Topic: Rangers In Liquidation... Sevco5088 in... SFL3 (for now)

[thereader]

Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement tonight.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The use of EBTs at Rangers goes back many years and was a matter of public record in the annual accounts. Our primary focus has been ensuring the survival of Rangers Football Club and attracting a new buyer for the business as well as investigating the financial situation at the Club since the takeover in May 2011."

"We and the Club will continue to give every assistance to the football authorities on issues affecting the Club. It should, however, be noted that the First Tier Tax tribunal has yet to publish its findings in relation to the use of EBTs."

[lfcshaunod]

Rangers

[thereader]

JOINT administrators Duff and Phelps made the following statement:

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The allegations made in tonight's programme against Duff and Phelps are untrue, a distortion of the facts and highly defamatory. Discussions are already underway with our solicitors with a view to bringing legal proceedings against the BBC.

"We are also hugely disappointed with the irresponsible comments made by Mr Roger Isaacs who is clearly not in possession of the facts.

"We made a number of offers to assist the BBC in order they would not make the fundamental errors broadcast this evening and for some inexplicable reason the reporter Mark Daly declined these.

"We had also hoped to give interviews stating our case on camera but received strong legal advice against this course of action, bearing in mind the legal proceedings Duff and Phelps have raised against Collyer Bristow. The BBC were informed in writing from our solicitors.

"We did however provide the BBC with lengthy written statements stating our position and we are publishing these on the Rangers website.

"In broad terms Mr Daly failed miserably to understand the difference between working capital arrangements for the Club and acquisition funding."

David Grier, said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.

"Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the Club from the Murray Group.

"Financial due diligence and other work was provided by Saffery Champness, a firm of chartered accountants who specialise in this area and our primary role was to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank.

"The reality is that when my concerns about the use of Ticketus funding crystallised over the summer of 2011, I took immediate steps to raise these concerns with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"The email referred to in tonight's programme to Ticketus dated 19 April 2011 mentions the possibility of raising funds for working capital but does not provide any information of quantum or terms of such a proposal. To suggest this email establishes an awareness of Ticketus providing acquisition funding is absurd and ridiculous.

"Once we discovered the full extent of the funding relationship between Ticketus, Liberty Capital and the club, we took immediate steps to raise our concern with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC."

Mr Clark said the administrators would not comment on the BBC's EBT allegations while the first tier tax tribunal was still active.

[thereader]

THE following information was given to BBC ahead of the broadcast of tonight's programme:

David Grier, who was the engagement partner at MCR, said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.

"Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the Club from the Murray Group.

"Financial due diligence and other work was provided by Saffery Champness, a firm of chartered accountants who specialise in this area, and our primary role was to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank.

"The reality is that when my concerns about the use of Ticketus funding crystallised over the summer of 2011, I took immediate steps to raise these concerns with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"I had no direct contact with Ticketus prior to the takeover by Wavetower, however we were aware and were party to discussions regarding Ticketus as a recognised source of short term working capital that was used by the Club and that could be a source of such continued funding. These discussions are well-minuted.

"At the time there was significant uncertainty surrounding the potential outcome of the 'big' tax case, which could result in the Club being unable to meet a potential liability and therefore face insolvency. As a result we were asked by Liberty Capital in April 2011 to provide advice in writing to them in relation to our view on the possibility of agreeing a time to pay arrangement with HMRC.

"At the same time we were also asked to confirm our opinion of what rights a funder of future season tickets would have in the event of an insolvency. This was in contemplation of funding a time to pay arrangement with HMRC.

"As we were not aware of the nature and extent of any arrangements for season ticket sales we were unable to provide specific advice without full detail and our letter of 7 April 2011 is clear on this point.

"Indeed we state in this letter that we had not had access to documents or knowledge of contractual terms either of any proposed ticketing agreement or proposed purchase from the Murray Group and as a consequence we could not provide further advice without this detail. We did not receive further information and therefore we could not provide further advice on this matter.

"At the time of the acquisition, Craig Whyte indicated that he would be able to fund settlement of the big tax case of up to £15 million but we were not involved in the raising of funds or providing corporate finance advice.

"We were provided with a copy of a draft email to Ticketus dated 19 April 2011 that mentions the possibility of raising funds, but does not provide any information of quantum or terms of such a proposal. To suggest this email establishes an awareness of Ticketus providing acquisition funding is absurd and ridiculous.

"We, along with solicitors acting for the Murray Group and Lloyds Bank, were provided with information from Collyer Bristow to confirm that Liberty Capital had funds at their disposal to both acquire the debt of Lloyds Bank and provide sufficient working capital to satisfy the concerns raised by the independent committee of the Club. The financial forecasts that we had sight of showed the original cash injection to acquire the Club was from Wavetower and not Ticketus.

"It is clear now, with the benefit of hindsight, that material information was withheld from us, and others, prior to the acquisition of the Club and, once we discovered the full extent of the funding relationship between Ticketus, Liberty Capital and the Club, we took immediate steps to raise our concern with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"Throughout this process we have acted professionally and provided opinion and recommendations to avoid an insolvency of the Club by outlining alternative courses of action to the directors. We did provide the controlling directors and company secretary of the Club with our written concern that failure to meet their statutory duties could lead to a claim of wrongful trading, however the controlling directors and company secretary always maintained that insolvency could be avoided through the introduction of new capital and/or fundraising with supporters of the Club."

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "For the BBC to suggest that I deliberately misled or lied to Mark Daly is both grossly insulting and unacceptable to me as an officer of the court. During my conversation with Mr Daly on Feb 22, which was off the record, I said I thought that MCR became aware of the full scale of Ticketus funding in July or August. I gave an honest answer to the best of my recollection as I had not been closely involved in the Rangers takeover work at the time.

"For the BBC now to accuse Duff and Phelps of conflicts of interest and unprofessional conduct based on a deep misunderstanding of the true picture is downright irresponsible and defamatory and we will not let the matter rest there.

"There is a world of difference between knowing that Ticketus was a potential source of working capital funding for the Club and its new owners (Craig Whyte/Wavetower) - which is our position - and knowing that funding from ticket sales had been effectively used to purchase the Club. The BBC have failed miserably to make that distinction.

"At all times during our involvement with Rangers, we have kept HMRC, the Club's largest potential creditor fully informed of developments. These communications included several meetings. When the question of our appointment was considered by the Court of Session on 14 February 2012, HMRC decided to withdraw their application for their own nominees to be appointed as administrators, instead allowing our appointment to proceed. We have continued to keep HMRC fully appraised of our work as Administrators since 14 February."

[thereader]

Andy Coyle ‏@STV_Andy

Rangers have begun legal proceedings to overturn the registration embargo imposed on them by the SFA: http://bit.ly/JhA1cr

[thereader]

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont

Rangers claim transfer embargo is unlawful & outside the powers of the SFA tribunal and is seeking to have it suspended in judicial review

[youll never walk alone it]

quiet thread lol

[thereader]

quiet thread lol

Surprising considering the fuss going to court seems to be causing. 

[thereader]

Duff and Phelps, the administrators at Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement this evening.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We positively welcome any investigation by the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA).

"This will enable the true facts to emerge and demonstrate clearly that we have acted at all times with the best interests of creditors, the court and the Club at heart.

"We were contacted by the IPA following a request from the BBC to review their allegations of a conflict of interest.

"There has been wave after wave of wild and inaccurate reporting and speculation and we will be very happy to co-operate fully with the investigation. We have already spoken to the IPA."

[helen the llama]

Surprising considering the fuss going to court seems to be causing. 

Yeah. FIFA and UEFA don't allow people to sue there National (Scottish) FA, but they are allowed to sue local and county FA's.
As long as Celtic, Motherwell, St Johnstone, Dundee Utd and Hearts don't get punished by UEFA for Rangers actions. by that I mean are allowed to play in the relevant competitions. 

[thereader]

Yeah. FIFA and UEFA don't allow people to sue there National (Scottish) FA, but they are allowed to sue local and county FA's.
As long as Celtic, Motherwell, St Johnstone, Dundee Utd and Hearts don't get punished by UEFA for Rangers actions. by that I mean are allowed to play in the relevant competitions.

That will not happen, but of course people will use it as a stick to beat with.

[hide5seek]

So anywhere near the end of this?

[helen the llama]

No the bbc decided to put a stick of dynamite under the situation.

At least 2 weeks off of a creditor's meeting. No decision from the FTT for tax.
Wages revert to full this week coming, players are free to go for knockdown prices. Challenging a transfer embargo in civil court.

[thereader]

No the bbc decided to put a stick of dynamite under the situation.

At least 2 weeks off of a creditor's meeting. No decision from the FTT for tax.
Wages revert to full this week coming, players are free to go for knockdown prices. Challenging a transfer embargo in civil court.

Paul Clark has confirmed the Green consortium has the money to fund the club when the wages revert back. 

[ghirl67]

So he says.

Can't see this ending well for rangers to be honest.  Both the Panel and appeal Panel applied the lightest punishment they could on rangers.  It was open to them to punish much more severely. 

The Court of session will be sick of the sight of rangers.

I imagine HMRC are silently bealing the did not get their own admins in. 

As regards UEFA/FIFA taking action against SFA/Scottish clubs...hopefully it will not come to that.

[hansen6]

Billy Dodds has just admitted that his EBT was not a discretionary loan. Oh Dear.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

[ghirl67]

Billy Dodds has just admitted that his EBT was not a discretionary loan. Oh Dear.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

Oh dear indeed.

He clearly doesn't even realise what is wrong about it.  He then mentions image rights.  Someone should have pointed out HMRC don't like them much either.

He is one of the ones who sat speaking about the Panel saying that football people should have made the decision.   Apart from the fact one of the Panel was a "football" person, the reason a legal mind was required was the articles are governed by law.

[thereader]

So he says.

Can't see this ending well for rangers to be honest.  Both the Panel and appeal Panel applied the lightest punishment they could on rangers.  It was open to them to punish much more severely. 

The Court of session will be sick of the sight of rangers.

I imagine HMRC are silently bealing the did not get their own admins in. 

As regards UEFA/FIFA taking action against SFA/Scottish clubs...hopefully it will not come to that.

Well I don't see why he'd be lying, there will be a creditors meeting in June so obviously there is a plan to make sure the money doesn't run out.

[thereader]

Oh dear indeed.

He clearly doesn't even realise what is wrong about it.  He then mentions image rights.  Someone should have pointed out HMRC don't like them much either.

He is one of the ones who sat speaking about the Panel saying that football people should have made the decision.   Apart from the fact one of the Panel was a "football" person, the reason a legal mind was required was the articles are governed by law.

He does also say there no double contracts, and that seems to be a key issue.

[ghirl67]

He does also say there no double contracts, and that seems to be a key issue.

53 side letters.
 
His interview shows fully how he has no idea what is going on.   I bet he doesn't realise that what he has said has actually put rangers in it...well they already are but he is seeking to defend himself here and all he has done is dig a deeper hole.   

[thereader]

53 side letters.
 
His interview shows fully how he has no idea what is going on.   I bet he doesn't realise that what he has said has actually put rangers in it...well they already are but he is seeking to defend himself here and all he has done is dig a deeper hole.   

I doubt this is going to have any effect on the tribunal, surely too far in?  From what I gather he says all tax was paid anyway, and the issue for HMRC is what tax they believe they are due. 

As for these side letters, i'm still waiting to actually see any.

[ghirl67]

"It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United.  After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund".

hole deeper dig

The BBC will have had to provide the evidence (i.e. side letters) to their own solicitors before they would clear the programme for airing.  If they aired that programme without the evidence to back up what they were saying then they would find themselves on wrong end of legal action.

[thereader]

"It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United.  After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund".

hole deeper dig

The BBC will have had to provide the evidence (i.e. side letters) to their own solicitors before they would clear the programme for airing.  If they aired that programme without the evidence to back up what they were saying then they would find themselves on wrong end of legal action.

And the BBC have indeed been the subject of legal action several times from several people, they're hardly squeaky clean.

The tribunal will decide, not the BBC or anyone else.  Then we work out the best possible way to pay back HMRC.

[helen the llama]

As far as I can guess there can be no creditors meeting before the FTT reports back as the amount of debts in total rangers have, and there for who - if any - creditors (HMRC/Ticketus) have the veto. They can't offer a p in the £ deal until this is decided either as they don't know the total value of debts.
This CVA will include the Big Tax Case debts if they lose as well as the small tax case debts and the recent unpaid taxes. All are down on the creditors document.

[thereader]

As far as I can guess there can be no creditors meeting before the FTT reports back as the amount of debts in total rangers have, and there for who - if any - creditors (HMRC/Ticketus) have the veto. They can't offer a p in the £ deal until this is decided either as they don't know the total value of debts.
This CVA will include the Big Tax Case debts if they lose as well as the small tax case debts and the recent unpaid taxes. All are down on the creditors document.

The revenue will certainly have the big say, I hope their priority is getting as much tax as possible, if that is liquidation then not much debate to be had.

But if they consider putting Rangers out of business to make a point as more important and are actually happy to get less money than they would from a CVA then the moral side of this would probably go out the window for me, how is it in the taxpayer's interest to get less tax for the sake of making an example?

Whatever happens HMRC are not going to get everything they believe they are owed from Rangers, it just isn't possible including in a liquidation fire sale. 

[hansen6]

And the BBC have indeed been the subject of legal action several times from several people, they're hardly squeaky clean.

The tribunal will decide, not the BBC or anyone else.  Then we work out the best possible way to pay back HMRC.

HMRC have already decided, the tribunal is an appeal.

[thereader]

Duff and Phelps, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement this evening.

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator, said: "A formal notice of the CVA meetings will be sent to all creditors and shareholders of the Club tomorrow providing further details of the CVA process.

"The proposal will offer the best return for all stakeholders given the position the Club is in. If approved by the creditors, the CVA proposal will rescue the Company and finally enable it to exit administration.

"Details of the CVA proposal have been finalised today and there has been additional consultation with certain stakeholders. We had hoped the results of this consultation would have enabled us to publish the proposal today but administrative alterations mean the document will be published tomorrow. Rangers supporters should be reassured the CVA process is on track. The creditors' meeting to consider, and hopefully approve, the CVA will be held on Thursday 14 June."

[thereader]

Creditors proposal.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

[thereader]

Raman Bhardwaj ‏@STVRaman

Rangers win case against SFA over registration embargo. Case goes back to appeal tribunal.

[thereader]

Rangers have succeeded in court action seeking to overturn a player signing ban.

The Ibrox club will have their case referred back to the Scottish FA’s appeal tribunal after the Court of Session decision on Tuesday.

As a result of several rules breaches, the SFA’s judicial panel imposed a 12-month player registration embargo on the club.

The Court of Session ruled on Tuesday that the sanction was not available to the panel.

Now the case will be referred back to the SFA’s appeal tribunal, which previously rejected an attempt to overturn it.

The club were awarded expenses at the hearing after the judge highlighted that there was no specific mention of the SFA applying a player signing ban on a club.

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/103777-rangers-win-court-action-challenging-player-signing-ban/

[thereader]

Duff & Phelps, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today.

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator said: "We welcome the decision by Judge Lord Glennie today that vindicates the Club's position that the original SFA judicial panel tribunal and the appellate tribunal acted beyond their powers in imposing a transfer embargo on the Club.

"The costs for this legal action have been awarded against the SFA and it is our position it is very regrettable that court action was required.

"Both we, and the SFA, will have to study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published and either side has 21 days in which to decide the next course of action or whether they wish to appeal."

[ghirl67]

What a mess for rangers and D & P must know exactly what they are doing. 

[thereader]

Mess for the SFA as well, should have just stuck to the sanctions within their rule book.

[ghirl67]

Yes.  Agreed.  They should have but were trying to be lenient.  Backfired on them and are now in a worse position where it looks like they will be forced to do what they wished to avoid.

Fifa have also "warned" the SFA that they must take action against rangers for taking the matter to a Civil Court.

[thereader]

Yes.  Agreed.  They should have but were trying to be lenient.  Backfired on them and are now in a worse position where it looks like they will be forced to do what they wished to avoid.

Fifa have also "warned" the SFA that they must take action against rangers for taking the matter to a Civil Court.

Banning us from the Scottish Cup can be done before any expulsion. 

[ghirl67]

Banning us from the Scottish Cup can be done before any expulsion.

They clearly saw that as too lenient first time around. 

Shambles. 

[thereader]

They clearly saw that as too lenient first time around. 

Shambles.

Yet they saw expulsion as too harsh, so works both ways.

[Tepid water]

Yes.  Agreed.  They should have but were trying to be lenient.  Backfired on them and are now in a worse position where it looks like they will be forced to do what they wished to avoid.

Fifa have also "warned" the SFA that they must take action against rangers for taking the matter to a Civil Court.

That's just hugely unfair on rangers.

The SFA broke their own rule book didn't they?

If they're not going to stick by their own rule book, what choice does that leave clubs with??

[thereader]

That's just hugely unfair on rangers.

The SFA broke their own rule book didn't they?

If they're not going to stick by their own rule book, what choice does that leave clubs with??

Especially when the CAS was not an option going by the SFA rules...

[ghirl67]

That's just hugely unfair on rangers.

The SFA broke their own rule book didn't they?

If they're not going to stick by their own rule book, what choice does that leave clubs with??

SFA were trying to be lenient on them - it has backfired big time.

11 other clubs who have a right to say this whole mess is hugely unfair on them as SFA should have done the right thing (stuck by the rules instead of making up a middle ground punishment) first time but they are too caught up in "needing rangers" as are the SPL.