ian1964 10,724 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 I also mean all the bids that were knocked back. Craig says serious money men. bill ng and the guy moaning to Alex thomson. add that to tbk bid being bigger. Will we ever find out why the other bids failed,in detail? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Will we ever find out why the other bids failed,in detail? not unless theres an inquiry into d&p and that seems unlikely. people say they are accountable to the courts but I see no evidence of that in a practical sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 the cva proposal puts the projected value of the cva at just under 5 million once fees and the trading loss is removed. tbk offr was 5 million for the cva plus extras Like euro bonuses. over and above this bk was paying the fees and trading loss out of club funds and his own pocket. even at the minimum it was a 5 million offer to the cva pot. a marginal difference no question but d&p also have a duty to look after the future of the club. I suspect the newco part of greens offer makes it simpler for d&p and simple seems to be their level. Had another look at the proposals and would say the following: 1. The Green bid is £8.5m 2. TBK bid is £5m (plus £0.5m for Whyte's shares - unclear whether this goes to the CVA or Whyte so not sure whether to include it) plus some other cash relating to the CL that would need to be ignored at this point. GS, you say that TBKs were paying the fees and trading losses out of their own pockets. I disagree. The important paragraph is 3 ASSETS BEING ACQUIRED3.9 Any monies owing to the Company including football monies, which we understand to be circa £3,500,000, however, the running losses of the business through the administration period and the administrators' fees and expenses will be deducted from this amount; So TBK are saying that they want to buy debtors of £3.5m and out of this they will pay the admin's fees. However it appears that at least over £2m of these debtors are being left for the CVA by Green so the impact ends up being the same, does it not? It still seems to me that Green's bid is around £3m better than TBKs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Had another look at the proposals and would say the following: 1. The Green bid is £8.5m 2. TBK bid is £5m (plus £0.5m for Whyte's shares - unclear whether this goes to the CVA or Whyte so not sure whether to include it) plus some other cash relating to the CL that would need to be ignored at this point. GS, you say that TBKs were paying the fees and trading losses out of their own pockets. I disagree. The important paragraph is So TBK are saying that they want to buy debtors of £3.5m and out of this they will pay the admin's fees. However it appears that at least over £2m of these debtors are being left for the CVA by Green so the impact ends up being the same, does it not? It still seems to me that Green's bid is around £3m better than TBKs. why isn't thk bid 5 million if the fees and running cost are paid seperate no matter how its funded? bk was also clear he was going to have to add to the money that was coming in as it wasn't enough. 3.6 million he reaconed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Brian Kennedy was very clear all in he was putting in over 9 million. greens bid was fine when we though it was 8.5 plus running costs but it isn't its 8.5 all in. both bids use the jela money etc to fund the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Brian Kennedy was very clear all in he was putting in over 9 million. So where does it appear in the bid? greens bid was fine when we though it was 8.5 plus running costs but it isn't its 8.5 all in. The issue on running costs is unclear. There is mention of it in the D&P calculation but I presume that the £3.6 deficit (or whatever it was) related to costs to date and was not on-going costs. both bids use the jela money etc to fund the club. Basically yes, but then both bids are effectively paying the admin fees out of the CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 This has been sent to David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps by David Hinchcliffe a partner at Walker Morris. Brian Kennedy has asked me to share this with you and you are more than welcome to print it/read it out/broadcast it. This email completely condemns the Administrators and we are asking WHY are they doing this? Dave Swanton Twitter @swannymediaman David I note you have not yet replied as promised in your email below please respond as soon as you can. Regarding your recent press announcement ..".you were advised there was not agreement within the consortium about the funding of the bid" ....please let me know who apparently advised you of this as this is wholly inaccurate and on no occasion has anyone contacted either myself or Brian to state this is a worry. Further to state that amounts were included in the offer for playing in europe next season when it can't be achieved is completely inaccurate as the actual offer is for increasing the consideration in seasons 2 and 3 if they played in europe . Further to state that the offer should be reduced by 3.5 m because these are debts due to the company is also misleading as 2.4 million of this sum is payable in the next few weeks as per Brians earlier email and will be used as cashflow for the trading losses of the club. You completely fail to state our client had agreed to fund the huge trading losses post June 1st and picked up liabilities for 3.6 m of football creditors ... tupe liabilities ...debenture holders etc making a cash payable of 9.1m. plus trading losses prior to completion and European add ons together with other liabilities. You seem to be continually comparing the quantum of my clients bid against bids such as the Miller bid which are not real . As you know I have vast experience of people making bids for insolvent football clubs ....I cannot see how any of these new parties can be making real bids when they have done no real due diligence ....proof of funds may have been provided but it does not make sense to me why investors would invest in Rangers without full due diligence by them and I would strongly recommend that full due diligence is carried out by you on these parties as there is no time to have another Miller situation . Finally regarding your comment that Brian wanted to be the last man standing. In mine and Brians view he is as we don't believe the other bidders will complete If you want to talk to find a way to save this great club Brian has said his phone will be on this evening otherwise I fear it will be too late David David Hinchliffe Partner that's some of it as you can see 9.1 is the cash payable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 that's some of it as you can see 9.1 is the cash payable. Don't totally follow/agree with what's being said. £2.4m should be used to fund the CVA, surely. They bring in debentures, but surely they are going to deal with these in the same way as Green? Football creditors - I presume that these will require to be paid by the club going forward under both scenarios so bringing them in again just confuses the issue. My way of looking at it would be the apparent way that D&P are looking at it and not the way WM way. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that Walker Morris are trying to over-complicate the financial situation, although it's difficult to judge from a snapshot email. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 This has been sent to David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps by David Hinchcliffe a partner at Walker Morris. Brian Kennedy has asked me to share this with you and you are more than welcome to print it/read it out/broadcast it.This email completely condemns the Administrators and we are asking WHY are they doing this? Dave Swanton Twitter @swannymediaman David I note you have not yet replied as promised in your email below please respond as soon as you can. Regarding your recent press announcement ..".you were advised there was not agreement within the consortium about the funding of the bid" ....please let me know who apparently advised you of this as this is wholly inaccurate and on no occasion has anyone contacted either myself or Brian to state this is a worry. Further to state that amounts were included in the offer for playing in europe next season when it can't be achieved is completely inaccurate as the actual offer is for increasing the consideration in seasons 2 and 3 if they played in europe . Further to state that the offer should be reduced by 3.5 m because these are debts due to the company is also misleading as 2.4 million of this sum is payable in the next few weeks as per Brians earlier email and will be used as cashflow for the trading losses of the club. You completely fail to state our client had agreed to fund the huge trading losses post June 1st and picked up liabilities for 3.6 m of football creditors ... tupe liabilities ...debenture holders etc making a cash payable of 9.1m. plus trading losses prior to completion and European add ons together with other liabilities. You seem to be continually comparing the quantum of my clients bid against bids such as the Miller bid which are not real . As you know I have vast experience of people making bids for insolvent football clubs ....I cannot see how any of these new parties can be making real bids when they have done no real due diligence ....proof of funds may have been provided but it does not make sense to me why investors would invest in Rangers without full due diligence by them and I would strongly recommend that full due diligence is carried out by you on these parties as there is no time to have another Miller situation . Finally regarding your comment that Brian wanted to be the last man standing. In mine and Brians view he is as we don't believe the other bidders will complete If you want to talk to find a way to save this great club Brian has said his phone will be on this evening otherwise I fear it will be too late David David Hinchliffe Partner that's some of it as you can see 9.1 is the cash payable. Kennedy released the full bid details. Why not just post that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Kennedy released the full bid details. Why not just post that? its in this thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.