Duff & Phelps Finally Release the Results of the Creditors Meeting on 20 April!

Today, Duff & Phelps released the results of the 20th April creditors’ meeting. You can see it here – Result of Rangers’ Creditors’ Meeting It is clear that the resolutions, as they stand, are now as modified by HMRC, rather than as originally framed by Duff & Phelps. As is not surprising in this saga, matters are not clear yet.

There is some discussion about whether or not the resolutions allow a sale of the assets of Rangers to Charles Green without further creditor approval. I frankly do not see the point of the tightening up of the Resolutions, unless it gives HMRC power to “interfere”. Why would they have revised the Resolutions to put in place their own liquidator, if only to allow a sale of assets at an alleged knockdown price? I think there is enough ambiguity, as I mention below, to meet the requirement of HMRC which is that a CVA needs to be approved by creditors; an asset sale needs to approved by creditors; and if those options are gone, because Mr Green walks away, then BDO come in as liquidators.

—————————————-

I wrote in detail on 22nd April about the Virtual Creditors’ Meeting which took place on 20th April.

In light of the outcome of that meeting being reported now by Duff & Phelps, coincidentally I am sure, following upon the delay in producing the report having been raised with the Registrar of Companies, I thought I would revisit the resolutions.

My commentary follows at the end of the resolutions.

RESOLUTION (1) APPROVED WITHOUT MODIFICATION

17.1.1 That the Joint Administrators continue the Administration to deal with such outstanding matters in relation to the Company as the Joint Administrators consider necessary until such time as the Administration ceases to have effect.

17.1.2 That the Joint Administrators do all such other things and generally exercise all of their powers as contained in Schedule 1 of the Act, as they, in their sole and absolute discretion consider desirable or expedient in order to achieve the purpose of the Administration.

17.1.3 That the Joint Administrators can investigate and, if appropriate, pursue any claims the Company may have.

17.1.4 That the Joint Administrators can explore any and all options available to realise the assets of the Company without recourse to creditors. The Joint Administrators be authorised to conclude a sale of the whole, or part of the business, property and assets of the Company without having to obtain the sanction of the Company’s  creditors at further creditors meetings, upon such terms as the Joint Administrators deem fit and they be authorised to liaise with all relevant parties, bodies or organisations which they deem relevant for achieving that purpose.

17.1.5 That the Joint Administrators seek to establish a creditors committee, and they be authorised to so establish a committee in such terms and on such basis as they deem fit without having to obtain any further sanction from the Company’s creditors at a further creditors meeting.

 

RESOLUTION (2) MODIFIED WITH ADDITION OF NEW PARAS 17.1.9 and 17.1.10 as noted

17.1.6 That the Joint Administrators may propose such CVA(s) or Scheme(s) of Arrangement as they deem appropriate and see fit, subject to the outcome of offers.

17.1.7 Upon approval of a CVA or Scheme of Arrangement to exit the Administration at such time as the Joint Administrators deem appropriate by making an application to the Court pursuant to Paragraph 79 of Schedule B1 of the Act.

17.1.8 That the Joint Administrators are authorised, subject to implementation of a CVA, to conclude a sale of the whole, or part of the business, property and assets of the Company, without having to obtain the sanction of the Company’s  creditors at further creditors’ meetings, upon such terms as the Joint Administrators deem fit and they be authorised to liaise with all relevant parties, bodies or organisations which they deem relevant for achieving that purpose.

17.1.9 Any proposed Voluntary Arrangement or Scheme of Arrangement will be considered on its merits by HMRC Voluntary Arrangement Service. Acceptance of the Joint Administrator’s (sic) proposals by HMRC does not therefore imply acceptance of any Voluntary Arrangement proposals that may be put forward as a consequence.

17.1.10 That The Joint Administrators shall report to creditors no later than 3 months from the date of the meeting of creditors on the feasibility of a CVA or Scheme of Arrangement.

 

RESOLUTION (3) MODIFIED AS PER ALTERATIONS BELOW

17.1.911 That the Joint Administrators, when it is anticipated that no better realisations will be made in the Administration than would be available in a winding up, take the necessary steps to put the Company into either CVL or into compulsory liquidation as deemed appropriate by the Joint Administrators. It is proposed that the Joint Administrators, currently Paul John Clark and David John Whitehouse of Duff & Phelps would act as Joint Liquidators or such other parties as creditors may resolve should the Company be placed into CVL. In accordance with Paragraph 83(7) of Schedule B1 to the Act and Rule 2.47 of the Rules creditors may nominate a different person as the proposed liquidator, provided the nomination is received at this office prior to the approval of these proposals. In the absence of such nomination, the Joint Administrators will be appointed Joint Liquidators and in accordance with Section 231 of the Act any act required or authorised under any enactment to be done by the Joint Liquidators is to be done by all or any one or more of them. In accordance with paragraph 83 (7) of Schedule B1 to the Act and Rule 24.7 of the Rules, HMRC nominate Malcolm Cohen and James Bernard Stephen of BDO as joint liquidators of the Company and pursuant to Section 231 of the Act any act required or authorised under any enactment to done (sic) by the joint liquidators may be done by all or any one or more persons holding office as joint liquidators.

As an aside, I have copied below what I wrote on 22nd April regarding this Resolution.

“There were extensive rumours on Friday that BDO, a worldwide business accountant with Glasgow offices, had been approached regarding Rangers. Was this an effort to nominate them, prior to Friday at noon, to be liquidators if winding up takes place?

“The position of HMRC on this resolution will be very telling. If they let it pass that will be a sign that D&P are in it till the end. If not, then it would be clear evidence that HMRC’s patience had come to an end.”

 

RESOLUTION (4) MODIFIED AS SHOWN

17.1.1012  That, without prejudice to or effect upon the creditors’ rights to bring any challenge to the level of that remuneration shall they consider it appropriate to do so, the Joint Administrators’ remuneration be fixed by reference to the time properly incurred by them and their staff in attending matters during the Administration.

17.1.11 13 That the Joint Administrators’  statement of pre-Administration costs under Rule 2.25 of the Rules, where no Creditors’ Committee is established, be approved for payment in accordance with Rule 2.39C of the Rules.

17.1.12 14 That the Joint Administrators be authorised to draw their reasonably and properly incurred Category 2 Disbursements.

 

RESOLUTION (5) REJECTED

17.1.13 That the Joint Administrators’ Proposals be approved without modification.

 

So what does all this mean?

Clearly HMRC objected to Resolutions 2, 3, 4 and 5. The free hand that D&P wanted to have was not given to them.

Looking at the three options D&P laid out in its proposal to creditors, we see the following.

 

CVA – This is D&P’s preferred option. Whilst D&P are free to propose any CVA they think fit, the decision on it lies with the creditors, and the fact that creditors to the value of 25% or more of the debt owed can block it. If a CVA is approved by creditors, then D&P are in charge of precisely when Rangers comes out of administration.

In terms of 17.1.8, if a CVA is agreed, then D&P can sell off the assets and business of Rangers without further recourse to creditors for approval.

It is now made clear that the CVA is to be considered on its merits by HMRC, and that consent to the administrators making a proposal is NOT consent to the CVA itself. One wonders if HMRC foresaw an effort to argue that acceptance of the administrators’ proposals would be an acceptance of a CVA. In any event, this has been headed off.

A helpful link to the HMRC Voluntary Arrangement Service, and the reasons why it might reject an arrangement, can be found here.

Reasons for rejection are listed as follows:-

“Rejection is appropriate when

  • debtors do not resolve VAS genuine concerns about their proposals
  • debtors do not expect to meet all statutory liabilities as they fall due.

Occasionally exceptional or compliance reasons will cause VAS to decline proposals.

Examples are

  • deliberate default or evasion of statutory liabilities
  • past association with contrived insolvency
  • operating a policy of withholding payment of Crown money
  • any proposal that requires sale of HMRC debt or does not provide cash
  • failure to meet any obligations under a prior VA
  • exclusion of creditors who are entitled to receive the same treatment as all others within their class
  • a purchaser assuming responsibility for payment of some of the debtor’s debts in consideration for the purchase of the debtor’s assets
  • any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members to be paid in full, whether inside or outside the arrangement or before or after completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation.”

At the foot of the page it says, “Collect all you can by being cost-effective and commercial.”

Finally as regards the CVA HMRC do not want this to be open-ended, D&P now being required to report on the feasibility of a CVA or Scheme of Arrangement within three months of the 20th April creditors’ meeting.

To recap, D&P are authorised to put forward a CVA proposal. HMRC will look at it commercially and taking account of the factors mentioned above. D&P know that they have to make progress with the CVA, or else will have to report to the creditors, and especially to HMRC, by 20th July.

 

Asset Sale to Newco – This is believed by many to be the actual preferred route, if not of D&P, then of Mr Green. For one, it is cheaper and gives more of a chance to dump the penalties liable to be imposed on oldco.

This though is where it gets tricky. On one view Resolutions 17.1.4 and 17.1.8 are inconsistent.

Taking the latter first, I think 17.1.8 only applies to give D&P authority to sell the assets without further consultation, if a CVA has been agreed successfully. If not, then there is no authority under 17.1.8 to sell the assets and business without creditor consent.

What about 17.1.4 though? It states, read with the preamble attached:-

The Joint Administrators propose the followingthat the Joint Administrators can explore any and all options available to realise the assets of the Company without recourse to creditors. The Joint Administrators be authorised to conclude a sale of the whole, or part of the business, property and assets of the Company without having to obtain the sanction of the Company’s  creditors at further creditors meetings, upon such terms as the Joint Administrators deem fit and they be authorised to liaise with all relevant parties, bodies or organisations which they deem relevant for achieving that purpose.”

Does this make sense? The second sentence in the paragraph is key. On one reading, which involves running that sentence on from the preamble, it does authorise the Joint Administrators to conclude a sale. However, the plain reading of the paragraph suggests that something has been missed out, or that the clause has been framed very badly. There are typographical errors elsewhere in the document. There could be one here.

In addition, if D&P are authorised to sell assets etc if a CVA has been approved, as per 17.1.8, why would that clause be needed if they had the power to sell anyway?

I think that HMRC has taken the view that clause 17.1.4 is uncertain and therefore void. If D&P attempt to carry through a sale to Mr Green, who is now the only show in town, under that clause, I suspect that HMRC will be at court to stop it in a flash.

Therefore, without further approval by creditors, I submit that D&P have lost the power to conclude a sale to Mr Green.

I have seen a discussion ongoing on Twitter re this issue. I think I can clarify matters. (I hope).

The plan of Craig Whyte, as revealed by me, involved an asset sale AND A CVA OF THE EXISTING COMPANY. That was Bill Miller’s plan. It is perfectly possible that Mr Green wants to pursue some version of this, in the event that the “original” CVA fails. I believe that a pure asset sale to a newco does require creditor approval.

  

Liquidation – This is most straightforward. As soon as it becomes clear that the administrators cannot fulfil the aims of administration, then it is game over for Rangers and liquidators will be appointed.

D&P wanted to be in position to be liquidators if the administration failed. HMRC was not prepared to stand for that, and BDO have been lined up in their stead. BDO is one of the main insolvency firms in the UK, and there would have been no surprise if they had been appointed initially. However, we have had the saga of Duff & Phelps instead.

BDO is sitting there, figuratively revving engines ready for takeoff. All they are waiting for is the word to go.

And when they do, D&P will depart the scene, ingloriously.

 

Costs – The final change makes it clear that fees and costs need to be properly incurred and justified, and specifically recognise the rights of creditors to object to D&P’s costs. It may be reading too much into that to say that this is a precursor to HMRC challenging fees and outlays, but £1.8 million in legal costs and £3.3 million in administrators’ fees are worth looking at, if you stand to benefit from those amounts being reduced.

 

Conclusion – Why has it taken so long to reach this point of publishing the outcome of the creditors meeting? Who knows? Perhaps long negotiation between HMRC and D&P? However, as modifications are meant to be approved at the creditors meeting, this suggests that any support for the D&P position was insufficient to overcome the massed votes of HMRC. Therefore we are seeing what HMRC wanted the Resolutions to say, and for that reason, I cannot see them as having left open the door, for example, for a belated “pre-pack” or “hive down” or whatever the technical term is.

I think it is quite apparent that D&P know that HMRC is watching every move they make. I would be very surprised if they did anything to activate further concerns on the part of Hector.  

 

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

45 Comments

Filed under Administration, Charles Green, Football, Rangers

45 responses to “Duff & Phelps Finally Release the Results of the Creditors Meeting on 20 April!

  1. Michael

    Thanks Paul for the rapid retort.

    Do you, or any of the contributors here, know how the “statement to creditors” can be changed without involving all the creditors. Does the fact that it has tell us that HMRC has > 50% of the debt?

    • raintown67

      Paul: Sorry, but without any legal background I disagree.

      Since HMRC took pains to rewrite the Proposals in the noted respects, I think it highly unlikely they would allow 7.1.4 to stand unchanged if they really felt it was “uncertain and therefore void”. They would have insisted on a clarifying amendment, as ambiguity gets HMRC nothing. Hence the clarification on the admin costs.

      As was pointed out in the context of the SFA sanctions issue, words have their “normal meaning” in most cases. A “normal” reading of 7.1.4 is to me pretty clear cut.

      Perhaps they did not consider the range of D&P’s creativity here? I mean the proposal for a CVA is itself a work of art ..?

      RT

  2. campsiejoe

    Paul

    I’m probably not picking it up correctly, but if the proposal for the CVA is approved, does that mean that there has to be a further vote on the CVA proper, given Hector’s statement that a vote for the proposal, does not necessarily mean acceptance of the CVA

    • BigGav

      No. I believe the ‘vote for the proposal’ refers to the 20th April meeting, not to the consequent CVA proposal. HMRC authorised D&P to come up with a CVA proposal, but clearly without any commitment to support the CVA.

  3. TheBlackKnight TBK

    Clearly put Paul! Excellent as always.

    Can you clarify this bit;

    “any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members to be paid in full, whether inside or outside the arrangement or before or after completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation.”

    Does the SFA/SPL requirements or Articles of Association not specifically state football debts must be settled in full? This is clearly an impass or will the SFA back down to allow HMRC agreement? FCR does not exist in Scotland, however, rules appear to say they do.

    Apologies if already covered

    TBK

    • Richboy

      TBK, as far as I am aware, there is no such rule in the SFA statutes. It does apply in England where HMRC challenged it and lost.

  4. Littlerabbits

    Good read, thanks once again Paul, for you interpretations and explanations to the hoi polloi.

  5. Araminta Moonbeam QC

    Great stuff, Paul. Interesting to see that the BDO rumour was fact. Looks like Hector has had it with D & P (haven’t we all?). Next Thursday should be eventful….

  6. On top of things as usual Paul.
    If D&P ever decide to employ a proof reader I’m sure you’ll be top of their list!

  7. Colm

    Cheers Paul for making that clearer. Roll on next Thursday!

  8. WeeAndyBhoy

    Following on from “The Black Knight TBK’s” point, I’ve read somewhere (possibly on this very website!) there is a FIFA/UEFA ruling which sort of states that debt to football clubs is either paid in full or not at all.

    There is no negotiation for a CVA, whether the club is Scottish (e.g. Celtic, Dundee Utd, Hearts), English (e.g. Arsenal, Chelsea) or European (e.g.Rapid Vienna)?

    Whilst appreciating the debt rangers owe to football clubs is no where near that of HMRC & Ticketus, would that debt or the payment of it, be dealt with as a separate issue & should the football clubs concerned not be directly involved with the CVA proposal?

    Can anyone enlighten me/us??!!!

  9. JimBhoy

    Sounds like the end is nigh and thankfully the creditors will get as much as possible… sfa step up to the mark and give the Celts 12 in a row (at least)….. Keep the monies due that should have been ours and the CL stuff just give us the league trophies from the cheats in Govan… I am sure that is a world record… 12 stars for the jerseys..

    • Dhougal

      Well said Jimbhoy ,and Paul ,my thanks again

      • JimBhoy

        Thank you Dhougal, read my previous posts if you gets a second. I have been intently following a ton of blogs to come to my conclusions and some assumptions but Paul, PMG and Alex T have been awesome in digging out facts… I strongly feel this is the gravestone being erected and humbly wish the SFA to do the needful, the right and to unite Scottish football -1…. Onwards and upwards to the teams who have struggled to live and compete within their means… Let the people sing..

  10. John Burns

    Again first-class from Paul – most of what I wanted to say has already been said – I only add – the phoney war is over – HMRC have had enough of D&P’s ;ducking and diving’.

    Whyte is still there, central to the process, if D&P get their way. Whyte has “previous” on all of the undernoted, and when given his director disqualification for seven years, the judge said that he, inter alia, “put company assets beyond the reach of creditors”

    a) deliberate default or evasion of statutory liabilities
    b) past association with contrived insolvency
    c) operating a policy of withholding payment of Crown money

    Here comes BDO.!!!

  11. Lennybhoy

    Paul,

    I have a knowledgeable friend and in a nutshell he makes the two points that you do:

    1. HMRC will most probably challenge the value of that the assets are proposed to be sold for,

    2. They will challenge D&P’s costs

    P67 knows who my knowledgeable friend is, experienced in dealing with such matters and EBT investigations. He predicts a newco.

    I met you at the Blantyre night, Mark’s friend.

    • Gerard Madill

      Excellent piece, once again Paul! I too expect D&P to depart the scene ingloriously – pursued by bears!

  12. JimBhoy

    cva pipe dream.. sfa spineless, waiting on the big boys coming in before they jump on that band wagon in a ‘wisnae us’ shoulder shrug… Rangers hard core take a look at yourselves in fact dont, whatever, who cares… Proper Rangers football fans I feel sorry for you all, i hope you get the club you deserve without the neanderthal following that has turned ALL of Scottish football against you… Come back a better clean club and challenge the Celik, but without exclusion and in the 21st fekin century….. There endeth the lesson.!

  13. I don’t think it is only the BDO’s engines that are revving outside …I can hear the engines of a Ferrari awaiting the quick departure of Laurel and Hardy for a fast getaway from i-pox once the CVA has been kicked out and the Liquidiser is brought out.

  14. James Scotjolly

    Next Thursday is not looking good for the Teddies !!!!! I don’t think BDO will be very slow at the job, unlike Dumb and Dumber !!!

  15. Richboy

    I know a lot of this stuff is still going over my head but I cannot believe how simple this should be and how complicated those involved have made it.

    Example;

    Reasons for rejection by VAS, ■ “operating a policy of withholding payment of Crown money”.

    If this relates to Rangers then DUH. Is this not what brought HMRC down on Rangers in the first place? Are HMRC likely to recoup any of that money via a CVA? If not then rejection of the CVA is a complete no brainer.

    There are so many glaring other examples of this type that it seems to my simple mind this should have been done and dusted before my Birthday party in late February.

    The fact that this has gone on so long indicates to me there are many things going on behind the scenes that us lesser mortals will never find out.

    • Gopaul

      Hmrc don’t need to get more than £12million offered for a bill of £25 million due….. If they can liquidate 1 club and scare the **** out of all 192 fitba cloobs in da land, as dey Speke

      If hmrc get £12million or less then they justified in any action they take to enforce tax law

      If they get more… A bonus

      D&p hope they have millions….but if they part of tax evasion scheme they could get nowt,,,,,!,, and they will have to prove they were not in on this at the start

      No one figured that way too many emails out in the open…. There are gers fans everywhere in the world, mant it seems with good it skills…

      Usually it’s follow the money, here it’s follow the emails….

  16. CVA or NewCo, HMRC has the tools at its disposal to require a bond be paid in respect of PAYE/ NI and or VAT. This can be applied when a business has a history of deliberately withholding payment of said taxes or has engaged in “phoenixism” to avoid such debts. The size of the bond is calculated with reference to the debt (current or previous) or the companies annual turnover. It would, therefore, likely be a substantial number.

    Failure to pay the bond can result in significant financial penalties for the company and, indeed, the officers of the company.

    Frankly, it behoves the Revenue to seek this security should RFC survive the current situation and remain in the SPL ( new financial fair play rules aside.)

    Has Charles Green or D&P factored this in?

  17. Jim

    My reading of the changes made is that if the CVA is rejected then D&P can move straight on to a Newco. As a Newco will realise more than liquidation (according to D&P) then BDO will not be automatically appointed.

    Seems like D&P found a way around HMRC’s amendments.

    It’s going to be an interesting week.

  18. Gerry

    A question that keeps occuring to me, and i don’t know the answer :
    Is it possible that HMRC may choose to go after the individuals for unpaid tax and NI and that this may potentially give better return ?? – after all the side letters may be enough proof that these individuals (if prooven) were posssibly complicit and on balance of probability the whole EBT scheme was a tax scam. In this scenario probably liquidation is the better option for HMRC rather than EBT case tied up within CVA. Can anyone shed light or am i left field on this !

  19. Paul, as I mentioned yesterday I still do not understand the asset sale non CVA mechanism. The wording is completely ambigious. Never mind i did guess that HRMC would appoint their own liquidator and in Mr Cohen we have someone who is not going to get messed about by the likes of Green and Whyte.

  20. raintown67

    overnight I had another thought about 17.1.4

    Add the clause “, if in the interests of creditors,” somewhere in 7.1.4 and it’s meaning sort-of changes. But as admins D&P always have to act in the interests of creditors, so the clause is not needed but it is still there?

    On the wider point, the CVA Proposal is effectively “we have looked around, and there are 3 (CVA/asset-sale/Liq) options and, in the view of D&P, the CVA will provides the best return to creditors. Please authorize us to proceed with the CVA”. The “if you don’t authorize it, you WILL get a worse option without further ado” blackmail makes no logical sense. But it might be legal, that is my worry.

    RT

  21. james larkin

    TheBlackKnight TBK

    June 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Clearly put Paul! Excellent as always.

    Can you clarify this bit;

    “any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members to be paid in full, whether inside or outside the arrangement or before or after completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation.”

    Does the SFA/SPL requirements or Articles of Association not specifically state football debts must be settled in full? This is clearly an impass or will the SFA back down to allow HMRC agreement? FCR does not exist in Scotland, however, rules appear to say they do.

    Apologies if already covered

    TBK
    —————————————————————————
    very good point.
    if this does indeed mean that it is in the sfa/spl rules…will the sfa HAVE to take action against rangers(ia) for breaking the rules, otherwise we could be in a “sion” situation again, whereby, if the sfa DO NOT take action against RFC(ia), then FIFA/UEFA will comedown like a ton o bricks on the sfa and ban scotland and the clubs from european competition?

    AYE/NO?

    • Robert

      Under the circumstances, I would have expected the SPL to withhold Rangers share of the SPL prize money (11% for finishing second plus the 4% that all SPL clubs get), and use this money to pay off football related debts.

      Did or does the SPL plan to take this approach?

  22. JimBhoy

    If HMRC come out next week before the CVA decision and publish the liabilities in the BTC they will have played a blinder… They get a bigger piece of the pie in the fire sale that will ensue…The following week see all the players being put up to the highest bidder.. I’d offer a fiver for Sone Aluko.

    Watch the Blue knights consortium buy St Mirren and rebadge it the Loyal Rangers…

    • Shyster, Flywheel & Shyster

      …and watch the ‘former’ St Mirren’ directors buy the likes of Cowdenbeath, courtesy of Donald Findlay, and move them to Paisley. It’s getting like the NFL. Round and round the ragged rocks…

      Flywheel

  23. Pingback: 1,700 firms could go out of business this year, warns insolvency expert

  24. tizzer

    Ah, just got it. Players in, players out. Heroes one week, villains the next. The long game. Why don’t we have a wee sweepstake on the eventual outcome with all the proceeds to a deserving charity

  25. Glazert Tim

    My understanding of being on the verge of liquidation must be well off track.

    It would appear (based on RFCIA’s approach), I can enter administration, tell my creditors they should count themselves lucky at getting pennies in the pound, jet off to Germany for a jolly and speak about buying an expensive second hand Reno (sorry Renault). At the same time I can say my new company, in the same town, at the same building with the same staff, doing the same work is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT company.

    But on the brightside, anyone I have shafted can buy a raffle ticket for £400 quid to rename my company.

    Anyone know Mr G’s number so I can sign up?

    • You have to know the password. “It wisnae me!” Maybe that can be their new motto.
      Anybody who would do that obviously has no shame. Maybe that could be their new motto: “No shame!”
      How about a new raffle; for £400 you get the opportunity to choose the new club motto.
      ———————–
      Then there is this:

      “HMRC have had the documentation for over a week so, with each day that passes, we have to assume that they are on board.
      “It would be awful if they were to announce on the day that they were turning it down… ”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18373399

      He needs to read his history books. That is what exactly they did at Leeds.

  26. chas w

    17.1.4 1st sentence allows D&P to explore all options …
    17.1.4 2nd sentence allows D&P to execute options … without calling a creditors meeting.
    Subsequent clauses only allow D&P to execute said options with HMRC approval.
    HMRC are in control of the situation, if they agree to a D&P proposed option, then it can proceed without a meeting for all other creditors to agree it. Ticketus must have agreed to let HMRC have a free hand.

  27. cmh64

    I really don’t get how this is even possible:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18378555
    How does Green have the authority to negotiate with agents or say he is CEO? Or write to season ticket holders for that matter?
    Don’t they have to get through the CVA vote and the deadline for audited accounts before any of this?

  28. WeThePeople

    It’s terrible what these guys are doing to Rangers. Here is another one. http://bit.ly/KsrXaP

  29. p groom

    surely something has to give before thursday? since when have cvas been decided with some financial items not yet confirmed? how can creditors make an informed decision? hmrc need to announce result of btc whichever way it goes, before cva decision don’t they ? if thats not possible this week then cva decision should be put back until that question is resolved. Yes/No? you could say the same for the other still pending matters financial and non-financial but the btc is the big one.

  30. Can this be right?

    “Rangers could attempt to sign new players before the club is officially out of administration.
    Charles Green is aiming to have a Company Voluntary Arrangement approved on Thursday, after which there is a 28-day cooling-off period.
    But SPL rules state that, with board approval, clubs in administration may replace players whose contracts expire.”

    Also, Green seems to have confirmed he had told a supporters’ meeting on Wednesday that he has a list of 19 target players drawn up, five of whom are involved at Euro 2012.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18385024

    Oh, Mr Green. And how do you think this will look with creditors? A tiny pot for creditors while you eye up no less than 19 players (including 5 internationals at the European Championships) to bring in at least some of them. I know what I would say, and it is not very polite.

    If it is within the rules, even technically, I find it absolutely astonishing. and if he gets away with it, it will truly bring shame on the game in Scotland. He has spoken to the fans, to get them on his side, he has spoken to the SFA, in an attempt to get them on his side; but, has he spoken to the creditors, properly, to explain why he has so much money at his disposal for the club, but a pittance for them, or does he really think that the CVA document is enough? As with the rest involved in this, they are the last thing on his mind. And that’s the point. It seems like they are not being treated as people, they are being treated as numbers to be weighed against other numbers to get things right in a game.

  31. Pingback: Wings over Scotland | Rangers FC RIP

  32. Pingback: Wings over Scotland | Rangers liquidation: FAQ

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