Rangers: Sevco threatens administrator with legal action

[Steve1872 4]

The consortium in charge of the new Rangers is threatening legal action against the administrator who sold them the old club's assets.

 

Sevco Ltd claims that Duff and Phelps renaged on a deal to pay back around £500,000 put up by the consortium to help fund working capital when it agreed to buy the club back in June.

 

But Duff and Phelps has denied that the money should already be paid back.

 

They say they have a legally binding agreement which they have adhered to.

 

The Sevco consortium led by former Sheffield United chief executive Charles Green bought Rangers assets for £5.5m after failing to prevent the club heading for liquidation.

 

Rangers crisis explained

�Rangers went into administration owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors and will eventually be liquidated

â?¢As a result its registrations with the Scottish FA and Scottish Premier League were terminated

�Charles Green led a consortium which bought Rangers' assets for £5.5m

â?¢The former Sheffield United chief executive is reforming Rangers as a new company

â?¢But the 'newco' did not get the required votes for re-admittance to the SPL

â?¢Instead, the new Rangers will start life in Division Three

 

Sevco were denied a place in the Scottish Premier League and the fresh dispute comes in the middle of negotiations with the Scottish Football Association for a membership that would allow the new club to start life in Division Three.

 

A consortium source told BBC Scotland that an agreement was in place whereby it provided the £500,000 to the administrator with the promise of most of it being returned by mid-June.

 

But the consortium has yet to see any of the cash and says it is still awaiting an explanation from Duff and Phelps despite numerous calls and emails.

 

"Shortly before the takeover, Duff and Phelps asked us to make an additional payment of £500,000 to pay for operating costs from 1 June to 14 June," said the consortium source.

 

"This was on top of the original £250,000 and £5.5m.

 

"D&P said they expected to spend only around half of the money, that they'd give a breakdown of all that was spent and that the remainder would be returned a couple of days after the 14 June.

 

"All we have is an indication that most of the money has been spent, with no breakdown."

 

Duff and Phelps, who remain in charge of the old Rangers until it goes into liquidation, refuted the allegations.

 

"It was made clear to the consortium that the balance of running costs from the end of May to June the 14th would be repaid at the earliest opportunity," the adminstrator stated.

 

"These costs and liabilities are being finalised before the balance is being returned.

 

"This is happening within a perfectly normal time frame and there is absolutely nothing untoward here.

 

"There will be full transparancy on all the costs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18881004?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[UCF2008 0]

'A consortium source' - WTF? Can you imagine tomorrow's board meeting ...'Right, which one of you three did it?'.

 

Where's this extra £250k coming from all of a sudden? ...that's before we even get onto the disputed £500k.

 

Also, why are they supposedly pissed off about this mystery sum and not the £milllions lost in the player registration purchase?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

no one has anything nice to say about d&p it seems.

[pete 2,542]

no one has anything nice to say about d&p it seems.

 

Neither do I to be honest.

[Guest Dutchy]

no one has anything nice to say about d&p it seems.

 

Did the SFA not point out that they were the ones that had responsibilty of checking out the 'proper state' of the Newco, so the SFA can make a decision whether to give us a license, or not!

[UCF2008 0]

Did the SFA not point out that they were the ones that had responsibilty of checking out the 'proper state' of the Newco, so the SFA can make a decision whether to give us a license, or not!

 

Technically, since that would be their duty as adminstrators of the oldco, you / the SFA are correct.

 

However, their new testing protocol does get fudged a little with the oldco / newco situation

Edited July 17, 2012 by UCF2008

[Guest Dutchy]

I was just pointing out that someone has something nice to say about them, or at least trusts them, or maybe they just like them a lot for the job done so far???

[UCF2008 0]

I was just pointing out that someone has something nice to say about them, or at least trusts them, or maybe they just like them a lot for the job done so far???

 

If you're referring to the SFA, I think as far as their concerned it's just a case that someone (else) has to carry the can