Duff & Phelps July Report re Rangers Football Club PLC – Review Part 1 – Incredible Shrinking Fixed Assets!

Duff & Phelps have produced their latest report regarding their handling of the administration of Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC).

It can be found here Rangers FC PLC Interim Report by Duff & Phelps 10 July.

I will go through it in detail, but there is an initial point which seems, to me, to be odd.

Perhaps someone in the media can ask D&P, or Media House, whose bill for providing PR services to RFC PLC since February 14 is £124,000, to clarify the matter of the ever shrinking value of RFC PLC’s interests in land?

Page 25 gives the breakdown of asset values in connection with the purchase thereof by “Sevco”.

The line I want to look at states as follows:-



The initial Report by D&P in April stated the following regarding properties owned by RFC PLC, on page 23. The Report can be viewed here Rangers FC PLC Report by Duff & Phelps April 2012.

“Freehold Properties – Ibrox Stadium

9.11 The Company‟s base of operations is within Ibrox Stadium, a UEFA 5 star rated, fully equipped and functional football stadium which covers approximately 6.9 hectares. The UEFA 5 star rating allows the Club to host UEFA Champions League and Europa League finals.

9.12 Ibrox Stadium has an all seating capacity of 51,082 and is regularly sold out for the Club‟s home game fixtures. For the 2011/12 season, there were 37,918 season ticketholders with season ticket prices having been frozen for the previous three years.

9.13 The Joint Administrators’ agents, Lambert Smith, were appointed to provide an indicative valuation of Ibrox Stadium on an existing use and alternative use basis.

Freehold Properties – Murray Park

9.14 Murray Park, the Club’s modern fully equipped training centre covers approximately 15.8 hectares. It was opened on 4 July 2001 after a £14m redevelopment. The training centre is regarded as one of the best in Europe.

9.15 Lambert Smith was also instructed by the Joint Administrators to provide an indicative valuation of Murray Park, on an existing use and alternative use basis.

Leasehold Properties

9.16 The Company is party to various short term leases to support Playing Staff in the Football Academy and other leases in respect of property used by private retailers.

9.17 The Joint Administrators, in conjunction with advice provided by their agents, are reviewing the value of these leases and taking steps to surrender leases where appropriate, whilst still maintaining the operations of the Club.

Albion Road Car Park

9.18 The Albion Road Car Park is subject to a finance agreement and covers an area of approximately 2.6 hectares adjacent to Ibrox Stadium. It is anticipated that the Club will gain right, title and interest to the car park in 2023.”


Next we turn to the CVA Proposal, which can be seen here Rangers FC PLC CVA Proposal.

At page 9 this proposal listed the assets of RFC PLC as follows:- 


Murray Park;

The other heritable properties and leasehold interests of the Company;

The Player Contracts;

The SFA Membership;

The Company‘s share in the SPL;

The Goodwill and intellectual property rights;

Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank;

Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees);

The High Court Proceedings; and

The Player Transfer Fees.


Page 37 of the proposal document gave the various options of a CVA, a sale of the business and liquidation.

The figure attributed to Freehold Properties was only brought out separately in connection with liquidation. It was stated to be £4,590,214.

No value was stated for freehold property under the CVA or asset sale. As the notes put it:-

3. The sale consideration under the New Company scenario has not been apportioned. Under the Liquidation scenario, the club ceases to trade and therefore the player contracts terminate and registrations revert to the SFA and therefore may have no value. There is assumed to be no residual value in any Intellectual Property or Goodwill as the club has ceased to trade.”

The notes then go on to say:-

“4. The estimated realisable value of the freehold properties is based on the Joint Administrators’ agent’s valuation less holding and disposal costs based on a period of two years. It is possible these costs could exceed the gross realisable value rendering the properties onerous and without value.”


Therefore, in the CVA Proposal, dated 29th May 2012, D&P placed a value on the freehold properties of £4,590,214. This however was the value of the assets, based on the valuation prepared by D&P’s instructed valuers, less the cost of holding the assets for two years and then disposing of them.

I know that this saga seems to have taken a long time, but it has not been two years since D&P came on the scene.

Therefore that suggests to me that the actual value of the freehold properties, as assessed by the valuers, was in excess of £4,590,214.

How much did D&P attribute to (a) maintaining the properties for two years, and (b) how much to selling costs?

Taken at 2%, which is being generous to D&P, that would amount, VAT included, to in excess of £100,000. Costs of maintaining all the fixed assets for two years could be in excess of £300,000.

Therefore, on a rough but I think reasonable approach, the value of the freehold properties would be around £5 million at least.

On 14th June 2012, 15 days after that proposal was made, the heritable properties were sold to Sevco for £1.5 million.

I have a couple of questions therefore for D&P and for Mr Green, should he choose to answer them.

1             What was the valuation of the freehold properties arrived at for D&P?

2             How did D&P arrive at the valuation of £4,590,214, as shown in the CVBA Proposal?

3             What figure was stated on the dispositions transferring title to the freehold properties to Sevco?

4             What valuation has been put on those assets for the purposes of Stamp Duty Land Tax?

5             Can D&P explain why assets valued at around £5 million can be sold, two weeks later, for £1.5 million?

I am not suggesting, for the avoidance of doubt, skulduggery or malpractice, nor even misfeasance, on the part of D&P.

However, should BDO, who are about to become liquidators, wish to investigate the matter of gratuitous alienations, and asset sales taking place but for less than the full value, perhaps the above information might prompt them to ask these questions of D&P and of Mr Green and Sevco?

And, talking of undervalues, these assets were shown in the RFC PLC accounts as having a value in excess of £100 million.

Clearly the accurate valuation of land and buildings is an area I am doomed never to understand.


Filed under Administration, Charles Green, Football, Insolvency, Rangers

48 responses to “Duff & Phelps July Report re Rangers Football Club PLC – Review Part 1 – Incredible Shrinking Fixed Assets!

  1. Dean

    The report mentions the sale of the “business, history and assets” but I don’t see “history” in the sale breakdown. Is it part of Goodwill & IP? was it given away as a freebie? I’d have thought such an illustrious footballing history would have commanded a significant price?

  2. Ernesider

    A quotation that sums up Charles Greens present plight:

    ” I have no doubt I shall, please Heaven, begin to be more beforehand with the world, and to live in a perfectly new manner, if -if, in short, anything turns up.”

    A pint in my local to the first person to identify the origin and author.

    • abrahamtoast

      David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.

      Mine’s a Guinness!

      • Ernesider

        The character was Mr Wilkins Micawber

        Micawber Principle, based upon his observation:

        “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

      • Ernesider

        And another relevant Micawberism:

        “Welcome poverty!..Welcome misery, welcome houselessness, welcome hunger, rags, tempest, and beggary! Mutual confidence will sustain us to the end!”

    • wikipediaischeating

      Dickens, David Copperfield, Micawber, ice cold Stella

      Ahh – Abrahamtoast got there first

    • riw1

      Charles appears to figure strongly in your challenge Mr Macawber ! Donate the pint to our host. He deserves it !

      • ecojon

        Niall – yea you’re spot on that’s what I was saying in the post above you – it all depends on the valuation basis and I’m not sure if that is shown in the D&P report. When I get a minute I’ll have another look.

      • ecojon

        Erneside, sorry I posted the valuation thing which should have gone on Niall’s piece.

        As to you quote I could have sworn Bob Diamond said that to the House of Commons Committee 🙂

  3. james larkin

    if at first you practice to deceive…oh, what a tangled web you weave…

    eventually the web will be untangled, and you will be prompted to take leave…

  4. thedogbarks...

    Thats Dickens…David Copperfield or maybe Great Expectations

  5. jeb rover

    Quoth you Dickens? Mr Micawber

  6. james larkin

    © 2012 Herald & Times Group. All rights reserved.

    Go Dutch: what SPL could earn in TV deal

    Published on 11 July 2012

    Chris Tait

    AN official from Eredivisie Live, the television channel responsible for the broadcasting rights of Dutch top-flight football, believes the television deal which was struck between the Scottish Premier League and Sky represents a paltry agreement.

    The contract is reportedly worth around £15m per season to the Premier League but Neil Doncaster, the SPL’s chief executive, and his counterpart at the Scottish Football Association, Stewart Regan, have expressed concerns that the deal could now be torn up, or at least allowed to persist on vastly reduced terms, depending on which league Rangers newco play in next season.

    It is a situation of which Dutch football has some experience. When a bumper three-year contract with new channel Talpa came to an end the league were left with no irresistible bids from other companies. Clubs resolved to take control over their own broadcasting rights, and the subscription-only channel Eredivisie Live was formed.

    The channel – which broadcasts matches from throughout the leagues in Dutch football, as well as national cup competitions and the German Cup – now commands almost 600,000 subscriptions, with prices reaching as high as £18. With Sky subscriptions continuing to rise, the Sky Sports package is £21 on top of the basic subscription fee.

    Maarten van Rooijen, who has been on board at Eredivisie Live since its embryonic stage and now heads communications, has questioned if the SPL have undersold their product.

    “[The Sky deal] seems to be quite small,” said Van Rooijen. “I would have assumed there would have been other competitions, other leagues, in the TV deal as well. I am not sure of how the market is in Scotland, but in Holland the subscription is between £15 and £18 – it depends on the provider and they make their own pricing – but we have deals with each provider. The consumer price varies between £15 and £18, so that is quite low when compared to the UK, I think.”

    “In 2005 we sold the rights for the highlights to Talpa, which was the new channel from media entrepreneur John de Mol, so he had a lot of strategic money available to buy the rights because he wanted to make a big interest with his TV channel. We sold the highlights for £30m and the live rights for £35m, so a total of £65m. That was the highest amount in history for those clubs.

    • John Pollock

      As if we needed any more evidence of incompetence on the part of Doncaster et al. Good post lad.

      • David Wilson

        I did a little digging around and from what I could find on the internet about current tv deals, comparing what the BBC and Sky pay for the EPL and SPL. Sorry to copy it from another forum, but here’s what i could find out:

        Looking at the money that both Sky and the BBC put into Scottish football compared to the EPL. Sky (and BT) have upped their deal this year with the EPL to £3bn – while we remain with our annual £16m. So over the three year period the SPL would receive £48m to the EPL’s £3bn – some 62X more than the SPL receives.

        figures here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/25/bbc-premier-league-highlights

        So the message to Scottish SKY subscribers, your fees basically go to funding the EPL, not the SPL.

        The recent renegotiation for the BBC to have exclusive highlights for the EPL have cost the corporation £180m for three seasons, so £60m a season. Even if we were to borrow the Barnett formula from politics to divide the money between the UK’s constituent nations, Scotland should receive 8.6% (thats our percentage of total UK population) of the £60m a year for our football league.

        That would work out at £5m a year for broadcast rights from the BBC.

        According to ‘The Drum’ – Scotland’s media and advertising magazine, the BBC currently pay £3m for SPL highlights, so going by the Barnett formula, our league is currently underfunded to the extent of £2m a year by the BBC.

        link: http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/10/20….rced-back-do wn

        This deal has finished with the end of the season, so why aren’t we hearing about a new deal ? Is it possible that the BBC are waiting to hear about the outcome of ‘newco’ ?

        If anyone knows of a new BBC deal, please let me know about it !

        In the meantime, hints are from the BBC that the corporation would possibly look to reduce it’s current package, this from Douglas Fraser, BBC Scotland’s business editor back in February this year:

        ‘The BBC has the national rights package for radio commentary, online and TV highlights, and the uncertainty over Rangers’ future puts the corporation in a stronger negotiating position for next season’s deal.’

        Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17045635

        So like Sky, the message to BBC licence fee payers is that our money goes primarily to fund English football rather than Scottish football.

  7. Duncan Brown

    There must be many private houses (houses, not mansions) around the Glasgow area which cost more than “The Big House”, Murray Park and the Albion Car Park – combined. It seems obvious that surveyors must have been inflating house prices and helping to “con” house buyers for years.
    Is that why my hen house is valued at £500,000?

  8. widowtwankie

    Great stuff as usual. forensic and analytical. can’t wait for part 2.
    Re Doncaster and Regan. I once worked with both of them, but I can’t remember which was the front of the horse and which was the other end.

  9. Robert D Bruce


    Did you notice that D&P’s statement does not answer your question as to whom the club was sold. They almost studiously avoid the complete name of who they dealt with calling the company SEVCO only.

    Was it Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland ltd or any other of the numerous Sevco’s listed at Companies House?

    In the circumstances I think that deserves to be answered.

    • Greg72

      In the ‘Definitions’ Section of the report, ‘Sevco’ is defined as ‘Sevco Scotland Limited’ – no mention anywhere that I can see of Sevco 5088 Limited.

  10. widowtwankie

    I also worked with Clarke and Whitehouse, and strangely enough, they were both the horse’s @rs

  11. ecojon

    I have been again looking at the D&P report and one thing I can’t see is any payment of Business Rates. Checking on Ibrox Stadium it has a Rateable Value of just under £2 miilion per annum. Applying a Rate Poundage of 50p to that figure means they would pay £1 million a year for the stadium – I reckon the poundage could be as high as 60p in the £ btw.

    On top of the stadium a lot of the offices are rated separately and again there is no payments in the D&P Report that I can see. Maybe it’s staring me in the face but I can’t see it. Same goes for Albion carpark and Murray PArk which are rated separately

    So does anyone know whether Rangers is listed as a creditor of Glasgow District Council up to the end of March this year and have any Council Tax payments been made since D&P took over.

  12. ecojon

    Paul – you have raised the issue of valuation differences. This can arise depending on what basis the valuation firm is asked to value eg as a going concern or as a carpark for sake of argument. The question here is whether we are seeing a like for like comparism or are valuing limes against oranges.

  13. Niall Walker

    Afternoon Paul,

    The discrepancy of £3 million between the value and sale price may be the demolition costs of Ibrox( except the frontage), the stadium itself has no realisable value, only the land it sits on. The stadium is literally a white( asbestos) elephant until the newco is in the SPL and eligible for Europe, any clever investor is only going to pay what he will get back in a worst case scenario, and Mr Green has done his homework.

    • David Wilson

      I understand what you are saying Niall, but surely the issue isn’t with what Mr Green paid for it, it’s what Duff and Phelps accepted for it. Paul’s perfectly valid question on why £1.5m was acceptable for Ibrox by Duff and Phelps surely needs to be answered as at the time, being the appointed administrators, they were supposed to be acting on behalf of the creditors. Accepting less than their own market valuation and therefore possibly denying creditors of funds is at the least, embarrassing for the firm.

      • ecojon


        It all goes back to the valuation basis. First valuation could be Rangers as a going concern remaining in the SPL and Europe for sake of argument and lower valuation might be as a cleared site with Listed facade left as Niall said. D&P can argue changed circumstances to justify the difference.

        So I suppose it hangs on legal arguments as to whether they should have tried to see what they got for just a property sale and not an ongoing football club no longer in the SPL or Europe. But I suspect the D&P argument would be they couldn’t go back to the market because they had made a binding legal agreement with sevco.

      • David Wilson

        Thanks ecojon, see where you are coming from.

  14. Gobsmacked

    It seems we are all relying on BDO to be the White Knights to get some justice (and cash) for the long forgotten victims of this sad affair …………. the Creditors !!

  15. I am a little surprised that the news agency copy has led with Green’s purchase of the player contracts for £2.75m, rather than the £1.5m he paid for Ibrox et al… The impression being created is that this purchase of the contracts (a) is news – the fact that he bought them, rather than the sum and (b) somehow backs his stance on TUPE.
    Please could someone confirm that my suspicions and fears on this are the result of increasing paranoia brought on by my slight over-dependence on tramadol… Thank you.

    • ecojon

      Mark – the media have been fed a line and swallowed it as it suits Green. The media were probably told by Rangers PR that this bit in the D&P reports proves that Green/sevco bought their contracts.

      This of course is nonsense in the sense that of course Sevco bought the players as assets and that would obviously include their contracts. What should have been obvious to dim-witted reporters is that the pitiful amount paid of £2.75 million demonstrates that the D&P knew that the players’ contracts were worth next to nothing if a Tupe event took place. Green should have known that as well and if he didn’t he ain’t much of a businessman.

      If there had been no Tupe event then even in a fire sale I reckon a minimum of £20 million could have been raised on the players – but I have never seen the details of the contract clause amendments they signed after agreeing to the wage cut reducing their transfer value. Perhaps that is what has produces the £2.75 million figure.

  16. Robert D Bruce

    Thanks to Greg72 for pointing me in the direction of the reference to Sevco Scotland Ltd in the D&P statement definitions section.

    The CVA proposal says the following……

    Offer of Loan to Company
    4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer
    was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (―Sevco‖) to make a loan on certain terms (explained
    below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.
    4.18 Having considered the offer from Sevco and compared it to other offers received for the
    Company / business and assets, the Joint Administrators determined that the Sevco offer was
    preferable because it:
    secures the best available return to creditors of the Company; and
    proposes a CVA in respect of the Company, the benefits of which are outlined in
    paragraph 2.10.
    4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter
    with Sevco (―the Offer Letter‖) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the
    Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made
    a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity.
    4.20 The Offer Letter is confidential between Sevco and the Company, but the principal terms are
    as follows:
    4.20.1 In addition to the £200,000 referred to in Paragraph 4.19, Sevco agrees to advance
    to the Company the sum of £8,300,000;
    4.20.2 £8,300,000 will be available for draw down by the Company no later than 31 July
    2012, but only once certain conditions (the ―Conditions‖) are satisfied;
    4.20.3 The Company will repay the Loan together with interest on it on or before 31
    December 2020; and
    4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a
    floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.
    4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management
    of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in
    order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition
    in ownership.
    4.22 The relevant Conditions of the Offer Letter for the purposes of this document include the
    4.22.1 Approval of this Proposal;
    4.22.2 The Joint Administrators being discharged from office as Joint Administrators within
    14 days after the end of the period permitted for challenge by creditors to any
    approved CVA;4.22.3 The time period under the Insolvency Act 1986 for bringing any application to
    challenge the CVA having expired without any such application being made or if such
    challenge is made such challenge being dismissed by the competent court;
    4.22.4 Sevco acquiring the Group Shares (Sevco holds an irrevocable written undertaking
    from Group to sell the Group Shares to Sevco for £1, conditional upon approval by
    the creditors and members of the Company of a CVA);
    4.22.5 the Takeover Panel confirming that Sevco shall not be required to make any offer for
    any share capital other than the Group Shares, under Rule 9 of the City Code on
    Takeovers and Mergers notwithstanding the acquisition of the Group Shares; and
    4.22.6 all consents or other requirements of the SPL and SFA having been obtained or
    complied with so that Rangers Football Club can continue to participate in such
    domestic leagues and competitions as it currently participates in.
    4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not
    satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business
    and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have
    been agreed in advance and are confidential.

    While there seems to be an agreement to provide funds in early May by Sevco 5088 this never happened according to D&P’s latest report.

    Sevco Scotland Ltd did not come into existence until 29th May 2012.

    There may be a reasonable explanation as to who advanced the £200,000 and who didn’t but I’d have expected dumb and dumber to have made that explanation clear in their latest report.

    Curiouser and Curiouser.

    Maybe we can get a magician to come to the pantomime and see if he can spot the slight of hand.

    Dynamo maybe! he’s magic!

    • ecojon

      Robert – Could the £200K have been the ‘funny’ money which Ian Hart donated and was eventually ‘found lying about in the youth department’ – according to the RFFF Minute of Green’s meeting last week Hart is now a shareholder in his consortium and I wonder could that be the ‘lying about’ money, which originally came from a loan, which has been converted into shares?

  17. Hugh Jarse

    As a CA with over 20 years professional experience I have never encountered anything quite so bizarre as this.

    The conduct of the administration has left my gast well and truly flabbered. What is most amazing is the things that are going on in plain sight. If I have time later I’ll pull together a lst of questions that this D&P document raises. But for now I will raise just one:

    Why, on earth, have D&P conducted an administration that created a trading loss of £4 million?

    One could almost justify this course IF by trading through to June (when the transfer window reopened) significant sums were raised through player transfers PRIOR to an asset sale. However, to effectively give these away whilst simultaneously selling the assets for less than the combined total of the trading loss plus administrators fees requires an incredible stretch to be seen as fulfilling the statutory duty to Creditors.

    It appears clear to me from this report that the creditors would have got a better result by shutting up shop in February and selling the assets to the highest bidder.

    • Hugh Jarse

      Also it is worth looking at the appendices and questioning why certain expenditure is happening. Post Feb costs are, effectively, playing with Creditors money. How do you justify, for example, £100k plus to Media House?

      • ecojon

        I think Media House will end up getting a lot more than £100K – they are expensive because they really are about the only crisis PR company in Scotland which helps make them the best. But they represent D&P and I keep wondering whose pulling the consortium’s PR strings as it’s definitely going on – you can taste it in the print media and on the internet.

    • Niall Walker

      Good evening Hugh,

      Hindsight is 20-20, D&P had to take a shot at a CVA since it would have returned more to the creditors, the fact it failed and ” possibly ” led to a reduced price for the assets may be a mute point.
      My particular query with D&P concerns Craig Whyte’s blatant breach of HMRC’s conditions, the administrators must have been aware of them and must have known any CVA would be rejected. This begs the question why a CVA Route was attempted at all, and the answer must be self interest.

      • Hugh Jarse

        It didn’t require much hindsight to work out what the results would look like for that period. The first thing D&P would (should?) have done would be to do projections through to the end of the season. They will have known they would trade at a less and should have had a strategy to deal with it.

        Administrators are not there to gamble with Creditors money.

      • Den


        You say that D&P had to take a shot at a CVA as it would have returned more to the Creditors, but then criticise D&P for going ahead when a CVA would fail against the HMRC guidelines. The CVA as proposed would have failed anyone’s criteria, half arsed would be high praise for that attempt.

        A CVA need only be attempted if it is likely that it will yield more for the Creditors, In this case it was a non starter so shouldn’t have been attempted.

        As Administrators D&P had more access to information than anyone else and presumably the expertise to make decisions based on this. They had the added advantage of being closely involved with Rangers over the year before being appointed.

        The best they can come up with is a liquidated Company, £4m post administration loss and the most valuable players have walked for nothing, and they never hit a deadline except if their invoices were on time.

        The only way out for Rangers was for some Billionaire with ambitions to be a Millionaire to bale them out. It would have taken £70+ million to get a working CVA, the bids in the region of £10 and lower were a waste of time and D&P should have moved for liquidation early.

        Result is the same but 4 months and millions of pounds later.

  18. Goosy

    Can D&P explain why assets valued at around £5 million can be sold, two weeks later, for £1.5 million?
    Perhaps the low valuation reflects annual interest payments on a floating charge debt of £27.4m due to Liberty Corporate ?
    Two years at 7.5% would be around £4m

  19. ian lewis

    Mr Hugh Jarse you have just landed a telling kick straight to the bahookie.The reason what has happened HAS happened is because the administrators ran the administration for the benefit of the club,its employees,the administrators and the purchasers.The creditors finished this race a few laps behind.If I was cynical I might think that this was the intention from the off.

    • Hugh Jarse

      This is my suspicion also.

      The result of this will no doubt keep many in the legal profession in fees for a while.

      Oh and D&P, good luck getting your fees paid.

  20. Thelegendthatis

    Updated http://honestyinsport.weebly.com/ today.

    Will be putting up information tomorrow afternoon (about 3.30) to encourage everyone who cares about getting the right answer for Scottish football to act together. Creating a stronger voice.

    See you there.

    If anyone is a member of a club forum, would appreciate you cross posting. We will need all hands on deck. I can see the iceberg, while others shuffle the deckchairs.

  21. this is much more entertaining than work!

    Interesting that the report’s definitions include TUPE, but the text makes no mention of it — accidentally forgot to put it in perhaps?

  22. Niall Walker

    Good morning Den,

    I highlighted the obvious contradiction to demonstrate the two faces of D&P, I agreed with their public facade of a CVA because it would return more to the creditors, and since D&P had been liasing with HMRC i presumed all the conditions for its acceptance had been met.
    However according to HMRC the rejection was inevitable not just on price but because of Craig Whytes gross breach of CVA conditions..

    It is inconceivable D&P were not aware of these breaches and yet continued with the CVA route with prospective buyers who were unwilling to make a significant offer to the creditors.

    Very odd strategy, I personally don’t think creditors would have gained anything from early liquidation, but at least the current mess would have been given more time to resolve itself.

    It seems to me D&P capitalised on the hopes of all Rangers fans to save their club’s history knowing full well it was a lost cause.

  23. Pingback: For Sevco’s £5.5m It Bought all Rangers’ Players, Fixed Assets, Goodwill AND £2.67m prize money | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s