A plea to the Administrators

[craig 5,199]

Craig,

 

I do love a good argument - can you please give me one!

 

I would, except you arent really mentally challenging me making it less fun and I am becoming too complacent with you

 

In two months time some billionaire could step in... How long is a piece of string? They're stalling and that's clear as daylight!

 

Where did the administrators say they would wait two months ? Your talk about red herring would, indeed, be appropriate here. Nobody, anywhere, has said that they would wait two months for a bid. What they HAVE said is that they have received indications that another bid is due this week, so they will allow that bid to take place.

 

Anyway, it will take time for them to work their way through the bids they have already received, so waiting for another one by a few days will not slow the process down by much.

 

You really miss my point though - if another bid were to come in that is clearly more beneficial to Rangers, the creditors and the shareholders then the administrators SHOULD consider it - obviously if it comes in within a reasonable period of time and probably prior to a preferred bidder status being given to any one bid.

 

On this 'conditional offer' red herring you have thrown in - if you've read what PM said regards this (think I saw it on the Sky updates this morning or yesterday) it's clear to him that a successful offer means HMRC having agreed with the Administrators in principle a settlement (as I said before 10p in the pound is what the accepted with Leeds Utd and other clubs recently) and only the time factor (when it's paid) is one to be resolved in dialogue between the new owner and HMRC! The Administrators see no problem in this area so you kinda negate your own argument there! Complete Red Herring there - straight out of a Agatha Christie book that one, amusing but not challenging.

 

The fact remains that the offers will have various different conditions contained within them. The administrators have a duty to work through those and determine which bid, conditions included, will provide the best solution to all concerned. the administrators will NOT be in a position to give preferred status to ANYONE at this particular point in time.

 

The last I read from Murray was that the big tax case, should it go against us, would simply go into te CVA, increasing the liabilities and therefore reducing the pence in the pound that the creditors get. However, I still think it is too simplistic to think that this would be the only condition of any and all offers.

 

No of course I wouldn't expect them to know that THE EXACT MINUTE THEY WALK IN THE DOOR but I would have expected a 'recognised top firm' to have procedures in place ie 1) take off our jacket 2) check what's in place 3) notify the relevant people etc etc BEFORE they started down the line 4) take an eternity to drink a glass of water 5) have talks with manager and players etc etc etc

 

You really are showing your dislike of the administrators with point number 4. It is facetious and, really, uncalled for. I am sure that the first couple of weeks would have been trying to assess where the club was in terms of revenue, cost structure, assets, liabilities, contracts etc.

 

Serious question for you..... how many administrations and/or liquidations have you been involved in to know how these things work and how long they take ? I can tell you, from personal experience, they do not take just a couple of weeks - one I was involved in which was far more straight forward than RFC's over-ran, and not because of the liquidators, by months.

 

It is all too easy to throw out the "he drinks water far too slowly" nonsense - do you honestly think that Clark needs to waste time drinking a glass of water ? You honestly think that he needs to delay in order to make himself 100 quid ? You want a red herring, it is right there.

 

That £2.2 m was explained and the reason for it also - do we really need to go over the mundane stuff time after time after time after time... That may not be a red herring, but still, a poor 'spanner' to throw into the works! Also, to put that forward in the Administrators defence is hard to swallow, these people were supposed to be EXPERT ACCOUNTANTS! They ain't no experts - from what I can see they're only expert at dragging their heels! Never in my life have I seen one man take so long to drink a glass of water, but at least it's synonymous with their business practices! :-)

 

Haha, I like the "they are supposed to be expert accountants" line.... what time period was that tax liability in relation to and when was it accrued/recognised ? And did we not have "expert accountants" on our own books that should have known about it ?

 

Again, you miss the point - the point is not about the specific liability but is more about the fact that the administrators may have to do an awful lot of digging to get to the true extent of the club's liabilities - and that is before they even attempt to get to the bottom of the complex, convoluted world and works of Craig Whyte.

 

I do, however, understand that you and I simply wont agree on this issue. So with that, Sir, I will agree to disagree.

[Juancornetto 1]

I think the BK's are trying to rush it because they know they can be easily trumped. I still believe they don't have a hope in hell

 

Far from it mate, they (BK's) believe that their bid trumps any on offer because with them Ticketus become a partner rather than a creditor wiping £24.4m off the figure to be agreed in a CVA. It's sound logic as well.

[forlanssister 3,114]

While I think the administrators have many questions to answer and this administration and everything that surrounds seems to veer between peculiar and downright odd, it's best to take anything produced as a result of Leggat bashing a keyboard with a very, very large pinch of the proverbial salt.

 

After all he was producing such gems as this.....

And, as I have said before, Whyte is a poker player from the top drawer.

.....less than a fortnight before we entered administration.

 

I dare you to read through this and not laugh http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/rangers-crisis-and-craig-whyte.html

 

Leggat has become such an irrelevance that even when he has a valid point it's hard to take him remotely seriously.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Far from it mate, they (BK's) believe that their bid trumps any on offer because with them Ticketus become a partner rather than a creditor wiping £24.4m off the figure to be agreed in a CVA. It's sound logic as well.

 

I did hear PM say this but must say that I do not understand how Ticketus would cease to be a creditor if they are part of a successful consortium unless they agree to forego the "debt" in its entirety?

[forlanssister 3,114]

I did hear PM say this but must say that I do not understand how Ticketus would cease to be a creditor if they are part of a successful consortium unless they agree to forego the "debt" in its entirety?

 

I think Ticketus presume that they can achieve a greater return through working with the Blue Knights (or any other prospective bidder) than they can through a straight CVA or through a liquidation, thereby minimising any prospective loss for their investors/clients surely the correct approach for them to take is to look after the interests of their investors/clients ?

[Guest Dutchy]

I do think D&P are at it. It seems strange to me that the only bidders that they've made some disparaging remarks about are the BK's

 

First they made comments about loudmouths talking to the media all the time and secondly, they're saying that we cannot be out of admin this week, as the BK's would like.

 

Why not??? There have been at least 3 bids made, can't they work it out from all the info they've been given?

[Bluedell 5,679]

That'd be Leggatt who supported Whyte, no he's against Whyte.

 

That'd be Leggatt who's against Ticketus, no he's for Ticketus.

 

Most of his blogs are baseless. He may be correct on the odd one or two (difficult to tell) but he's blatently selling a pro-BK agenda at the moment and therefore isn't that objective.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think Ticketus presume that they can achieve a greater return through working with the Blue Knights (or any other prospective bidder) than they can through a straight CVA or through a liquidation, thereby minimising any prospective loss for their investors/clients surely the correct approach for them to take is to look after the interests of their investors/clients ?

 

Yes, I understand that Forlan but how do they cease to be creditors at all, as PM stated?

[forlanssister 3,114]

Yes, I understand that Forlan but how do they cease to be creditors at all, as PM stated?

 

I suppose in the same way every creditor world wide ceases to be a creditor either A) they recoup some of their money or B) we cease to exist.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I suppose in the same way every creditor world wide ceases to be a creditor either A) they recoup some of their money or B) we cease to exist.

 

They wouldn't cease to be a creditor if they only recovered SOME of their money. Also the BK's bid is predicated on a CVA, not us ceasing to exist, surely?

 

Maybe I'm missing something this time but I just don't get how they would cease to be a creditor if the BK's bid is successful.