forlanssister 3,066 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Is moving the clubs history to another company then merging not just fancy words for liquidation though? Of course it is, dress it up any way you like. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's liquidation, but done in such a way to get around a normal CVA process and to dodge SPL/SFA sanctions. If it went ahead, I'd be extremely surprised if the promised merger ever took place. I can see so many objections to this from various parties, not least the Rangers support. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Of course it is, dress it up any way you like. Is it? If we pay debts in some form or another through a CVA then "Rangers" would continue. I've been led to believe CVA (that everybody agrees to) for Rangers = Good. Whereas if we liquidate they just strip the assets and sell to the highest bidder and the creditors get a bit of money after D+P have been paid. Then perhaps we would get the newco I may be completely wrong here as I have absolutely no idea how a lot of this works :-) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The way I read it is that would protect the clubs assets and history during what could be a protracted CVA process. During that process, the rangers football club plc would retain the bulk if not all of the debt (or 'toxic assets') and also I would assume the SPL share. If the CVA is successful then a merger would take place to see the club retaining it's SPL share. If not then the share would be transferred to the 'newco'. It all really comes down to the governing body's interpretation of such an asset transfer and continued club operations via two seperate business entities. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 He obviously knows he’s the last resort. So if he gets us and does take us into liquidation, can we really complain? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It looks to me more like he is trying to "silo" the toxicity of getting a CVA done. Looking to basically take the club into a new corporate structure and then have the parent with all the debts looming stay as is. So long as the entity left with the debt still embarks on a CVA then, as far as I see, that isnt liquidation, it is still a CVA - all he is doing is trying to prevent sanctions on the club by creating a separate entity that can move forward. The problem with all of that is that the SPL/SFA will never go for it because if they do there is no guarantee that Miller doesnt get confirmation that history isnt lost and then say "right, lets liquidate this other piece of shit". Also, would be difficult to see how any creditors would accept it too.... basically it looks like he is looking to move all the assets (Ibrox, MP, players etc) into "newco" - this has the effect of giving the creditors nothing tangible to claim against. I doubt it would be given the seal of approval to be honest. They should all combine their funds, buy the club, and THEN work out who should own it going forward. Would never happen, but it would, for the moment at least, remove the spectre of liquidation.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Is it? If we pay debts in some form or another through a CVA then "Rangers" would continue. I've been led to believe CVA (that everybody agrees to) for Rangers = Good. Whereas if we liquidate they just strip the assets and sell to the highest bidder and the creditors get a bit of money after D+P have been paid. Then perhaps we would get the newco I may be completely wrong here as I have absolutely no idea how a lot of this works :-) Yes it's a non-liquidation liquidation despite what Miller says it's not a CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yes it's a non-liquidation liquidation despite what Miller says it's not a CVA. Thanks. Tis all very confusing. Lots of games being played by all parties involved I think 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The problem with all of that is that the SPL/SFA will never go for it because if they do there is no guarantee that Miller doesnt get confirmation that history isnt lost and then say "right, lets liquidate this other piece of shit". Also, would be difficult to see how any creditors would accept it too.... basically it looks like he is looking to move all the assets (Ibrox, MP, players etc) into "newco" - this has the effect of giving the creditors nothing tangible to claim against. You would assume the club's SPL share would remain with the 'oldco' thus giving the SPL & SFA some leverage while avoiding the proposed newco sanctions. What other assets would remain with the oldco in order to satisfy creditors is open for debate. Essentially though, it would take the day to day running of the club along with any future debt out of the hands of the admin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Richwilsport Just to reiterate, spoken to several financial experts, Miller will liquidate RFC. It's plain newco option 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.