Niall’s Thoughts On Why Duff & Phelps Did Not Try To Sell Rangers Players

To All concerned regarding D&P’s decision not to sell players while in administration.

I stated D&P could not sell outwith the transfer window, and this may strictly not be true, and incredible as it may seem I may be wrong.

They may have sought special permission from the SPL. I am only saying ” may ” because I cannot confirm if the SPL has the same rules as the EPL, the same conditions applied or they had asked and it was refused. However if I have made an error then you will all forgive me.

Professional bodies tend to make decisions in the full public glare for a reason, so why did they not ask for special permission, and here are some of the reasons.

1. Rangers and Portsmouth are chalk and cheese, the former was a fully functioning business that up to CW was managing its debt,a ready made product back in its tailor made market, and the latter, a relegated basket case with no future. Its safe to say Rangers was worth more as a going concern than Portsmouth, there is a different emphasis when Portsmouth had no cash and Rangers had enough to look at other options.

2. Portsmouth had to give away their top payers, clubs do not offer you much money for a player they cannot use for 3 months, the same time they could get them for nothing ??

3. The market for Rangers players had been fully tested in January, an agent told me everyone was for sale, and they sold one.

4. D&P calculate the potential return of flogging players in one month against flogging them if they refuse a pay cut in a months time, and the reduction of Rangers value as an intact business.

5. Pay cuts allow Rangers to trade until end of season and be sold in tact, it was not sold and was broken up in a liquidated sale.

Now the only action we can debate is guessing how much they would have got selling top players versus the loss to Rangers CVA market value, which was 8.5 million. There is no point in selling 5 top players for 2 million if it reduces the market value by 2 million. I really think you need to look at the timing of the winding up, it was too close to the end of the season to expect anyone with a brain to buy a Rangers player in March, when they could get them for nothing in May. In fact why would they do that, nobody was exactly queuing up for them ???

So, assuming D&P could get permission ( I demand proof), then why would they ask for it, it was not in the best interests of the creditors.

I identified something a year ago, it is unfortunate for vengeful Celtic fans that Rangers was worth more fully intact to the creditors, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Anyone who denies Rangers was worth more as a fully functioning company through a CVA cannot add…… the difference was 3 million.

Its possible D&P may have been able to seek permission, my full comments below, but I am quite happy to admit I am wrong to you but no one else, so don’t tell anyone, keep schtumm.

A few extra points I didn’t note in my War and Peace effort, the players only lost their value once the CVA failed, and ironically and damagingly the bill for D&P was 2.7 million, and the difference between a CVA and a liquidated sale was 3 million…..coincidence eh ?

The next argument is why did D&P think the CVA would succeed, and that is a tricky one to answer, HMRC did say they would consider it and I suppose opened a crack in the door for them to make £ 2.7 million in fees, while doing a public service in keeping Rangers alive, and paying their taxes.

Posted by Niall

Advertisements

496 Comments

Filed under Guest Posts, Rangers

496 responses to “Niall’s Thoughts On Why Duff & Phelps Did Not Try To Sell Rangers Players

  1. Fra

    For us laymen, I will sum up what has transpired.

    Minty Moonbeams was allowed to spend the banks dosh.
    He spent far too much in the pursuit of silverware.
    He loved the limelight and became reckless in a financial sense.
    He took cash from Dave King and NEIC(sic) and wasted it.
    His empire came tumbling down.
    He wasn’t conned by Craig Whyte.
    He was a shitebag who couldn’t face the music.
    Enter Craigy Whyte who ain’t got wealth of the radar.
    He was an asset stripper who thought he would make millions
    Toxic club was a financial basket case needing £10 mill a month
    CL cash was needed but Sally ballsed that up
    SFA try to cheat and scam. No different from the spivs
    They get papped into bottom rung of Scottish football
    Craig and his cohorts decide to strip the place and bugger off
    SFA tell us Craig is bad but around the dinner table, it’s all good
    Enter Chuckles with his big hands to help strip the place.
    Craigy and Chuckles conspire to get Ibrox for peanuts
    Alls going well until they get greedy. (Always the case)
    Appease the troops, sell S/Ts and pocket the dosh.
    Get found out, accept the inevitable and pocket more dosh
    Real rangers men appalled and force a coup.
    The spivs are hunted and chased for ever.

    (Still to be played out as we speak)

    Minty and The Cardie come to the rescue to save THEIR club
    The Cardie helps Sally coz he’s useless.
    It will be a long road for a dead entity but it’s Minty Moonbeams
    He saved them from the baddies (he caused it all but sssshhhhhhh)
    The hordes will empty their pockets for the tribute act.
    The SFA will cling to their positions and salaries.
    Peter Lawwell was the main culprit in all of this
    The lodges and orange Hals will toast the comeback
    The SFA will all pat themselves on the back and get a salary increase
    The crowds will have dwindled because of the corrupt establishment
    You cannot defeat them because they are the people.

    A little addendum to the above:

    They were defeated. THEY DIED.
    No amount of funny handshakes can change that fact.
    Liquidation means DEATH
    DEATH means no history to continue

    What a beautiful day. The sun is shining, the toxics club is dead and we have a cup final to partake in. It’s a lovely place without the hatred and bigotry from that toxic entity.

  2. Niall Walker

    What a glorious day and what a round of golf, now all I need to make my life complete is to give barca yet another sound thrashing in basic logic and economics.

    Fantasizing that sold players would not reduce the bid price is evidence of economic ignorance.
    Fantasizing about what players could have been sold for 2 months before they walk free is evidence of an absence of logic..
    Fantasizing about a rigged bid in a public auction is evidence of an absence of common sense.
    Fantasizing that any player who waked free after the sale is even relevant to any of the above, is evidence of clutching at straws because their fantasies have been exposed in public.

    What a load of tosh from oor barca, now watch this drive !!!

    • barcabuster

      @ Niall. Fantasizing that sold players would not reduce the bid price is evidence of economic ignorance. .
      The players walked for free. It did not alter the sale price…..FACT. Fantasizing about what players could have been sold for 2 months before they walk free is evidence of an absence of logic..
      Transfer figures were from a reputable source.FACT. The players could not walk for free in the event of a successful CVA. FACT. More Wonga in the creditors pot, would have enhanced the chances of CVA success. FACT. Fantasizing about a rigged bid in a public auction is evidence of an absence of common sense. It fooled you! FACT. . Fantasizing that any player who waked free after the sale is even relevant to any of the above, is evidence of clutching at straws because their fantasies have been exposed in public. Your argument was based on the fact that players could not be sold, and that retaining their services actually enhanced the value to creditors.
      I had 10 minutes to spare, so I thought I would prove you wrong on both counts.
      I have now done that!
      SLAP. SLAP
      Persisting to try to engage me in further debate will provoke the default setting on my scroll past digit.
      Again I wish you luck in your attempts to gain credibility.

      • Niall Walker

        ” The players walked for free. It did not alter the sale price…..FACT.”

        The players walked for free after the CVA was rejected, and it altered the sales price by 3 million, the reduced price reflected some of this potential loss, FACT.

        ” Transfer figures were from a reputable source.FACT.”

        Transfer figures were fictional speculation, unless your reputable source is omniscient, FACT.

        ” The players could not walk for free in the event of a successful CVA.”

        Eureka, our boy has got it, now you know why the administrators said a CVA would return more to the creditors, the players had a value in the event of a CVA and this value was reflected in the price,, you are committing debating suicide, FACT.

        ” Fantasizing about a rigged bid in a public auction is evidence of an absence of common sense. It fooled you! FACT ”

        You forgot to provide any evidence supported by the ISA or BDO, until such time it remains your fantasy, FACT.

        “Your argument was based on the fact that players could not be sold, and that retaining their services actually enhanced the value to creditors.”

        IN THE EVENT OF A CVA, which was the stated preference of the administrators, they did not sell players because a CVA ( as you have just admitted) prevents the players from going free. FACT.

        You are now contradicting your own facts and doing my job for me, hello down there, when are you going to stop digging, how is Australia ?

        What I just love is your condescension, it is Walter Mitty stuff, I have all the evidence and logic, and you have your internet bampot fantasies that no one in their right mind believes.

        You come anytime you hear !!!!

        • arb urns

          niall ask yourself this …. who let the players walk for free….?

        • Niall,

          Once again you ignore the Real Facts to continue with what-IF-ery.

          If you want to talk about the Real monetary issues concerning the CVA, then do so accurately.

          The Truth is the rejection of the CVA brought in £5.5m in payment for the RFC assets.

          Acceptance of the CVA would have resulted in an £8.5m DEBT + Interest payments on it. The losses to the Creditors would have been the licence to print money for the Spivs…

          The Creditors decided this was not going to happen, so there the story ended… RFC into an ongoing Liquidation process & a gerrymandered start for Sevco.

          It is all a nonsense anyway.

          RFC did not survive & The Sevco Model is proving to be as unsuccessful in balancing the books as they were prior to Administration.

          The ongoing Sevco scandal is of more interest than Old RFC what_IF-ery, if HALF of it is True it is a National scandal that it has been allowed to go on unchecked by the SFA…

          Now THAT is worth a debate.

  3. JamboCol1874

    was enjoying the debate until montii and cam appeared.

    We don’t half have some cretins in our society.

    • Niall Walker

      Jambo,

      Seriosly, how good am I at debating, its a wonderful sight, especially when your opponents seeth and lash out …lol.

      • Den

        Seriously I am a bit disappointed that you have the need to crow about how good you are.

        I reckoned you could have provided some good input to this blog but you just seem to throw in some imagined situations and Stoke things up.

        Like I said I thought you were better than this rubbish.

        To paraphrase ” Adam’s search for his apprentice continues”.

  4. Charlie Greens bid for the CVA was an £8.5m loan to RFC so he could own them, and get his £8.5m back

    His bid for an asset sale was a £5.5m, cash offer. not to be repaid by NEWCO

    Green was under the impression he had the players tied up under their existing contracts,held by DEADCO, to his NEWCO as part of his asset purchase price, he went to court to try to get Tupe law overthrow,
    if memory serves ,he did manage to con some money out of one or two clubs .Davis for one I am sure,although Davis never Tuped over.

    how does that square with your claim below,

    “The players walked for free after the CVA was rejected, and it altered the sales price by 3 million, the reduced price reflected some of this potential loss, FACT.”

    • Niall Walker

      coatbrig,

      It seems to square ok, the two conditions are poles apart in terms of guaranteed return, so what if CG squeezed a few quid, its nothing compared to contractual obligation.

  5. You state the sales price was altered by £3m

    Green offers to buy the big house by loaning the club £8.5 million, to ge repaid in full to him over approx 8 years at approx 9%Pa interest,

    Green would own the big hooose plus get all his money back.

    he had to settle for PAYING OUT a non returnable £5.5m

    what price do you think suited Green best, saving £3m or splashing out £8.5m as a loan.

    • Niall Walker

      coatbrig,

      You and I would have to see the fine details of both bids, we just cannot guess which option suited him best, in my mind, the footballing sanctions alone tend toward a CVA for the best financial return.

      • “we just cannot guess which option suited him best…”

        Pay £5.5 million in cash, or lend them £8.5 million, repayable with interest. That, much like yourself, is a no-brainer.

  6. charliedon

    @Niall
    You really will have to try and remember your lecture to me. “Please don’t self proclaim victories”. Practise what you preach and all that, you know.

    Anyway, I had to go to sleep last night before you posted your reply to me and I’m just back on now. I think the crux of the matter is the amount of money D&P could have realised for the sale of every player of value set against the amount of any reduction in value that would cause in the sale of assets. That, I think, is a matter of some considerable conjecture so I don’t think you can claim any sort of victory in the debate. I would suggest Charles Green, by his own admission, would “have done anything to get his hands on Rangers” so I reckon a decent price would still have been extracted from him. That, plus the value of the transfer fees could have obtained a better result for the creditors. That remains my opinion. Yours may differ, but neither of us can claim certain victory.

    There also remains the issue that D&P seem to think they could include the players contracts in an asset sale and they were wrong. Incompetence from supposedly expert insolvency practitioners.

    • Niall Walker

      charlie,

      I am sorry I have disappointed you, I will try and be good.

      The creditors get more in a CVA, the company is worth more with the players, the administrator plans a strategy to achieve both, he has a lot of balls to juggle and will take the path of least resistance, public failure is not good for business.
      Players are not androids, once an administrator tries to flog these assets the game changes, all bridges are burned, its everyone for themselves, this includes the players, the playing staff and most importantly the fans, a complete meltdown of an intact club.
      ,No pay cuts, no discounted transfer value, no full stadium,, no loyalty,…end of CVA, go straight to liquidation sale.

      Celtic fans wanted the players sold because they wanted Rangers dismantled, broken up, humiliated, just like Portsmouth and Leeds.
      The thought of Rangers getting away with it with an intact squad and fully functioning club incenses them, its just blinkered hate.

      A bunch of obsessive fans with little inside knowledge or experience declaring Rangers was worth more if it was broken up into parts,its just schoolboy stuff. Most couldn’t tell if a balance sheet was upside down, realty experts guessing at property values based on book values and best for last, a lunatic who thinks Rangers could have got 10 million by selling 10 players a few months before the season end at half price !!!!!
      Seemingly his source is not only reputable but a freakin psychic with a drug problem, half price my ass, try 2 months wages if anything, no one queuing up to buy them, no rush.
      I would tell my agent to go and jump if he suggested Rangers was going to get any of my money, they can’t afford my wages and are trying to flog me like an asset!! Why should I be loyal to Rangers, say no and sit back, either way I am getting all the money at the end of the season.

      Nutters find my balance annoying, they respond with jibes, and my jibes are just as good as my arguments.

  7. Your blog claimed that HMRC considered a CVA, countless times i’ve asked you to prove it,
    your posting statements that D&P had a FEELING,that HMRC would approve a CVA,
    Green claimed a nod and a wink,

    you say in the blog that HMRC considered a CVA ,no they did not, prove me wrong,

    your claiming that HMRC should have came out and forced D&P to say this or that, that’s not their remit, they wait for the administrators to do their job, they then agree or disagree on a CVA.

    you also got to the ridiculous stage in one of your replies that the big tax case judgement affected the CVA outcome, although the CVA outcome happened 5 months before the BTC judgement got announced, you tried to re word your claim that the BIG tax Case”DEFEAT£ as you called it moved CVA to reject the CVA, by time travel was it,

    this was your first reply
    most thought the CVA would be rejected because of the BTC victory and yet it was rejected because of the BTC defeat.

    you then claimed you said this,
    I said the CVA was rejected because the BTC had not been won, it was still ongoing,

    your attempt at a rewrite is childish

    • Niall Walker

      coatbrig,

      If you wish to believe D&P lied in public for 3 months and misled all bidders over the CVA then off you go, no worries. If you wish to believe HMRC as the largest creditor had no dealings with D&P over these 3 months then go for it. If you wish to believe HMRC would sit back and allow D&P to waste creditor money on a CVA they had confirmed was doomed, then go and buy a Celtic flag.

      You are being biased, and the BDO will prove it but you will claim conspiracy.

      • Niall, The issue is NOT what anyone else believes, it is about You putting up some Factual evidence to support your Position.

        I did not read anyone saying HMRC had no dealings with D&P, you introduced that. one.

        You were asked to submit proof of your contention that HMRC were considering accepting a CVA.

        In a previous post you go to great lengths to involve Celtic Supporters & their wishes into the Equation.. Celtic Supporters had NO input into the process, so their personal feelings have no consequence in the result of the CVA.

        The actions of D&P did however have a great input & their actions ,or lack of them had a big impact on the decision to reject the CVA..

        I have already written that had D&P paid off The Manager & Coaching Staff, Support Staff, the majority of the senior Playing Staff then sufficient cuts would have been made to satisfy the Creditors that every effort had been made

        In a reply to Fra you said “Noble sentiments until one realizes you are actually taking about men kicking a round object back and forward, then it loses its spirituality.” You are right, it should have been a basic business decision to cut to the core & get the overhead under control, The fact it was Rangers made that not a viable decision to take.

        You can’t satisfy BOTH the Emotional & Business sides of Football when it comes to cuts.

        The Creditors decided that the CVA was not viable nor was it in their interest to support it.

        RFC did NOT have a sustainable Business Model, it does not appear that Sevco have created one either, the Emotional needs of the fans are being catered to.

        The pretence that this is a giant climbing back has cost the basis of a successful restart by the looks of things, all that money wasted to maintain a Big Club Image in a small part time League.

        If Honesty had taken over & the flaws of the past Model, including the consequences, been admitted I am sure the core of the Rangers support would have gathered around in the initial year of the new Rangers,

        I also believe that money raised could have went towards building a smaller,leaner Club which would have climbed the Leagues.

        • Niall Walker

          Ian,
          You are in deep trouble if this is purely a battle of facts:

          FACT1: Everyone bidding for a CVA or Newco believed Rangers was a sustainable business model,they had access to the accounts and their bid make this a self evident fact. What you believe to be frank is a complete irrelevance.
          FACT2. D&P have not been proven guilty of any wrong doing, you are accusing them of lying and it is up to you to prove their guilt, not me to prove their innocence.
          FACT 3 What you believe would have been better for the creditors is irrelevant, the BDO will rule soon, and then we will see who is right and wrong. No creditors have complained about D&P, the only people screaming foul are anti-Rangers pseudo experts with no insolvency experience.

          • “Everyone bidding for a CVA or Newco believed Rangers was a sustainable business model,they had access to the accounts and their bid make this a self evident fact.”

            That would be why Bill Miller ran a mile when he discovered a £30 million black hole in the accounts then?

      • …”the BDO will prove it…”

        FFS can you get nothing right? It’s just BDO, not THE BDO.

  8. your at it again,
    show us were HMRC said they were considering a CVA, their job is to wait until the administrators do THEIR job then they make a decision, simple, how could HMRC consider a cva when they had no idea what the cva details where, eh?

    HMRC, you appear to be working on the premise that HMRC somehow had the right to dictate to the administrators, D&P had to put together the cva,the creditors (hmrc) have to wait to see what the offer is, as soon as HMRC received those figures they made a very public announcement, no cva.

    as for D&P, they told every one that Whytes shares were not needed to complete the cva, truth or lie ?

    keep waving your wee Sevco flag,

    tell us again how lossing the tax case swayed the cva judgement,that was a cracker

    • Niall Walker

      coatbrig,

      Your case is D&P were lying, mine is they were not, neither of us can prove it, we then must rely on what is most probable, and my case is certainly more probable than your fantasy conspiracy.

      • You say D&P could not have lied, my point is they told every one that Whytes shares were not needed by person that pulled off a cva, a LIE,
        no fantasy, plenty of links to this.
        your saying that HMRC should have went beyond their remit, that they should have forced D&P do do this or that, that’s all fantasy on your part not mine, you allocate powers to the tax man that he does not have, to try to prove your point, SAD.

        your claim that the CVA was rejected due to the big tax case decision is beyond fantasy,
        you claimed something that happened 5 months after the cva failed affected the cva’s outcome,
        please explain,as you claimed how the big tacx case outcome affected the outcome of the CVA

        • Niall Walker

          coatbrig,

          D&P made it very clear CW’s shares were needed in a cva, don’t know what you are talking about mate.
          HMRC as creditors are not going beyond their remit to inform the administrator to stop wasting creditors money pursuing a CVA, it is not beyond their remit to publicly deny D&Ps claim they would consider a CVA, the process lasted months and it was in the full glare of the media
          Do you have any proof D&P lied, if not why do you think they lied ?

          Read HMRCs statement it is obvious they wished to pursue the BTC and CW, CW was not there for years, in my opinion the outstanding appeal sealed the fate of the CVA, if the case had been won by HMRC then I believe they may have accepted the CVA.

          Yet again you have no evidence to prove the CVA would never be accepted under any conditions.

          All these conspiracy theories lack evidence, its just pure guesswork.

  9. Fra

    @Niall….I was enjoying your earlier contributions and did think much was relevant when others didn’t,l but it’s now fell away and is resembling an upmarket Carson. Disappointed from this end mate. Cut out the self back slapping as I and assume many others find nauseating.

    ie. Return to your former self. You’ll feel much better for it.

  10. Alexander Doherty

    Why not walk away the players had no club to stay with
    Old club gone new club not yet started fair play to the lads work is work
    Best of luck with there new clubs can not stay with dead club lets be honest

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