Would you be happy if we were still in admin at the start of the new season but.....

[Zappa 0]

As things currently stand, I don't think the administrators have the money in club bank accounts to keep the club running till the start of the new season if we stay in administration. Due to the size of the club's monthly bills, they need to get us out of administration ASAP.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I can't see us being in administration come the start of next season.

 

I can't really decide what the admins are up to. TBH I don't buy the theories that they're in cahoots with Craig Whyte and see no real compelling evidence to back this up.

 

I do think they're doing all they can to stave off what some blogs, fans and journalists would have you believe is inevitable and that is the liquidation of Rangers PLC and a newco starting up.

 

For what it's worth I see the club and company as 2 seperate things. If the company goes bust then so be it. Perhaps it would be for the best. The club and the history of the club will never die.

[forlanssister 3,062]

I can't see us being in administration come the start of next season.

 

I can't really decide what the admins are up to. TBH I don't buy the theories that they're in cahoots with Craig Whyte and see no real compelling evidence to back this up.

 

I do think they're doing all they can to stave off what some blogs, fans and journalists would have you believe is inevitable and that is the liquidation of Rangers PLC and a newco starting up.

 

For what it's worth I see the club and company as 2 seperate things. If the company goes bust then so be it. Perhaps it would be for the best. The club and the history of the club will never die.

 

Can you post some clues as to how you came to that conclusion?

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Can you post some clues as to how you came to that conclusion?

 

I don’t have any definitive proof that they are doing all they can it is just my own personal opinion.

 

But if they weren’t then I think the following would have happened already.

 

• They would have had a massive reduction in staff at Rangers.

• They seem to keep giving bidders extra chances instead of saying “you had your chance your bid wasn’t good enough goodbye”

• They would have liquidated Rangers PLC.

 

They are also suing Collyer Bristow for £25 million pounds over their handling of the Rangers takeover by Craig Whyte.

 

The only shame about that is that we have to wait until October for it to be heard and that sort of money would go a long way to saving us. The money involved in that is probably more than all the bids combined.

 

They took Ticketus to court to try and get us out of that deal because at the moment I think that deal is what is turning away bidders and screwing us. (I may be completely wrong on that)

 

Also they are professionally obligated to do their job. Can they really afford not to do all they can? (Especially if they are taking Collyer Bristow to court pot/kettle)

 

It also would be a massive feather in their cap if they could turn Rangers around.

 

My main question for Duff and Phelps would be though: What was meant when they said Craig Whytes shares would not be an issue? They have not delivered on that statement and it appears to be a major stumbling block to anyone wishing to takeover.

[forlanssister 3,062]

First off, thanks for replying.

 

I donâ??t have any definitive proof that they are doing all they can it is just my own personal opinion.

 

But if they werenâ??t then I think the following would have happened already.

 

â?¢ They would have had a massive reduction in staff at Rangers.

â?¢ They seem to keep giving bidders extra chances instead of saying â??you had your chance your bid wasnâ??t good enough goodbyeâ?

â?¢ They would have liquidated Rangers PLC.

 

 

Ever seen any other football administration where there was no massive reduction in staff? Ever seen an administrator whose virtually first act was to try and sign a player on a reputed £7k a week ?

 

They are saying to the bidders "we can't give you Whytes' shares therefore we can't deliver a CVA, it's newco or nothing".

 

If there is no CVA Rangers Football Club plc will be liquidated of that there is no doubt.

 

They are also suing Collyer Bristow for £25 million pounds over their handling of the Rangers takeover by Craig Whyte.

 

The only shame about that is that we have to wait until October for it to be heard and that sort of money would go a long way to saving us. The money involved in that is probably more than all the bids combined.

 

For all the good it'll do they could be suing for £25 billion, we will run out of money in all probability just over a months time but absolutely long,long before October.

 

I'd hazard a guess they'll get nearer to £0 than £25m, as for suing Whyte that's simply for effect and for no other reason.

 

Pretty sure the creditors would lay claim to any monies recovered in any case.

 

They took Ticketus to court to try and get us out of that deal because at the moment I think that deal is what is turning away bidders and screwing us. (I may be completely wrong on that)

 

The newco strategy renders Ticketus (and every other creditor) basically irrelevant making taking Ticketus to court moot save for the lawyers who got big fat fees.

 

Also they are professionally obligated to do their job. Can they really afford not to do all they can? (Especially if they are taking Collyer Bristow to court pot/kettle)

 

Kenneth McLeod and Kevin Sykes were accountants who got involved with Craig Whyte they too were professionally obligated to do their job, try googling them to see what happened to them after they'd done Whytes' bidding.

 

As for Collyer Bristow Gary Withey was a partner in the 200 odd year old blue stocking law firm of course that was before he did Whytes's bidding, you may detect a wee pattern developing here about what happens to the professional classes when they get involved with Craig Whyte.

 

It also would be a massive feather in their cap if they could turn Rangers around.

 

My main question for Duff and Phelps would be though: What was meant when they said Craig Whytes shares would not be an issue? They have not delivered on that statement and it appears to be a major stumbling block to anyone wishing to takeover.

 

It is not their job to turn Rangers around that's one particular feather that won't be in their cap.

 

In fact it was the business plan devised for Whyte by David "not involved" Grier a partner in Duff & Phelps that has brought us to where we are at today. Grier ergo MCR/Duff & Phelps have been involved in this from October 2010.

 

When they said they Whytes' shares would not be an issue it was an out and out lie designed purely to kill time (worked a treat eh?) remember it was their partner David "not involved" Grier who designed and implemented the business plan in fact it would be no surprise whatsoever if it's revealed that Clark and Whitehouse worked on that plan too! Wonder what happened to the "mechanism" they were going to apply to separate Whyte and his shareholding.

 

It's a lot more than a major stumbling block it's a deal killer pure and simple.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Ever seen any other football administration where there was no massive reduction in staff? Ever seen an administrator whose virtually first act was to try and sign a player on a reputed £7k a week ?

 

They are saying to the bidders "we can't give you Whytes' shares therefore we can't deliver a CVA, it's newco or nothing".

 

If there is no CVA Rangers Football Club plc will be liquidated of that there is no doubt.

No but the Cousin deal was signed before we went into administration (only by days or hours of a difference but either way). Iâ??m not sure about all the technicalities but I believe they just wanted him registered so he could play also not sure if we were actually paying him but I think he was on a pay as you play deal. If they were paying him then it would explain why they wanted him registered at least until they possibly made a decision about cuts.

 

I think it really highlights the inequity of Craig Whyte who must have known we were heading for administration but still said to Ally McCoist. â??yeah mate cushtie sign himâ?

 

As for the reduction in staff. I would say the main reason they never reduced would be so they could make more money off them, between McGregor, Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, Lafferty, Wallace and Edu I would say they could make between £5 to £15million and that could go into a CVA pot (hopefully). Had they just let them go in March then they would have throwing that money away.

 

For all the good it'll do they could be suing for £25 billion, we will run out of money in all probability just over a months time but absolutely long,long before October.

 

I'd hazard a guess they'll get nearer to £0 than £25m, as for suing Whyte that's simply for effect and for no other reason.

 

Pretty sure the creditors would lay claim to any monies recovered in any case.

 

Yes I agree. It will be too late and any money recovered would go to the creditors.

 

I would like to think Duff and Phelps could make a convincing argument that we were in with such a good chance of winning this case. That any CVA agreed now could be boosted in the future. But I agree a lot of that would be in the land of dreams and so on and most creditors would not agree to â??you might get more money in 6 monthsâ? I agree that most likely it will come around too late.

 

Out of curiosity does anyone know that if Rangers PLC do liquidate would that case still be heard etc.?

 

The newco strategy renders Ticketus (and every other creditor) basically irrelevant making taking Ticketus to court moot save for the lawyers who got big fat fees.

 

Iâ??m not so sure about this. If Rangers liquidate do the assets not have to be sold? Meaning that Ibrox, Murray Park and so on still have to be sold to whoever buys them. Would Duff and Phelps again not be obligated to try and get the best price possible for the creditors?

 

Perhaps this is what they are doing already only the wrong way round? Is that even legal?

 

Kenneth McLeod and Kevin Sykes were accountants who got involved with Craig Whyte they too were professionally obligated to do their job, try googling them to see what happened to them after they'd done Whytes' bidding.

 

As for Collyer Bristow Gary Withey was a partner in the 200 odd year old blue stocking law firm of course that was before he did Whytes's bidding, you may detect a wee pattern developing here about what happens to the professional classes when they get involved with Craig Whyte.

 

Interesting indeed but I thought this was why Duff and Phelps were suing Collyer Bristow. I suppose most of these firms are all out to make a quick buck. But I would find it strange if they were all in this together. I think the fact the Gary Withey did a runner shows he was up to no good perhaps not Collyer Bristow but he worked/acted on their behalf so they are also complicit.

 

It is not their job to turn Rangers around that's one particular feather that won't be in their cap.

 

In fact it was the business plan devised for Whyte by David "not involved" Grier a partner in Duff & Phelps that has brought us to where we are at today. Grier ergo MCR/Duff & Phelps have been involved in this from October 2010.

 

When they said they Whytes' shares would not be an issue it was an out and out lie designed purely to kill time (worked a treat eh?) remember it was their partner David "not involved" Grier who designed and implemented the business plan in fact it would be no surprise whatsoever if it's revealed that Clark and Whitehouse worked on that plan too! Wonder what happened to the "mechanism" they were going to apply to separate Whyte and his shareholding.

 

It's a lot more than a major stumbling block it's a deal killer pure and simple.

As far as I can see Craig Whyte had no business plan or if you can call buy Rangers for a pound then run up as much debt as you can a business plan then fair enough.

 

If they are all indeed in it together and it ends Rangers then I for one would hope that there would be some sort of independent enquiry.

 

I certainly do wonder what happened to the â??mechanismâ? perhaps they are indeed at it and killing time. But would it not have suited them 1. Not to say that when it is an out an out lie. 2. Liquidate Rangers a month to 6 weeks ago. Get it over and done with. It is because of the second reason I think theyâ??re trying. But as I say personal opinion I could be completely wrong about all of this. I have absolutely no background in anything like this 

[GovanAllan 0]

Admin next year, somebody going to tell me who is paying the bills then.

[Bluedell 5,366]

In fact it was the business plan devised for Whyte by David "not involved" Grier a partner in Duff & Phelps that has brought us to where we are at today. Grier ergo MCR/Duff & Phelps have been involved in this from October 2010.

 

When they said they Whytes' shares would not be an issue it was an out and out lie designed purely to kill time (worked a treat eh?) remember it was their partner David "not involved" Grier who designed and implemented the business plan in fact it would be no surprise whatsoever if it's revealed that Clark and Whitehouse worked on that plan too! Wonder what happened to the "mechanism" they were going to apply to separate Whyte and his shareholding.

 

It's a lot more than a major stumbling block it's a deal killer pure and simple.

 

And what's the aim of the plan? What benefit does Whyte get?