caseyjones
-
Posts
1,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by caseyjones
-
-
Despite some glaring mistakes, McGregor has saved us from suffering even more dropped points this season, and for that he gets my vote.
0 -
1. Nobody knows enough about any of the bids to make any call on what is best.
2. Even if we did, the decision isn't down to us, nor will it be taken because it is in our best interests.
0 -
Ally said he talked to Millar for an hour last night and that Miller wants the best for the club
Not to mention keeping the same manager!
0 -
Craig Whyte - the Delusionist.
He's obviously going to brazen it out.
0 -
http://www.clyde1.com/news/local/jim-interview-craig-whyte/#.T37-ZoostWs.twitter
Here is the transcript of Jim Delahunt's exclusive interview with Craig Whyte on Friday, April 6.JD. First of all Craig, I assume that yesterday's revelations about Rangers' debt levels came as no surprise to you.
CW. I'm not sure why yesterday's figures surprised anyone and actually, since I've been involved, Rangers' total liabilities have been reduced by between £10-
14million. The accounts prove that. It's factual, anyone can look at the figures. The liabilities have actually reduced, not increased as the media have been implying.
JD. Have you spoken to HMRC in the past to get an idea as to whether Rangers would eventually be liable for the £75 million Duff & Phelps have now made public?
CW. I had many meetings with HMRC to try and avoid the administration scenario which in my opinion could have been avoided if they'd done a sensible deal. They refused to discuss the case ahead of the (first tier) tribunal so it was impossible to have a sensible discussion with them. I offered to pay them in full the current liabilities by the end of August this year and I offered to pay £2.5 million a year towards the big tax case whether that be for 10 years, 5 years or whatever. If they'd accepted that deal they would have been paid in full but of course they don't live on the same planet as the rest of us. I was surprised as I didn't think they'd want to see a major institution like Rangers going into administration and seeing the mess that we're seeing now.
JD. They would argue that the reason you're in administration is that you didn't pay you're PAYE and VAT.
CW. They would argue that but part of the reason was some of the leaks coming from them and also that some of the bank accounts were frozen so how were we supposed to pay?
JD. As far as you're concerned, you didn't do anything illegal.?
CW. Absolutely, everything I did was based on professional advice. It wasn't me acting alone, deciding to do things. I was taking professional advice from top law firms, accountancy firms, everything else, every step of the way so I did nothing illegal.
JD. How about the investigations into the Ticketus deal Craig, are you up on where the rest of the money is?
CW. As I've said before, every penny of the Ticketus deal went into the club.
JD. How do you explain that Duff & Phelps say it didn't?
CW. There's money still in the Collyer Bristow client account but that's not part of the Ticketus money.
JD. What is that money then?
CW. I'm not going to go into that but every penny from Ticketus went into the club.
JD. You said last week that you are still in Rangers to the tune of £30 million. Is that correct?
CW. What I've said is that I've got a bigger stake in Rangers than anyone past, present or future will ever have as I have guarantees on the line for 30 million quid. That's more than anyone's ever had personally on the line for Rangers and more than anyone's ever likely to have on the line for Rangers.
JD. Can you explain in layman's terms Craig how you are due £30 million.
CW. Partly because I've guaranteed the Ticketus transaction., that makes up a huge part of it. Obviously there are other amounts that have gone in, there's a huge liability to me and there's no getting away from that.
JD. Do you definitely have a floating charge over Rangers' assets?
CW. Again, that's factual. It's there for everyone to see at Companies' House.
JD. Is there any problem with you in selling to Paul Murray and the Blue Knights?
CW. I don't know Paul Murray. I've met him once or twice but not for about a year. I will do what's best for Rangers in the long term. I've spoken to members of
the Blue Knights and I don't think there will be a problem long term in doing something with them if that's the best deal on the table.
JD. D you have any idea if that is the best deal on the table?
CW. Of course I know what's there but it's not for me to say at this moment in time.
JD. Do you still feel that exiting administration via a CVA is the best way out of this situation?
CW. I think it's the only way out. I think a liquidation and a Newco is a disaster. I can understand from a business perspective why some people would want to do it but the only ones who would want to do it are people who don't understand Rangers. It would be a disaster if the club loses 140 years of history and there are also severe penalties which other clubs will be lobbying for if it's a new start, you can rest assured on that. Any other business, I could see the merits but as a fan, no.
JD. When you were doing your due diligence, did you think administration was a probability, or even liquidation?
CW. Liquidation was never considered but administration was discussed with the sellers at the time and we always knew administration was a serious option.
JD. From where you're sitting now, how do you see this all ending?
CW. I hope we'll exit by CVA and when people look back on this in years to come, they'll see it as the beginning of the sorting out a mess that began years ago so, painful as the last few weeks have been, this is a beginning. Hopefully, we'll get a CVA, the club will be debt free, there will be no tax case any more and the club will be living within its means as it has to for the best long term interests of Rangers. There was no alternative to administration and HMRC were quite within their right to enforce the situation but the bottom line is that Rangers will come out a more viable long term business than it was before I bought the club.
JD. How do you feel about the hostility towards yourself Craig?
CW. I think I've acted in the best long term interests of the club but I can understand how the fans feel. The worst thing for anyone here is the lack of certainty. I'd hoped that this would have been sorted out much more quickly so it's the uncertainty which causes the frustration and it's not helped by the Scottish media winding things up and coming out with inaccurate information as we've seen again in some papers today, trying to blame me for everything that's happened to Rangers in the past 20 years.
JD. You obviously feel you have had a rough ride then?
CW. I've had a horrendous ride from the media.
JD. One of the things which came out yesterday was the question mark over monies from the sale of the Arsenal shares Craig, can you shed any light on that?
CW. The money is there. It's in a segregated client account and that money will absolutely, definitely end up back with Rangers. If what you're inferring is that I have somehow profited from selling those Arsenal shares personally then that is absolutely not true. That's what's being inferred isn't it? By others.
JD. Do you honestly see yourself walking in the front door of Ibrox again Craig?
CW. I very much hope so. It's not going to happen tomorrow and it's not going to happen in a month but when everything's died down I hope to be back supporting the team I followed as a boy, of course I do.
JD. D you now feel it is inevitable that you won't play any part in Rangers future after this process.
CW. That's an interesting question. You can never say never about anything, but you'd have to say it's unlikely. Whether I remain as a shareholder or not though, let's wait and see
What a boy!
0 -
A fair enough assessment of each bid.
0 -
FF v VB!!!
0 -
I think it's safe to say the American bid is the least appetising...
Interesting to see David Hillier list its positives though.
Which are?
0 -
THE American tycoon who has launched a bid to buy Rangers has a history of failed sporting ventures and bankruptcy.
Record Sport can today reveal Georgia-based businessman Bill Miller is the money man behind the US bid that yesterday became one of three front-runners for control of the stricken SPL champions.
Miller â?? who has amassed a fortune from a vehicle towing company â?? had originally been part of a 12-man Chicago based consortium, including Club 9 Sports, that had been preparing to bid for Craig Whyteâ??s shares.
But the consortium unexpectedly backed out at the 11th hour on Tuesday night.
And now sources in America have confirmed the wealthy 64-year-old â?? who impressed administrators by providing proof of â??substantialâ? personal wealth â?? is heading up a splinter group determined to follow through on the original plan.
But Rangers fans, still reeling from damage done by Whyteâ??s shamed regime, will be alarmed by some of Millerâ??s previous exploits.
As will administrators Duff and Phelps, who are determined to ensure the clubâ??s next owner will be a fit and proper person.
Miller is known in the US as the financial muscle behind Club 9 Sports and has forged close links with the men running its parent company, Prometheus, Jon Pritchett and John Prutch.
Record Sport can reveal Pritchett and Prutch were the leaders of the original consortium Miller had agreed to back until the decision to pull the plug.
This followed a furious reaction from Rangers fans to Club 9â??s involvement and the overall American plan to liquidate the club and reform as a new company.
It is not yet clear if Miller plans to stick to the same strategy or if pals Pritchett and Prutch remain in the picture. But they have been involved in a string of previous deals, one of which saw Miller and Pritchett at the centre of a £32million law suit.
Miller is described in a document from the original US group as a â??highly successful business leader, entrepreneur, investor and philanthropistâ?.
But there is no mention of his disastrous move into motor racing 11 years ago when he was appointed by one of Pritchettâ??s companies to head up a new stock car league billed in the US as a potential rival to NASCAR.
The ambitious Team Racing Auto Circuit (TRAC) project crashed and burned before its first race.
In February 2004, Miller and Pritchett faced a massive legal action by shareholders who claimed to have been duped to the tune of £32m.
Named in the suit were Miller, ex-chief executive of Team Sports Entertainment, and Pritchett, ex-president.
More than a year later and after a great deal of legal wrangling, the case was settled out of court for an unknown amount.
Shareholder Edward Garland said of Miller: â??The company and its directors thought they were getting an experienced CEO.
â??Instead it got a man full of greed who wanted control of the company for himself.â?
Team Sports Entertainment changed names but is now bankrupt.
But Millerâ??s main empire was going from strength to strength. He has been CEO and chairman of Miller Industries since the mid 1990s. Known as the â??towing tycoonâ?, Miller has amassed a personal fortune from his companies which boast a £253m turnover.
More recently, Miller agreed to fund another of Pritchettâ??s schemes, a Club 9 Sports plan to relocate a minor league hockey side.
But the plan fell through because they could not strike a deal to set up a local sporting arena that would have required a £700,000 up-front investment.
Now Miller is eyeing his next move. And yesterday his chances of completing a successful Rangers takeover were enhanced when the administrators made his bid one of three remaining front runners, along with Paul Murrayâ??s Blue Knights and a Bill Ng led consortium from Singapore.
Record Sport tried to contact Miller several times last night but he was unavailable for comment.
0 -
Thought that 2 mate, i just could not remember seeing much in the press about it.
PS No hard feelings about yesterday mate? Ha it will be the end of us all this stuff at Rangers.
No problem, bud.
0 -
They'll be outside Ibrox tomorrow. A tenner a pop!
0 -
There have been rumours for a long time now that HMRC will not oppose a CVA - as long as the club is sold.
Agreed. Roddy Forsyth was the first to put it out there, I believe. I just hope that he didn't get it straight from the administrators.
0 -
That guy CraigJShields stinks of TIM.
He may be, but I gather information from anywhere.
0 -
Can somebody that knows about this stuff tell me something?
If we agree a CVA for say 10p, 20p, 30p in the pound, what happens to the big tax case if we lose it? Do we pay that back at the same rate as per the CVA?
It would need to be included in any CVA agreement. If not, we would just be back to square one again.
0 -
The way i picked up Frankies initial post the other night was he would install "Rangers businessmen" based in the UK/Scotland in the boardroom and he'd let them run the show anyway? He'd be the main financier ?
That's in the Straits Times article too, mate, but then again Frankie could be the source for that!
I'm just passing on snippets that I've come across and let others make of them what they will.
0 -
When changing the club name to Hougang United, he also changed the mascot from a dolphin to Chester The Cheetah.
Broxi beware!!
0 -
Bill Ng’s current involvement with Hougang United see’s him showing minimal interest, with the club currently having no sponsors and no long-term plans. The people in charge of selling Rangers FC need to ask themselves what could this Singapore consortium bring to the club when one of its members currently doesn’t show an interest in one of his own teams?
From what appears to be an ex-pat blogger living in Singapore. Much of his article is without substance, although the above does maybe show the need for caution.
0 -
hahaha "Ning" or "Nig" depends
Just as well that's only the pronunciation and not the spelling.
Nig and Gers could lead to some problems for the tabloid sub-editors!
0 -
For political reasons alone, I doubt that any court would make such a judgement.
0 -
Although the interview is interesting, I wouldn't imagine their figures are all that accurate. Can't see Ng giving away his position at the moment.
Probably not, but it will be a ballpark figure. I doubt that 'best and final bid' is an accurate portrayal of what will be going on behind the scenes with D&P and the various parties. I'm positive that tweaks will be getting negotiated here and there in order to squeeze an extra couple of quid out of the winning bidder. I'm half expecting an announcement regarding a final final deadline!
0 -
Strait Times:
Good find, Frankie. £12m into the creditors pot is roughly the same as has been reported about TBK bid. Getting interesting now.
0 -
The Sun story is incorrect...
More info here: http://www.tnp.sg/content/hougang-boss-ngs-behind-rangers-bid
Off topic, I know, but thanks for helping me to find this useful advice, Frankie.
http://www.tnp.sg/content/ministry-reminder-dont-put-your-maid-danger
0 -
THE ‘statement to creditors’ published by administrators Duff & Phelps on the Rangers website today not only documents the real and potential indebtedness of the troubled club.
It also contains a wealth of detail about the increasingly chaotic state of the Scottish champions’ finances during Craig Whyte’s brief spell at the helm.
Whyte, who bought the controlling interest in Rangers from Sir David Murray last summer, was in charge from the completion of that purchase until he put the club in administration on 14 February. He said then that the process of entering then exiting administration could be a painful but swift one, and predicted that it might all be over within a month. Nearly two months on, however, the club’s position is unchanged.
As Duff & Phelps announced earlier today that they had narrowed the number of bidders for the club down to three, they also, for the first time, published information about a range of matters from the sale of the club’s shares in Arsenal to the date on which it could expect to own its own car park. And, while the scale of Rangers’ indebtedness captured most attention, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff & Phelps also quietly announced that they had submitted a request for the club to play in Europe, and had asked Whyte to agree to part with his shareholding.
WHYTE’S SHARES
FOR some time, Whitehouse and Clark have expressed a confidence that Whyte would be irrelevant to Rangers in the medium or long term. Their confidence has bemused many observers, who were sure that no legal mechanism could be found to force Whyte to part company with his majority shareholding.
If yesterday’s statement is a true guide, the administrators themselves have not yet found any such legal mechanism, but are still trying to do so. In the meantime, they have simply asked Whyte to give up his shares.
“It is likely that any purchaser wishing to invest monies into the club . . . will require the shareholding or substantially all of the shareholding of the club,” paragraph 16.6 states. “The joint administrators are investigating whether there are mechanisms by which they can compel existing shareholders to transfer shares to a purchaser, but no representation has been made that this can happen to purchasers. A formal request has been made of the current majority shareholder RFC Group [Whyte’s vehicle for running Rangers] which holds circa 85.3 per cent of the shares to make these available to a purchaser.”
ARSENAL SHARES
RANGERS’ holding of 16 ordinary shares in Arsenal dated back to the early years of the last century. They bought two to help out the London club when it was in financial difficulties, and Arsenal later gave Rangers another 14 by way of thanks. Whyte sold the shares, angering fans who saw them as a sumbol of friendship between the two clubs. The administrators’ statement reveals that the money did not even go to Rangers.
“The club was the owner of 16 ordinary shares in Arsenal,” it is stated in paragraph 9.33 and subsequently. “The company instructed [financial firm] Pritchard to act as its broker for the sale of these shares during January 2012. It should be noted that Craig Whyte was the company secretary of Pritchard.
“The shares were sold for £223,214. However, the funds relating to the sale of these shares were not transferred to the company.”
The joint administrators have since begun a legal bid to recover the money for Rangers.
EUROPE REQUEST
TO be able to play in European football next season, Rangers, like every other club, had to be given a licence by their national governing body. To receive that licence, it appeared that they would have to be out of administration and otherwise in good financial order by 31 March – last Saturday. Despite the fact that they did not meet that condition, Duff & Phelps have still asked the SFA to license the club.
Paragraphs 8.14 and 8.15 state: “The joint administrators have been in dialogue with Uefa, and Uefa have stated that generally speaking they are unlikely to grant a licence to any club whilst it is in administration given the Uefa Club Licensing and Financial Fair-play Regulations. The joint administrators have nevertheless submitted a licence application to the SFA.”
VALUATION OF RANGERS
BESIDES the worth of Ibrox Stadium and Rangers’ training ground at Murray Park as sporting venues, the administrators have sought to value everything owned by the club at those two locations down to “fixtures and fittings and chattel assets”. The latter term refers to anything owned by the club which might not be deemed fixtures and fittings – for example, furniture and other movable items.
The club’s freehold property including Ibrox and Murray Park is valued at £109.6m. The Albion Road car park next to Ibrox is on a leasehold and is valued at £2.93m. “It is anticipated that the club will gain right, title and interest to the car park in 2023.”
TICKETUS DEAL
THE London-based company which loaned Rangers a multi-million-pound sum in return for the rights to future revenue from season-ticket sales has been a major stumbling block to the administrators’ hopes of achieving clarity preparatory to selling the club. Paul Murray and his Blue Knights consortium have reached an agreement with Ticketus to include them in the purchase of the club, but other bidders may choose to play hardball instead of treating Ticketus as major creditors.
Duff & Phelps accept that breaching the Ticketus deal could result in a claim for damages, but say that Ticketus would then become ordinary unsecured creditors (paragraph 10.15).
PLAYER WAGE CUTS
AFTER lengthy negotiations, Rangers’ playing staff agreed to their salaries being cut. The most highly paid players took the biggest cuts. Together with voluntary wage cuts from coaching staff, this process is stated (paragraph 8.21) to have saved the club £1m per month.
In addition to those cuts, Gregg Wylde and Mervan Celik agreed to an early termination of their contracts. Australian player Matt McKay was sold to South Korean club Busan I’Park for $100,000.
A good piece from The Scotsman which goes deeper than the '£134m in debt' headlines.
0 -
Unfortunately we would need 10+ years of CL football to cover a 134mill debt. Any new owner may have to think of Liquidation if we lose the big tax case.
If McCoist is in charge of us it would be a lot longer than that!
0
The Race for Rangers
in Rangers Chat
Posted
If Ticketus are so weak, why haven't D&P followed through with their threat to tear up the ST deal?