Duff & Phelps Statement - 12.00 - Thursday 3rd May - No liquidation!!

[bigy 0]

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

 

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We would like to thank all parties for their efforts in seeking to submit bids which preserve the long history and success of the Club.

 

"We are delighted to announce that today we have received an unconditional bid for the business and assets of Rangers Football Club plc from Mr Bill Miller which has been accepted and he is now the preferred bidder. Mr Miller now proposes to complete his transaction by the end of the season.

 

"After many weeks of negotiation and deliberation we believe that the structure of the bid from Mr Miller provides not only the most deliverable outcome but preserves the history of the Club. Rangers Football Club will continue as the football club it has been for 140 years.

 

"Furthermore, Mr Miller and his team have sought clarity in relation to potential footballing sanctions and the place of Rangers Football Club plc within the Scottish Premier League. Significant progress has been made and discussions will continue throughout the period which Mr Miller now enjoys as preferred bidder.

 

"Very importantly, the bid also avoids the need for liquidation. All too often the term liquidation has been bandied about during the process without a clear understanding of what it actually means.

 

"Liquidation means selling off the assets of a business individually to raise cash and therefore bringing about the closure or winding up of that business. This has never been on the table from any party in any form. There is no liquidation involved in this strategy and we cannot stress that strongly enough.

 

"As we stated at the outset, one of the prime objectives of the administration was to achieve a CVA which would deliver a return to creditors. Mr Miller's bid meets this criteria.

 

"In recent weeks there has been much debate about Rangers exiting from administration through a stand-alone CVA. However, the barriers to a proposed stand-alone CVA are now too high.

 

"These barriers include, in particular, the absence of any bidder proposing unconditionally sufficient funds to enable a stand-alone CVA to take place.

Edited May 3, 2012 by bigy

[Robert 17]

When is a CVA not a CVA?

Or maybe that should be: When is liquidation not liquidation?

[BlueMazza 0]

The admins have stated that a stand alone CVA could not be completed in time. To go that route would kill the club. THIS option is our best & only chance. We should grab it with both hands.

 

I think Miller is making a statement later, so will be interesting to see what he says.

[Bluedell 6,159]

"Liquidation means selling off the assets of a business individually to raise cash and therefore bringing about the closure or winding up of that business. This has never been on the table from any party in any form. There is no liquidation involved in this strategy and we cannot stress that strongly enough.

 

However they don't explain what the plan is. Is the only difference the fact that the assets are being sold off in one chunk rather than individually? What happens to the plc under Miller's plan?

 

It may not be liquidated, but I don't see any connection with it and the newco going forward.

[Bluedell 6,159]

What's a stand-alone CVA?

 

Edit: "A CVA is a deal offered to creditors where they are asked to accept a proportion of their debt in final satisfaction. They can be proposed without the company first going into Administration (known as a "stand-alone" CVA), although this is relatively unusual"

 

As we were in administration, according to this definition a stand-alone CVA would be impossible. Is this double-talk from the administrators?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bluedell

[Frankie 8,938]

Lots of questions - let's hope the one-to-ones with the press are more fruitful in terms of answers.

[Craigy1881 79]

What's a stand-alone CVA?

 

I think just getting the creditors to agree to taking the money in the pot from just the one company while the assets are still there (Possibilty of extra cash). Whereas Bill is sticking all the rangers assets into his newco so the creditors can't get their hands on them. In turn saying to them, 11 million is all there is take it it's all you're getting.

 

I could be wrong but that is my take on things, if someone could educate me different that would be good

[bigy 0]

I think just getting the creditors to agree to taking the money in the pot from just the one company while the assets are still there (Possibilty of extra cash). Whereas Bill is sticking all the rangers assets into his newco so the creditors can't get their hands on them. In turn saying to them, 11 million is all there is take it it's all you're getting.

 

I could be wrong but that is my take on things, if someone could educate me different that would be good

 

My understanding, and again I could be wrong, is that a 'stand-alone' CVA is one in which a CVA is agreed without the involvement or approval of the administrators, whereas a normal CVA is one in which the administrators support the proposals. Not quite sure how after 3 months in administration a stand-alone CVA would ever be possible.

 

ps - so possibly if TBK got Ticketus onside they'd have been able to agree a CVA direct with the creditors, and thus it would have been stand-alone, whereas now Bill Miller is proposing a CVA with the support and backing of the administrators.