Should We Be Wary Of Administrators

[Bluedell 5,366]

So Motherwell was in admin for 2 years, Dundee for 7 month, and tiny Clachnacuddin since late October 2009 up to now. We've been in admin for two weeks and King throws more oil into the fire?

 

Of course, what does King want here? Cost cutting? At which expense? The team? What for? Why would a journo ask somesuch? (Aside from it being his job.) Would any redundancies really reduce our current plight significantly? Isn't it the admins' primary job to clear the whole mess, not least with HMRC's various cases, Ticketus, Lloyds, SDM and all?

 

The sooner we find a way out of this, hopefully with someone/-many buying the club the better.

 

How quickly were there player losses in each of these other examples? Within 3 days?

 

Nobody wants job losses but it's very unusual in an administration where there are so few losses within the first 2 weeks. Companies enter administration because costs are out of control. So far they have done little to rectify that. They appear to be slow in some other areas as well.

 

There may be good explanations for all of this but it doesn't seem unreasonable to pose some questions.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Bluedell

[Bears 0]

I think the fact there's internationals this week will have slowed the process down when it comes to players being told they're going. it's bad practise to phone a guy on international duty and tell him he's not got a job to come back to, it'd unsettle him and piss the international managers off.

 

CW and his team have not been cooperating by all accounts.

 

We've got millions and millions of pounds missing

 

 

We reportedly have two different groups looking into buying us, the Blue Knights and Brian Kennedy, they might have said things to the admin lads that have made them slow the process of redundancies down as the packages they have initially presented to the administrators might mean Rangers may not need to sack people.

 

The two tax bills, i'm pretty sure they are negotiating hard with the tax man on a payment programme

 

We are by far the biggest team to have gone into admin so this is unchartered territory for all parties concerned

 

This isn't a quick fix and idiots in the press won;t have jobs unless they twist things to suit their agenda, not the viewing public

[chilledbear 16]

'This isn't a quick fix and idiots in the press won;t have jobs unless they twist things to suit their agenda, not the viewing public'

 

Some said the same when they started on Whyte.

 

I'm not saying they don't have an agenda, but there is usually some truth in the saying 'no smoke without fire'

[Frankie 8,193]

Of course there is a reason why Whyte would have picked this mob - they will look to benefit him.

 

As for differences between other clubs who have experienced this situation, well I'd put this down to the status of Rangers more than anything else. This is a very high profile case and the administrators' reputation is at stake. The intensity of the scrutiny upon them is huge so I'd fancy they'll be triple-checking every small detail.

 

To that end, I think they'll have to be straight - though a slight bias towards the preferred creditor is probable. As ever, I'm not sure there's much we can do until we see their full public report. By that time it may be too late but we can only wait and see.

[Bears 0]

Of course there is a reason why Whyte would have picked this mob - they will look to benefit him.

 

As for differences between other clubs who have experienced this situation, well I'd put this down to the status of Rangers more than anything else. This is a very high profile case and the administrators' reputation is at stake. The intensity of the scrutiny upon them is huge so I'd fancy they'll be triple-checking every small detail.

 

To that end, I think they'll have to be straight - though a slight bias towards the preferred creditor is probable. As ever, I'm not sure there's much we can do until we see their full public report. By that time it may be too late but we can only wait and see.

 

 

It doesn't sit well with me that CW does have a relationship with them, but what was the flip side of the coin? One placed by HMRC which could have been worse?

 

 

We're in a proper pickle

[Stefanovitch 0]

We haven't heard from them for a while and we are expecting player redundancies so we are obviously suspicious. I guess we just need to wait and hear what they have to say.

[chilledbear 16]

We should be asking who has put Darryl King up to this and why.

 

If it is someone like Paul Murray as has been suggested, then he must have reasons for bringing it in to the public arena.

[der Berliner 3,325]

Just "stumbled" over this on FF with regard to the Ticketus deal:

 

It was received on Feb 22nd but only now noticed by the FFer ...

 

We felt it appropriate to provide another update to the adviser community regarding Ticketus – one of the companies Octopus Protected EIS invests into – and the Rangers deal. The level of detail we can go into here is limited by the confidentiality clauses in the various Ticketus contracts and the ongoing administration process, but we’ll continue to provide updates when we can.

The statement made last Friday explained that Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. The current deal between Ticketus and Rangers was closed on 9 May 2011, several days after Craig Whyte purchased the club. To clarify, the funds paid by Ticketus were not a loan in any way either to Craig Whyte or Rangers, they were for the sole purpose of purchasing tickets from the then legal owners of the club.

Extensive due diligence is performed on counterparties in every deal, and numerous potential scenarios are modelled and prepared for in the way the deal is structured. But as per our previous note it should be said that no trading activity is 100% risk-free and, whilst Octopus Protected EIS targets capital preservation, it cannot, and does not, guarantee it. However, our analysis of this situation and the various scenarios that may develop from here leave us comfortable with our position. A statement made by Craig Whyte yesterday (http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/298342-craig-whyte-statement-in-full/) provided more detail on some of the ‘additional protection’ that we described in our previous email.

In summary, we continue to remain confident in the product, our approach to investment, and the ticketing model. We appreciate that the level of interest in this story can create challenges for you with your clients but we are working hard with all related parties to ensure that our side of the story is communicated appropriately and that some of the incorrect assumptions that have been made are corrected.

We can assure you that we are providing you and our relationship managers with as much information as possible given the circumstances. However, if you do wish to discuss this further or if you have clients who are requesting further information, please speak to your relationship manager who will be happy to help where possible.

 

Best regards

The Octopus Team

 

Also snatched from FF ...

 

A few points to bear in mind:

1. These administrators do not need to provide any information to the public - they are working on behalf of the courts for the benefit of the creditors - they don't need to give press conferences or provide data to the sports hacks in Glasgow.

 

2. They are not used to being in the glare of the public eye like they are now, so it's not surprising that they may not appear overly confident in front of the cameras.

 

3. Most of the "news" coming out in the papers and radio is guesswork or based on rumours - the guys reporting this are sports journalists not financial journalists. When BBC Sportsound or RC have a correspondent with an accountancy of finance background or a journalist from the FT on, then they may have some credibility.

Edited February 29, 2012 by der Berliner

[Bluedell 5,366]

We should be asking who has put Darryl King up to this and why.

 

If it is someone like Paul Murray as has been suggested, then he must have reasons for bringing it in to the public arena.

 

Definitely. There's a strong possibility that there's an agenda behind this. If so, then it's the same tactics that were used at the time of the problems with Lloyds. Get the fans stoked up by worrying them.

 

That's not to say that the questions being raised aren't valid ones, but it'd be good to know the source and why they are being asked.

[Bluedell 5,366]

3. Most of the "news" coming out in the papers and radio is guesswork or based on rumours - the guys reporting this are sports journalists not financial journalists. When BBC Sportsound or RC have a correspondent with an accountancy of finance background or a journalist from the FT on, then they may have some credibility.

 

Most of the news isn't guesswork. The newspapers have been fairly accurate about the club over the past few months and it's wrong to dismiss everything as being based on rumours. However it is also true that the journalists are not finance people and do get some of their own analysis and answers to questions wrong, as was proven with Darryl King last night.

 

The information given out by these guys should be listened to and assessed and should result in a far clearer view of what is happening. It shouldn't be all be taken at face-value but it also should not just be dismissed.

 

I'd also suggest that some finance people are not always more informed or accurate if their analysis is carried out with less information than others have.