven weeks, how do they intend to keep the doors open until a bidder completes due diligence and signs a deal?

Has the stop/start process (some of which might rest at D&P’s door, but much of which has been caused by outside events) resulted in Rangers being unable to continue as a going concern?

——————————–

 

This week has seen the focus shift from the administrators of Rangers on to the SFA disciplinary process and the furore regarding the “anonymous” Judicial Panel.

I will pass over that for now, and pose a couple of quick questions for Duff & Phelps. It would be easy to forget that the administration process is still going on! I do not expect them to answer me, but some response might be forthcoming to someone.

An interesting piece was posted on the Web.3D.Law blog last night. This concludes by stating:-

“ If I am right, it begs the question as to why and how D&P are taking offers for the club in the first place, especially since Craig Whyte can block any action to sell his shares.

Are the administrators fulfilling a PR exercise?

Of course. They must they be seen to be doing everything possible to save Rangers.  Are they under instructions from CW himself to try and find a buyer? To me, the whole thing reeks of an exercise in futility – unless of course CW’s security is less than publicly reported, it makes no logical sense as to why he would sell to either bidder and Duff and Phelps have raised a lot of Rangers supporters hopes for nothing. Again.

 

The administrators of Rangers are very experienced Insolvency Practitioners. They are fully aware of the rules under which they must operate. To lesser mortals like me, some of their decisions seem baffling. I am sure that is my failing, rather than theirs. However, responses to the following questions would be of interest.

 

Have They Received Notification of the Result of the Big Tax Case?

The parties are made aware of the terms of the decision a few days before it is made public. If they had heard, then I am sure leaks and spin would already be taking place.

However, as the amount assessed by the Tax Tribunal as due by Rangers is important for the purposes of assessing what proposal can be made in a CVA. It also affects the amount that a buyer, whether of the company or the assets, might have to put into the pot.

If no result has yet been notified, have they been told when this might take place?

 

Have They Received a Statement of Affairs from Mr Whyte or Mr Ellis and Whom Have They Asked for One?

Rule 47 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act states as follows:-

(1)As soon as is reasonably practicable after appointment the administrator of a company shall by notice in the prescribed form require one or more relevant persons to provide the administrator with a statement of the affairs of the company.

(2)The statement must—

(a) be verified by a statement of truth in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules,

(b) be in the prescribed form,

(c) give particulars of the company’s property, debts and liabilities,

(d) give the names and addresses of the company’s creditors,

(e) specify the security held by each creditor,

(f) give the date on which each security was granted, and

(g) contain such other information as may be prescribed.

(3)In sub-paragraph (1) “relevant person” means—

(a) a person who is or has been an officer of the company,

(b) a person who took part in the formation of the company during the period of one year ending with the date on which the company enters administration,

(c) a person employed by the company during that period, and

(d) a person who is or has been during that period an officer or employee of a company which is or has been during that year an officer of the company.

(4)For the purpose of sub-paragraph (3), a reference to employment is a reference to employment through a contract of employment or a contract for services.

(5)In Scotland, a statement of affairs under sub-paragraph (1) must be a statutory declaration made in accordance with the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 (c. 62) (and sub-paragraph (2) (a) shall not apply).

Rule 48 states:-

(1)A person required to submit a statement of affairs must do so before the end of the period of 11 days beginning with the day on which he receives notice of the requirement.

(2)The administrator may—

(a) revoke a requirement under paragraph 47(1), or

(b) extend the period specified in sub-paragraph (1) (whether before or after expiry).

(3)If the administrator refuses a request to act under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) the person whose request is refused may apply to the court, and

(b) the court may take action of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2).

(4)A person commits an offence if he fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement under paragraph 47(1).

In the 5th April Proposal to creditors Duff & Phelps stated:-

“The Joint Administrators are yet to receive a signed SOA from the Directors of the Company. One of the directors, Dave King has confirmed that he holds insufficient financial information relating to the Company to prepare the SOA. No response has been received from the other directors.

If the SOA is received by the Joint Administrators the document will be submitted to the Registrar of Companies and be available to download from the Club’s website and the Companies House website. “

As the Rules show, a Statement of Affairs can be requested from:-

A person who is or has been an officer of the company – the directors, Messrs Whyte, Ellis and KIng and Company Secretary, Mr Withey; and the former directors, such as Messrs Betts, McClelland and Greig and Bain; and

A person employed by the company in the year prior to entering administration – Ali Russell, former Chief Operating Officer, or anyone else employed in Rangers financial department.

Mr King has offered his plea that he cannot tell, due to his distance from the company, but other than that, how long ago were the directors asked?

The Rules require D&P to ask for this as soon as is reasonably practicable after appointment. A response is required, unless the recipient is excused, or has the timetable extended, within eleven days. Failure to respond is a criminal offence.

Who has been ordered to produce a Statement of Affairs?

What have D&P done about anyone, such as the directors sans Mr King, who have failed to reply?

Bearing in mind the confusion about securities etc, surely someone in Ibrox, from the list mentioned above, will have answers? Or is it the position that, as Mr Jardine of Rangers has said, “I have to say that nobody knew that he wasn’t paying bills”. In that case is he suggesting that the records did not reflect reality?

After all, I do not imagine that Mr Whyte kept all the Rangers accounting records and the chequebook locked up in Castle Grant!

When the accountants. Grant Thornton, were trying to prepare audited accounts, did they see the books (one assumes so) and if they noted an increase in creditors, did they speak exclusively to Mr Whyte?

In which case, why did he bother with a Chief Operating Officer, and other directors and executives?

D&P need information. The Insolvency Act gives them the right to obtain this information. What have they done about using those rights and powers?

 

The Vote at the Virtual Creditors’ Meeting Closed One Week Ago – What were the Results?

The creditors voted on five resolutions. I discussed them here. Clearly the decisions of the creditors on these resolutions will have a major effect on how the administrators continue, and indeed if they even remain in post!

Rule 53 of the Insolvency Rules deals with what the administrators have to do after the initial creditors’ meeting.

“(1) An initial creditors’ meeting to which an administrator’s proposals are presented shall consider them and may—

(a) approve them without modification, or

(b) approve them with modification to which the administrator consents.

(2)After the conclusion of an initial creditors’ meeting the administrator shall as soon as is reasonably practicable report any decision taken to—

(a) the court,

(b) the registrar of companies, and

(c) such other persons as may be prescribed.

(3)An administrator commits an offence if he fails without reasonable excuse to comply with sub-paragraph (2).”

The question of what is “as soon as is reasonably practicable” depends on the facts and circumstances. The task of counting and allocating each vote might have taken some time, but after a week one would expect it to have been completed. After all, D&P could simply draft in more staff, knowing that they will undoubtedly be paid.

It took 12 days for the D&P proposal to creditors to appear on the Companies House website. Will it take as long for the results to appear there too?

As far as the court is concerned, it has to be notified too. If the resolutions proposed by D&P have not been accepted, then what happens?

At this point, Rule 55 comes into play:-

“(1) This paragraph applies where an administrator reports to the court that—

(a) an initial creditors’ meeting has failed to approve the administrator’s proposals presented to it, or

(b) a creditors’ meeting has failed to approve a revision of the administrator’s proposals presented to it.

(2)The court may—

(a) provide that the appointment of an administrator shall cease to have effect from a specified time;

(b) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally;

(c) make an interim order;

(d) make an order on a petition for winding up suspended by virtue of paragraph 40(1) (b);

(e) make any other order (including an order making consequential provision) that the court thinks appropriate.”

Therefore, if the resolutions have been rejected in part or in full, we can expect a court hearing very soon. As of Friday nothing was listed on the Scottish Courts website for next week, but that can change at short notice. The court has very wide powers – basically to do whatever it thinks is right in the context of the administration for the benefit of the creditors.

If the major creditors, Ticketus and HMRC, voted down the resolutions, then one wonders if D&P would want to stay in place. That would be an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them.

Might the creditors have become concerned about the shifting closing dates, and the apparent vagueness of D&P’s goals?

If the results are not yet available, can D&P announce when they expect them to be?

 

What Steps Have the Administrators Taken – To Divest Mr Whyte’s Group of its Shares in Rangers?

The administrators were quoted universally in the press as describing Mr Whyte as “irrelevant”. Some weeks later they stated that they had not said this, but instead had said he would not be “an impediment”.

Mr Whyte, through the Rangers FC Group Ltd, owns 85% of Rangers. The Court of Session was told that D&P believed the purchase was funded via illegal “financial assistance”. Have D&P taken any steps to seek to render the purchase of the shares void?

As Mr Whyte appears to want to receive a payment for his shares, and as D&P have been bullish about being able to circumvent him, what have they actually done?

If the aim is to sell the club as a going concern, and not to hive off the assets leaving the club to be liquidated, then Mr Whyte needs either to reach an agreement for a sale or be removed as majority shareholder. To be removed as majority shareholder requires (a) a court order or (b) a share issue diluting his interest below controlling or blocking levels.

If the plan is to dilute his shareholding by a massive share issue, then when do D&P envisage doing this? It is not something which can be organised overnight.

 

What Steps Have the Administrators Taken – To Invalidate Mr Whyte’s Group’s Floating Charge?

If the assets of the company are to be sold off, whether into an “incubator company” (© Bill Miller), or in a sale to a newco, the secured creditors line up ahead of the unsecured. Depending on the precise amount of Mr Whyte’s claim under the security, this would leave nothing for the unsecured creditors.

In that case an unlikely CVA becomes an impossible CVA.

Therefore, if the business is not being sold as a going concern, D&P need to remove the floating charge. This can be done by declaring that there is nothing owed to Mr Whyte, in which case the charge is worthless. For example, if you repay your mortgage in full, but do not discharge the security over your property, the lender still has the security in place, but it is securing a debt of zero. Ergo it has no effect (although a discharge would still need to be registered).

If Mr Whyte thinks he is a creditor, then it would require a court determination to decide this.

Alternatively, D&P might believe that the assignation of the floating charge from the Lloyds Banking Group to Mr Whyte was in some way defective, for example as the transaction was financed by illegal “financial assistance”. In that case D&P need a court to agree.

Neither of the steps taken above would be very quick, so if D&P have not started the ball rolling now, when do they intend to?

 

What Steps Have the Administrators Taken – To Have the Ticketus Deal Rendered Void?

Counsel for D&P told the court in March that the Ticketus deal was to be challenged. As Lord Hodge wrote:-

The administrators’ legal advisers have challenged the enforceability of the STA (Season Tickets Agreement). It envisaged that Rangers would use the payment for the first tranche STA tickets to effect the repayment of its debt of about £18 million to Bank of Scotland plc. It was also proposed that Rangers would lend £16 million to Wavetower Limited (now called The Rangers FC Group Limited) to enable that debt to be repaid and that the bank’s debt and its securities would be assigned to Wavetower Limited (Schedule 19). The administrators’ legal advisers have asserted that the STA is illegal on the ground that it was an agreement for the giving indirectly by Rangers of financial assistance for the acquisition of its shares contrary to section 678 of the Companies Act 2006. The existence of this challenge is not however relevant to the directions which I have to give as I must assume at this stage that the Ticketus agreements are valid.“

What has been done to progress this challenge? It will need a court to decide on the validity of the contract. Have D&P set the wheels in motion?

 

How Do the Administrators Intend to Fund Rangers in Administration, if the Process Continues into Next Season?

Various people have crunched the numbers regarding the ongoing costs of running Rangers. I have done so myself here.

Without (a) massive cost cutting or (b) the addition of significant sums to the pot or in fact probably (c) both of the above, it is impossible to see how Rangers can continue in administration beyond June or July at the outside.

After the season ends in mid May the players’ voluntary pay reductions end. As this process saved Rangers £1 million per month, and as, even with that saving, the bank balance was shrinking fast, how on earth do D&P intend to fund Rangers in administration next season?

Whilst a fire sale of players might generate cash, and reduce the wage bill, I suspect that the creditors, whether Mr Whyte, HMRC or Ticketus, would not appreciate the sale of assets being used solely to keep the club running. After all, whilst the first purpose of administration is to rescue the company as a going concern, this is to be IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS!

If Rangers, for example, could play in European competition next season, the administrators would have a pot of gold to justify keeping going. But they are not going to play in Europe. Therefore that goal is not there for them.

 

Finally, What is the Plan?

D&P have been through numerous final deadlines for bids. The interested parties have been in, then out, then back in again.

All this means is that after eleven weeks of administration, the available funds have gone down the plughole, and to get the company out of administration, a bidder needs to get in, carry out due diligence, and agree the terms of a deal which will allow a successful CVA.

How do D&P plan to deal with this?

 

I have no idea. I am sure Duff and Phelps do and that their plans are running exactly as intended.

 

It would be helpful, in the interests of creditors, bidders, fans of Rangers and Scottish football as a whole, if they could tell us!

 

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

33 Comments

Filed under Administration, Football, Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers

33 responses to “Duff & Phelps – Have Delays In Administration Made Winding Up of Rangers Certain?

  1. Boltonted

    Are Rangers (ia) not just about to receive a massive cash injection for season ticket sales?

    • gopaul

      uklikely…
      a) the season tickets forms not sent out yet……
      b) what price do you charge
      c) what league are you buying a season ticket to (see b)
      d) what players in the team you watching (see b b c – a joke )
      e) what is the risk – rangers unable to fulfill next season and satisfy season ticket requirements (see a,b,c and f)
      f) c e
      g) which competitions do you include ( bans for most in process – dual contracts etc etc)
      h) goto 10

      ergo – no season ticket money likely, but wages due and no games to generate income…. so financially its pants

  2. Fisiani

    Boltonted – How can you sell season tickets when you do not know if the team will be in existence and in what, if any, league?

    Great posting Paul. perhaps your best

    It is great to have a person of your legal expertise clearly state the law. The majority of commentators have a bare grasp of the law and make outrageous claims and assumptions.

    The power of the Internet puts D and P under the greatest scrutiny they will ever experience. They cannot escape.

  3. SouthernExile

    Very measured (too measured?) Paul, and very timely. I find it astonishing that these questions are not being more widely asked.

    On a tangent, can you work out what is happening wrt the original action and competing claims over the money in the CB client account, it seems to have got lost in the fog of the (to me frivolous) d&p claim for consequential loss. Pritchards, Jerome, Merchant House, Close…what a stench!

  4. If I was a creditor I would be asking exactly what D&P have achieved since February. Cutting of costs has been minimal as the players’ wage cuts are temporary. No new cash has been brought in. And the sale is no nearer to happening for the many reasons you point out, Paul.

    The bids on the table are stilll conditional, with conditions attached that simply won’t happen. I may as well put a bid in saying I’ll buy the club on condition that I win the jackpot on Euromillions for the next three weeks.

    Liquidation is surely the only option left.

    My view is that they are trying desperately to get to the end of the season – for footballing reasons rather than financial ones. If they went bust during the season any sort of Newco or genunely new club could be left out n the cold.

    As it is, if they do reach the close season the chances of something new being up and running in time for next season are slim. This whole mess could be tied up in court for months, or even years, to come.

  5. DUMP AND RUNNER ARE TRULY DOING A TOP JOB OVER GOVAN WAY, IM SURE ALEX SALMOND WILL BE COURTING THERE EXPERTISE WEN HE RUNS SCOTLAND INTAE THE GROUND SHORTLY AFTER SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE AND NEEDS THEM TAE GET A CVA AGAINST EVERY COUNTRY IN EUROPE, I WOULDNT LET THIS BUNCH OV MUPPETS COUNT THE CONTENTS OV MY CELTIC PIGY BANK AND GIVE ME AN HONEST ANSWER, HAIL HAIL.. TIK TOK TIK TOK

  6. Bhoywonder

    2 fantastic summaries from 2 clever people. It would appear from these summaries that:

    Rangers FC will be liquidated
    Assets will be stripped and sold off.
    CW will get an initial £30m
    Ticketus will get £19m from CW
    CW walks away with about £11m (pending court action)

    HMRC, secured creditors, D&P and countless solicitors will pick away at the rest.

    Little or nothing will go to unsecured creditors

    Newco will apply to SFL Div3.

    God bless the internet and these bloggers for changing how these processes are perceived and made ao transparent, in making responsible and irresponsible people more accountable and for their pure enlightenment. Can’t imagine reading about all this in the Daily Record or Sunday Mail!!

    Thanks Paul. Sterling stuff.

  7. Anthony Doherty

    Great article!

  8. J Graham

    Since discovering this and the RTC site I no longer look to the MSM for any kind of worthwhile input into the saga. I only listen to the radio talk shows to annoy myself then later look to the 2 excellent aforementioned locations for sanctuary in intelligent discussion. From about the same time I have done no housework, taken no exercise, dogs are unwalked and bills unpaid (oops – maybe you are to blame after all ! )

  9. DCR

    Radio Clyde have just reported that TBK have offered £5m. Some way short of the “substantially more than the US offer” that Murray talked about on a radio interview. Why can’t people just tell the truth and be open and honest about their activities.

  10. Another excellent piece Paul – thank you

    Finishing off you state “it would be helpful, in the interests of creditors, bidders, fans of Rangers and Scottish football as a whole, if they could tell us!”

    Are you calling for transparency? Because no matter what Ally McCoist says – he’s not going to back you on this one!

  11. Anthony Doherty

    D & P have a duty to creditors…plain and simple. The alleged pot of money available from TBK bid is £5million. If we restrict the overall debt to be around £100Million (assuming BTC goes against them) that equates to 5p in the pound. Adminsitrators in my experience are ruthless and go in heavy handed. In this case they have merely cut the playing staffs wages and used the savings as operating funds. If they sold say McGregor and Davis for say £10Million that would increase the pot to a more respectable but still derisory 15p in the pound and still leave a reasonable number and standard of playing staff. What we are left with after 11 weeks and at the 11th hour is no progress on the shares and hence assets of rfc(ia). TBK and Miller can talk until the cows come home to D & P but both have failed to engage with Whyte and have been aided and abetted by D & P. Whyte is secured, he is in a win win situation. They have to remunerate him to his satisfaction to exit administration and if they enter liquidation a new company will still have to buy the secured assets off of him to trade! If they try to do this via the courts it will take forever and we already know that the judge refused to expedite the case against Collyer Bristow. The result is surely funds drying up and the inevitability of liquidation ….or am I missing something?…I can see D & P on the end of some serious and potentially litigious professional incompetence charges.

  12. Richboy

    Another great blog Paul. I felt from very early on in the process that D&P had their priorities wrong. It seemed to me that they were enjoying running a football club and were not particularly interested in the creditors needs. I find the offers made for Rangers to be derisory and beyond consideration by any sane creditor.

    Gordon Johnston commented that D&P were simply trying to get to the end of the season for football rather than financial reasons. I agree wholeheartedly. D&P are trying to set up a good scenario for whoever takes over the club rather than the immediate needs of the creditors. I am unaware if they are sufficiently expert in this field to take such a course.

    I am sure, in the back of their minds, they see extra prize money and the ability to sell off the big name players thereby increasing the creditors pot. Unfortunately in the meantime they are running up costs at an alarming rate (how much have they spent on legal costs since Feb 14?). There is also the not so small matter of their own bill.

  13. Bhoywonder

    If we go back to CW’s acquisition and his desire to hire D&P as the Administrators, then it all makes sense. Why was he so keen to hire D&P as opposed to a court appointed administrator, who would probably have put RFC into Liquidation long before now. CW may hold all the strings, but I would imagine he will be looking over his blunt shoulders for a very long time.

    Why also did (Sir) David Murray not do a background check on someone to whom he was selling potentially £100m worth of assets for £1? Surely it would have been prudent to do so. Is it because (Sir) DM knew the writing was on the wall way back then and that matters were only going to get worse, regardless of the BTC? There are so many questions to be answered. I can’t wait to read the book to be published by RTC….definitely a best seller on the cards. Do you not fancy writing one Paul….with the massive income this would generate and all this newly aquired knowledge you and RTC could get the wee Rovers into the SPL and challenge for honours….maybe not he he

    • Gopaul

      I know murray’s financial skills are at question,but even he is not that daft to sell £100million of assets for £1.

      Especially not when rest of his business in so much debt……..

      So this is false premise, Whyte seems to have spent £18 million (which he may have got in a dubious manner), but this could bet him a profit of up to £30million is his floating charge gets first bite as rangers assets, or probably about £10million real cash in hand , or nothing.

      I fear Murray saw rangers assets not giving much of a return vs all it’s liabilities if the btc is lost, etc etc etc hence happy to dispose of them for any amount, as on offer for two years, and only one interested party

      • Bhoywonder

        He offloaded for a £1….there’s a psychological difference.and I’m sure (sir) DM and CW knew this. Would you “buy” £113m of debt for £1? Not unless you already knew you had the opportunity of scamming £24m from Ticketus, to clear the £18m Lloyds debt, then clear off to Monaco for a wee swally of champers and let the dust settle over Ibrox whilst everyone was walking around with a blue tinted telescope trying to work out what had just happened and where was CW? (sir) DM is a very astute businessman but RFC could be his eventual downfall. If CW fails to pay Ticketus their £19m, they will take him to court and they will win, no question, And I reckon CW is well aware of this, If this happened, It would all revert back to DM as the new owner. Do you think CW will give DM his £1 back and say “thumbs up wee man, sorry for the inconvenience”….I don’t think so. Shame there is no Pretty Woman to sway CW….but again that is all fantasy stuff.

  14. Clarkeng

    Paul I have been enjoying your blogs and the responses to date, however there are a number of possibilities which if they happen to be factual may yet influence matters.
    Rumour has it that CW or Rangers Group or Wavetower have used funds from Rangers FC PLC to pay expenses from the takeover and possibly for other items not related to the running of the Club.
    Is it incorrect to assume that as the money obtained from Ticketus was effectively a sale of seats belonging to Rangers FC PLC that they
    ( Ticketus ) would simply become a creditor, who would need to call in the personal guarantees given by CW to recover any shortfall.
    And on that basis would not the validity of the security claimed by CW ( in whichever form ) be zero.
    In the event that CW cannot or will not repay to the Club the monies paid out on behalf of himself personally or Wavetower surely that would place both CW and his company in breach of the Companies Act.
    Until now everyone has assumed the reason Grant Thornton refused to sign off the accounts was that the results of the tax cases were unkown, but the sums involved in respect of these will be known as the Revenue will have made their position clear in terms of sums potentially due, penalties etc.
    Surely therefore you would at least have expected to see a qualified set of accounts taking this into consideration as the sums may or may not be crystallised.
    If GT refused to sign off the accounts on the basis that CW or Wavetower had concealed expenditure within the Club’s operating costs but not recorded this as a debt to the Club it would make more sense.
    If this is the case and D&P pursue this, would this provide a mechanism for recovering the shares from Wavetower?

  15. Dellboy60

    An excellent article asking many key questions regarding the whole bidding process – a further question I would be like answered if possible is “Does anyone have any idea what value the sale of Ibrox, Murray Park and the company’s other properties could achieve in a liquidation scenario”?.

    The value of all the company’s properties (as shown in Appendix 3 – Estimated Financial Position in D&P’s proposal document dated 5 April 2012) is c.£113m and even if the all the fixed charge creditors amounted to £30m (which would allow for c.£28m for any The Rangers Group FC Limited (“TRGFCL”) debt which was validated) then that would still leave around £83m for payment of preferential and unsecured creditors (if it is assumed all TRGFCL debt would be settled under their fixed charge over the properties). On this basis an amount of £83m would available to settle all unsecured creditor claims in full as the total shown in the proposal document is c.£55m – and even if the properties achieved only half the value shown (say £56m) and an HMRC success in the BTC increased unsecured creditors to £130m then (after settling £30m fixed charge holders assuming all are valid claims) there would still be around £26m available for unsecured creditors i.e 20p in the £ which still appears significantly more than is on offer to unsecured creditors at present from either of the two current bidders – or am I missing something here??

    • Bhoywonder

      Dellboy, as I see it, no monies will be made available to anyone until the Administrators proceed with the Big Hoose fire sale,. probably after RFC’s last game of the season against St Johnstone.on 13th May. So 2 more weeks of call-my-bluff…open the box, take the money….deal or no deal…take your pick (sorry) The whole situation is a sham and an absolute disgrace. It requires immediate legal intervention to assist the creditors. CW appears to be pulling the strings in the background which must infuriate any level headed person involved in this shambles. Since D&P won’t be able to barter for value for money prices for the players, they will all go on the cheap, or will leave on a Bosman as they will have no contract. Ibrox Stadium is a Grade A listed building and cannot be demolished, extended or altered, without planning permission from Glasgow City Council. This is highly unlikely as it is an historical place of interest like the Templeton Carpet building, Exemption from secular listed building control is provided for some buildings in current use for worship but only in cases where the relevant religious organisation operates its own equivalent permissions procedure. So unless Ibrox is listed as a place of religious worship, it cannot be developed. Therefore it’s worth is greatly diminished. On the other hand, Murray Park may be worth quite a bit as it is near Bearsden and can maybe offer development opportunities. But the figures being bandied about are way off the mark. Rangers FC will NOT exit administration via a CVA…that is fantasy stuff and would be best used as a plot in Only Fools and Horses…sorry again Dellboy.

      But your figures are close to the mark. I suspect after CW takes his £30m and pays Ticketus their £19m that should leave approx £83m. Hector will line up with all the other secured creditors and take their slice of the pie. I expect that the unsecured creditors will be very lucky if there is anything left. It will ultimately all depend on how much Hector actually wants or is willing to settle for, given there are so many creditors. They may decide to waive the penalties in favour of unsecured creditors being paid…..or am I just dreaming here.

      • Richboy

        Loved the “take your pick” pun. Seems you must be a fair bit older than I am as this programme is but a blurry memory of my preschool days.

      • Dellboy60

        Bhoywonder – thanks for that – the only thing is that HMRC are only an unsecured creditor. Therefore if there was £83m would be available for all of them then, if all unsecured creditors total £130m including HMRC, they’d all get around 63p in the £ – why therefore are D&P are even comtemplating accepting either of the two current paltry bids ?

      • Bhoywonder

        Dellboy, I’m a very young 56 year old former Civil Servant. Can I direct you to this. An excerpt from HMRC regarding Crown Preference

        “When the department had preferential claims this was an important issue as it determined whether book debts would be available to pay them or not. There are still a number of cases where it is relevant.

        It also has an impact on rights of set-off, particularly between government departments, regardless of preference (see INS12363).

        Impact of Abolition of Crown Preference (CP)

        Although CP was abolished with effect from 15 September 2003 for HMRC, we still retain CP for all those claims where the relevant date was earlier.

        Under the new provisions a proportion of monies that would previously have gone to preferential creditors may instead be ring fenced for unsecured creditors generally (including HMRC)”

        From what I gather the EBT’s were in place prior to 2003, therefore the Crown Preference should still apply…

        Paul, can you shed any light on this, as I think it is very relevant and forms the basis of my posts?

      • Dellboy60

        Bhoywonder – I don’t seem able to reply under your last post re the abolition of Crown Preference as from 15 September 2003 but the “relevant date” is not the date when the debt was effectively incurred but rather the date of the insolvency. In Rangers case the Administrators were appointed on 14 February 2012 so all HMRC’s debt (including any liability under the BTC) is unsecured – this appears to be confirmed by D&P listing HMRC as an unsecured creditor in Appendix 3 – Estimated Financial Position in their proposal document dated 5 April 2012 and specifically referring to the BTC in the supporting note 9.

      • Bhoywonder

        Dellboy, I stand corrected. Did some further homework on CP and it appears that you are quite right.

  16. Martin McGroarty

    I wonder if there is an element of stage-managing of information at play here purely and simply to limit the damage that will be caused to the psyche of a sizeable number of the followers of the Dark Side, and hence to public order?
    Over recent months we have seen the reported (mainstream) narrative go from:
    – it’ll be fine, it’s all a Timmy conspiracy and anyway, we are the people; to
    – yes, maybe there’s something in this story after all but, we are the people and we’re too big a club to go under; to
    – hmmmm, things are looking a bit dodgy after all, but we’re sure that, even if we do go under, we’ll be allowed straight back into the SPL cos we are the people; to
    – right, the excrement is well and truly in the air conditioning now, who ARE these people and do they not know that WE are the people??!!
    My feeling is that D&P are under orders (from those who fear public disorder) to string this out until season’s end (or at least until after tomorrow’s Glasgow derby), all the while hardening the message that this could really be it for The Dark Side FC (cleverly though, on a one step forward, two steps back basis – hence the ever-changing takeover/fakeover message about Ng, Miller, the Blue Kniggits etc.).
    I suspect that once there is no immediately evident focus for the outpouring of anger at the demise of their beloved institution, i.e. once there are no matches to attend/boycott/walk to or from (season’s end), we will see the endgame to all this – Liquidation.

  17. Bhoywonder

    Rangers now have a new bidder from China who says he will pay off ALL their debts, buy new players, refit the stadium and return Rangers FC to their former glory.
    Mr Nay Foo Kin Chans will meet with shareholders this week!

  18. Fisiani

    i had a dream that Ibrox was bought and turned into The Scottish Museum of Bigotry. Guided tours where taken through and the walls were festooned with explanations of the Shame. This used to be a dressing room and listen to recordings of the sectarians songs that were sung here. Here is the spot were season books and scarfs were burned in the 80’s when a Catholic was signed. Here is where they kept the trophies that they achieved by cheating.
    I had a dream.

  19. Bhoywonder

    Fisiani

    it’s all very simple. In 1967 an event took place that would change the football history books in Britain forever. 11 hooped Glaswegians, before Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool or Leeds, won the ultimate football prize…the European Cup. The chase was on from there on in. it was always a dream for Rangers, but a reality for Celtic. In Scotland we always regarded the League Cup as Rangers’ cup….the egg cup. The Scottish Cup was always the main prize. Similarly in Europe the Champions League Cup is the prize, not the UEFA CUP. Although CFC may never escalate to those golden heights of 1967, we will always be remembered as having done it…some continued to chase that dream and found that money WAS an object.

  20. The malevolent hand of cowardly forces

    Bhoywonder and Fisiani,
    I am trying hard but struggling to discern anything in your last few posts that is remotely connected with any aspect of law.

    • Bhoywonder

      I’ve been attempting to address root causes and why people do what they do. The psychological aspects if you like. Mostly it is financial greed, but keeping up with Celtic was another. If everything was done legally and above board there would be no need for Mr McConville to assist to the extent that he has. CW is a man with no conscience, that is very evident. What he has done is perfectly legal, but what occurred prior to his intervention was certainly not. That of course has still to be addressed.

  21. Dark Star

    Paul – Really must compliment you on an excellent post. Couple of observations…

    1. Section 678 of the CA 2006 explores, inter alia, financial assitance for the purchase of shares. However, it is common knowledge that CW acquired the shares for £1.00. Certainly there were numerous other conditions attached to the deal (repayment of the £19m etc) but would the whole contract not need to be linked together to prove that CW paid more than £1.00 ? It would be interesting to see what the consideration shown on the stock transfer fform was. If the deal was adjudged a “standalone” £1.00 share purchase CW could argue that he did not require financial assistance to raise the £1.00 and that Section 678 should not apply.

    2. I agree with your point on what the prospective purchasers are actually buying. To gain control of the Company, they need control of the Shareholding. However, would they not need the consent of a certain percentage of existing shareholders to amend the rights of existing shares or contemplate a new issue (which would effectivley dilute the existing holdings ?)

    I guess i’m one of the sceptics that think CW still holds the keys to Ibrox..

  22. Thornlyboy

    Just a quick comment on the listed-building status of Ibrox. I think you’ll find only the main stand (Archibald Leitch, 1927-9) is listed; the rest of the ground is a modern rebuilding and the new steel beam on top of the stand has ruined even its muscular aesthetic (I know, I know).
    There is no lack of precedent for demolishing listed buildings, unfortunately. In the event of Rangers’ demise (even without the thought being father to the wish), what will save it will be the lack of any real property market. But you could still retain the facade and some of the internal accommodation as a Rangers Museum. Just a thought.

  23. Dark Star

    This statement bt Collyer Bristow in “The Lawyer” is worth a read

    http://www.thelawyer.com/collyer-bristow-defiant-i-n-face-off-with-rangers-administrators/1012373.article

    The arithmetic was of particular interest to me. Collyer Bristow claim to have received £28m. From that, £18m was remitted to Bank of Scotland, £300,000 to Duff & Phelps and £3.6m to Taylor Wessing (In Trust pending the outcome of the October court case). According to my sums, there seems to be a black hole of around £6.1m that does not appear to warrant an accounting by CB….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s