Sevco Director Admits Rangers’ Assets Bought at Undervalue – Liquidator Should Take Assets Back

In which I offer some thoughts on the likelihood of BDO, liquidators of Rangers Football Club PLC, seeking to “reduce” the sale of the assets and business of Rangers to Sevco and suggest that one of the Sevco Directors seems to have dug a large hole for his business by his statement this week.

——————————————————-

Soon BDO will take over as liquidator of Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC). This will bring to an end the involvement of the administrators, Duff and Phelps (D+P) and will open up for BDO the possibility of various steps to be taken in the interests of creditors.

One such power is conferred by s242 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The relevant parts of the section are detailed at the foot of this post.

The section gives the liquidator the power to challenge a “gratuitous alienation”. That means a transfer of assets for no price or for an inadequate price.

Where a liquidator brings such a challenge to a transaction, it is not for the liquidator to prove that the transaction was a gratuitous alienation, but instead for the defender to show that it was not.

The Act lays down that the court “shall grant decree of reduction or for such restoration of property to the company’s assets or other redress as may be appropriate” unless certain statutory exceptions are engaged.

What transaction are we looking at here?

There has been extensive discussion about the value achieved by D+P for creditors once the CVA was rejected. Rather than the £8.5 million due to paid under the CVA, there was a binding agreement to sell to Sevco 5088 Ltd the whole “assets and business” of Rangers for £5.5 million.

This definitely included Murray Park, Ibrox Stadium, the associated land, the players’ registrations and may have included the rights of RFC PLC to receive any prize money or TCV money due to it, together with the rights to transfer fees such as that due for Mr Jelavic, and the rights to pursuer Collyer Bristow and Rangers FC Group Ltd for damages running to millions of pounds.

Based on D+P’s own figures in the CVA proposal, the fixed assets would have been valued at around £.5 million or more. Accordingly Sevco (as I will refer to both Sevco incarnations) paid £1 million, or less, for everything else.

There has been general astonishment that such a low price could be accepted for fixed assets (although valued on a different basis) listed in accounts as worth in excess of £100 million.

The liquidator would be entitled to raise a court action stating that the sale by D+P, acting as agents of RFC PLC, to Sevco was a gratuitous alienation. Sevco would have to show either that the transfer was a legitimate gift or charitable donation (which is not the case), that RFC PLC was solvent when the sale took place (which it was not) or that adequate consideration was paid.

What evidence, as opposed to supposition, ids there that the sale of the assets was at an undervalue? Bear in mind that a sale of the assets means that the debts due by RFC PLC are irrelevant. The debts do not transfer with the assets.

We can thank Mr Imran Ahmad, one of the Directors of Sevco Scotland Ltd, for his contribution. He attended a meeting of the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund along with the rest of the Sevco Board. I have a detailed post coming regarding what was discussed, but I feel this issue deserves a slot of its own.

I would like to thank the Vanguard Bears for minuting the meeting.

The relevant extract is as follows:-

A representative from Rangers Unite asked the board “What would you see as an exit price?” Imran replied that he believed on a bad day the club was worth £50 million.

“On a bad day the club is worth £50 million.”

I will repeat that… “On a bad day the club is worth £50 million.”

One more time – “On a bad day the club is worth £50 million.”

So one of the Directors of Sevco has confirmed in an open meeting that, on a bad day, his company has acquired, for the price of £5.5 million, assets worth £50 million! Three weeks after the acquisition of the “whole assets and business” of RFC PLC, the business is worth £50 million! Even allowing for a bit of exaggeration for effect, especially if the goal is to do a quick share flotation, the value is a long way up from the £5.5 million paid. Normally the courts will not protect a party who makes a bad deal, but here the court is being asked to protect the creditors, not the company RFC PLC, which made the deal.

What will a court look at in deciding the issues?

The issue was looked at in Short’s Trustee v Chung 1991 S.L.T. 472. This case related to a personal, rather than a corporate, insolvency but the legislation regarding gratuitous alienations is almost identical.

Lord Weir stated:-

“The pursuer instructed an experienced chartered surveyor, Mr John McKinney of Robert Galbraith & Lawson, to make a valuation of the flats as at October 1986. … Mr McKinney gave evidence. … From his knowledge of the sale of comparable property in the immediate neighbourhood and from a study of the records of other sales and using a valuer’s appraisal of this material, Mr McKinney concluded that the flats would fetch in the general area of £15,000 each on the open market as at October 1986. … These figures, as he made clear, also took into account a possible difficulty in selling these properties due to funding being difficult to obtain.

I accepted entirely the evidence of Mr McKinney and the conclusions which he reached. Although he was ably cross examined there was no evidence from a valuer led on behalf of the defender, notwithstanding that the onus under s. 34 (4) of the Act of establishing that the alienation was made for adequate consideration rested on her.

It is plain to me that Mr Meikle (who sold the properties to the now bankrupt Mr Short), for whatever reason, had no interest in obtaining anything beginning to approach a market price for the flats and he seemed satisfied that he was rid of them. The debtor did not seem to me to be seriously interested in the property market and no doubt an increase of £1,000 in the price of the flats over a period of a few months would have been enough for him. In my opinion these transactions in no sense represented a proper testing of the market. There was no advertisement, surveyors were not brought in to advise and the circumstances of the sales do not disclose a businesslike attitude to property dealing.

In approaching the question of whether an alienation was made for adequate consideration, it is necessary to bear in mind that the word “adequate” is not defined in the Act. Counsel for the defender submitted that it would be wrong to reach an opinion on this question, as the pursuer had sought to do, by making a valuation based on hindsight and on an objective analysis of valuation evidence. He contended that subjective considerations concerning the actual circumstances of the transactions at the time were material and relevant. Counsel for the pursuer on the other hand submitted that it was an objective test.

This is not a case in which it is necessary to embark on a comprehensive discussion of these questions and I can see that in some instances to reach an answer may not be a particularly easy task. As at present advised, I am not persuaded that it is necessary for the person who is seeking to uphold the transaction to demonstrate that an adequate consideration for the sale of heritable property necessarily means, with the benefit of hindsight or otherwise, the best price which could have been obtained in the open market in a properly conducted arms length transaction. There may well be cases where, for particular reasons, the consideration has turned out to be less than that but still be “adequate” for the purposes of s. 34, and it may be relevant to examine the circumstances in which a transaction took place. However, in this instance, such matters hardly arise. Even making every allowance for the imprecision of a valuer’s estimate, the difference between the valuations made by Mr McKinney and the sale prices actually obtained are so wide as to leave no room for doubt. The situation might have been different if valuation evidence for the defender had been led and had indicated a lower value for these properties. The defender has failed to satisfy me that the consideration for the alienations to her late husband begins to approach adequacy. A businesslike transaction in my opinion would have resulted in a price approaching the amounts spoken to by Mr McKinney.” (All emphases added)

What does this tell us?

It is for the party seeking to uphold the transaction to lead evidence of its adequacy, not for the liquidator to prove its inadequacy.

An objective valuation with hindsight might not be conclusive where there circumstances justifying a lower than commercial price, but in those circumstances the details surrounding the transaction would need to be examined.

There ought to be some testing of the market by the seller, or else some proper explanation as to why there has not been such a testing of the market. As Lord Weir said in this case “There was no advertisement, surveyors were not brought in to advise and the circumstances of the sales do not disclose a businesslike attitude to property dealing.

How wide is the difference between the valuation suggested, perhaps by the liquidator, and that actually achieved?

Do the proceeds of sale seem consistent with a “business-like” transaction?

It should be noted that there is no need to suggest any improper motive on the part of the seller. The seller might believe they are getting a fair price, but the court will use hindsight in assessing this, unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.

Bearing in mind that we have one of the Directors of the purchaser suggesting that the newly founded business, whose only assets are those purchased from the administrator, is worth £50 million on a bad day, how will Sevco seek to justify paying £5.5 million? Perhaps Mr Green and his colleagues have added so much value to the operation in three weeks that they can justify the increase? Or perhaps not?

In Lafferty Construction Ltd v McCombe 1994 S.L.T. 858 Lord Cullen considered the application of Section 242.

The pursuers were a company in liquidation and its liquidator. The winding up of the company commenced on 10 July 1989. The defender was the widow of a director and minority shareholder who died on 29 July 1985. On 25 March 1988 the company paid the defender £50,000 and delivered to her the registration documents of a Mercedes motor car registration number JMC 666. The pursuers sought declarator that the payment and transfer of ownership of the motor car were gratuitous alienations within the meaning of section 242; and sought decree for payment of £50,000; and, failing restoration of the motor car, payment of £20,000 as representing its value.

The defender claimed that solicitors acting for her and the executors of her late husband  complained to Frank Lafferty, the majority shareholder in the company and in Rent A Skip Ltd, that the affairs of those companies were being conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of minority shareholders and proposed that their shares in those companies be purchased. Following discussions agreement was reached between solicitors acting for the company on the one hand and for the defender and the deceased’s executors on the other whereby (1) the sum of £50,000 was to be paid by the company to the defender; (2) the motor car referred to above was to be made over by the company to the defender free of all outstanding debts, and (3) an annuity of £20,000 per annum in favour of the defender was to be arranged by the company and to endure for a minimum of 10 years. The settlement was not paid by the company so Mrs McCombe raised court action and, in return for loosing certain arrestments she had lodged, she was paid the £50,000 and the car transferred to her. She claimed adequate consideration had been given.

Lord Cullen held:-

“… the crucial matter, as it appears to me, is whether the defender has made adequate averments to enable the court, if these averments are proved, to determine that the payment and delivery were for adequate consideration, whether they were in consideration of the settlement or in consideration of the withdrawal of the diligence or the other terms of the 1986 agreement.

In considering whether alienation was made for “adequate consideration”, I do not take the view that it is necessary for the defender to establish that the consideration for the alienation was the best which could have been obtained in the circumstances. On the other hand the expression “adequate” implies the application of an objective standpoint. The consideration should be not less than would reasonably be expected in the circumstances, assuming that persons in the position of the parties were acting in good faith and at arms length from each other. In the present case the defender, apart from the bare statement that adequate consideration was given for the payment and delivery has made no attempt to place any quantification, however broad, against any of the possible considerations. …

As I have already noted the defender’s argument was that it was enough for her to rely on the fact that the parties acted at arms length and that there was no suggestion of fraud, dishonesty or connivance. I observe in passing that the defender’s pleadings do not in terms rely on these matters. However, the more fundamental objection to this approach is that it seems to me to fail to address the need to establish that the consideration was, in an objective sense, adequate. The defender’s averments, if proved, would in my view not be sufficient to enable the court to determine that the payment and delivery were for adequate consideration.”

Once more therefore we see that an objective element is essential in the valuation, although the purchaser does not have to show that the price paid was the maximum achievable.

As Lord Cullen said “The consideration should be not less than would reasonably be expected in the circumstances, assuming that persons in the position of the parties were acting in good faith and at arms length from each other”.

Finally I would refer to a decision of Lord Milligan in McLuckie Brothers Ltd v Newhouse Contracts Ltd 1993 S.L.T. 641.

A company acquired certain lands for development for housing. They commenced building operations and in October 1989 entered into missives for the sale of the partly developed site to a second company for £330,000. The price actually paid was £353,515.31 to include certain works allegedly carried out after the date of the missives. The first company subsequently went into insolvent liquidation and a creditor of that company and the liquidator sought reduction of the disposition in favour of the second company. The second company contended that the sale was for adequate consideration. It led evidence that the price had been arrived at by taking into account the final price to be expected for the houses on the development and the cost of completing the development, allowing for contingencies. No details of such prices and costs were produced. Evidence was also led from an architect who valued the works carried out by 12 July 1989 at £257,650. The site was valued at £106,000. Certain works had been carried out to the buildings between 12 July 1989 and the date of the missives, some of which had been remedial works rendered necessary following the issue of a stop notice by the local authority in August 1989. The liquidator led no evidence and contended first that there was no evidence to show that the figure of £330,000 was adequate consideration, and secondly that what evidence there was pointed to a valuation in excess of £363,000.

Lord Milligan, being referred to Lord Weir’s decision in Short’s Trustee v Chung said “I agree with Lord Weir’s observation on this point, and in particular that a defence based on adequate consideration will not necessarily fail because after the event it appears that the price actually obtained might have been bettered.

He noted thatCounsel for the pursuers submitted that the defenders had failed to establish that the alienation was for adequate consideration. He said that there was no proper evidence at all to suggest that the figure of £330,000 represented such adequate consideration”.

He went on to hold:-

“However, my firm view is that the defenders have failed to establish that the price of £330,000 represented an adequate consideration for the part developed site in terms of s 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986. … I have no clear detailed picture as to just what work was done between the July valuation and the October sale. What I do find is that the evidence showed that on a balance of probabilities sufficient work of a nature enhancing value was done during that period to have a material effect upon the value of the development between those two dates. While I am satisfied on that point on a balance of probabilities, the evidence does not enable me to quantify the extent of that increase.

I was left with the clear impression from Mr Alex Smith’s evidence that his offer of £330,000 related to the particular circumstances in which that offer was made. Those particular circumstances included the obvious financial problems of Newhouse Construction Ltd, the knowledge that Mr Francis Smith knew that he would be engaged as site agent by the defenders if the defenders’ offer was accepted, the absence of a competing bidder and of meaningful advertising of the sale and the perfectly understandable desire of Mr Alex Smith to achieve as low a price as he could in the rather special circumstances of this particular sale. With regard to advertisement I do not accept Mr Alex Smith’s evidence, supported though it was by that of Mr Francis Smith, that the site was advertised for sale, at least that it was so advertised in any meaningful way. If it had been, I cannot envisage that Mr McEwan would have been unaware of that, visiting the site every fortnight as he did. I accept Mr McEwan’s evidence that he had no knowledge that the site was being advertised for sale and also his evidence that he, initially at least, had no knowledge of the actual sale. In view of each of the foregoing circumstances, I do not find the offer made by Mr Alex Smith and agreed to by Mr Francis Smith to be of any substantial significance towards ascertaining what was adequate consideration for the alienation concerned.

I record that counsel for the defender founded upon the absence of any evidence from the pursuers. Upon my view of the evidence led for the defenders the absence of any evidence from the pursuers cannot avail the defenders. I would add that I find it difficult to see how the pursuers could have been expected to produce even an approximately accurate valuation of a partly developed site when the defenders cannot prove in reasonable detail the state of the site at the material time, a matter very much for the defenders to establish.”

Once again the emphasis is on the obligation of the purchaser to prove that adequate consideration has been given. The failure to have an open marketing process can affect that assessment. It will not be enough to say that the price paid was the best offered. Indeed higher offers were made, but D+P rejected them in connection with their attached conditions.

On the face of it, and taking account of Mr Ahmad’s comments, it looks as if it would be very difficult for Sevco to satisfy the court that “adequate consideration” had been given.

If the court finds that adequate consideration has not been given, then the transaction is reduced. The property acquired would go back to the seller, in this case the liquidator of RFC PLC. Sevco would be due back the money it had paid, but would then be a creditor of the liquidated company.

There is an exception to the rule where any right or interest is “acquired in good faith and for value from or through the transferee in the alienation.” Therefore, if Sevco found someone to pay the £50 million value, and this transaction was in good faith and for value, then the court could not reduce the transaction, However Sevco, in this example, would be pursued by the liquidators for the Windfall profit made. In addition, it might be asked how, against the background of what would likely be highly publicised court proceedings, anyone could truly buy the assets “in good faith”.

That would apply too to a share flotation, I submit. I am unsure s to how likely Sevco would be to manage to get a share issue on the way in time before the liquidators move in to RFC PLC. A hasty dash to do so would, per se, suggest lack of good faith.

Would I buy shares if it was known that the liquidators were taking action to reduce the transaction? Of course not.

I suspect that a challenge to the transaction under s242 was always on the cards.

Mr Ahmad has simply made that more likely, and ensured that he will be a witness, called by BDO in all likelihood, if the matter goes through the court.

The three cases I cited however all show that several years van pass before the matter is resolved, but it has the potential to restrict greatly the ability of Sevco to operate. If they are allowed to register new players, can they sign someone long-term where there might not be a team there, or at least one owed by Sevco. If the transaction is reduced or quashed, then what happens to employees?

It has the potential to become if possible, an even bigger mess, and one that could run for many years to come.

Posted by Paul McConville

Insolvency Act 1986 s242

Section 242 reads:-

“(1) Where this subsection applies and—

(a) the winding up of a company has commenced, an alienation by the company is challengeable by —

(i) any creditor who is a creditor by virtue of a debt incurred on or before the date of such commencement, or

(ii) the liquidator; …

(2) Subsection (1) applies where—

(a) by the alienation … any part of the company’s property is transferred or any claim or right of the company is discharged or renounced, and

(b) the alienation takes place on a relevant day.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the day on which an alienation takes place is the day on which it becomes completely effectual; and in that subsection “relevant day” means, if the alienation has the effect of favouring …

(b) any other person, a day not earlier than 2 years before that date.

(4) On a challenge being brought under subsection (1), the court shall grant decree of reduction or for such restoration of property to the company’s assets or other redress as may be appropriate; but the court shall not grant such a decree if the person seeking to uphold the alienation establishes—

(a) that immediately, or at any other time, after the alienation the company’s assets were greater than its liabilities, or

(b) that the alienation was made for adequate consideration …

Provided that this subsection is without prejudice to any right or interest acquired in good faith and for value from or through the transferee in the alienation.

(8) This section applies to Scotland only.”

Advertisements

57 Comments

Filed under Charles Green, Football, Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers

57 responses to “Sevco Director Admits Rangers’ Assets Bought at Undervalue – Liquidator Should Take Assets Back

  1. mick

    just what we have all thought on here for weeks,great pisce, is this armgideon lol

  2. mick

    its auditor week focusing on the deal

  3. mick

    if the deal is fraudulant will d &p,s be liablie via the civil courts for shareholders to sue for compensation ,also if this cripples there company and they go under with the cliams does the legal profession in england have to compensate just like here like law society compensation type system we have here are they lawyers or just business suits ?this could add another 5 year to it all cliams take ages

  4. mick

    24,000 civil actions what a boost for glasgows solisitors to deal with ,theres a rough system to determine value look at the land underneth if its got mines and stuff then that decreases as u cant build high like say a 5 story building you could at ibrox but not murry park ibroxe in houseing market vale would be more than 5 mil murry park less green belt and mines every were so the council limit hight but retial in a bidding war who knows the players should have been sold on febuary 14 2012 the dayafter it all started that makes them liabile to bad destion

  5. mick

    the taxman hector will want the police cuffs out here to a think

  6. cmh64

    Paul: If the D&P/ Sevco deal is unwound by the liquidator, what happens to the staff and players? ( both those who transferred across under TUPE and those who didn’t).

  7. So why would Sevco and D&P leave themselves so exposed to the potential for litigation???? Incomprehensible. Talk about digging and digging a bigger hole.

  8. Joseph

    Well Paul you have been especially busy over the past few days and I am sure we are all deeply indebted to you for the work you put in and for passing on your legal knowledge. I know it’s a hobby just now, but you and Phil could soon be writing the film script. This latest offering is breathtaking.

    • mick

      its our rack of lamb and wine time on here ,its not even sunday yet what a topic wonder what spin msm will put on it all this week lol just when we all thought the witch was dead its a done deal ,hold it is that the auditors resusitating rangers only to liqidate them agian lol

  9. mick

    can a small shareholder or creditor go to a lawyer now and make a compliant about the standard of service from d&p,s if it seems wrong whats happened at what stage can people with a stake in the topic do a civil cliam or is it to early or late ?

  10. Greg72

    Paul, I was wondering when S.242 was going to be mentioned! As usual, you’ve given a very clear explanation. A couple of questions:-
    a) Do we actually know when the Liquidators are to be appointed?
    b) Have D & P yet reported to the Court of Session? I had it in mind this had to be done earlier this week.
    c) Have you any thoughts as to whether the Liquidators could (if so advised) cause the RFC General Meeting to change the name to be cnacelled/postponed? (Assuming the Liquidators are in office before 31 July).
    d) Do you think that Mr Malcolm Cohen is aware of this blog? (That last one is only asked semi-seriously!)

  11. Lennybhoy

    Paul,

    An informed friend told me before the rejection of the CVA was announced that HMRC would most certainly ha e valued the assets themselves. He further told me that they would almost certainly challenge the sale of the assets to Sevco for the sum they have been. Given your latest blog, I look forward to the challenge being made.

  12. Shug

    Great article again Paul.
    Sorry if I missed the explanation of this somewhere along the way…..

    But what happened to the Ticketus money paid to CW?
    I understand it went to pay the bank debt.
    Have they lost the claim to the season tickets due to Liquidation etc?
    Have these investors lost all that money they paid out?

    I’m sure there’s a financial guru out there could help me catch up.

    Shug

  13. Plughole

    Asset stripping is asset stripping!
    Duff and Phelps will be brought to book and hopefully Messrs Whyte, Clark, Whitehouse and Green will end up in the dock.
    This whole saga has degenerated into a farce that could have been avoided had it not been for the dishonourable rogues that have handled the administration and attempted to deny creditors their money.

    Can we assume Mr Whyte’s floating charge of the tangible assets remains?

    This story has remained in the public arena purely because it involves one of the most famous football clubs in the world. Had it not involved Rangers, would the aforementioned rogues have got away with? In all likelihood, yes.

    Every forum has discussed the ramifications of this sorry saga for fans, clubs, the future of the sport and the legitimacy of the trophies and league titles won. The danger is we lose sight of the primary objective, namely honouring the payment of debt.
    It appears that Mssrs Whyte, Clark, Whitehouse and Green consider debts to be inconvenient shackles that can be easily shaken off with manipulation of: company registration and rules; customer loyalty; association and league regulation and rules; the media; and manipulation of audited values.
    Rangers accrued a £25million debt to HMRC under Whyte’s tenure. The fairness of the administration and liquidation and subsequent loss of Premier League football for Rangers fans is something they should take up with Mr Whyte as the law’s primary objective is and should be, to see justice done. (i.e protect the rights of creditors). The reason I find many Rangers fans (although definitely not all) opinions objectionable, is there failure to recognise this primary objective. The irony of unswerving loyalty to HM The Queen whilst her Revenue & Customs Department awaits payment appears lost on them, and ‘we are ALL the people’… and we want our bloody money…your entertainment and social life are very much secondary, mate!

    If Rangers can re-establish a club and start to compete again, fine.
    This will not be at the expense of the creditors of Rangers Football Club and its assets will be liquidated to ensure a maximum return for its creditors.

    PS. The silence from Sir David Murray, Walter Smith, Graeme Souness, Alex McLiesh, Barry Ferguson and the other 78 recipients of EBTs, is defeaning. I hope and pray that journalists throughout Scotland and beyond, continue to hound these greedy, arrogant, self-aggrandising individuals until we learn the whole truth about their seedy tax arrangements. Rangers fans should be receiving MONEY from these ‘Rangers Men’, to help pay off the debt to the tax payer and to rebuild their club, instead of empty promises and platitudes.

  14. ecojon

    Fair dos to the Vanguard Bears for minuting the meeting and passing on the info.

    I have never wished the extinction of Rangers and have always believed that any penalties/sanctions imposed on the club shouldn’t be made out of revenge or sectarian reasons but more to bring home to the Rangers Support the seriousness of what was done by those running the club.

    I genuinely believe that a lot of responsible Rangers fans support the SFL3 option to regain club integrity although some happily claim the move will damage/destroy the SPL which is their payback. I think this latter group is the unacceptable face of Rangers but I also believe that if the club went to SFL3 that they would be marginalised by the majority of the Rangers Support whose energy would be directed towards rebuilding their club and in the process help rebuild all of Scottish Football.

    But this latest news is catastrophic as it really could see the end of Rangers. I have no doubt that Mr Imran Ahmad was grossly exagerating the figure that Greene’s Consortium would now sell at but if he then reduces it drastically in any court proceedings I think little value might then be placed on his evidence.

    I hope that the complete list of shareholders might become available but I have to say that the last time I looked at Blue Pitch Holdings it wasn’t even listed as a registered company and now it is the largest shareholder. Alessandro Celano, of Blue Pitch Holdings, is I believe listed as a director of a firm called 1508 London Ltd in south-west London which appear to be a design firm with interests in interiors, architecture, project management, marketing and branding. What do we know about Mr Celano?
    http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07068962.

    I have mentioned this before but we have the question of the youth development money which was invested into Rangers a number of years ago by Ian Hart. It would appear from the VB Minute that Hart might be shown as a sevco shareholder for that original investment. We really need to know the amount of that shareholding and I wonder whether it has been used in paying D&P or is part of the £2.6m in sevco’s bank account – and if sevco has £2.6m why is it banking with Metro. There is also the question of how the liquidator, when appointed, will view the youth development money which I assume wasn’t in a biscuit tin but presumably in a Rangers bank account.

    I have always regarded Green as a businessman on the make wanting to turn a quick buck but now I regard him as a piece of slime wth his comment: “everyone outside of this room and the people we represent” is Anti-Rangers” and the reference to former players as “turncoats”. This does not portray him as the type of person who should be in charge of a new Rangers.

    With £3m in the bank and another £2.6m expected very soon it’s a bit telling to read of Jardine’s interest in a meeting to discuss the funds held by the RFFF – however that is a matter for them but it would be a pity to see it claimed by the liquidator when it could be used to possibly salvage Rangers when Greene’s consortium collapses. I feel the same about season tickets but again that is a matter for Rangers fans to make personal decisions on.

  15. davythelotion

    couldn’t help noticing the number of hits you were giving VB! hopefully they’ll read back!

  16. ecojon

    Para 6 in my previous post should read:

    I have mentioned this before but we have the question of the youth development money which was invested into Rangers a number of years ago by Ian Hart. It would appear from the VB Minute that Hart might be shown as a sevco shareholder for that original investment. We really need to know the amount of that original investment and I wonder whether it has been used in paying D&P or is part of the £2.6m in sevco’s bank account – and if sevco has £2.6m why is it banking with Metro. There is also the question of how the liquidator, when appointed, will view the youth development money which I assume wasn’t in a biscuit tin but presumably in a Rangers bank account.

  17. Paul
    Good review of S242 and the relevent case law.

    I cannot help but think that there is an argument that the sale is at undervalue– especially if it is the case that the revenue were given arguments prior to Green’s arrival as the the value of the company and its assets– whether that be by D&P, by Whyte, or indeed by the “old” board during the course of the last couple of years.

    In my experience HMRC are and will take a very hard line with guys who have pissed them off and been less than honest with them when acting at Director or shadow Director level.

    They have already stated that they rejected the CVA as it could prejudice their ability to pursue uindividual— presumably for wrongful trading, potentially fraudulent trading, malfeasance and a number of other possibilities.

    Effectively, they have made it plain that there will be litigation on the Rangers case once the Liquidator is in place.

    Will they reverse the asset sale?

    If they think that there is a reasonable prospect of a large monetary recovery for the benefit of the creditors– then the answer is yes, but to be frank there has been so little serious interest from anyone in buying what was Rangers at a serious price they would have to think about it carefully.

    If they are clever, they will pounce on the way the legal docs have been written up re the sale– especially if they allocate £500,000 to the value of Ibrox as that is a no brainer for reduction purposes.

    Given the current state of affairs, if they sought to reduce the whole sale, recovering the whole assets as they exist and in return D&P were forced to return the purchase price……. would you bet against Charlie Green choosing not to defend such an action?

    He actually might be quite pleased?

  18. ecojon

    A little bit of digging on Alessandro Celano:

    Mr Green describes Alessandro Celano of Blue Pitch Holdings as a Swiss Businessman and a LinkedIn profile lists an Alessandro Celano as head of the Family Office of Orchadia SA based in Geneva. Orchadia is described in Swiss business records as doing business as: Accountants, investment advisors, trust management, financial consulting, asset consultants, financial advisors and investment advice and it appears to have a capital of approx £60,000 although I am unsure whether this means capital in the sense that it does in the UK as my very rusty French and German doesn’t stretch that far. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that Orchadia SA is a financial tiddler although it might.

    The LinkedIn profile claims the Mr Celano was formerly VP at Deutche Bank Switzerland SA and before that Assistant Vice President at UBS Wealth Management.

    His financial career seems to have begun with top Canadian investment dealer National Bank Financial based in Montreal where he was an Institutional Sales and Equity Order Desk Officer.

    (To date I haven’t been able to verify any of the employment information and it may be difficult to do so as there are no time periods given). We do know that the Alessandro Celano listed as a director of 1508 LONDON LIMITED was born in 1975 and is therefore around 37.

    If this info refers to Mr Green’s Alessandro Celano it would be nice to know whether he is actually Blue Pitch Holdings or whether they are clients of Orchadia SA and if that is the case he may hold the proxy shareholding for Blue Pitch Holdings.

    However, we still don’t actually know who owns Blue Pitch Holdings which may even be merely an investment vehicle created by Orchadia SA who will then offer its clients investment opportunities in Blue Pitch Holdings.

    Sorry that the beneficial ownership picture remains so unclear so far but who knows what yet may turn up.

  19. JimBhoy

    who cares? let it unfold and the truth be told maybe.. Confused lot…

  20. John

    You’re hanging rather a lot on a (reported) throwaway remark by a non-executive director. Do you really think Rangers are worth £50 million (or anything like it) at the moment?

    • mick

      land sale is worth more than5.5 alone ???

    • JimBhoy

      I do not think Paul or anyone thinks retail on 3 properties are near 50m but maybe intellectual rights on rangers are worth more… However point is if a company sequestrates there are no hard and fast rules to the value of the assets , other than as much you can get based on some estimations. Did D&P get those estimations, could they have sold all the big players in July and all the land pieces for more than £5,5m, hell yeah, even on the estimation of the agreed discounted player sell on value they could have trumped that number never mind land…

      so much more to play in this story…

  21. ecojon

    Ach I’ve got a lousy cold so not out for a pint tonight so I’ll try and draw together some info together on Rangers investors/directors so we can try and get an idea of what the Green Consortium actually is.

    Following statement from: http://www.zeuscapital.co.uk/news/news-article.php?id=48

    Acquisition of Rangers FC

    Zeus Capital, the Manchester and London based corporate advisory firm have worked in conjunction with Charles Green to complete the £5.5 million acquisition of the business and assets of Rangers Football Club out of liquidation.

    The transfer of the business and assets to a new company structure has taken effect immediately and the new company is The Rangers Football Club.

    An application has already been made by the company to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the SPL.

    As part of the deal Imran Ahmad and Brian Stockbridge from Zeus Capital have joined the Board of The Rangers Football Club. Zeus Capital and its associates are also investors in the newco.

    Zeus Capital is experienced in working with football clubs having advised Sunderland Football Club on 2 previous deals including the takeover by Niall Quinn and his consortium and advised on the Rule 9 offer for West Bromwich Albion.

    Members of the Zeus Capital team have also worked on deals for the following football clubs, Manchester United, Leicester City, Sheffield United and Millwall.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Imran Ahmad joined Zeus Capital in April 2012 as Managing Director and Brian Stockbridge joined Zeus in January 2012 as a Director. Both men appear to have extensive experience in AIM and I would guess the Green plan is to float Rangers as quickly as possible on that market and get fans to buy as many shares as possible and that might end up being where the bulk of the required investment comes from at the end of the day.

    Whether Rangers fans will have the stomach for buying shares after the psychological trauma they have been undergoing and the financial losses already suffered on shares and debenture seats is a pretty big ask. There is also the harsh reality of the economic climate which is hitting most punters and making cash tight.

    Coupled with the suspicion that exists towards Green as a non-Ranger from a helluva lot of fans I don’t think it will be easy to raise big sums on AIM and this could be exacerbated with the ‘normal’ football fan attitude towards club shares that are happily bought singly as a birthday present but not bought in bulk for voting and investment purposes.

    At the end of the day I suppose Green will argue that the fans could control the club if they buy enough shares but will they actually believe another Messiah promising to lead them out of the wilderness – in the interests of Harmony I have carefully avoided leading anyone to the Holy Land or even ‘Ground’ – although the latter may well have been a more pleasant place to be not that I have any personal experience you understand 🙂

  22. ecojon

    @John

    Apparently, according to Rangers chit chat on forums, this was revised to £25m with the initial approx £8m costs deducted which left a profit of £17m. But in reading dozens of reports on the meeting you are left with the feeling that everyone was at different meetings. But that’s what happens when it’s such an emotional subject and feelings run high.

    Interesting at the amount of flack aimed at Bomber’s contribution to the meeting and his character and motives in general. But I detect a possible whiff of an organised campaign to attack and discredit Bomber underway although I obviously couldn’t possibly guess at who might be responsible LMAO. The one thing I’ll say in Bomber’s defence is that you get what you see with Bomber.

  23. mick

    bomber is a loose cannon so green and sally will want him to look mad so know 1 listen to him ,hes under the impression green struck a secret deal with lawwell and sfa and surrendered to div1 and santions ,he should give more speeches that 1 at the door of ibrokes was classic be hard to beat it was tony montana speaking from the heart with out the armani trimmings lol

  24. It’s been reported in the media that Charles Green FC might be due the proceeds from that sale of Mr Jelavic.

    Why shouldn’t that money go to the creditors of his club, instead of a completely different club?

    • mick

      its it not the case it gos to the liquidators pot as accepting the money from a company thats sezied to exiset is frudulant agian

  25. Marching on Together

    I wonder if the threat of violence and retribution from disgruntled Rangers fans (aka social unrest) directed at any purchaser of Ibrox which does not also own and run the football team, would be a legitimate factor affecting the value of Ibrox? I suspect the RICS Red Book makes little mention of such factors.

  26. ecojon

    Well I’ve had a real turn-up for the book in my researches and possibly Rangers are now in Blue Heaven as far as financial backing is concerned.

    Firstly read one of my earlier posts above regarding Blue Pitch Holdings and Alessandro Celano who apparently works for Orchadia SA in Geneva. Well, using Google I have translated info re Orchadia as follows: “Administration: Arif Masood Naqvi, Pakistan, Dubai, ARE, is sole director with single signature. Individual signatures was given to Frederick Serra, St. Antoni, Thônex. According to statement of the sole director of 03.08.2009, the company is not subject to regular audit and waives limited review.”

    {My understanding of the translation is that it identifies Mr Arif Masood Naqvi as the sole Orchadia director}

    Pakistani born Arif Masood Naqvi is the founder and CEO of Dubai-based investment bank Abraaj Capital – the leading private equity firm in the Middle East, Northern Africa and South Asia. Abraaj Capital is seriously heavy metal with US$ 1.5 billion of paid-up capital and since inception in 2002, it has raised about US$ 7 billion and distributed about US$ 3 billion to its investors.

    Mr Naqvi is one of the 50-most influential people in the global private equity industry and has been awarded Pakistan’s highest civilian honour.

    It all seems unbelievable and I just cannot get my head round why Naqvi or Abraaj would be interested in any football club and if they were I cannot see them looking outwith the very apex of English or European football. I don’t even think Rangers, before their calamity, would have been of the slightest interest. But maybe that’s why I don’t own Abraaj but if a Rangers summer trip to Dubai suddenly appears it’s time to break-out the tin helmets 🙂

    The other thing that keeps getting to me is why Greene seems to be scratching himself for cash and actually invested the money in the first place which always seemed a very risky position. But could it all be a con to keep the price down and to maybe garner sympathy and remain in the SPL. Who knows? Interestingly Mr Naqvi is a graduate of the London School of Economics so maybe he caught the football bug here as a student. Could he be the link to the Metro Bank – I’ll need to check their fundraising to see if any connections pop-up.

    I also wonder whether this possible link is what has caused those in charge of Scottish Football to act in the manner that they have. Have they dreamt of unlimited cash finding its way into the Scottish Game with only those pesky fans standing in the way of solid gold cladding for Hampden?

    Of course perhaps there are two Arif Masood Naqvis and maybe in Pakistan the name is as common as Jock Smith – but the whole thing is scary and I don’t think I’ll sleep well tonight.

    Alessandro Celano of Blue Pitch Holdings may also be the Alessandro Celano who is a director of 1508 LONDON LIMITED and if that is so there is another possible connection with another director of 1508 LONDON LIMITED being Fayeeza Naqvi who was born in 1960. A Ms Fayeeza Naqvi is a founder and Chief Finance Officer of the very prestigious Aman Trust and the Chief Executive Officer and also founder of the trust is no other than Arif Masood Naqvis, 50, of Abraaj Capital. To be fair having seen a pic of Fayeeza Naqvi I find it hard to believe she is 52 and it may well be that Arif is her father rather than husband.

    Looking at the 1508 LONDON LIMITED website I suspect that it shows a refurbished small block of exclusive luxury flats with each owner being a director of the company possibly for tax reasons. It would provide a pied a terre when in London for high-flying jetsetters – I had been finding it difficult to connect people to a London design company but I think I may have cracked it.

    Just for completeness I should go back to the translation re Orchadia in Geneva where it states: “Individual signatures was given to Frederick Serra, St. Antoni, Thônex”.

    I can’t remember the legal term but I think this means that Mr Serra has some kind of Swiss power of attorney regarding Orchadia and basically watches out for the interests of Mr Arif Masood Naqvis the company’s sole director.

    Indeed Mr Frederick Serra is a partner in the Geneva Office of the leading Swiss legal firm with offices in and offices in Zurich, Geneva, Lausanne, Zug, London and Madrid and one of his specialities is Insolvency / Restructuring. Now there’s a surprise 🙂

    There is still Chris Morgan, a UK-based businessman representing family trusts, but I’ve had enough for tonight.

    It certainly appears that there is a helluva lot more going on here than at first thought.

    • mick

      what a fantastic post enconjon that was well a top investigative report well done we all look forward to your follow ups

  27. ecojon

    I forgot to say – the leading Swiss legal firm is Froriep Renggli.

  28. ecojon

    Well I’ve had a good night’s sleep comforted by Covonia and can cut right to the nitty gritty now my cold’s cleared up a bit.

    looking over what I wrote yesterday I’m convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Alessandro Celano of Blue Pitch Holdings works for Geneva-based Orchadia SA.

    The sole director of Orchadia appears to be the highly respected Arif Masood Naqvi who set up Abraaj Capital which is now the leading private equity firm in the Middle East, Northern Africa and South Asia.

    The key question and missing bit of the jigsaw is whether Blue Pitch Holdings is part of the Abraaj Capital multi-billion $ empire or whether it is a ‘freelance’ operation of Mr Celano. I am not using ‘freelance’ to imply anything shady, underhand, unprofessional or illegal but merely to recognise Blue Pitch Holdings may not be connected with Abraaj Capital in any way.

    I will fire of an email to Mr Naqvi and ask him and hopefully if he actually receives it we get get an answer to not a million but a possibly billion $ question.

    Wish me luck 🙂

  29. degough

    From what I understand Green has not actually paid any money for the assets yet. He said at the Rangers meeting he had 3 million in the bank and he has the promise of 2.5 million more. This 5.5 million is to be paid to D&P on July 30th and BDO take over on July 31st.

    He has in the meantime announced a share issue by which he hopes to raise working capital. The season ticket money is his only other source of income at the moment.

    As regards “gratuitous alienation” it is very unlikely because D&P did get the assets independently valued and the valuation was unchallenged. They can also show that they offered the assets on the open market while trying to sell with a CVA.

    The big question is not a “gratuitous alienation” action, but will BDO put a stop on the sale before July 30?

    • degough

      I should add that this is why Bomber keeps going on about the deeds of Ibrox. Green only has the binding agreement from D&P to purchase them.
      It would be interesting to see this challenged at the SLF meeting next week. Can the SFL give membership to Sevco Scotland when they as yet do not own the assets?

      • Mick

        There at to early a stage of a bussiness to start in a league ,no players no league still sorting the deal out ,do they have insurance?the sfl sfa and spl chiefs are in for a shock as. The general feelings of Scotland is don’t let them in

      • degough

        Yes Mick. I think the best thing for all is to wait a year so they can play in the 2013/14 season. Everything could be sorted by then. All the sanctions, pending decisions, etc.. will have been decided on and the league will know where they stand.

      • Mick

        Is this why Charlie canceled the meeting with bomber ,is Charlie doing a Craig whyte ,why would bomber say if a told yous his Charlie’s life would be a risk ? It’s not a other dodgy deal is it even with Scotland and the world watching you think they would have learned there lesson

      • degough

        You have to admire Green.
        ” Let me tell ya something – I dig your work. Playing one side against the other, in bed with everybody – just fabulous stuff.”
        Da Fino in the Big Lebowski

      • Mick

        Hi degough that would be best all round for sevco and the other teams a cant see sfl being bullied and giving in to it all with men like Turnbull Hutton taking control a think it’s try next year ,sad but that’s show business

    • Plughole

      If the sale does not go ahead, do the players’ contracts come back into play? i.e. , Do the contracts return as assets of Rangers Football Club to be sold to pay off creditors? Would their recent transfers be null and void?
      If SFL members vote against accepting newco into SFL1, will Green run for hills and save himself £5.5million.
      Craig Whyte then has to prove he owns Ibrox and Murray Park. If he does, can HMRC sequestrate him if he is found guilty of a criminal offence for fraudulently obtaining capital from Ticketus to fund takeover/ purchase of floating charge and failure to pay HMRC during his time at Rangers.
      None of this seems decided and if Whyte’s takeover is deemed illegal, where would newco play games if the stadium’s ownership was still being determined by the courts?
      How can SFL members be expected to vote on entry of newco, while this remains unknown?

  30. ecojon

    Have undernoted an email sent to a Swiss lawyer which is self-explanatory.

    Hi Frédéric

    I am not sure if you are aware of the situation in Scotland regarding the future of Rangers Football Club whch has been ejected from the Scottish Premier League and currently does not have permission to play in any of the Scottish Football Leagues – passions are running at an unprecedented level and the publicity generated has been immense. It has become so heated that one of the men in charge of Scottish Football has suggested that the affair could even lead to civil disturbance. I’m sure you are wondering what that has to do with you 🙂

    It appears that you or your company represent Orchadia SA of Geneva whose sole director is given as Arif Masood Naqvi and I believe this is Mr Naqvi of Abraaj Capital. Mr Green who is heading the consortium which has purchased Rangers has said that a Mr Alessandro Celano/Blue Pitch Holdings is the largest investor in his consortium and I believe that this Mr Celano is employed or works with or advises Orchadia SA.

    I am sure you can see the direct line I have drawn to Mr Naqvi and I would like to know whether Mr Naqvi is involved in any way with investing in Mr Greene’s consortium or has any involvement with Blue Pitch Holdings. It may well be that despite any links with Mr Naqvi and Mr Celano that Blue Pitch Holdings has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Naqvi or any company he is associated with.

    I am well aware of the excellent reputation deservedly held by Mr Naqvi and I wish to make it clear that I am clear that he would not knowingly be involved in anything which could be looked upon in a negative or unprofessional light. As I mentioned earlier, the situation involving Rangers has created a mini-revolution among Scottish Football fans and passions and tempers are running high and objectivity is often the first casualty in such situations.

    It may well be that Mr Naqvi might see the benefit to be gained from a clear statement of his position in this matter or indeed his lack of involvenet.

    I have also contacted Abraaj Capital direct and requested the email address for Mr Naqvi’s private office but I am happy to deal with yourself on this matter if this is what Mr Naqvi wishes. I would repeat that I make no allegations of impropriety of any kind. I well recognise that some financial transaction require to remain confidential however the Orchadia, Blue Pitch Holdings, Mr Naqvi and Abraaj Capital are already being openly discussed in Scotland with a lot of speculations surrounding the nature of any connections which may exist. So it might be a good time for Mr Naqi to makje a statement as I find that beyond a certain point a bald ‘NO COMMENT’ tends to fuel speculation and paranoia.

    Indeed the Rangers story has even touched Swiss Football with ex-Rangers player Neil Murray recently moving to Sion. Murray was one of approximately a dozen Rangers players who have exercised their rights to walk away from Rangers under Tupe Regulations and Mr Green has repeatedly declared his intention to sue all of the players for breach of contract and sue any club that signs them for damages. You don’t need to tell me whether your company represents Sion 🙂

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    • Mick

      Encon John what a Sunday morning you giving us fantastic lets hope he emails you back ,a feel this is a Craig whyte all over agian ,backed by the governing body’s to they have all got to stand down now!!!!!

  31. degough

    Subject: SFL Special General Meeting – Friday, 13th July, 2012

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    NOTICE OF SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING – SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE

    Notice is hereby given that a Special General Meeting of The Scottish Football League will be held within the Bell/Baird Suite on the fifth floor of Hampden Park, Glasgow on Friday, 13th July, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving the following proposals:-

    (i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.

    (ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.

    (iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.

    In accordance with the terms of SFL Rule 53, your club must send one representative to this meeting and I would be most grateful if you could advise me of the name of your representative by return.

    A buffet lunch will be served at the conclusion of the meeting.

    Kind regards,
    David A. Longmuir
    Chief Executive, SFL.

    Looks like they really want Division One or no Buffet lunch! i would love to be at the meeting.

  32. mick

    a would stay well clear of the buffett ecoli listeria ??????

  33. mick

    if a was going to hampden a would take a can of irnbru stuff there bottled water and food

  34. ecojon

    Para (iii) of the meeting notice issued by Longmuir is interesting. I can’t decide if it’s sloppy drafting, someone trying to be smart or me being stoopid.

    The clause reads: “(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.”

    I understand this to mean that the SFL clubs will vote on Rangers entry to DIV3 and instruct the SFL Board of Management to that effect unless the Board has negotiated and agreed with the SPL & SFA to restructure.
    (The SFL Rules define the “Board” as: A President, a Vice-President, the Chief Executive and 6 (six) representatives of Members elected at the AGM.)

    Perhaps I’m being dense but the notice doesn’t actually define what is being restructured and when the discussions to achieve the details of the restructure will take place.

    Whatever it is we know that the restucture will have been agreed in the ‘best interests of the game’ between the Scottish Premier League and the SFA to the ‘satisfaction’ of the SFL Board of Management. What about the satisfaction of all SFL members who apparently are allowed the power to control the SFL Board of Management and send Rangers to DIV3 but not to be involved in taking the decision on the restructure and then instructing the SFL Board of Management what to do. Tail seems to be wagging dog here because as the notice stabnds it appears the SFL Board can determine a restructure not voted on or approved by the SFL Clubs. I hope someone explains where I have got this wrong as it’s Kafkaesque.

    It does go on in Para (iii) to again mention the Para (ii) and say that the restructure proposals will be made available prior to the meeting and a discussion allowed at the meeting – but there is no mention of a vote being allowed on the proposals.

    It also strikes me that if the proposals suggest ‘inviting’ some SFL Clubs to the new 2-tier SPL then the clubs ‘invited’ are obviously conflicted and shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the restructure proposals or indeed whether a vote should be held.

    I don’t want to see Rangers out for a year but this whole affair is getting crazy and I don’t know about the absence of Rangers destroying Scottish Football as it seems the governing eleite are quite capable of doing that all by themselves.

  35. Imagine the desaster for Scottish Football if Servco are pushed through to Div1, alienating fans and down the country and certain club chairmen in the SFL and Servco are back in admin a few months down the line…now that’s what I’d call armagedon…

  36. JimBhoy

    I am sure Green had a similar statement whilst highlighting a reason that investors would be interested in his newco as an opportunity to make some lolly.

  37. Pingback: The Sevco Board Met The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund – What Happened? | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

  38. Boss Hogg

    Doubts about the power, or the extent of the readership, of this excellent blog may be cleared up by a visit to today’s Scotsman at http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-newco-charles-green-consortium-put-50m-sale-price-on-club-1-2400417

  39. mick

    msm referance libary of factual information ,the sun will wont to do a deal with paul soon although a dont think he would sell his soul to them ,this is amazing and what the public want well done to the scotsman, and well done to paul number 1 in scotland with the truth

  40. Absolutely mind boggling, Could never have imagined it being this difficult or complicated, good job you guys know big words.

  41. Paddy

    Just after the CVA was rejected, in a statement, joint-liquidator Malcolm Cohen said:

    “Once BDO is formally appointed, the joint liquidators will be seeking to protect any remaining assets, maximise recoveries for the benefit of creditors, and investigate the reasons behind the failure of the company.
    “The joint administrators intend to complete a transfer of the business and assets to a new company in the coming days, putting the future of the club on more secure footing.
    “Once this is done, BDO will determine what can be recovered from the remains of the existing company.
    “It is right that there is a full and robust investigation into why the company failed, together with concerted efforts to recover monies for creditors and the taxpayer.
    “This may include pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the financial affairs of the company in previous years.”

    At least in this initial statement they recognised the assets were being sold, and the 5.5 million price was widely publicised. Does it not sound as if they already have their mind up not to challenge the sale?

  42. Pingback: Cheeky Charlie and the Revenge of Craig Whyte | On Fields of Green

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