Postcard From The Edge – Why It’s A CVA or Bust for Rangers – Guest Post by Don Quixote

I am delighted to say that a world famous figure from literature has chipped in on the Rangers debate.

Don Quixote has offered some thoughts on the future of the Ibrox Club, and I post them below.

Strictly no windmills were harmed in the writing of this post.

—————————-

I will endeavour to summarise the current position:

Rangers assets are bordering on worthless, they are only an asset to a commercially viable Rangers. A fire sale of these assets to a non-football source would just about pay the administration, liquidation fees and redundancies. D&Ps were not bluffing when they said liquidation was not an option, there have been no bids for the assets of Rangers from a non-football source in 3 months.
Rangers structure is not a commercially viable business, its loss making potential existed prior to any sanctions. Current and anticipated sanctions affecting European and domestic income over the next 3 years renders Rangers un-salvageable.

In effect Rangers is worthless as a business proposition, and is threatened with permanent extinction. Rangers can not be downsized to survive in the SPL never mind Divisions 3-2-1, it is a superstore and not a corner shop. Rangers main source of income is ticket sales, and its overheads cannot be reduced sufficiently to compensate for the projected reduction in ticket sales.
Its a simple equation, if one reduces the quality of the team and simultaneously removes most of the prize incentives, then unlike ” the field of dreams ” the  crowds vital for survival will not come for 3 consecutive years. What is the point of watching your new average team battle for second in the SPL with no Europe and little prize money ?

A newco-oldco solution does not make Rangers anymore commercially viable, the briefest diligence by Bill Miller confirmed that it would cost in the region of 30 million to turn Rangers around during the 3 years of European and domestic sanctions.

The experts on ticket sales( Ticketus) withdrew precisely because they calculated the financial consequences of playing for nothing with an affordable team.

Projected drops in attendance are the new elephant in the room, even if you bought Rangers for 5 million it would cost you 35 million in CASH before it breaks even.

A newco Rangers could not afford to maintain its assets or pay its bills for 3 years with a drop in ticket sales, they needed to cut their overheads by 10 million with 45,000 crowds, make that 30,000 and you are drowning in a sea of debt….and apathy.

In amongst this gloom is one last hope, the administration period can be extended to facilitate a stand alone CVA, involving a Ticketus guarantee and CWs shares. Players can be sold ahead to bring in working capital, this can be easily justified by the proceeds of a CVA. Even a bid of 5 million with Ticketus and the debentures guaranteed delivers over 40 million to the creditors.
A CVA does not carry the penalties of  liquidation, administration or a newco, this guarantees to some extent the main source of income, the average attendance.

As for the SPL and SFA sanctions against Rangers out of administration, no point deductions and certainly no European ban, it will be financial penalties but over a longer period of time( 6 years). Possibly 25% of SPL money and 25% of any UEFA prize money.

Liquidation or a newco are not in the best interests of the creditors or the SPL and either option brings in sanctions that condemns Rangers as an un-salvageable business model.

It is a CVA where everyone benefits or it’s extinction, and everyone loses.

Regards:

Don Quixote.

Posted by Paul McConville, on behalf of Miguel Cervantes

Advertisements

55 Comments

Filed under Administration, Football, Guest Posts, Rangers

55 responses to “Postcard From The Edge – Why It’s A CVA or Bust for Rangers – Guest Post by Don Quixote

  1. kev14

    Very nice post . What about HMRC and very likely scenario of wanting 100p in the £ back .This would add a further burden to future cash flow over quiet some years .if a deal could be struck .(post FTT obviously)

  2. KG

    If I am understanding this correctly, Rangers would be guaranteeing Ticketus £27m. If this is correct, then this is one heck of an amount of money to come of what will be a reduced turnover, even if the repayment period is over a longer time than the original agreement.

    Also, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 has been speaking with UEFA and he is reporting that Rangers will be banned from European football for 3 years even if they go down the CVA route.

    However, one of the biggest questions that requires answered is how are Rangers going to be funded up until the point a CVA is agreed, which would be weeks away. I can’t see any new bidder taking the risk of funding this and Duff and Phelps keep teling us the pot runs dry on 31st May.

    Furthermore, if the result of the Big Tax Case confirms that Rangers players had dual contracts and the SFA investigation confirms this, then the sanctions on the club could be so severe that they would colapse very early on into any CVA.

    Far too many high risks with this wounded animal – it is looking more and more like extinction.

    • Niall Walker

      The Ticketus guarantee is in effect a short term loan for purchasing the assets needed to save Rangers and their history. Rangers cost Craig Whyte 26.7 million and one pounds, one year later the price is now 26.7 million plus 5-8 million pounds.

      I do not believe Alex Thompson, neither the SFA, SPL or UEFA commented on the original decision against Rangers when they admitted partial liability by offering 12 millon to HMRC. In fact the SFA will be telling UEFA that further European bans may seriously damage Scottish football.
      I think they will persuade UEFA to impose similar long term financial penalties. I would imagine any debts to UEFA trading partners will be cleared outwith the CVA to encourage leniency.

      The administrator can borrow money against an agreed transfer fee of a player or players, they can also borrow the money to repay their wages if a transfer fee is a guaranteed return.

      The SFA and SPL are sporting businesses, they need Rangers and they are not going to propose sanctions that wil put Rangers out of business, no point, its a lose-lose strategy.

      Regards DQ.

      • Marching on Together

        “Attendances would not suffer if Rangers could win all domestic trophies while being banned from Europe. However if you also include point deductions and extraordinary fines then it is a death sentence.to any Rangers business model, attendances would plummet.” So Rangers fans don’t do walking away? Again using England as an example, when Man City went down to League 1, attendances did not drop by much. For Leeds, Norwich, Sheff Wed, Southampton in the same league, there were drops, but not by enough to put the ongoing viability of these clubs in long-term doubt. Why should Rangers be any different? Are their fans so fickle that they would refuse to go on a three year journey of defiance, bellowing out their rage as they visited every smaller league ground in the country en route back to the SPL?every

      • No matter how often it is repeated that the SFA and SFL need Rangers, it’s still no true.

      • Martin

        Still dreaming Niall? What reason has Thomo to lie about UEFA’s take on a CVA?

        Why would SFA be right in saying a European ban on RFC would damage Scottish Football? It would almost certainly be the top 2 qualifying for the Champions league as Rangers would have lost most of the first team squad to raise the working capital.

        RFC with a vastly downsized playing squad would be hamstrung by SFA, SPL and as you wish UEFA financial sanctions, not to mention the £32m (your minimum figure) repayable to Ticketus (by no later than 2015 when the Ticketus vehicle has to be decommisioned).

        HMRC are unlikely to countenance a CVA as they want a prize scalp before moving onto English Football Clubs who have abused EBT’s. They certainly have it written down that they wouldn’t countenance a CVA if UEFA Trading partners received more in the £ than all the other creditors in the same class (including HMRC).

        Oh and finally SFA are not a Sporting business, they are the National Governing and Regulatory body. If they put commercial interest of one football team ahead of all other football teams in Scotland by ignoring there own regulations then they aren’t fit for purpose and FIFA might have the first chink in the armour they need to treat the for “home” FA’s as one leading to Team GB&NI at future World Cups.

  3. It is extinction. there is no other viable option.

    A newco, well that is for the SPL to decide……there can be no sanctions against such without careful wording.

    • I agree, Garry. Extinction must be inevitable now.

      I don’t see how the SPL can decide upon a Newco though. Whatever the SPL wants still has to pass muster with SFA regulations which, in turn, must be in tune with UEFA’s position.

      As things stand, I don’t think there will be a Rangers of any description, Newco or Oldco, playing in either the SPL or the SFL next season.

      The only conceivable exception I can think of is the Clydebank/Airdrie shuffle in which a team such as Cowdenbeath might be prepared to sacrifice its own identity as a newly re-named Rangers (2012) and carry on in that guise in the 1st Division of the SFL.
      [On a side note, this club’s history of honours would read;
      Scottish First Division Champions: 1913–14, 1914–15, 1938–39
      Scottish Second Division Winners: 2011–12
      Scottish Third Division Winners: 2005–06. ]

      Even at that, certain trademarks and intellectual property rights would need to be secured by the Cowdenbeath Rangers and then there is the small matter of where the new club would play its home games. There could be years of litigation involved in clarifying who owns Ibrox.

      It looks to me as if the obstacles are insurmountable for anyone who is aiming to ensure that a club called Rangers is playing at Ibrox Stadium at any level of Senior grade football in season 2012-2013.

      • As always i agree. Im am glad that you brought up cowdenbeath because that is exactly where my next wording was going. i have slight info on the rangers books at present but i genuinly do not have the time or spelling as it would seem to present such a case.

        Rangers,as we know it, are finished. Weekend deadline? come on, you would need to be genuinly thick to accept that.

        As i say, finishing a 72 hour shift for a semi-important case right now and sadly have no time to elaborate but yeah….what you said. However, as i have said on my own blog. Do not underestimate the power of the SPL and sky tv right now.

        Sadly, that is all i can say.

        Oh, that and free trade rights. Look into it, i’ve compounded a case…..similarities with the chisora v haye fight. Never underestimate EU law with business. Eventually i might present it but if i don’t get out of session anytime soon i might never get the chance. Those bloody lawyers eh lol

      • Niall Walker

        A newco may be salvageable if the only penalty imposed on Rangers is a 3 year European ban and strip them of all titles won unfairly. Attendances would not suffer if Rangers could win all domestic trophies while being banned from Europe. However if you also include point deductions and extraordinary fines then it is a death sentence.to any Rangers business model, attendances would plummet.

        A newco is only feasible if the bidder knows what alll future punishments will likely consist of, this suggests someone who knows the indispensability of Rangers to Scottish football, and is willing to gamble that both the SPL and SFA will come to a viable compromise.

        Maybe a newco or CVA consortium may include SDM, he may be used as a legal threat to persuade CW to hand over his shares.and he certainly knows how to negotiate with footballs governing bodies.

        DQ.

      • Question? strip all titles….to were?seriously

  4. StAndrewsBhoy

    This paints a compelling picture for a CVA exit, so much so I wonder why D&P seem determined to go down the Newco route

  5. Interesting analysis but fails to address 2 main issues. Firstly, RFC got themselves into this mess by reckless, possibly criminal actions. Secondly, the whole question of sporting integrity is disregarded. In all things, the punishment must fit the crime.

    • Niall Walker

      If the punishment must fit the crime, then long term financial penalties is an appropriate punishment for long term financial mismanagemet.

      • The crime can only be associated to the ‘Oldco’ though, not a ‘newco’……it just cannot happen.If Paul can find a precedent then i will back down and fine, but i cannot. A ‘newco’ is a new legal entity.

      • Marching on Together

        “If Paul can find a precedent then i will back down and fine, but i cannot. A ‘newco’ is a new legal entity.” The courts in England have held that the Football League there can impose whatever conditions they want in deciding to exercise their discretion (where discretion is permitted by their rules), in agreeing to the transfer of a golden share to a newco. As they did in the case of Leeds Utd in 2007. If the Football League in that case had decided to impose more than a 15 point penalty, but financial sanctions as well, or to levy the sanctions over more than one season, then the courts would have upheld them, so long as the procedures for imposing them were correctly applied.

        Taking that as a precedent, then the SPL could decide as a condition for allowing newco Rangers into the SPL, that newco Rangers pick up all the penalties that would have imposed on oldco rangers, then so long as the procedures used were applied correctly, then they would stand.

      • Donald

        If the newcon can’t be held to account for the crimes of the oldco then surely the newco cannot take credit for the achievements of the oldco. In other words, if Rangers want to keep their history then they should be treated as the same club and should be punished appropriately.

      • PJM

        And the punishment for long-term cheating (in the various ways RFC used) should be long-term expulsion from the league, no?

      • i give it this: court of law….perfectly challangable

    • I Agree RFC did, however- there is no legal right to A) sporting integrity or B) possible criminal action

      otherwise, fine

  6. Good article, ‘Don’.
    When you say there is one ‘last hope’, namely extending the administration period in order to facilitate a stand alone CVA, I find myself asking, “What hope is there of HMRC agreeing to a CVA?”
    Surely the answer is, “None whatsoever?”

    • Niall Walker

      I do not believe it is none because HMRC have not stated this to be the case.

      DQ.

      • Can you provide an example of HMRC voting in favour of a pennies-in-the-pound CVA proposal when they were pursuing a tax defaulter?

        I don’t mean in cases where HMRC were owed less than 25% of the total debt and couldn’t veto a CVA.
        Nor am I talking about discussions about the level of penalties.

        I’m asking about a core tax assessment where the Revenue is owed money and has the voting power to block a CVA. When have they ever chosen to accept a smaller payment in full settlement of an outstanding assessment?

  7. Tiatanic, Chernobal, Ibrox – spot the odd one out?
    Correct its Ibrox the other two disasters were accidents.
    A new beginning with sporting integrity or the end of Scottish football forever? Its up to the SPL now!

  8. Richboy

    Why all the doom and gloom, D&P will have it all sorted by Thursday afternoon. No reason to disbelieve anything say, is there?

    Playing devils advocate, if the “Bunnet” saved Celtic using austerity measures and best business practices, why couldn’t someone do the same at Rangers? I realise that Rangers are in a much bigger mess but that would only mean that it would take ten years to sort it all out rather than two or three.

    As an example I would say that Rangers could exist on Kilmarnocks budget for outgoings but still bring in some serious cash from season tickets and pay at the gate fans for big games. The excess goes into the pot to pay fines and debts.

    Surely Rangers fans, in order to preserve their history or survival, would still support their team in sufficient numbers to maintain a mid table SPL team that could have the odd run at a cup final or two.

    • Niall Walker

      Richboy,

      Bill Miller and Ticketus have calculated that Rangers cannot be downsized to a Kilmarnock budget without incuring massive losses, its like putting a cornershop in a giant Tescos. When restructuring costs you more than the company is worth then its time to worry about your business plan.

      • Richboy

        I disagree Niall. It is more like putting a giant Tescos into a smaller Tescos. Fair enough, you would not have the expensive luxury items you once had but you could still make a profit if you kept a good portion of your customer base.

  9. Niall Walker

    Good morning Henry,

    i hope you and others find this of some interest:

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

    HMRC conditions for supporting a CVA proposal:

    We consider voluntary arrangements on an INDIVIDUAL basis, and will vote to support proposals where:

    • debtors are honest in their financial disclosure
    • an optimised and achievable offer is made to creditors
    • provision is made for payment of all future debts on time
    • they treat all creditors within the same class equally
    • there are no exceptional reasons for rejection.

    However, we will not support debtors (individual or corporate) who do not allay our concerns about their proposals.
    We aim to respond to all voluntary arrangement proposals within seven days of receipt.

    • JoeyRamone

      Interesting that you should use this as an example to back up your wishful thinking of an HMRC deal, but if I may point out the following….

      • debtors are honest in their financial disclosure…. Well that rules Rangers out, given that they have failed to actually post up audited accounts and seem unlikely and indeed unwilling or unable to do so.

      • an optimised and achievable offer is made to creditors…. The key word here is “optimised”. So far, nothing Duff and Phelps has done has even come close to acheiving an optimised return for creditors. Indeed, they have actively encouraged bidders who have intimated that they would extract all assets of value into a holding or incubator company,thereby removing them out of reach of the creditors, whilst leaving the oldco (RFC IA) to pay off the creditors via a pence-in-the-pound CVA.

      • they treat all creditors within the same class equally…. So far, some football creditors have been paid, others haven’t. The reasons for this have not been made clear by Duff and Phelps. Is that fair and equal treatment?

      And finally, “However, we will not support debtors (individual or corporate) who do not allay our concerns about their proposals.”…. Really don’t think this needs further comment.

      Sorry Niall, but HMRC know what they are doing. They will not settle for a fraction of what they are owed, whilst any company holds assets which could realise a sale value that would lead to a payment in full, of virtually all debts.

      As for your later comment about SPL Chairmen stating publicly that they could not survive in their present form without RFC, that is simply a lie. SPL clubs can survive without RFC, just not in the way their chairmen would like.

      • TheBlackKnight TBK

        Great points, you forgot to mention the perhaps not so irrelevant point that the tax relates to PAYE/ NIC & VAT.

        If a CVA is agreed on the basis that RFC(IA) can shed upwards of £40M in tax (not corporation tax but PAYE) and VAT, then I believe many, perhaps millions, will be considering the same route.

        IT WOULD CREATE AN OPEN SEASON ON TAX

    • Carntyne

      HMRC conditions for supporting a CVA proposal:
      ——————————————————————-
      Rangers fall at the first hurdle.
      ‘debtors are honest in their financial disclosure”

      Rangers have not only been dishonest in their financial disclosure, they have for ten years or more willfully tried to keep their illegal use of EBT’s a secret.

      It’s a secret no more.

      Liquidation.

      Face up to it Niall.

      • Niall Walker

        Good day Carntyne,

        Rangers disclosed the EBTs in their annual accounts and the Administration have openly disclosed last years accounts, there is no hurdle that I can see. HMRC are referring to an accurate and current state of affairs, D&Ps have not kept anything secret.

    • deekbhoy

      That’s only 4 out of of the 5 conditions that would be are applicable to RFC(ia).

      I would not hold me breath for a successful CVA.

  10. Niall Walker

    Henry,

    I value all opinions yours included, however when a number of SPL Chairmen state publicly they could not survive in their present form without RFC then I believe them. There is an 80 million pound Sky deal waiting to be signed if and when RFC are confirmed SPL status, this may not be a significant amount to Celtics large turnover but it is not an insignificant amount to most SPL clubs with tiny turnovers.

  11. Niall Walker

    Marching.

    No English club faced 3 years of sanctons that prevented them from winning prizes, new potential sanctions will remove any incentive to finish second never mind first. I fail to see how this can motivate fans to buy season tickets or go to any away games. It is inevitable that Rangers attendances would decline to a hard core support over the 3 year period, I will let you pick a figure, I chose 30,000.

    • And if there are sanctions against the guilty club then the supporters of all other clubs will stay away from a corrupt SPL.

      • Niall Walker

        I very much doubt most fans would object to Rangers being penalised financially for an extended period of time, point deductions and European bans are not the only means of punishing Rangers appropriately.

        There is simply no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face, not in the world of business.

    • Marching on Together

      Some people follow their club no matter what. Some are merely glory hunters.

      The psychological impact of battling against sanctions imposed can actually rejuvenate clubs, especially if it is considered that they were unfairly imposed. Taking Leeds as an example again, prior to their 15 point deduction, every other club who had points imposed were relegated. Not Leeds. They stormed to 7 straight league victories from the start of the season, made the play-offs comfortably, and only just missed out on getting promoted.

      Rangers can do likewise, roared on by their thousands of loyal fans. Yes attendances will drop, but not by sufficient to extinguish the club. As for going to away games, you get a chance to go all round places that you would never have been to, or played at, and if you ask many football fans of big clubs relegated down south, the experience of going to these games is actually more enjoyable than the soul-less grounds in the Premier League.

      • Niall Walker

        Marching,

        You are not comparing like for like, Leeds fans and players had an incentive, they were motivated to avoid relegation and gain promotion.
        Potential Rangers sanctions remove all incentives, they will not be relegated, they cannot win the league and there is not even a reward for finishing 2nd,3rd or 4th. Add to the equation average players with few prizes or goals to motivate them and stretch this out for 3 years, I think 30,000 is optmistic considering the historical expectations of Rangers fans.

      • Marching on Together

        Niall

        I am comparing Leeds in League 1 with Rangers in Div 3, where they should be if the SFA rules are actually applied. However I take your point. The only thing that Rangers would compete in would be beating Celtic 4 times per year. If the rights to a ticket for that game were dependent on X number of games having been attended, then the attendance would not drop as much as otherwise, as the Celtic games would still matter – “you might be league champions, but we’ve just beaten you again, which makes us the real champions”. Where your point is absolutely valid is that Rangers away support will have no incentive to go to any away game, thus removing one of the financial arguments the other SPL chairmen have for keeping newco Rangers in the SPL. So it all comes down to the value of the new Sky deal.

    • What might be important to consider is, not just the quantum of attendance (30,000 may well be accurate), but how that number is achieved.

      I think the focus should be on how many season tickets could Rangers sell. A solid financial basis can be made on a high level of season ticket sales. Confidence from business partners, sponsors and suppliers follows hand-in-hand.

      However if the the 30,000 consisted of a very low number of season tickets and the average attendance was achieved by sell-outs on big match days and 15-20,000 for the rest of the season, that confidence eventually evaporates and commercial viability becomes questionable.

      And we also need to remember that when it is said that Scottish football needs Rangers it really means it needs a commercially successful Rangers, so the procrastination over what sanctions are appropriate is unsurprising.

      • Niall Walker

        Good afternoon Michael,

        I also believe the away support would fall proportionally more than home attendances, which is not good news for SPL chairman.
        There is even less incentive to go to Aberdeen or Hearts knowing your average team iwill get beat and if you win then it doesn’t really matter. Rangers would effectively be playing in limbo for 3 years, not bad enough to get relegated but prevented by sanctions from winning anything.

        p.s. All this taking place against a backdrop of a brutal recession, where money is getting tighter and tighter.

        A commercially viable Rangers and a healthy SPL needs bums on seats.

      • Marching on Together

        Niall “A commercially viable Rangers and a healthy SPL needs bums on seats.” A healthy SPL needs to be able to offer European football to its successful clubs, and the SFA needs to be able to offer international football to the top Scottish players. If the SPL and the SFL go down the route they seem to be favouring, there is no guarantee of that in future.

    • Curlybhoy

      Surely the “fans” would be motivated to buy season tickets through their support for their club, just as many fans who follow other teams are, and not just because they expect to win something.

  12. DaviePTFC

    “What is the point of watching your new average team battle for second in the SPL with no Europe and little prize money ?”

    Said like a true old firm fan. For the rest of us non gloryhunting supporters that would be a good season.

  13. THAGB

    “What is the point of watching your new average team battle for second in the SPL with no Europe and little prize money ?”. This statement sent me incandescent with rage. Indeed what is the point of supporting any of the other 10 teams in the SPL? However this is what is expected of the fans who follow all the other (“diddy”)clubs and provide weekly opposition to the Old Firm. If you have not noticed, you need two teams to play out a football fixture. Even Sky don’t cover games with only one team on the pitch. This is exactly why fans of all the other clubs are so enraged at the prospect of Rangers being re-admitted “scot free” and “debt free” to the SPL. The idea that their “loyal” support would melt away if they are denied a regular supply of trophies and Champions League football says it all! Rangers and Celtic have poisoned the well all the clubs drink from. I take a contrary view. If Rangers (and Celtic) were not in the SPL, Scottish football would have some hope of surviving. Cloth (and ticket prices) would have to be cut, but a far more competitive and interesting league would result (like the Championship in England). Almost every team could start the season with a chance of winning something instead of hoping to come third. Scottish Football has become unmarketable because of Rangers and Celtic’s dominance and it has backfired on them as they cannot now secure the TV revenues to compete outside Scotland.

    • Niall Walker

      Good evening Davie and THAGB,

      I am an East Fife fan, there is no bigger diddy fan than me, I am viewing the effects of sanctions through Rangers-SPL tinted glasses.

      If Rangers ( out of adminisration) are prevented from finishing 1st and all European incentives for finishing 2nd, 3rd and 4th are also removed, then this is a 3 year limbo that no other SPL team or its fans have ever had to live in.

      I am not suggesting Rangers are not punished for the EBTs, what I am suggesting is the punishment cannot bankrupt both Rangers and subsequently other SPL clubs by affecting attendances.

      I have no qualms about banning Rangers from Europe for 3 years or 3 years of 10 point deductions, but they cannot get both, the Rangers fans must be given some incentive apart from fighting relegation.

      The same principle applies to any newco sanctions but I don’t believe this will happen, its a CVA.

      • Niall, you clearly advocate one rule for RFC*IA and one for every other club. Ask Airdrie or Livingston or Gretna what punishment they received. You regularly use legal jargon in your arguments. One major aspect of the law is precedent. Any Rangers newco must therefore join the 3rd division of the SFL. No Europe for at least 3 years. Tough but they only have themselves to blame

      • Marching on Together

        “what I am suggesting is the punishment cannot bankrupt both Rangers and subsequently other SPL clubs by affecting attendances.” If the penalties include a deduction from prize money, and its redistribution around the other clubs, then surely that will compensate for any drop in attendances.

  14. Niall Walker

    Clonesbhoy,

    I would be using the exact same arguments if it was Celtic, financial pragmatism has no bias, Rangers and Celtic financially dominate the SPL.

    It is not in the interests of the SPL to financially cripple either of the OF, it is self defeating, if Rangers went into Division 3 then they would be joined by 4-5 SPL clubs, if Rangers fans desert their team home and away due to SPL sanctions then Rangers will be back in administration in a year.

    I am not a Rangers fan.

  15. Den

    If it is CVA or bust then it must be bust.

    After 3 months the creditors have not had a proposal for a CVA, a CVA has been almost ruled out by the Administrators (they have changed their minds before though).

    A CVA is an honest (ish) route. Probably The amounts available to the unsecured Creditors would make it very difficult to get an agreement, in addition the club exiting Administration would have a long way back to its former level.

    We have had endless to and fro as to whether HMRC would accept a CVA but it was never put to them.

    In summary, it is late in the day and a CVA would take at least two months, Rangers current financial position is overwhelmingly bad and the prospects for Rangers if they were to exit Administration don’t inspire confidence.

    I am not bothered which route Rangers take, let the market decide. As for Scottish football, it may go through a period of turmoil as the clubs which didn’t apply good Financial principles go down. Maybe both can rise again in a better form.

    Under our Capitalist system you should not spend money you don’t have and if you do – take the consequences.

    • Niall Walker

      Dear Ayn Rand,

      Its never over until the lady with the generous proportions sings, and I have my ear muffs on.

  16. Niall Walker

    Marching,

    How do you expect Rangers to survive if they are banned from Europe for 3 years, 10 point deducions for 3 years, transfer ematrgo for 1 year, 75% of prize money deducted for 3 years and plummetting attendances ?

    • Marching on Together

      All this concentration on Rangers needing to survive in its present form to preserve its history is MSM bollox. Ask any fan of any club down south which has undergone major corporate restructuring following an insolvency event whether they are following a new team, and the answer is no. In the long run it does not matter whether Rangers survives in its present form – so long as there are several thousand Rangers fans who will turn up in Govan to watch a team playing in blue, then Rangers will survive. The history goes with the fans, not with the corporate structure – ask AFC Wimbledon fans, who are the true inheritors of the club history, trophies and honours of Wimbeldon FC , not MK Dons.

      Do you honestly think that all Rangers fans are going to say, sod this, we will do something else with our time? Remember before Souness pitched up at Ibrox, Rangers were attracting attendances of 14,000 or so. Even if the worst predictions about attendances are true, there will still be enough of a fan-base to ensure that some sort of club survives, even though it might have to go repeated administrations/liquidations to achieve that. BTW, with the penalties that should be imposed, and a general lack of “getting it” all round from most of the Rangers support/MSM Rangers (whether newco or post-CVA) will be back in administration within 18 months, just like Portsmouth IMHO.

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