Zappa 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 You're probably right that Duff and Phelps do "want rid". It's an unfortunately similar situation to when SDM was being pressured into a sale by the bank (if that's really what happened). The seller doesn't really care too much who buys, and there's no-one in a position to check that the buyer has the club's best interests at heart. Just got to hope that they do. Admidst the spin and the scaremongering how can we judge? It's impossible to judge, but it's entirely possible to ask questions! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 I am confused here, what else are they supposed to do? Money at the club is running out soon, surely when that happens it will be game over anyway? They are not going to just knock back the best bid at the table for this mob because they have a legal responsibility to the creditors first and foremost to provide the best deal. At this moment in time that is the Green consortium. If other bidders just put their money where their mouth is then there would be no need to complain but they didn't. So we need to back this mob, they have as much chance of achieving a CVA as anyone else. I am not sure what else could have been done, time is running out fast along with funds. You're correct that time is running out fast, but I don't trust Duff & Phelps any more than I trusted Craig Whyte which was practically not at all. Craig Whyte chose Duff & Phelps as the administrators for our club. Why did he chose administrators who had absolutely zero experience in football club administrations? If you were the owner of a football club and had to chose administrators to come in, would you chose administrators with zero experience in football club administration? Duff & Phelps have literally stumbled from one contradiction to another over the past three months. Why? Why have they continually contradicted themselves? Why should we believe what Duff & Phelps tell us? Are they looking after the best interests of Rangers Football Club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) I think that all they care about at this stage is getting out of dodge. I know I'll probably get some stick for not just getting on board and hoping for the best without asking questions, but I can't help it. I have to say exactly what I think. It sounds to me like Duff & Phelps will put a CVA proposal to the creditors which they probably know won't be accepted due to a portion of the CVA pot offer being conditional on litigation down south. I can't remember the exact words from Whitehouse, but I'm almost certain that he didn't reveal which litigation he was referring to being included in the CVA proposal. I'm presuming it's the money that was left in the Collyer Bristow client account which was ringfenced, but that money is being claimed by several parties is it not? Then there's the important matter of whether or not both D&P and Green were bending the truth (telling lies) when they said that if a CVA is rejected their plan will default to a "Bill Miller" newco model. Will it really be the same as the Bill Miller model or will it be a straight newco and liquidation? Were they just trying to give us the impression that it would be the Bill Miller newco model because a lot of fans had absorbed that and began taking it on board? The last thing on this planet that Duff & Phelps want to happen is RFC plc exiting administration via CVA. The for sale brochure that they did was 17 pages long and had 16 pages on a newco scenario and one on a CVA! (iirc). The litigation aspect is where Duff & Phelps have been quite clever (when you consider who their master is!) far being it the monies you state Zappa, the relity is that they withdrew the claim of RFC plc. I'm pretty certain that the monies will find its' way to the Jerome Pension Trustees which is basically a front for the Whyte and Earley owned Worthington Group. The big £25m case against Collyer Bristow will die when RFC plc gets liquidated. Anyway Duff & Phelps are being disingenuous at best because all monies would go into the CVA in any case. Duff & Phelps are just using up time till their purpose is served. Edited May 14, 2012 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The last thing on this planet that Duff & Phelps want to happen is RFC plc exiting administration via CVA. The for sale brochure that they did was 17 pages long and had 16 pages on a newco scenario and one on a CVA! (iirc). The litigation aspect is where Duff & Phelps have been quite clever (when you consider who their master is!) far being it the monies you state Zappa, the relity is that they withdrew the claim of RFC plc. I'm pretty certain that the monies will find its' way to the Jerome Pension Trustees which is basically a front for the Whyte and Earley owned Worthington Group. The big £25m case against Collyer Bristow will die when RFC plc gets liquidated. Anyway Duff & Phelps are being disingenuous at best because all monies would go into the CVA in any case. Duff & Phelps are just using up time till their purpose is served. I thought that I had read that the £3.8m claim had been dropped, but I couldn't find anything. Have you got a link to it fs? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 forlan, I've removed your last paragraph for obvious reasons! (no need to continue that nonsense) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 The for sale brochure that they did was 17 pages long and had 16 pages on a newco scenario and one on a CVA! (iirc). Seriously? That's the first we've heard of that is it not? If true, then that's incredible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 The litigation aspect is where Duff & Phelps have been quite clever (when you consider who their master is!) far being it the monies you state Zappa, the reality is that they withdrew the claim of RFC plc. I'm pretty certain that the monies will find its' way to the Jerome Pension Trustees which is basically a front for the Whyte and Earley owned Worthington Group. I instantly wondered why David Whitehouse was telling us that there was an extra aspect to their CVA proposal which included money still involved in litigation. I can't get my head around it at all because surely money involved in litigation would be a turn-off for the creditors? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I thought that I had read that the £3.8m claim had been dropped, but I couldn't find anything. Have you got a link to it fs? Collyer Bristows' are not contesting the right to the £3.8m (or thereabouts) our only live claim against Collyer Bristow is the £25m, as far as I'm aware the three parties with a claim on the £3.8m (or thereabouts) is HMRC, Merchant Turnaround (£1m), Jerome Pension Trustees (£2.9m) I'm led to believe the odds favour the latter two. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Collyer Bristows' are not contesting the right to the £3.8m (or thereabouts) our only live claim against Collyer Bristow is the £25m, as far as I'm aware the three parties with a claim on the £3.8m (or thereabouts) is HMRC, Merchant Turnaround (£1m), Jerome Pension Trustees (£2.9m) I'm led to believe the odds favour the latter two. Cheers, I'll have another delve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I instantly wondered why David Whitehouse was telling us that there was an extra aspect to their CVA proposal which included money still involved in litigation. I can't get my head around it at all because surely money involved in litigation would be a turn-off for the creditors? It makes as much sense to the creditors as the money contingent on Champions League participation which was roundly trashed by Whytehouse, how any sane mind can think Duff & Phelps are not working to an agenda is beyond me. Perhaps they will rue the day they f*&ked over Brian Kennedy. 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.