Rangers Rumours Archive May 14 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


14 May 2012 22:17:17
One of two possible options:

1. Green is either going to run the club as a tight ship. Bring back a reality to the amount of debt.

Or

2. Is a front for a large consortium which has devastating intentions (asset stripping and liquidation) and no one single person to point the finger at due to the size of the group.

Believable40 Unbelievable31

Go and read Alex Thomson Channel 4 news blog for a list of the companies that Green has been a director/company secretary of. 15 of them I think have been dissolved/liquidated.

Agree0 Disagree0

Asset stripping not worth it they would only get there original investment back as stated cva/liquidation around the same sort of money do that is ruled out.

Think they will try to build the club back up again & running at profit wouldn't imagine any player getting over 7-10 grand a week. As he has said there isn't another club they could buy for this kind of money that have genuine chance of CL football most seasons. If they can build club up again living within its means with no debt while getting into CL the value wil soar. Then sell on for a profit. With the amount of members of the consortium it's a small investment for them so it's worth a risk.no 1 is risking millions in this. If they can double say £400G in a few years is not a bad investment if it works.

Agree0 Disagree0

You might not like Alex Thomson but as the first poster points out, you'd be daft to ignore the facts he outlined.

Green never stays long anywhere and he's certainly not averse to dissolving companies.

So I'll go for Option 2.

Agree0 Disagree0

Nothing but pure negativity! Give the guy a break and wait and see what happens!
Most people are unbelievable, they see no hope but misery!

Agree0 Disagree0

The guy will make ye forget CW lol

Agree0 Disagree0

Even when you're warned you are dating a serial rapist .... you say give the guy a chance. Quite honestly, you deserve to get f*cked!!

Agree0 Disagree0

A leopard never changes his spots. Doomed . we're all doomed a tell ye.

Agree0 Disagree0

Green is only a front man plus there are up to 20 others involved so makes no difference, they all have a say and as Green has stated it includes Rangers fans, timmys are clutching at straws, read the story's - massive amounts of money in the consortium, so this whole episode instead of Rangers dying.we could actually come out of this 1000 times better off, your mob could be placed in the shadows for years to come, after all look how little you have won whilst we have been at deaths door, ha ha ha, watp

Agree0 Disagree0

"Give the guy a break" - Are you serious? After the last guy?

Old Arab Proverb: "He who has been burned by his soup, blows on his yoghurt..."

Agree0 Disagree0

I`ll go for option 3 consortium has some big hitters involved.
Once debt & sanctions are exhausted they show the true depth of their wealth.
Rangers to dominate scottish football for decades.

Agree0 Disagree0

I posted yesterday that Green seems like a stooge for some kind of consortium. Has he put any of his own money forward? I doubt the investors are football people, but thay might as Green says see potential in marketing Rangers abroad (India and Singapore are mentioned - and I'm now thinking merchandising rights in Asia). At around £400k per investor it's not a huge outlay for what could be a large market.

But the question remains as to whether these people can really run a football club. Will they try and do it on the cheap like Venky's did at Blackburn?

Agree0 Disagree0

Maybe's check up on the directors of a rival Glagow football club - Peter has been involved in 11 companies that have been dissolved and 1 that is currently in liquidation.

Agree0 Disagree0

Starting to smell the fear from the EAST END

Agree0 Disagree0

"We could actually come out of thos 1000 times better".

Honestly mate, are you a Celtic fan trying to make us Bears look daft?

Just for starters this 'bid' from Green isn't actually a bid in any real sense. It’s a proposal to make a bid.

And anybody who thinks this kind of proposal a “ binding bid“ is in for a shock.

And don't get me started on the mystery consortium nonsense, next you'll be telling me you still believe in a CVA.

Anyway, it's a time for realism fellow bears, not for blind optimism & in Green, I certainly don't remotely trust.

Agree0 Disagree0

Some names floating about WRT consortium members.If they're true,RFC as in big trouble.Green is with a company called Nova who are attached to a mob called Tricol.They've got directors in Singapore.they're also currently being investigated for a VAT fraud.Watch out for the name Brealey turning up.If you google it I'm sure you'll find something you don't like the look of.
Wonder what the creditors think of the plan to screw them for their cash and then make "millions" available to Ally for players.

Agree0 Disagree0

He usually keeps for 2 to 3 years then sells at a profit.
Wonder if Green and Whyte are old business acquaintances. They seem to do the same sort of work.

Agree0 Disagree0

Give mr green a chance the guy has 20 backers behind him its only good for the club think of the input and millions of pounds he will invest in our club better days ahead at last

Agree0 Disagree0

Anyone ever heard "once bitten twice shy" This has Craig Whyte written all over it. Mr Green has history with Craigy boy and liquidates companies almost as fast as Whyte. He is an asset stripper same as Whyte.
He will liquidate Rangers. Think, if he has so much investment why pick any club in Scotland.

He almost ruined Sheff United and they weren't broke. Blade's fans have been warning Rangers since last week to have nothing to do with the guy..

Biggest concern is the bumbling of duff & phelps. Never seen any company in administration treated like this. Strange. But again WHYTE nominated them in favour of Court/Bank nominated Administrators.

I have seen nothing to suggest this is not all WHYTE's planning.

Sad times ahead for Rangers.

Agree0 Disagree0

What assets - whyte still has floating charge on ibrox & murray park and can block any move to that may come. he is still a big player in the final outcome

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 20:59:18
I'm no expert but are Duff & Phellps not working on behalf of the creditors? Would that not mean that they would be talking to all creditors in order to see what sort of money was required to secure a CVA and get the most for everyone?

It seems daft that they would agree to let someone come in with £8.5m and try and agree a CVA when they know that it isn't enough.

The Pilot!

Believable51 Unbelievable9

Ok so CW sold his 85% for a quid.
So no longer owner. However, does he remain as a secured Creditor for £30m and will he have a say on 6th June?

Agree0 Disagree0

Spot on pilot, they have been speaking to HMRC and Ticketus and have obviously must be some suggestion of acceptance, otherwise don't think they would submit a CVA proposal.

Agree0 Disagree0

If you read D&P Statement of Accounts it makes it clear they've been in discussion with both HMRC and Ticketus. HMRC will look at a 'realistic' offer (probably reached through such discussions) and then put forward any formal cva offer to their decision makers along with reccommendations. No guarantee they'd accept a cva but at least they would give proper consideration to any such offer before deciding one way or the other. Perhaps the only relistic possibility of a cva being accepted would be if HMRC has 'comfort' on the reputations of the individuals making up the consortium - just because they are keeping the names from the fans doesn't mean they'd be doing the same with HMRC.......

Agree0 Disagree0

Its more like 12 million and as has been posted alot Secured creditors would swallow up £40million of any asset sale need to raise about £52 million before they got a penny more honestly feel it would be huge risk for HMRC to go down that route

Agree0 Disagree0

1. No he is not, in fact I don't think he was ever a secured creditor according to Duffers. He has bugger all to do with us any longer, thank God

Agree0 Disagree0

They will have spoken to creditors and advised of cva pot. They are there to get the best deal for them not Rangers. Ticketus will take what they can get from cva then chase Whyte for outstanding monies owed. This is why a certain figure has been put forward to all interested buying parties to reach for the cva pot. The figure will be what they would get if club liquidated. With Cw having a secured creditor status they would basically get nowt

Agree0 Disagree0

Is this the same duff & phelps that stated he was irrelevant in any sale ? . 1 of his company's is a secured creditor he took that over from lloyds when he paid the overdraft off. The sale of his shares depends on cva being agreed. If no cva Green consortium will have to give him more money in order to get his assets as they won't have put any money into cva pot. If you listen to Green he say's share transfer depends on cva being agreed.

Agree0 Disagree0

Remember Close finance are a secured creditor for the catering refurbishment. There is D&P's fees as well so this will likely come off before the other creditors get anything from the 8.5 million green is offering. I dont see this getting agreed by creditors they would get a better deal through liquidation.

Agree0 Disagree0

To last poster, how would they get more from liquidation? Who are they going to sell Ibrox to?
No supermarket, no luxury flats , this is Govan not Chelsea. It is only worth what somebody would pay for it. The training ground, I refuse to use its current title, is worth what? There is no planning permission for houses, so only a sports club can buy, who?
If liquidation, the creditors would get the square root of bugger all.

Agree0 Disagree0

Close finance have no say in it if HMRC & Ticketus agree there debt is not enough to stop cva. HMRC should accept cva as they are there for the interests of the taxpayer not in best interests of tax payer if they get nothing.

Agree0 Disagree0

And with administration they will get nothing either. So why would HMRC lose face and agree a CVA when they can look tough to clubs in the SPL and go for liquidation.

Oh and to the other poster I think you should go look at the administrators report that had a list of all creditors. Close finance are a secured creditor so they get their cash before ticketus and HMRC if they all agreed a CVA. the creditors are getting nothing here with a cva or liquidation and hmrc dont do agree to cva's. there has not been a football administration where the taxman was the largest creditor.

Agree0 Disagree0

Was there not a rumour the SFA could be interested in buying murray park if an asset sale came about.

Agree0 Disagree0

What about the dough hmrc would make in the next 10 years ...doesny count eh....never cut off yir nose tae spite yir face

Agree0 Disagree0

Why would HMRC settle for a CVA thats gets them less than the offer CW made to them to settle the tax owing?
Didn't CW himself offer HMRC around 11.5 mill and it was turned down?

Agree0 Disagree0

@first reply - yes it's not just a simple X pence in the pound equation. CW as usual muddies the water and other creditors may seek other arrangements e.g. the debenture holders may be carrying their debt forwards. D&P have hopefully been negotiating all of this especially with HMRC who have been very very quiet.

@12th reply - hadn't heard that one (SFA interested in Murray Park) but it would be a good buy for them. And they could also rent the facility back to Rangers thus reducing the amount of initial investment needed to keep Rangers going. If Hampden hadn't been rebuilt, maybe the SFA would have done this with Ibrox also.

Agree0 Disagree0

The SFA couldnt afford Murray Park, as for HMRC, a deal will be done(IF Rangers lose the case, which I doubt)

Agree0 Disagree0

No bids for the liquidated assets of RFC have been received in 3 months, let me repeat....none. Outside of football these assets would not pay the admin fees never mind any creditors. It may have escaped Celtic fans attention but we are in the mddle of the worst recession in nearly a hundred years, investing in property and retail development in Govan is imbecillic.

The assets are only worth anything to a commercially viable Rangers oldco or newco. Rangers are a loss making business with uncertain future profits, the cost of restructuring reduces the value down to approx 18-20 million. A CVA is the only way HMRC will get anything back, the biggest obstacle to them agreeing was Craig Whyte, he is gone. There is no football creditors rule in operation in Scotland, this removes the automatic HMRC objection to CVAs.

A CVA is not guaranteed but it seems unlikely that HMRC, Ticketus or CW will try and block it. The Ticketus announcement confirms their liability is with CW and not Rangers plc.

Worst scenario is HMRC block CVA and a newco is set up, anoher CVA proposal for the oldco will be submitted, HMRC will agree and a merger will take place within a season. HMRC will agree because in effect the assets of Rangers have been liquidated.

Its a done deal, either way Rangers will hold onto their history and assets.

Anorak.

Agree0 Disagree0

Well, D &P said last week a stand alone CVA wasnt achievable..........remember when miller was Pref bidder?

i cant stand D & P

Agree0 Disagree0

The administrators confirmed that the creditors know the finance proposal on the table and are happy to proceed to a CVA meeting, that is a good sign!

J

Agree0 Disagree0

Debenture scheme are secured creditors are they not ? there is £7.7 million of your liquidation

Agree0 Disagree0

Debenture holders come out of creditor status if cva agreed as they still have they're seats at Ibrox. Only in Liquidation to do they come in to the equation.

HMRC saving face i as a taxpayer would be slightly annoyed if just to save face. They decided to take no money in liquidation rather than something through a cva. Remember it's our money. HMRC dont do saving face they do getting as much money as they can from everything and anyone.

Agree0 Disagree0

8.5 for CVA
8-9 to secure debentures
4-6 to keep things rolling till start of next season

There's at least 20mill without trying too hard

bil72

Agree0 Disagree0

Anorak, you are living in dreamland if you think history shall be kept if a new rangers 2012 opens and old rangers is liquidated. end of, if you cant take the debt over then you cant take the history ok

Agree0 Disagree0

Assets -
As we STILL don't know the result of the creditors vote from around 3 weeks ago, it is hard to say what D&P can do with them.
One of the proposals was to give them free reign with the assets (to do with them as they saw fit).
Could it be they didn't get that part of their proposals passed?
Share transfer - As has been stated by Green is "on the condition a CVA is agreed"
CVA fails, its liquidation with CW pressing his rights to Ibrox and Murray Park through his floating charge.
From there it's anyones guess.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 20:40:52
Quick question to any1 who knows about this stuff. Ticketus r suing Craig whyte for the money so why are they still a creditor of rangers?? Surely they have to decide who it is that owes them money. Rangers or CW

Believable36 Unbelievable12

They're suing him for any shortfall they are due when they only get paid ??p in the pound from the cva or liquidation I understand .

Agree0 Disagree0

Will they not get what they can from rangers and then sue whyte for the rest??

Agree0 Disagree0

They will sue craig whyte for what ever the difference is between what they achieve from CVA and what they are owed which might help with CVA approval

Agree0 Disagree0

Whyte owned rangers so his debt is our debt

Agree0 Disagree0

He has given personal and corporate guarantees, so they go into the cva pot and get 10p in the pound for arguments sake, that's say 2m they then enforce the personal guarantees for the remaining 18m, like a mortgage, you miss the payments they take the house off you, sell it and come after you for the shortfall and then any co guarantor etc,
Nevis

Agree0 Disagree0

They remain a creditor as they hope to help push through the cva and avoid liquidation.

In turn they will prob agree a deal with green simalar to that which whyte agreed over the next few years season tickets. Allowing ally upfront cash to wheel and deal in the transfer market.

Any shortfall in there money they will chase Craig whyte for ! He made signed promises that he chairman of rangers would provide them the season tickets. It's him that broke those promises as he's banned from any part of Scottish football.

Agree0 Disagree0

The contract has not been broken yet and as such still have a claim to any games played at ibrox until it that happens.
Also at this point they are owed nothing as no season tickets have been sold for next season, when they are sold, ticketus can bill Rangers for what they are due then if they are not paid they could sue Rangers.
This could see them sueing Whyte and rangers.
They have been shown by the administrators as a ¨possible¨ debt if Rangers decide to try and rip up the agreement, still a long way to go with this one yet.
jimd

Agree0 Disagree0

I think technically, the ticketus contract hasnt been broken as yet, they are to get a monies from season book sales (season 12/13) so dont think theyre involved in cva vote?

Agree0 Disagree0

Havent had sight of this type of claim however in others (albeit employment related) lawyers have advised pursuing all concerned in claim to maximise best chanc e of return for their client. Suspect tickets lawyers (remember octopus, who have lots of cash back/ or own ticketus)

They'll pursue rfc via CVA and whyte.

Agree0 Disagree0

As things stand they still have the rights to sell 100,000 season tickets. But D&P got a ruling that the contract doesn't have to be honoured and if it isn't then Ticketus become a creditor like everyone else in this sorry mess.

Meantime it's in their interest to start procedings against CW even if the final amount they may (or may not) be due under the guarantee is not known. The whole arrangement is a complete mess and has probably never happened before. A dream for lawyers no doubt.

Agree0 Disagree0

This is where it becomes interesting because you can be absolutely sure CW has not left himself open to be £27M in debt, after selling his shares for a £1.

So does/will he still own Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion?

Or will it be as simple as declaring himself bankrupt and liquidating the company which gave the corporate assurances?

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 18:22:30
On tv 6pm news, CVA day 6th June. Creditor cooling off period until 6th July. Creditors can change their minds.
Tax specialist saying Ticketus and HMRC get more money from liquidation than CVA and may wish to send out a message of not being defeated and having won against Rangers.
Why is Green not naming his consortium? Also Green's purchase is dependent on a CVA being agreed on 6th June.

Believable30 Unbelievable28

Green's agreement to buy is binding so if a CVA doesn't happen he'll have to set up a newco.

Agree0 Disagree0

Not true - he owns the club no matter the outcome of the CVA. If the CVA is declined he forms a Newco. "Unconditional offer"...."Legally binding contract" etc etc...

Agree0 Disagree0

Greens deals in not depended on the cva at all,

green has already paid £2 for the shares and owns them.

his preferred option is a cva but if he ant get it he will take us down the newco road.

this has already been said by im and the admin guys yesterday..

Agree0 Disagree0

How can the fans get behind up to 20 foreigners when we don't even know who they are? Name the consortium? Why not name them? There's no business reason not to and every business reason to name them. They will own 85% of Rangers!

Agree0 Disagree0

His purchase is not dependant on a CVA. He has said if not acceptable they will go down the newco route. Whatever happens they are the new owners and have a legally binding agreement

Agree0 Disagree0

I'm sure the tax specialist said hmrc get the same whether it's cva or liquidation and the only reason they would force liquidation is to send a message to others .

Agree0 Disagree0

TBK stated that a CVA was NOT going to happen as of last Friday, there was just not enough time left.
What makes you think that Mr Green can get this through?
I suspect he is just sending out the message that he reallt really wants a CVA to apease the fans but realistically they know that Liquidation is the only way left to go.....
Also who is the majority share holder now? who is the owner now?

Agree0 Disagree0

Wit were u watchin? the guy who said it advised abramovich, the man city owners and wot he actually said was they would get the same value from both not any more from either but so as not to set a precedent he reckons that hmrc won't do a cva cos there is bigger fish waiting to be fried :)

Agree0 Disagree0

Cannot name the consortium before he gets CVA in case creditors see a lot of money men and demand more cash!

Agree0 Disagree0

Ticketus won't do a CVA they want their £27m back or 4 years tickets.
Actually why can't Green just run the team and honour all debt 100% paid back over say 10-15years instead of stiffing everyone for criminal sums of money? It's the honest honourable thing to do.

Agree0 Disagree0

This guy has managed to hear the polar opposite of everything that was said on the news report.

Agree0 Disagree0

It's universally agreed Creditors get money from asset sale and liquidation. So why was Green insisting liquidation means zero for them and therefore CVA is logical?
Is Green now telling lies?
I actually think Miller was a genuine good guy and his £11.5m would have delivered a CVA.

Agree0 Disagree0

Was also stated 1st June big day as players contracts resume and Green has promised to pay them and operating costs as dosh runs out 30th May.

Agree0 Disagree0

I'm a Celtic fan and have just popped on this site for noseyness. I too saw the tax guy on the telly tonight and he said cva or liquidation? both would result inthe same value for ticikitus and HMRC.
I hope rangers are in the SPL next season as it will be mince without the old firm games (let's be honest).
However I do want some punishment given out (sorry bears!). I think a points deduction and transfer ban is fair. If I was a Rangers fan I would accept this and for the next 100 years you could say that you took your "punishment". If not, you know that other fans (not just Celtic ones) will forever say that Rangers escaped true punishment and don't deserve to be here.

Agree0 Disagree0

It's universally agreed Creditors get money from asset sale and liquidation. So why was Green insisting liquidation means zero for them and therefore CVA is logical?
Is Green now telling lies?
I actually think Miller was a genuine good guy and his £11.5m would have delivered a CVA.

In what universe? The 8.5 million plus whatever debtor money D&P get (if any) goes towards CVA. If they don't agree to a CVA Rangers FC (IA) sells its assets to a newco (formed by the consortium). Therefore you have a situation where liquidation is worth only whatever is paid for the assets. Its the same money...8.5 million.

Agree0 Disagree0

Wee have to take bullet guys and i think the transfer ban reduced till january will be the hit wee take.if wee go "newco" wee cant play in champions league for 3 years so anyone thats got an intrest in rangers making money to recoup their costs wouldnt stand in the way of a cva so i think its safe to say the cva will go through ...watp

kev

Agree0 Disagree0

How can anyone say the assets equal exactly £8.5m? Naismith, McGregor, others would raise £10m?? Then there's the properties MP =£15m.

Agree0 Disagree0

Green is extremely hopeful the cva will be agreed. The creditors get the same whether it's cva or asset sale to a newco. As green will give 8.5m either way.

Hmrc only care about hitting us with a bill of 70million from these EBT's as from a friend who is an accountant

Agree0 Disagree0

Kev your logic is shocking. Creditors dont give a toss if Rangers make money because the money wont go to them. They want the best return on their debts regardless of whether its achieved by CVA or liquidation.

Agree0 Disagree0

Hmrc will hit us for 70 million because of these EBT's we can't pay that and to be honest they won't honestly mind. After a look at our books they will realise Scottish football is a poor league.

However after winning the big tax case they will take themselves to the premier league where I'm certain that Chelsea, man city, man U, etc all do the same. So imagine the bill they would be hit with.

They on the other hand will have zero problem coughing up £200 million. Roman, the sheik and the richest club in the world won't be needing administration

Agree0 Disagree0

They would get the same value in a cva/liquidation situation,but Whyte has secure creditor status so he gets paid first ie transfer of stadium,training park to 1 of his companies so leaves basically nothing for the rest of the creditors. This is why Charles Green has stated no cva no money for creditor's.

Agree0 Disagree0

I thought green had an option to buy whytes shares only if a cva is accepted, surely he will leave himself wide open if a cva doesnt happen?

Agree0 Disagree0

In liquidation the players are no longer an asset they are redundant so can not be counted. MP worth that on paper for insurance purpose. No good to any 1 house can not be built on the land for90 years what sporting club in Scotland would spend £15m buying it. Same goes for Ibrox who would buy it. Land value not very high

Agree0 Disagree0

Quite simple really -
The CVA proposal includes possible additional revenue (player sales, possible debt recovery from court cases).
Creditors will vote on what is available at that moment, not pie in the sky possibilities.
HMRC have just voted against a CVA at Port Vale, the odds are they will vote against one for RFC.
Ticketus can't be included as a creditor at the moment as the contract is still valid until RFC break it, so HMRC has over the 25% needed to block a CVA (prior to the BTC result).
CW has played a blinder -
a) CVA agreed - Ticketus deal will still in place, he's off the hook.
b) Newco - He then owns Ibrox and Murray Park courtesy of the floating charge, rents them back to RFC and uses that money (less a wee commission) to pay Ticketus each month.
Scenario (b) he stands to make a nice wee profit which is why I think it's his preferred outcome.
Only way anyone gets their hands on his shares is IF a CVA is agreed, so scenario (a) then kicks in. He will not leave himself open to being sued, whatever he may be he's not stupid.

Agree0 Disagree0

Whyte no longer owns anything...the floating charge only mattered if he owned the club.

Agree0 Disagree0

Listen to greenes exact words he stated'i have purchased whytes shares binding on us getting a cva' . So therefore if he does not geta cva is the share transfer still legit or will whte say no deal.In my opinion whyte is still boxing clever and this guy greene has too much bombast and bluster,In glasgow parleance ' a fanny merchant'!

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 16:33:01
So with things looking a bit brighter for us, dare i ask about how we will be next season on the field?

I see Mcgregor, Whittaker, Davis and Lafferty fetching some kinda transfer fees in the summer and expect them to go. Naisy and Aluko will certainly have some suitors but i'm praying we somehow hang onto these 2. I can see Hutton, Ness, McCabe, Cole and Perry having a big part in the first team next season and for Fleck it's a make or break season IMO. Hope we can also keep Little as the guy looks decent enough but like Ness his fitness is an issue. McCulloch could easily lead the line for us next season with Naisy and Aluko either side but his age and niggling injuries may again be an issue so who's available for us?? I still think big Gary O'Connor would do a turn for us. Can score in the SPL and has a physical presence that we need if we don't have McCulloch. I think he's available on a free as well. I think that's the best we can hope for to be honest 2 or 3 free signings, mixed with the likes of Bocanegra, Edu, Aluko, Naisy and the young guys like Ness, McCabe and Perry we look ok. Guys like Healy and Broadfoot need to go as they contribute absolutly zero and i'd rather see young guys fill the bench than they 2 who must be on decent money too.
Thoughts??

J1985

Believable23 Unbelievable34

How can there be any signings if there's a singing embago, or have you been asleep for the past fortnight

Agree0 Disagree0

Fleck ??

Agree0 Disagree0

Love Naisy to stay, but think it'll depend on the wage structure/ceiling that the new owner applies. Agree Healy should go,but would hang onto Broadfoot,regarding possibility of transfer embargo,can't really afford to offload players till we know what's happening. Also Whittaker in same boat as Naisy,depend on wages.
Optimistic Bear

Agree0 Disagree0

What about the transfer embargo - i guess you are assuming it is lifted? bearing in mind we don't know the precise terms agreed back in february, the players you mentioned for transfer fees may well be able to walk away. However, all things being equal I largely agree with your thoughts man by man.

Agree0 Disagree0

I expect to see mcGregor whittaker davis lafferty healy papac to leave this sunner thats 5million off the wage bill to be replaced by youth players then when we are financially stable get back to our best

Agree0 Disagree0

Transfer fess only possible if CVA agreed, as if newco then contracts cancelled and no transfer fee then possible.

Agree0 Disagree0

All makes sense. A lot will rest upon which decision we get on wednesday at the appeal though. BTW John Fleck is done at Rangers, he has had more chances than i have had hot dinners. People keep saying "But he's still young" but age doesn't matter if you have it. Maybe the guy does have it but i think he definitely needs a fresh start. Look at the impact young guys like McCabe, Ness and Perry also previously Danny Wilson when they have all come through. They all have a lot more maturity than Fleck has shown.

Agree0 Disagree0

Cant register any players over 18 for 12 months...free or not i'm afraid .

Agree0 Disagree0

Waste of time speculating until after 6th July and end of CVA cooling off period, before which liquidation can take place.

Agree0 Disagree0

Aye mate i've been asleep for a fortnight.....idiot. Just to make you aware i am assuming that no transfer embargo applies to us. i assumed most would have understood that. i base my assumption on the fact that the sfa do not have a clear course of discipline in place regarding the situation we find ourselves in, therefore they cant just make up punishment as they go along. yes we shood be punished but a transfer embargo?? If we exit administration in time for the new season then what cause do they have to slap a transfer embargo or a points deduction for that matter?? A european ban n this whole administration has been/is torture atm n im sure further financial penalties will come our way but a transfer embargo outa nowhere is ridiculous.
J1985

Agree0 Disagree0

Makes no difference if CVA or Newco players have legally binding contract and as theirs revert back to original terms on 1st June canny see many of them having a no newco clause in their originals so they will be TUPE over to newco or have to buy their contracts out if they want to walk. As for the He has bought the club either newco or CVA before the end of season which means that according to legal advice given to SFA by a QC they cannot legally pass further punishment on to a newco

Agree0 Disagree0

When something happens that has not happened before then thats why there is no clear course of action as put above, the independant panel found that the way we were being run could only be worsened by match fixing and cheating.
we had a board of directors turning a blind eye to the company trading while insolvent, buying players we had no intention of paying for, taking tickets for games we had no intention of paying for, etc. etc. read the report, we are fkd and dont be surprised if the penalties are not increased.
jimd

Agree0 Disagree0

Makes no difference if CVA or Newco players have legally binding contract and as theirs revert back to original terms on 1st June canny see many of them having a no newco clause in their originals so they will be TUPE over to newco or have to buy their contracts out if they want to walk. As for the He has bought the club either newco or CVA before the end of season which means that according to legal advice given to SFA by a QC they cannot legally pass further punishment on to a newco



No. Just no. SFA can refuse a NewCo a licence to play in the SPL if they think RFC are going to 'walk away' from any punishment handed out. Also players do not have to buy out their contracts to leave although some terrible explanations of TUPE regulations by people who should know better have muddied the waters for some people.

Agree0 Disagree0

What you on about bit brighter! Last week the miller deal was done , don't trust Green, Sheff Utd are still struggling and who are these 20 ppl in the consortium? Oh and HMRC don't do deals anymore plus dual contracts plus shredding documents plus forged documents , this soap will be in the courts for years , cheers Murray and Whyte

Agree0 Disagree0

Can someone shed some light on this if the sfa ruling is upheld regarding transfers can we still bring someone in on a free or is that also a no go?

Agree0 Disagree0

I wouldn't assume no transfer embargo. No doubt there will be backing down at the Appeal, but probably only to keep the embargo in place over the summer window. So you'll have all your wage-earners "walking away" (unless Green's mythical "warchest" appears to pay their wages) and no-one coming in to replace.

Remember, the greediest players are back on full wages at the start of June, with "deferred" payments also due ("sacrifice?" Make me laugh!). They will be ushered the door in short order.

Agree0 Disagree0

I would prefer neil alexander up front than "BIG " garry o no not another miss connor.

Agree0 Disagree0

Personally, i am hoping to see some of Fleck's potential next season. However, i understand that McCoist may have an issue with him as i understand he's a bit of a ned.

Also, if Blackpool go up, i'd imagine he'd want to sign with them and play in the prem (ala Charlia Adam) and i'd hope we'd get some money for him.

As for bringing players in, it all depends on the transfer embargo and coming out of admin, doesn't it? Might not be much use speculating on targets until we know, one way or another.

Muzz

Agree0 Disagree0

Hopefully we wont need some of the youngers players hopefully we can buy decent new players with the new investment heres hoping

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 15:16:48
anyone read that Gattuso wants to come back next season? says he doesn't care about the money. anyone think there is any chance of this happening and would you want him to come back?

Believable64 Unbelievable35

The silly season has officially begun!

CC

Agree0 Disagree0

I really couldnt hazard a guess as to whether its possible or not (under the circumstances) given he is a free agent and money not being an issue. As much as i would like to see the wee man back im not going to hold my breath.

Kenny McG

Agree0 Disagree0

Depends what happens on wed, if its good news then miby

Agree0 Disagree0

If we're allowed to sign players i would love him back he says if struggles for fitness he'll rip contract up

Agree0 Disagree0

If the transfer embargo is lifted on the appeal this Wednesday, then I think he'll be back and I would take him.

Agree0 Disagree0

I take it wednesday is when the appeal is heard then mate. What kinda odds dyou think id get on it being put back till a later date or at least a week or two.

Agree0 Disagree0

Two words ....... Transfer Embargo, and I cant see it being overturned given the 102 page dossier the SFA released and the severity of the charges

Agree0 Disagree0

This was taken from the website:"I'm not bothered about money. I want an experience that will touch me emotionally, I want to feel alive. If in the future I feel as if I'm not in the best shape then I'll hand my contract back to whichever club I sign for."

The 2006 World Cup winner retains close ties with Scotland through his Scottish wife, Monica Romano, and says the decision is in her hands.

"I have to speak with my wife, she's the one who decides, but if I have a say my dream is to return to Rangers," Gattuso said.
Personally i would love him back for a year if the transfer embargo appeal happens.

Agree0 Disagree0

If after wednesday we can sign players, then i would take him back,

the merchandise sales alone would more than cover any average wage we would offer him,

as he said he doesnt care about the money so im sure he will take an average wage as he will knows its all we can afford to offer him,

would give the fans something to look forward to for next season, so finger crossed,.

Agree0 Disagree0

I know it sounds like a grade A made-up rumour, but I heard the same on Talksport this morning. I'm not sure if he could play for us - unless of course the ban was lifted - but there's nothing to stop him training with us etc. as there's no question he'd be a great influence on the team. Muzz

Agree0 Disagree0

If its a transfer embargo, surely that means we can't transfer between clubs but he is at the end of his contract and becomes a free agent, then I can see no reason why we can't sign him?
IRBM

Agree0 Disagree0

SFA won't accept his registration.

Agree0 Disagree0

Merchandise sales won't cover anything - clubs don't make nearly as much as fans think from this.

Agree0 Disagree0

Transfer embargo means we cant sign players over 18 years old (Free , out of contract, Bosman or any shape or form).

Agree0 Disagree0

He said it, but was he really serious about doing it or was he just being nice?

Agree0 Disagree0

If it happens think it would be ideal as young McCabe who has bags off potential can learn lots of him as play similar way would be great to learn trade of an experience pro like Gattuso

Agree0 Disagree0

Was he the one that headbutted Joe Jordan?

Upwards and Onwards.

Agree0 Disagree0

Rino would be great for bringing on McCabe and Ness, wouldn't surprise me if Ferguson gave back.

Agree0 Disagree0

I think @ 34 he would still stroll through most spl games. Sitting in front of the back 4, ideal to let other boys get forward! Just can't see it happening under the circumstances
Big C

Agree0 Disagree0

Especially when you don't own the rights to your own merchandise. lol

Agree0 Disagree0

Is he any better than Ness, McCabe, why waste wages on a midfielder when we need a striker

Agree0 Disagree0

God, u lot will believe ANYTHING. All of u really need a reality check. Green to rule rfc off the park, & the Green machine to rule ON the park for years to come. Have a nice day xxxxx

Agree0 Disagree0

No chance transfer embargo getting lifted, Rangers could have been thrown out of the league, oh and he's a mile slow now even for the SPL , next you'll be saying Barry Ferguson is coming back

Agree0 Disagree0

Would LOVE to see him at ibrox we need a cult hero figure at rangers

Agree0 Disagree0

If he can bring Pippo Inzaghi with him as well that'd be one hell of a coup!

Agree0 Disagree0

U may find we will do as livingston done and sign people as amatuers and have sponsers pay wages

Agree0 Disagree0

Anyone who can improve the team should be snapped up. We can't be choosy next season and his experience would be invaluable for the youngsters.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 13:34:33
ok, so Craig whyte is gone and has been replaced by mr charles green.

so my question is what is happening now with the RFFF?

last i heard there was over 400k paid into it by the fans.

but apart from paying some money to dunferlimes i cant see anything else happening with it yet.

i heard romours of it being used to pay the small creditors, i.e debts below 1000
and also heard it was going to be used to pay for a lawyer to fight the embargo appeal.

but has any of this been done, if is who is the lawyer that has been selected?
and have we or when will we pay off the small debts?

surely as this is the fans money we need to know what has happened to it,

Believable28 Unbelievable11

The Qc was named a few weeks ago - - comes in at £50k +

think theres more things to sort first though eh!

Agree0 Disagree0

Nobody's ever been able to explain to me why none of this money won't ultimately go to D&P, you can claim it will go to this, that and the other but Rangers only have a very limited amount of cash at the moment and realistically D&P need paying and paying from Rangers so no matter how you spin it, a lot of the RFF money will go to causes we maybe don't like to see it going to.

Agree0 Disagree0

Its like Cluedo...

Whyte did not do it....
Green now in the frame

Jason Orange next ,

Or maybe its reservoir dogs.....

Agree0 Disagree0

The trustees will decide what to do with the money as was explained when the RFF was launched.

This money is totally separate to RFC and is controlled by the trustees.

Agree0 Disagree0

They said they had at least £500k at their disposal to fight the SFA!

Agree0 Disagree0

The £500k will disappear fast once the QC starts adding up costs! Very very expensive route to go down.

Agree0 Disagree0

Far as i know mate its all being held onto to fight the sfa!! Remember when Lennon took them on with his QC McBride and the sfa backed down claiming they couldnt afford to fight, so we want as much money as we can so that they just throw in the towel like the did with Celik !!

Agree0 Disagree0

Some of the money was used to re-employ some of scouts that were paid off and they are paying for the re-turfing of the pitches at Ibrox and Murray Park.

Agree0 Disagree0

Issue is lennon had a case for unfair process, what leg does rangers have to stand on when in the sfa hearing thier lawyer admitted they had no legal defense for what rangers directors did?

The judgement is published and looks like very little scope for an appeal to say anything other than we are harshly punished.... on what basis ?

Compare with other examples they got of lightly, and the appeal could make things worse....

no one stopped whyte doing what he did - thats a far bigger crime that what he did - and means all directors brough sfa into disrepute.

£500k may be needed to fight any bans from dual contracts penalties if they appear - but what grounds would rangers fight on if a director has admitted they existed and niether Ally or Walter have come out and said they did not exist?

rangers could be in litigation from every other club in SPL and Dunferline with regard to unfair advantage in fielding a team of players and paying for them by not paying tax ....

Agree0 Disagree0

The correct approach is for the club to appeal the finding, which is happening.
Fans hiring QCs for court cases is foolish and out of order, particularly when it was a High Court Law Lord who carried out the investigation. The 120 page report also lays out the severity of the crimes, which require equally severe punishment.
QC is a waste of time and money.

Agree0 Disagree0

Can someone please explain were (acording to yorkson, dunfermline chairman) rangers gained advantage though the alleged dual contracts. if rangers were paying a player, say for a figure 20k a week, thru the offshore accounts so that player paid less tax, then it would cost rangers the same 20k a week in british bank? only differance is the player concerd would see more in his bottom line? no?
no benifit to rangers how these players were paid?
the tiger
been away for a while, but still beyond reproach!

Agree0 Disagree0

After the release of the sfa statement last week it's a waste of money as rangers don't have a leg to stand on.
result will be original verdict upheld or increased

Agree0 Disagree0

Result will be upheld but its frankly nonsence that we are being agresivley persued when huge conglomerates like vodaphone and glaxo smith cline have head offices in luxemburg and saved around 500 mil in tax thats the avoidance that should be being persued butthe problem being both companies have ceos who were educated with cameron at etton we will be liquidated to make a point then all other uk clubs who are involved will be allowed to form payment plans .It makes a mokery of uk law u can change the law and then sue in retrospect it was not illegal when we were doing it and as for dual contracts check facts u tits they only had one all other monies payed in forms of LOANS which were never repaid chase players and companies who administered these schemes this is not a problem caused by rangers or will be solved by closing us down,look at the epl today are u seriosly telling me that carlos teves who earns 250k per week is paying 125k in tax no chance he wouldnt put up with it would u?there are schemes that have come in to play to replace ebts the tax office and goverment will always be one step behind rich people who dont want to pay huge tax bills unfortunatly the cost will be rangers ,my prediction is newco liquidation of original rangers for me this kills of the club i have supported i will not suppoert a newco everyone can slate me if they want but if its newco im done

Agree0 Disagree0

The problem with the 'loans' is that they were never repaid! The players would have not taken loans instead of a salary, so there will be a paper trail excusing them from repayment. This money then becomes a salary and tax is due, simples!
How did Rangers benefit - they paid say £20k a week for a player and the player got the full £20k, he would not have signed for less. If Rangers had paid him a salary that gave him £20k per week in his bank account, it would have cost about £35k per week to the club, so it is almost two for the price of one and therefore an advantage, they wouldn't have had as many top quality players if they had paid them legitimately and therefore may not have been as successful.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 13:24:46
I really don't understand all the so called Rangers supporters coming out with all this negative rubbish about Green, what the f!ck has he done to upset you, for once we've got someone who is telling it like it is, NO ONE CAN GUARANTEE that hmrc will except a cva so he's warning us about what might happen, not what will happen, don't forget that HMRC's decision will be made public so there's no way he could hide this even if he wanted to, as for ticketus I'm not sure about their status as they have ongoing legal action against Whyte for their money what status does that give them , your comments are welcome

Believable28 Unbelievable14

History of dissolved company directorshops, poor history at previous football club, wealth off the radar, undisclosed shareholders to name but four. Take those with the history of the past year and you can see why we are sceptical.

Agree0 Disagree0

Good post mate. Need to give the guy a chance! He was certainly more open in a 40 minute meeting than Craig Whyte ever was!

J

Agree0 Disagree0

Mr green reminds me of brian clough , a straight talking yorkshire man who wont take any messing about , and BC got results doug t.s.o

Agree0 Disagree0

Why should be just welcome a bid like this from a non Rangers man who offers no transparency? The whole bid stinks. At least Miller was transparent and a far more successful businessman.

And believe me mate there will be no CVA and Mr Green knows this fine well. Don't let another chancer con you. BB

Agree0 Disagree0

Clue is in the name... since when if rangers saviour called Green ?

lol

Agree0 Disagree0

Sheffield supporters said he did the same there, did the John Wayne speach and then stiffed them.

Agree0 Disagree0

To BB and you think the Blue Knights gave you honesty and transparacy? all these real Rangers men like SDM PM and all the others, nobody knows what the outcome of the BTC will be, and as he said the names will come when/if the CVA goes through not before, which is understandable we don't want any more threatening e-mails being sent DO WE?

Agree0 Disagree0

When did cloughie become a yorkshireman hes from middlesboro

Agree0 Disagree0

Nameing names at the moment would be stupid if the consortium are well nown and with plenty of money it could stop any agreement on the cva as the would be looking to get more of there money back of them

Agree0 Disagree0

Worrying thing for me is all these guys are putting in relatively small amounts each so could easy walk away , don't think the 11m or 8.5m will be enough for a CVA still frustrated bear

Agree0 Disagree0

Shareholders have to be disclosed to creditors before CVA can be agreed. HMRC need to be sure that tax will be paid moving forward and that they don't have an issue with any of the proposed business owners. Green knows this, so don't understand why he is delaying, will all come out in open at creditors meeting on 6th June.

Agree0 Disagree0

Historically part of the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1968 the town became the centre of the County Borough of Teesside, which was absorbed by the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland in 1974. In 1996 Cleveland was abolished, and Middlesbrough became a unitary authority, within the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire.

Agree0 Disagree0

Guy needs to be given a chance fella, but the rangers fans reaction is understandable. Mind the wee Fergus saved Celiks bunnets but the fans didn't have many nice things to say aboot him !

Agree0 Disagree0

You all need to do some serious research on this guy! It took me all of 15 minutes on google to see and realise he is not all he seems.

Agree0 Disagree0

Why should he name them in public maybe they dont want the publicity at the moment maybe they want all the concentration put onto getting a cva in place without all the hassle of crap the papers will print maybe just maybe the guy green is telling the truth

Agree0 Disagree0

You might not like Gers fans coming out with negative rubbish about Mr Green but here's some negative facts, his CV.

Could anybody tell me why they have any faith in this man? BB


HFG LIMITED
Dissolved
UNICORN MUSIC AND DANCE LIMITED
Dissolved
PATHSIGHT LIMITED Dissolved
MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED Dissolved
TURNPYKE LIMITED
Dissolved
H F G LIMITED
Dissolved
PLAYERS WORLDWIDE LIMITED Dissolved
C.L.A. MANAGEMENT LIMITED Dissolved
PENMC PLC Dissolved (Director Resigned 21/08/2003)
PLAYERS WORLDWIDE LIMITED Dissolved (Company Secretary Resigned
17/08/1998)
GILLPOLLCO (NO.1) LIMITED Dissolved (Director Resigned 05/04/1997)
ABOVEWORTH LIMITED Dissolved (Director Resigned 05/04/1997)
GILLPOLLCO (NO. 2) LIMITED Dissolved (Director Resigned 05/04/1997)
S.L.P. CONSULTANCY LIMITED Dissolved (Director Resigned 29/04/1998)

FORMATION GROUP PLC Active (Director Resigned 22/02/2012)
QUINODERM LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LONDON LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
KINETIC IMAGING LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS (LEEDS) LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
HISTOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS LTD Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
SEARBY FARMING COMPANY LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 06/02/2004)
SOURCE BIOSCIENCE UK LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
CELLPATH LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 24/01/2001)
SOURCE BIOSCIENCE PLC Active (Director Resigned 31/08/2006)
FAIRFIELD IMAGING LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 24/01/2001)
TEXAS HOLDINGS LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 12/10/1999)
PEERS HUNT LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 12/10/1999)
SHEFFIELD UNITED (DEVELOPMENTS) LIMITED Active (Director Resigned
22/04/1998)
SHEFFIELD UNITED ACADEMY LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 22/04/1998)
PREMIER SPORTS SERVICES LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 22/04/1998)
BLADES FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 22/04/1998)
CONRAD LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 24/04/1998)
BOBBY CHARLTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Active (Director Resigned
22/04/1998)
THE NITHSDALE (KIRKINTILLOCH) PROPERTY CO., LTD. Active(Director
Resigned 22/04/1998)
SHEFFIELD UNITED PLC Active (Director Resigned 30/06/1998)
FOCUS SPORTS AND LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Active (Director
Resigned 05/04/1997)
CRANBOURNE LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 22/04/1998)
DAVID CONRAD (SALES) LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 22/04/1998)

Agree0 Disagree0

This going where it was always supposed to go from the day Murray pocketed his quid (99p too much ) Liquidation will happen, Whyte knew it Murray knew it and Green knows it, its all been about being in the right place when it happens and Greens deal gives him just that.
He has an agreed deal to take on the club for the same amount when a cva fails and thats all hes interested in.
hes picking up rangers for 5ml plus incoming transfer money thats rangers money anyway.
Ibrox, murray park, albion car park , players contracts and no debt all for 5ml, win win win all the way for mr green.

Agree0 Disagree0

Its just a small town in Yorkshire as fans in the northeast sing

Agree0 Disagree0

Love this notion of a "non-rangers man." What a fussy bunch you are. Even now on the brink of extinction you are still clinging to the tribal attitudes. No wonder you're dying out. Dinosaurs.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 12:06:28
Peter Kenyon is in the consortium and so is Bill Ng, will be announced shortly, ive read aswell that every memeber is going to pledge around 1.5 million each and that will be aimed at rebuilding the squad, but only obv if the transfer embargo is overturned

Believable11 Unbelievable38

400 k each

Agree0 Disagree0

Its 400k roughly for the CVA pot.

Big Hoose staying open Timmy :)

Agree0 Disagree0

20 people pledging £1.5m each !
So RFC will have a £30m transfer fund.

Stay off the Milky Ways & Mars Bars mate. You're on another planet if you think thats gonna happen.

Agree0 Disagree0

Why would it not happen? I think what you are really saying is that you hope it wont happen.

Agree0 Disagree0

Sounds like a Kennedy/Murray wet dream

Agree0 Disagree0

Better dig the "War Chest" oot the back room to keep the £30mill stashed in - is the current chest big enough (the one Craig Whyte left at Ibrox I mean). Otherwise it's a trip doon the War Chest store to buy a bigger one I guess. Will the RFFF finance the purchase of a new chest I wonder seeing as we're skint?

Agree0 Disagree0

Everything will be fine.......the big players have just been waiting for awbody to show their hands. We will go on now from strength to strength and deal with those against us as we always do

Agree0 Disagree0

400k for the CVA pot? To appease about 100 millions worth of debt. OK then. Didnt personally think the Big Hoose would be close to be honest, just know there will be a different Rangers playing in it mate. And i think before anyone starts getting carried away about 30 millions warchest's (Never mind the transfer embargo) do you not think it would be better spent getting your club in order? Maybe repair your "Big Hoose" thats reportedly crumbling, pay your PAYE thats owed from last year etc. Im gonna do you lot a favour, write off next year for definite and i personally think the 2 years after that aswell. its gonna be a long, slow road back to being in contention again. AND THATS BEST CASE SCENARIO. Oh and you might have some questions to answer for if the duel contract case blows up in your faces.


All I'm saying is why not be quietly confident about such things and then when they're inevitably shot down you won't feel daft.

Agree0 Disagree0

"We will go on now from strength to strength and deal with those against us as we always do"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that by not paying people, threatening people who make decisions against you, threatening other clubs (al la McCoist and Jardine), cheating behaviour where only match fixing could be worse?

Agree0 Disagree0

The 400K each (assuming that is true which is probably isnt) would bring the 8M for the CVA pot. however that is not the total figure as there is still another 3.5M owed to rangers from other football clubs (I think its all from Everton pretty much).

So there would be 11.5-12M in the pot to service the current KNOWN debt of 55M

The debt is not 100M as the big tax case is still not known.

Agree0 Disagree0

Ahhh it's great to see some of you back, £30m war chests (not the slightest consideration for paying off another £30m of your debt). From strength to strength (alive and barely with a pulse, Green already making new co noises, 16 of 39 companies he's been involved with in 20 years liquidated. No desire to be at the club long). This on top of all the investigations, you are by no means out of the woods yet and while a degree of optimism is understandable after recent months I'd lay off the "strength to strength and deal with those..." garbage for just a while yet. Delusional with a remarkable penchant for arrogance some Rangers fans.

Agree0 Disagree0

Peter kenyon has already said he isnt involved

Agree0 Disagree0

Utter rubbish! Ticketus , HMRC and other are not gonna except a pittance of a CVA and the let the club spend £30M on players besides Green has already said club won't operate in debt and as Rangers can't currently afford the current squad he's hardly gonna buy more , grow up too many WATP, big hoose posters on here , be realistic , Celtic make a profit and don't spend huge amounts unless they sell, Rangers must be the same

Agree0 Disagree0

Nah to the idiot poster above who said rangers fans have no consideration....it wasnt us the fans that got the club in debt you clown, we're the ones that pay our money in every season so we are entitled to think and give our opinion on what gets done with the clubs money, and the OP is not far off but the 1.5 million is not just for a transfer funds its for settlements stadium repairs and certain moneys owed....and we are agreeing to pay the debt through a CVA, unfortunetley for someone of your small brain capacity you wont understand, but we are entitled to do this and its LAW, so away on your own page, away and post on man utd and barcelonas page who have over a billion pound in debt between them in a crippling economy.


GGER54

Agree0 Disagree0

This 100million is rubbish. Ticketus will continue to receive their money annually as planned. The tax case is also separate. A s it stands debt required to be paid is our footballing transfers and the paye tax bill! Delusional tims with the seville calvulator again!

Agree0 Disagree0

GGERS54 for a guy who has never heard of a full stop nor a capital letter, takes shocking liberties with apostrophes and UNFORTUNATELY cant spell unfortunately, I'd keep your opinion on who has and hasn't got a small brain capacity to yourself. My point was, evidently it didn't burrow its way through your skull, a lot of us find it rich that your fans are even indulging in talk of war chests, there has been a right and wrong way to have done this from day one and Rangers started badly with the shameful attempt to sign Cousin. Sure the CVA is lawful but I read today that amongst the potential income forthcoming for Rangers is the tranfer monies due. Now as far as I know Hearts will get their money from SPL cash due to Rangers but does this apply to all football creditors or just Scottish/British ones? It would be ironic if not a downright disgrace if Rangers were to pay x in the pound to say Chelsea or Vienna and then take full whack from Everton etc post CVA. But why let integrity and fair play get in the way of you getting back to your perceived rightful place in Scottish football eh? On principle I've never really had much of a problem with Rangers shafting a bank or a big company that can absorb the loss but small, tiny local businesses near Ibrox made up a good percentage of your 276 creditors. I studied that list in depth, over 40 of them could have been paid in full with £5,000 but signing Daniel Cousin for that amount a week, by all accounts, seemed a far better use of the club's limited resources. Shocking, embarrassing, disgraceful. As for the fans not getting the club into debt I think that is simplifying the story too. The EBT's began around 2001 we are led to believe, unlike some Celtic fans I am fully aware this isn't the team of Gascoigne, Laudrup etc. This is Ball, Arteta Averladze etc along with November 2000 signing of Flo and the £900,000 paid for Marcus Gayle's four league appearances. And what prompted this and a lot of the woes suffered since? Martin O'Neill's team waltzing away with the league by 15 points. The bump in the road that was losing the 1998 title on the last day was tolerated as it was a close campaign but suddenly after spending a fair bit of cash here was a formidable Celtic team and I bet EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU moaned and booed in an attempt to get the board to keep up with Celtic. Problem was there wasn't the cash to do it, you can see that by future years signings. (2003-04 players bought £1m, players sold £10.5m). So how do we compete? How do we keep up with O'Neill's team with precious little cash to actually buy players? Ladies and gentlemen I give you EBT's. Frank de Boer being a notable example. No outlay on transfers but lots spent on wages (precious little on PAYE but there you go!) So absolutely I agree, none of you sold the Arsenal shares, none of you failed to pay HMRC since last August but every one of you were desperate to catch up with Celtic under O'Neill, it won you two titles to his three, one to Strachan's three but it damn near ruined you in the chase and every bit of it was demanded by the fans. What would the backlash have been had Murray said "we're skint, let them have it for four or five years?" So for me I think this whole sorry situation falls on lots of people within Ibrox, mainly at the top but don't say for one second you would have tolerated major Celtic dominance at the start of the Millenium without demanding Murray coughs up some quality players he otherwise couldn't afford.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 11:39:24
Rumours are that Green does not think the chances of CVA are good!

GDog
WATP

Believable40 Unbelievable17

Of course they aren't. HMRC and Ticketus will be hard to deal with.

BUT to everyone who says the HMRC have a policy of not agreeing them, that is BS!

My bro-in-law is a tax officer and he says CVA's are agreed every day in the HMRC

Agree0 Disagree0

Yeah coming from the daily rag you going to believe it? there just nit picking over his words just sit bk and wait nothing you can do....mark

Agree0 Disagree0

Its not a rumour he actualy said it read the papers

Agree0 Disagree0

No he said he can't be confident about it. The twisting of words by the Dhim headed media. Don't listen to them.

Agree0 Disagree0

Of course they aren't. HMRC and Ticketus will be hard to deal with.

BUT to everyone who says the HMRC have a policy of not agreeing them, that is BS!

My bro-in-law is a tax officer and he says CVA's are agreed every day in the HMRC


I also work for the civil service and deal with HMRC regularly. It is true HMRC regularly agree CVA's with numerous businesses/individuals etc. However they don't do CVA's re non paid PAYE & NI conts very often and to date they have never agreed a CVA as regards a football club. Port Vale recently got their CVA, however HMRC opposed it but not having the 25% share of monies owed they could not enforce that oppostion.

Agree0 Disagree0

Well they didnt agree a cva with me ,if you try and go on the d.a.s scheme ( debt arrangement scheme ) they oppose it ,it then usually goes to aib ( accountancy in bankruptcy ) in kilwinning who usually get hmrc overuled , as the scottish govenment have pumped millions into this scheme and want it used , in my case it was assed up by lawyers and a firm of insolvency practitioners in glasgow ,my bill to trustees im dealing with just now will probably be double what i owed hmrc which isnt a lot for a business doug t.s.o

Agree0 Disagree0

HMRC will do a deal reference the EBT scheme, not the NI and PAYE though.

Agree0 Disagree0

Agreeing a cva is nearly impossible for rangers! HMRC are classed as an unsecured creditor, all unsecured creidtors are offered the same deal (e.g. 5p in £1) and that is fair enough. i do not believe HMRC will agree to this anyway, but there is another problem: since all unsecured creditors have to be offered the same deal, clubs rangers have bought players for are also seen as unsecured creditors and would be offered the same deal... but this would not sit well with FIFA and a deal would not be done! a club cannot agree such an unfair deal with another football club.

Lord Nelson

Agree0 Disagree0

Ed and All
Ticketus are pursuing Craig Whyte,Liberty capital,Wavetower,and The Rangers FC Group Ltd (All Whyte's companies) for their money via Whyte's "personal and corporate guarantees".
CW is no longer the owner of Rangers.
Does this mean Ticketus are no longer classed as creditors? If they reckon the CVA is not going to get a good enough return on their "Loan",it makes sense to go after Whyte independently.
If we assume they can't be paid twice,does this mean Ticketus have come to an arrangement with the new owner,that they will pursue Whyte,and wont be part of the cva pot?
Optimistic Bear

Agree0 Disagree0

Ticketus only drop out of creditors pot if they are actually paid.

Agree0 Disagree0

Well he'd be right. But he has to give it a chance even if newco is really the easier option.

I'm not sure the negativity about HMRC and CVAs is correct. They have twice accepted them at Portsmouth, and that's with all the football debts taken off first too. (I think it works differently in England, though).

Agree0 Disagree0

HRMC accepts CVA every day for business that have gone bust and have no assets - cos there is no choice..

Rangers has assets according to the latest D&P 130 page document...

so unlike most companies in admin there is hope for the creditors.

So why would HRMC accept nothing, if £50 million asset exists....

Agree0 Disagree0

As has been posted before. If a CVA is agreed the 8 or so million Green's consortium is paying up plus whatever else D&P get a hold of from debtors (if anything) will go towards paying creditors. IF CVA not agreed the newco is formed and the cash from the consortium goes to buying Rangers assets for the newco. There will be no assets to cash in if the current Rangers FC company is wound up and liquidated - therefore HMRC get nowt.

Agree0 Disagree0

Why are people saying HMRC gets nowt under liquidation? If there is liquidation, all assets are sold - the ground, the land, the furniture, the silverware etc etc etc. Worth quite a bit more than nowt.

Hopefully all will be sold to a newco if that happens.

Agree0 Disagree0

Some folks believe Whyte has all assets and that there is nothing left for hmrc, but the d&p doc says rangers have assets Circa £100million........

Go figure.... If a floating charge existed it would appear in the offer doc,if did not appear.......

Currently a bet of £10million could get all rangers at 5-1 odds, if they win btc you make £50million plus, if loose and only hand over 500,000 then no real loss

Agree0 Disagree0

A CVA ain't gonna happen.

Green doesn't own Rangers and we're are never gonna find out the names of these 20 mysterious investors as you will find out on 6th of June. Accept it.

BB

Agree0 Disagree0

THERE WILL NOT BE A CVA, Green know this as did Murray and Whyte.
There was never any intention of a cva, liquidation was always the game plan, please please open your eyes, there is nothing more blind that those who dont want to see.
jimd

Agree0 Disagree0

A CVA won't happen. Port vale i think were refused a CVA for tax evasion. Do you think HMRC will be happy to allow a pence in the pound deal to happen as if it does it is basically saying that tax evasion is ok. I'm pretty sure that Green's takeover has conditions on it... i think my next door neighbour said it prevents him pulling out when he looks at the books but i may be wrong.

St Mikey

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 02:15:51
Blackpool will offer aluko a contract if they win playoffs.

Believable21 Unbelievable32

They wont beat West Ham but then you will say West Ham will offer him a contract. Heard it all before. yawn

Agree0 Disagree0

I dont think so. I heard he is one of the 20 investors with a 15% share. Oh sorry must be my maths. I thought 15% would equal 7 investors but then im not as smart as Charles Green!

Agree0 Disagree0

He's Spanish bound.

Agree0 Disagree0

Oh well he won't be going to blackpool cause west ham are going pump them.

Agree0 Disagree0

Green never stated that all investors had a 15% share each. The most any 1 invester will have is 15%. The investment % will vary.
Or is this a little to complicated for you to understand.

Agree0 Disagree0

I think that was a little too complicated for him to understand lol. Bless his wee cotton socks.

Agree0 Disagree0

It is also rumoured that Blackpool wants Lafferty.........the town is running short of donkeys to do the beach rides.

Agree0 Disagree0

To the second reply. Charles green said there were 20 investors each with a share of no more than 15%, not that they all had 15% ya tube. You obviously aren't as smart as Charles green

Agree0 Disagree0

I think a fair few of the players will be off - watching them in the last few weeks when most teams had stopped it is clear they were playing hard to win admirers.

The only positive is that when we came up against a half decent side in Celtic they were useless so hopefully that will have scared buyers off.

Agree0 Disagree0

14 May 2012 01:40:35
WS at tonight's Football Writers Awards Dinner telling trusted friends and colleagues, he has had calls informing him Whyte DOES have a link to Green's bid. We should not be fooled by Charles Green's direct, blunt, bravado at this mornings press conference.

SPM

Believable48 Unbelievable33

Threatening HMRC makes me nervous and does not augur well for how he intends to run the club. Looks like he has found a smart way of paying nothing to the tax man. Excatly why the club is in such a mess.

Agree0 Disagree0

And you are a trusted friend and colleague then ....?

Agree0 Disagree0

This is true in my knowledge.

Ive heard the major investor is craig whyte. remember his, 2Ill be a hero in years to come" statement?

he has played a blinder!

although i hope we dont have short memories, this has been my darkest season as a bear!

NO to green & Whyte!!

BluePeter

Agree0 Disagree0

Are we ever going to give anyone a chance that is willing to take on our club

Agree0 Disagree0

Even if it is true, does it matter CW may have some vague links to the bid, he wont be running the club.

Agree0 Disagree0

Yes we will give folk a chance, but why not be transparent?

WHAT/WHO are you hiding mr Green??

if you cant be honest and open about who you want to help you buy our club then you are not welcome!

BluePeter

Agree0 Disagree0

Only seen a transfer of shares mentioned by the Green Knight, nothing about the floating charge being cancelled by the Whyte Knight. We shouldn't make assumptions that it will be automatically cancelled. CW needs this as leverage to keep himself covered against Ticketus. Don't see him parting with the floating charge for a £1. Watch and see.

Agree0 Disagree0

Do investors not have the right for some privacy. Until it is signed sealed and delivered who is gonna want the record camped outside watching their every move. Look what happened in America last week .

Agree0 Disagree0

Probably one of the blue Tights that started this pish.Give the man a chance ffs!

Agree0 Disagree0

Did you all really think that Whyte was going to go quietly? He doesn't do walking away. he will make sure he gets his share. He bought your club in good faith and as a businessman, is looking for a return on his investment as any millionaire businessman would.

Agree0 Disagree0

Realy people? Takin shots at the man and he hasn'y done anything wrong yet. Yes we were duped by whyte but that doesn't meen Green is the same. He wont be the only owner,15% per invester right? He has made public statements that he can't take back so if they're not true he will have to answer for. Let the man try before we judge.

Agree0 Disagree0

BluePeter - stop being such a kn*b. Why does Charles Green have to be hiding something or someone just because he won't or can't say who is funding this bid? Just be glad that there is someone that wants to buy the club rather than the imposters called TBK!

Agree0 Disagree0

Why cant you wait till the CVA has been sorted one way or the other like the man has asked?
He has said he will happily reveal the identity of the consortium at that point.
FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

Agree0 Disagree0

Listen just be grateful someone has bought our club because if he didnt it wont of been here now! sh*te is gone and stop with the paranoia get a grip and get behind your club or just go support another team cause by the sounds of it nothing makes you happy....mark

Agree0 Disagree0

Can understand our need for transparency, we can't be "duped" again. Onus is on purchaser to be open and honest with what's going on. Can't criticise the Bears' scepticism at this point.

Agree0 Disagree0

Whether you like him or not, as a club we HAVE to go with his bid. It is too late for any other option. All you bampots can go and protest or something, i'll trust the administrators on this one over some random post on a rumours website.

Agree0 Disagree0

Their is a simple reason why the investors are not being declared. The CVA is still to be approved. If Charles Blue reveals the investors and they turn out to have a lot of cash (fingers crossed) The creditors will demand more money.

Agree0 Disagree0

"He has made public statements that he can't take back so if they're not true he will have to answer for"

Eh flashback, "no I didn't use season ticket money to buy the club"

Agree0 Disagree0

Its "fans" like BluePeter that are holding Rangers back, give Green a chance, if he leads us out of administration and Rangers keep their history, thatll do for me, as our history is far greater than Ra Shellick's

Agree0 Disagree0

Why should he name investors less chance of a CVA IF there is serious money behind bid HMRC might just knock it back to make an example of us Good business sense to not show your hand

Agree0 Disagree0

HMRC will not agree to a CVA if Whyte is still involved and they have to be sure that any new owner will pay the tax in full and on time moving forward so Green will need to disclose who the other shareholders are or HMRC will not sign off.

Agree0 Disagree0

There will be no CVA.

Blue Peter

and yes im a fan of 30 odd years, and current season ticket holder, so dont give me this!

and we need to know who investors are muchhh more than 3 poxy pannel members!


Why arent we claiming "we must know who these people are?"

Agree0 Disagree0

(ITS GOOD NOT TO SHOW YOUR HAND)but he lets everyone know that money has been put aside in another bank account,ffs (HMRC WILL CALL HIS BLUFF)all this from a guy who has been involved in over 30 companys and 15 of them have been dissolved,think long and hard before you start dreaming and has everyone forgot about the sanctions,its the rocky road (VERY LONG ROAD AT THAT)b4 you start the recovery proccess.

Agree0 Disagree0

If Whyte is still involved it will be through one of his other companies (or New Company) or through old business partners.
Im sure he's got a tatoo on the back of his head near the 666 that says there are more than one way to skin a cat.

Agree0 Disagree0

If HMRC do not agree to a CVA then both sides will lose out.
They will get hee -haw and we will likely be barred from europe for 3 yrs as a newco.
Its in both parties interests to come to some sort of understanding surely.

Agree0 Disagree0

Give the guy a chance FFS, nobody e;lse is stepping forward to save us! if we cant agree a CVA then Fuk HMRC we will start a newco. At least we will be debt free and playing at ibrox!

J

Agree0 Disagree0

Think ban of 3 years applies either via CVA or NEWCO. I would ask though why any supporter can or would want to follow or support NEWCO its not the same team, makes more sence to follow your local junior team. NEWCO rangers DEAD.

Agree0 Disagree0

"He has made public statements that he can't take back so if they're not true he will have to answer for"

Eh Flashback No.2 "Ally will have £5m to spend on the team but we could increase/make available up to £20m in the first year if required"

Agree0 Disagree0

Some attitude J , just new co and bump e1, unreal the attitude of some ppl over this. Talk of 20 million to spend in the 1st year if required??? what about putting that into the pot to pay whats owed then maybe gain some self respect again. maccabhoy

Agree0 Disagree0

Haters gonna hate./biggles123

Agree0 Disagree0

No debt newco?What about no european fitba for 3 yrs...tax paid up front to HMRC till 2050?money up front for every transfer?transfer embargo and possible div 3?Aye you,ll be rolling in it lol

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent