Hang your heads in shame

[forlanssister 3,114]

I'm not an expert in administration but it could be that Whyte securing the debt is protecting the club. If HMRC are owed cash but the administrator believes that it will get paid a small amount after the preferred creditor has been paid then perhaps some sort of deal can be done and Whyte can buy back the club on a pre-pack basis after "waiving" the amount due to Wavetower. Not sure if it works like that, but it may be one way of dealing with the threat at minimal risk.

 

Am I correct in understanding if the tax case goes against us and Wavetower decide they would like their cira �£18 million back that they would be unable to do so via an administration but could do so via a liquidation?

 

Also I'm led to believe we are the test case for approximately 20,000 similar EBTs, if so then I very much doubt HMRC would be willing to affect an accommodation as they would be setting a precedent would they not?

 

And 2 PR men, which will hopefully be good for the club and the support.

 

If they're half as effective working for Rangers as they have been for Whyte then I'd welcome them with open arms.

[Zappa 0]

from memory i though that was ok. the said the couldnt back the plan and the reasoning was they didnt have time or enough info to let them back it. also there was a plan b they felt they had to investigate.

 

but i would need to see it again.

 

Having looked it up again I definitely think there's a contradiction in it, although it's not quite as obvious as I'd thought. This is the statement -

 

The Independent Sub-Committee of the Board of Rangers Football Club plc wish to clarify certain media comment and speculation relating to its position with respect to the proposed transaction amongst the Murray Group, Craig Whyte and the Lloyds Banking Group.

 

We have fiduciary duties to look after the interests of all the stakeholders in the Club. In particular, we have legal responsibilities to ensure that the proposed transaction serves the best interests of the 26,400 minority shareholders, many of whom are season ticket holders.

 

For some time the Board has had major concerns about its engagement in the process. After nearly six months of negotiation, we have only very recently had the opportunity to meet Craig Whyte and his team. Moreover, it is only in the last few days that we have started to receive the draft agreements outlining the transaction, although we are still awaiting a detailed working capital statement demonstrating that there is sufficient funding in place to meet the pressing needs of the Club.

 

Based on the documents we have only been able to review within the last week, we are disappointed that they ultimately did not reflect the investment in the Club that we were led to believe for the last few months would be a commitment in the purchase agreement. Given the requirement to repay the bank in full under the proposed transaction, there appears to be only a relatively modest amount of money available that would positively impact the Club's operations, especially as it relates to an urgent requirement to replenish and upgrade the playing squad. Whilst the proposed transaction has addressed the interests of Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group and Craig Whyte, our perspective is solely directed towards the future of Rangers Football Club.

 

To this end the Board has had an approach from one of its directors who wishes the Board to consider an alternative funding option. This would involve a fresh issue of new capital to raise �£25m to be invested directly into the Club. The Board believes that it has a responsibility to examine this proposal whilst continuing its review of the Craig Whyte transaction. After six months of limited engagement in the process, the Board believes that is not in the best interests of its stakeholders for it to be pressed into an unrealistic timescale.

 

On Monday, I had a lengthy conversation with Craig Whyte explaining the dilemma that the Board now faces. It was a constructive and healthy dialogue, and whilst he expressed his frustration, he understood our position. We agreed to remain in touch in terms of working towards a resolution that is in the best interests of all parties involved as we receive more information relating to his financial commitment to Rangers Football Club.

[pete 2,499]

I would agree that Murray's 22 years at the club were "interesting". But after his first 10 years you would look long and hard to fing many positives. I would also bear in mind that Murray took Rangers to the brink of bankruptcy not once, but twice. The records would also attest to the fact that Murray took a lot more out of Rangers than he put in. The evidence is out there.

 

I think what you guys forget is that as long as the tax issue is running that liquidation is still a strong possibility. I doubt if CW is interested or can put up 40 mill to pull us out of trouble. Don't forget he has put many other businesses into Liquidation to clear their debts. I nor I believe FS is saying it will happen for sure but just realising the possibility exists and not many of us believe that CW is Santa Claus.

[pete 2,499]

Support for SDM on this site is a rare occurance, but as usual, you have to keep the faith as some of the moderators seem think that they have a 'direct' pipeline to knowledge and any attempt at 'discussion' is deemed un-Rangers like.

 

Which is probably the reason for whole-hearted criticism of the internet forums is justified, no matter what team you support.

 

Sorry mate I feel that statement is totally wrong. The moderation on this site gives everybody the right to have their own opinion. We all argue what we think is right and that includes moderators outwith their moderating function. Just because a moderator disagreed with you does not mean that you are considered anything else as someone with a different opinion. The one thing this site prides itself on is freedom of speech but if someone disagrees then it will be open to discussion.

Edited May 8, 2011 by pete

[the gunslinger 3,366]

do you mean the for some time and then recently.

 

because it seems to me they are saying for sometime we ahave been worried that we havent been involved.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Irrespective if Rangers owe Wavetower �£18 million or not, with this transaction, we are still at greater risk than what we were previously.

 

Because Wavetower have been specifically set up to fund and run Rangers, any liquidation or administration they suffer will hit our Club and we will be deemed as being in the same terms on a footballing side (See Southampton Leisure Holdings). This was NOT the case under MIH as MIH had other interests.

 

So......if Wavetower have borrowed the �£18 million (I would bet my hat collection they have), even if our liabilities show �£0 at the 30th June 2011, we are nowhere near out of trouble.

[Zappa 0]

do you mean the for some time and then recently.

 

No what I mean is that the statement says -

 

we are still awaiting a detailed working capital statement demonstrating that there is sufficient funding in place to meet the pressing needs of the Club.

 

... then goes on to say -

 

there appears to be only a relatively modest amount of money available that would positively impact the Club's operations, especially as it relates to an urgent requirement to replenish and upgrade the playing squad.

 

The two statements contradict one-another.

[Zappa 0]

Welcome to the forum TheWeissMan.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

true.

 

perhaps the devils in the detail or rather the word detailed.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Am I correct in understanding if the tax case goes against us and Wavetower decide they would like their cira �£18 million back that they would be unable to do so via an administration but could do so via a liquidation?

 

I'm not sure of the the technical ins and outs but can't think why a liquidation would be better for Wavetower than administration.

 

Also I'm led to believe we are the test case for approximately 20,000 similar EBTs, if so then I very much doubt HMRC would be willing to affect an accommodation as they would be setting a precedent would they not?

 

 

It's 2 different issues. There's the case itself and there's the collection of the cash. If they win the case then that has implications for the similar EBTs. if tey are unable to collect most or all of the cash due to Rangers financial position, that has no impact on HMRC's dealings with the other EBT cases.