tangent60

The best strategy for Rangers is to continue to fund legal practitioners to pursue legal strategies to defend Rangers' interests. I took a quick read of the official output on the Rangers.co.uk this morning, and thought that Mr Keen's approach was sound. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2775049 While the exact details of the approach are not set-out (and nor should they be), some clues are given. (1) The early paragraphs (in particular, the third and fourth paragraphs) reveal that arguments will be made against the competency of the prior decisions against the club (and inparticular, the transfer ban I would assume). This is a good approach, and one that I think is on strong ground. (2) The latter (Jardine) paragraphs, in my opinion, focus on mitigating factors. This is because, ultimately, you cannot (yet) lift the "corporate veil" to get at individual directors (although there have been some rare instances of that, but they are arguably not representative of the general law). The company remains culpable. So, it is my opinion that, at best, Jardine's comments in the latter paragraphs (which are representative of broad-based fan views in my opinion) relate to prior evidence that can be described as mitigating factors only. (Out of interest, mitigating factors may be enough to see a penalty reduced, albeit not set aside.) There may also be other arguments that have not been hinted at on the official site.

I am growing tired of Mr Leggat. Rangers don't need a blogger who is merely a propagandist for one particular group. Rangers need responsible bloggers who try to look at all the groups vying for control of Rangers objectively, who seek the facts, first and foremost. Giving fans access to plain, unspun facts is arguably a better way for the support to achieve clearer and better thinking.

Two things: (1) In my opinion, you misread the OP's post. In my view, it is in fact critical of the P.Murray/B.Kennedy group's approach to buying Rangers. (2) There is no need to steer this thread into a debate on the likelihood of a CVA's success. There will be another specific thread for that.

If Mr Kennedy had sumbitted a superior (and sufficient) liquid cash component to the creditor's pot in his offer, he would be owner of Rangers. Perhaps "No Name" should take that on board, instead of seeking to insult fellow Rangers fans.

I can see why Mr Green is the frontman. The financial persons behind him want a "hard" figurehead,* which makes sense, given the challenges that face Rangers. (*Out of interest, that is why I was interested in Mr Kennedy returning with a stronger cash offer.)

I'd agree with the majority of what the OP has said there. The only slight edit I would make is that I'd be open to seeing Mr Kennedy (who appears to have reasonable resources) go alone with a solid cash offer (i.e., a "very liquid" offer), if, that is, he can. I believe a (liquid) cash offer involving ~£8m-£8.5m to the creditor's pot would do it. It could be a good idea to remove the reliance on European football from the bid, which reads like a gamble, and is money that cannot be seen as "unconditional". There are other elements that should perhaps be rephrased or removed, such as a stipulation that football creditors were to be paid in full, and yet, not HMRC -- which could be troublesome for any CVA agreement (either for a straight CVA or a CVA on the old company after assets are purchased into a new company). The only thing better than that, in my opinion, would be to see a party such as McColl enter and blow everyone else away. As to the exact nature of any plan -- (i) straight CVA or (ii) asset purchase into new company, plus CVA on old company -- I am open to either, so long as the bidder has sufficient financial resources.

The people that put pressure on the administrators are the creditors, the largest and most significant being HMRC. If a creditor such as HMRC feels that the administrators are not acting in the best interests of creditors as a whole, they can petition the court to get rid of them. They have not done so (so far), implying (so far) that they are satisfied with the job they are doing. As to Kennedy and P.Murray, I'd hope they can come back with an improved cash offer tonight or tomorrow morning. In fact, I'd be amenable to seeing Mr Kennedy making his own move, be it (i) a straight CVA plan or (ii) a plan comprised of an asset purchase into a new company, then a CVA on the old company. Even more preferable would be to see someone like McColl make a move and blow everyone else out of the water.

That is not strictly accurate. The options for Rangers, should no buyer of sufficient financial power make an acceptable (and successful) bid for the club, are as follows: (i) the club limps on in administration, for as long as it can. This will require asset sales -- namely, player sales, further weakening the club. The other possibility is extended wage-cuts, but I think that is unlikely. The company can limp along in administration for a period of 12 months, or longer with agreement from the court or creditors. (I personally don't think the club could limp along for long -- the timeline I would estimate for that path would be a short one.) (ii) when it is no longer possible for the club to limp along in administration, it is deemed to be irredeemably insolvent, resulting in a winding-up/liquidation process (under which, Rangers' assets -- players, land, property, and anything else -- are indiscriminately broken-up and sold to raise monies for creditors). Given the grave nature of the above, if there is indeed movement from a party/group which has not yet been revealed, and this party/group has the financial power to ensure Rangers' security/well-being, I would be pleased and relieved about that. As to the exact plan -- (i) straight CVA or (ii) asset purchase into new company, CVA on old company -- I am open to either.

A good article. I do hope that a way out of this is found -- i.e., that winding-up/liquidation of the company as it stands is avoided -- and that ultimately Rangers never find themselves in this situation again.

There is an equal argument to be made that there is no chance of getting a straight-CVA (the P.Murray/B.Kennedy plan) on the current company either. (Certainly not within an acceptable time-frame, if ever.) If a straight-CVA plan fails or is not accepted, the club is back to its current position. That means it continues, on application, to limp along in administration, either (i) up to a limit of 12 months (if it can), or past that point (if it can, subject to approval of creditors or the court), or (ii), simply up until the point where the company is deemed irredeemably insolvent and is wound-up/liquidated in its current form (whereby the assets are indiscriminately dismantled and sold-off to raise monies for creditors). Failure of a straight-CVA plan (the P.Murray/B.Kennedy plan) is more catastrophic than failure of the CVA component of an asset purchase plan (the Miller plan). Under the latter, key assets are already "safe" in a new company.

Certainly an interesting post by the OP.

I didn't see much "humerous banter" in placards of gravestones saying "rot in hell" on them.