Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

PauloMN

RoryMac wrote: »

Murray must be one hell of a negotiator to get Ticketus to agree to that or he's not telling us what Ticketus are getting from the deal.

I think Murray is definitely the best option for Rangers. As regards Ticketus, the only reason they are involved is to try and get as much of their money back as it possible. Rangers will basically be Ticketus's bitch for the next few years.

To be honest, aside from the small matter of history etc. , liquidation would be the best option for Rangers. Start afresh, no debts etc., and run the club properly wrt tax etc.. But obviously history is important, so Rangers FC will survive but will be fecked for many years to come.

Jelle1880

Madam wrote: »

Or a seat at the top table;)

Think it's fair to say they will be involved heavily

Madam

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Think it's fair to say they will be involved heavily

You wouldn't mind that? At least they have 'some' business acumen - one slip up with the ticket money but all the same they seem to be on the level(an Americanism but that fits so well).......

RoryMac

PauloMN wrote: »

I think Murray is definitely the best option for Rangers. As regards Ticketus, the only reason they are involved is to try and get as much of their money back as it possible. Rangers will basically be Ticketus's bitch for the next few years.

To be honest, aside from the small matter of history etc. , liquidation would be the best option for Rangers. Start afresh, no debts etc., and run the club properly wrt tax etc.. But obviously history is important, so Rangers FC will survive but will be fecked for many years to come.

I'd agree Murray is the best option for Rangers, if he has got Ticketus to agree to cut their bill by over half and to invest an additional £10m which will all be paid off in "dribs and drabs" if Rangers qualify for Europe then the guy is a genius.

Joking aside the Murray bid seems to be the only one looking to avoid liquidation so has to be the preferred option for fans, if he can get Whyte to agree transfer of the stadium etc and Ticketus to chase Whyte for their money it would be a huge boost for Rangers.

I still believe liquidation is almost certain unless Rangers win the tax case, I believe it was Whyte's plan all along to go down this road and I think he'll do all he can to hang onto the assets in his control until the the verdict comes in the tax case.

Pompey Magnus

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Ticketus will agree to pursue 'other options' for the remaining money.

Whyte, I suppose.

Why would Whyte sell up if doing so means he would be hit by a whopping big bill by the new owners? He might as well just liquidate the club and save himself alot of money in that case.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

RoryMac wrote: »

I'd agree Murray is the best option for Rangers, if he has got Ticketus to agree to cut their bill by over half and to invest an additional £10m which will all be paid off in "dribs and drabs" if Rangers qualify for Europe then the guy is a genius.

Joking aside the Murray bid seems to be the only one looking to avoid liquidation so has to be the preferred option for fans, if he can get Whyte to agree transfer of the stadium etc and Ticketus to chase Whyte for their money it would be a huge boost for Rangers.

I still believe liquidation is almost certain unless Rangers win the tax case, I believe it was Whyte's plan all along to go down this road and I think he'll do all he can to hang onto the assets in his control until the the verdict comes in the tax case.

So your either a Tax Lawyer or Phil come on which is it

RoryMac

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So your either a Tax Lawyer or Phil come on which is it

A realist!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

RoryMac wrote: »

A realist!

Or is it wishful thinking

RoryMac

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Or is it wishful thinking

Nothing wishful about my thinking in this mate, I've long said I think it'll have a negative effect on Celtic if it were to happen.

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So your either a Tax Lawyer or Phil come on which is it

He wouldn't have to be either, it's blindingly obvious. The tax case makes the Ticketus money look like chicken feed. It all hinges on the tax case and what - if any - reduced payment will be accepted by HMRC.

Jelle1880

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Why would Whyte sell up if doing so means he would be hit by a whopping big bill by the new owners? He might as well just liquidate the club and save himself alot of money in that case.

Well, if Ticketus will go after him for the money then he'll probably want to pack up asap.

Madam: I don't know if I would mind that.
It's clear that they have a right to their money, so if they want to be involved into how the club spends that money it makes perfect sense to me.

RoryMac

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Well, if Ticketus will go after him for the money then he'll probably want to pack up asap.

Madam: I don't know if I would mind that.
It's clear that they have a right to their money, so if they want to be involved into how the club spends that money it makes perfect sense to me.

If Ticketus go after him surely he'll want as high a price for Ibrox, Murray Park as is possible to pay them off? Or hand them over to Ticketus?

Jelle1880

Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaugReply


BBC understands Craig Whyte has agreed to transfer his shares to Blue Knights consortium

cruiserweight

Rangers have apparently applied for a European license for next year

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/302488-rangers-apply-for-a-uefa-club-licence/

Dempsey

cruiserweight wrote: »

Rangers have apparently applied for a European license for next year

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/302488-rangers-apply-for-a-uefa-club-licence/

Its called going through the motions

Fuhrer

Dempsey wrote: »

Its called going through the motions

Or like when Charles Manson applies for parole.


Hes entitled to do it, but no one in their right mind will ever let him have it.

RoryMac

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaugReply


BBC understands Craig Whyte has agreed to transfer his shares to Blue Knights consortium when he receives his £18m

FYP

Broxi_Bear_Eire

RoryMac wrote: »

Nothing wishful about my thinking in this mate, I've long said I think it'll have a negative effect on Celtic if it were to happen.

I know mate its called humour something lacking in these threads recently

RiseToTheTop

What can happen out of this?

Could Rangers get relegated?

RoryMac

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

What can happen out of this?

Could Rangers get relegated?

At the moment it's all up in the air depending on who takes over the club and what happens with the various investigations into the clubs dealings over a number of years.

Best case scenario for Rangers as I see it would be new owners with decent financial backing take over, cut a deal with the creditors, look to re-negotiate existing deals both for players and investors, then re-build and start challenging again after a year or so, maybe sooner if they can negotiate new deals with players after this season.

Worst case - Rangers lose the tax case, Whyte refuses to hand over ownership, club liquidated, found guilty of having duel contracts with players, Rangers restart in division 3.

Reality will probably be a bit of both.

Jelle1880

RoryMac wrote: »

FYP

Actually he wants 30m :rolleyes:

Also, what makes you think it's 'his 18m' ?

RoryMac

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Actually he wants 30m :rolleyes:

Also, what makes you think it's 'his 18m' ?

£18m or £30m either way someone needs to pay for Whyte to release his controlling share of Rangers, given that Whyte's response to the earlier reports of a deal being done was “absolute crap” I think it's safe to say they're still negotiating

Not sure why you're taking issue with me describing it as 'his 18m' For the last year Whyte has been described by everyone as the Rangers owner, he is fronting the group that owns the controlling stake in Rangers, they want money to release that!

Dempsey

According to Chris McLaughlin, Brian Kennedy will be making another offer for Rangers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17601438

Eirebear

RoryMac wrote: »

£18m or £30m either way someone needs to pay for Whyte to release his controlling share of Rangers, given that Whyte's response to the earlier reports of a deal being done was “absolute crap” I think it's safe to say they're still negotiating

Not sure why you're taking issue with me describing it as 'his 18m' For the last year Whyte has been described by everyone as the Rangers owner, he is fronting the group that owns the controlling stake in Rangers, they want money to release that!

Seriously?
You wonder why Rangers supporters would take issue with Whyte making any money out of this?

it should be prison he's heading for, not his ****ing bank manager.

Madam

Eirebear wrote: »

Seriously?
You wonder why Rangers supporters would take issue with Whyte making any money out of this?

it should be prison he's heading for, not his ****ing bank manager.

You don't believe he's been ferreting money away somewhere?

Eirebear

Madam wrote: »

You don't believe he's been ferreting money away somewhere?

Maybe, but certainly not for use by the club as far as i can tell - there's still the guts of ten million missing from the books.

RoryMac

Eirebear wrote: »

RoryMac wrote: »

£18m or £30m either way someone needs to pay for Whyte to release his controlling share of Rangers, given that Whyte's response to the earlier reports of a deal being done was “absolute crap” I think it's safe to say they're still negotiating

Not sure why you're taking issue with me describing it as 'his 18m' For the last year Whyte has been described by everyone as the Rangers owner, he is fronting the group that owns the controlling stake in Rangers, they want money to release that!

Seriously?
You wonder why Rangers supporters would take issue with Whyte making any money out of this?

it should be prison he's heading for, not his ****ing bank manager.

I never said it was right just that Whyte's present stance is that he owns the controlling share and has put a value on it, I don't see him handing it over to any of the bidders without being paid for it, do you?

Agree he should be heading to prison along with David Murray IMO

lubo_moravcik

Why are ssn mentioning a 5pm deadline today, and what's the difference between a deadline today and the deadline a couple of weeks ago?

RoryMac

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Why are ssn mentioning a 5pm deadline today, and what's the difference between a deadline today and the deadline a couple of weeks ago?

I think the previous deadline was for interested parties to signal their intent to make a bid and today's is to submit the actual offer

bobbysands81

Out of interest can anyone provide figures, even a guesstimate, as to how much money RFC actually owe?

Would especially love to hear from the bears on this.

Thanks.

lubo_moravcik

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Out of interest can anyone provide figures, even a guesstimate, as to how much money RFC actually owe?

Would especially love to hear from the bears on this.

Thanks.

about 3p in the pound

Jelle1880

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

about 3p in the pound

He said owe, not own :pac:

lubo_moravcik

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He said owe, not own :pac:

How much would you say that the club owe? Just a guesstimate

Jelle1880

Not a clue.

Obviously the money to Ticketus is around 27m, not sure if the deal with Murray will go through which will see that decrease significantly.

But everything atm will be dwarfed imo by the tax case, should we lose it.

Dempsey

The tax case is effectively lost, given what Whyte was told by HMRC. They are currently determining the level of liability.

bobbysands81

Would I be right in saying that if they lose the Tax Case then the worst case scenario would see them owe something north of £100m?

Dempsey

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that if they lose the Tax Case then the worst case scenario would see them owe something north of £100m?

Worst case scenario from what I've read is between £50m - £75m. Where did you hear £100m+?

bobbysands81

Dempsey wrote: »

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that if they lose the Tax Case then the worst case scenario would see them owe something north of £100m?

Worst case scenario from what I've read is between £50m - £75m. Where did you hear £100m+?

That's the worst case scenario for JUST the Tax Case which commentators seem to be saying could be £49m plus penalties which bring it to circa £75m.

I'm wondering how much they might end up owing in total which, if they lose the Tax Case would seem to be well over £100m whilst at the same time they'll be completely hamstrung by a lack of income.

One of the bears said a few pages back that liquidation is merely wishful thinking on our behalf. I think if you look at what they owe and factor in current income and expenditure then it's far more than just wishful thinking, it's a real possibility.

So can anyone tell me how much RFC actually owe?

Dempsey

Ah, I misread your post.

Ticketus currently own the season ticket revenue stream for 3 more season which will convert into £10m debt if Murray/Ticketus are successful.

Is the small tax case resolved yet?

Dempsey

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/302779-rangers-crisis-administrators-reveal-club-owes-63m/

Rangers administrators have revealed the club owes at least £55m and is facing a further tax bill of up to £75m.

The full list of creditors and debts owed by the Ibrox club has been set out in the statement of affairs by Duff and Phelps.

Administrators admit that any sale will be dependent on "the prospective purchaser and the ability to obtain control of RFC Group's majority shareholding."

Rangers FC Group is owned by Craig Whyte and has an 85% stake in the club. Mr Whyte’s company Liberty Corporate has also taken out a floating charge over the group, which may ensure he receives the proceeds of any sale of shares before other creditors.

Duff and Phelps highlighted in the report their duty to investigate whether there have been any transactions to defraud Rangers creditors.

Administrators also said they could still tear up the £25.3m Ticketus deal if they considered in the interest of the creditors as a whole. This could leave them open to "a claim for damages against the club for breach of contract" by Ticketus, however they believe this would "rank as an ordinary unsecured claim in the administration." They said there may be further legal action regarding the deal.

In the report released on Thursday, administrators confirmed they had already held several meetings with HM Revenue and Customs about "the progress" and "likely exit routes from administration."

Up until March 31, Duff and Phelps have accumulated fees larger than the amount of money Rangers have earned during that time. Administrators claim their time costs are £1.1m. From their appointment on February 14 until the end of March, Duff and Phelps say Rangers have taken in just over £1m.

Rangers' administrators estimate that the club's total debts could top £134m.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17628749

The figure is revealed in the administrator's report to creditors published on the club's website.

A total of more than £93m is being claimed by HM Revenue and Customs, relating to the so-called big and small tax cases, and unpaid VAT and PAYE.

The report also reveals Rangers owe cash to other football clubs including Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United, Manchester City and Arsenal.

There lubo, Rangers owe £55m and potentially could owe £134m+ :eek:

Thats a higher gearing ratio than when the Glaziers dumped the debt from their takeover of Man United back on Man United. :eek:

Bolded for Jelle is the extra cost of Rangers being in administration.

Madam

Absolutely mindboggling:eek:

Leiva

Can somebody please give me the play-school explanation of how a figure of a £75million tax bill could have accumulated .

Surely this is all scare mongering

RoryMac

Leiva wrote: »

Can somebody please give me the play-school explanation of how a figure of a £75million tax bill could have accumulated .

Surely this is all scare mongering

From the Administrators report:

The Big Tax Case was brought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of the EBT scheme to make payments to employees of the Company between the tax years 2000/01 and 2009/10.

The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of £75,000,000, including interest and penalties.

The Big Tax Case is disputed by the Company and is subject to first tier tax Tribunal Proceedings instigated by HMRC. An outcome has yet to be determined by the Tribunal.

Leiva

RoryMac wrote: »

From the Administrators report:

10+ years its been going on :eek:


If Rangers FC are relatively successful with the tax bill and get it halved at around £37 million , then that plus the debt ( £37 + £55 = £92million ) would surely put them out of business ??

The mind really does boggle .

Dempsey

Leiva wrote: »

Can somebody please give me the play-school explanation of how a figure of a £75million tax bill could have accumulated .

Surely this is all scare mongering

Rangers were caught evading tax from 2000-2009 (i.e. Large Tax Case). Evidence, including ex directors suggest it was going on during the 90's too. The amount is being calculated by HMRC is £49m + ~£25m in penalties (worst case scenario).

Rangers were put into administration by the 'small tax case'. They didnt pay PAYE or VAT at all this season and Whyte filed for administration in Feb to pre-empt a move by HMRC to appoint their own administrators.

BBC Sport wrote:

A total of more than £93m is being claimed by HM Revenue and Customs, relating to the so-called big and small tax cases, and unpaid VAT and PAYE.

Eirebear

Leiva wrote: »

10+ years its been going on :eek:


If Rangers FC are relatively successful with the tax bill and get it halved at around £37 million , then that plus the debt ( £37 + £55 = £92million ) would surely put them out of business ??

The mind really does boggle .

Honestly, i don't think we#ll end up paying even half of that in terms of the "Big Tax Case".
We're small fry compared to the Premiership behemoths that HMRC are after, and there have been plenty of rumours suggesting that all they really want out of this case is the verdict and that we'll end up with a 15-20m bill.

Add into that any agreed CVA with new owners, and your looking at an actual bill of closer to 50m at most.

That said, it could all go the other way and we end up with a huge tax bill, and creditors not agreeing to a cva - then we're ****ed.

Dempsey

Yep, HMRC got a setback with Portmouth & CVA's. Now Rangers are their test case and they want to set a precedent that will allow them to cut through the bureaucracy quicker in future with clubs that owe alot more than Rangers. Tax evasion is rife in football.

RoryMac

Dempsey wrote: »

Rangers were put into administration by the 'small tax case'. They didnt pay PAYE or VAT at all this season and Whyte filed for administration in Feb to pre-empt a move by HMRC to appoint their own administrators.

I always thought the small tax case referred to the PAYE & VAT outstanding this season too but according to the Admins

The Small Tax Case was bought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of a discounted options tax scheme for payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer between the tax years 2000/01 and 2002/03.

The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of £4,000,000, after interest and penalty charges.

Dempsey

RoryMac wrote: »

I always thought the small tax case referred to the PAYE & VAT outstanding this season too but according to the Admins

Is it? LOL, So there is 3 open tax cases against the club. I blame the lack of transparency at iBroke for this misunderstanding!

We'll call it the 'open and shut tax case' so! :pac:

RoryMac

Dempsey wrote: »

Is it? LOL, So there is 3 open tax cases against the club. I blame the lack of transparency at iBroke for this misunderstanding!

We'll call it the 'open and shut tax case' so! :pac:

Yeah there is £14m on top of the tax cases owed to HMRC which led to the administration. Not sure how much of that is actually over-due