the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 they managed to reduce the cva pot by 5 million between their fees. their lawyers and media house. that's before we even discuss not selling naismith and not reducing cost to point where we were even breaking even. both further reducing it. but hey Ho the got their 3.8 million or whatever they got after it was successfully appealed against for being to much. as for prior involvement that's a matter for a judge to decide at present. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 they managed to reduce the cva pot by 5 million between their fees. their lawyers and media house. that's before we even discuss not selling naismith and not reducing cost to point where we were even breaking even. both further reducing it. but hey Ho the got their 3.8 million or whatever they got after it was successfully appealed against for being to much. as for prior involvement that's a matter for a judge to decide at present. But you would agree they at least did us a favour by not just putting the assets onto the open market? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 they made sure to get a bid that coveted their fee. that's all they wanted by the end. frankly I struggle to see how they could have handled things worse. motherwell were in admin for years and came out of it with a cva and a bill a tiny fraction of d&p. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 they made sure to get a bid that coveted their fee. that's all they wanted by the end. frankly I struggle to see how they could have handled things worse. motherwell were in admin for years and came out of it with a cva and a bill a tiny fraction of d&p. Motherwell didn't have the taxman going after 100 million debt, something had to give for us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Amokachi 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Mud Slinger used to moan that the bank ran the club on RM yet somehow the reduction of debt is down to the board. He never has thought things through. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Amokachi 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 they made sure to get a bid that coveted their fee. that's all they wanted by the end. frankly I struggle to see how they could have handled things worse. motherwell were in admin for years and came out of it with a cva and a bill a tiny fraction of d&p. I would imagine that the administration process would be a lot more costly for a huge company compared to the a tiny one 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Mud Slinger used to moan that the bank ran the club on RM yet somehow the reduction of debt is down to the board. He never has thought things through. the bank had people on the board. someone was doing a good job. your free to decide who. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I would imagine that the administration process would be a lot more costly for a huge company compared to the a tiny one hundreds of times more costly it seems. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Motherwell didn't have the taxman going after 100 million debt, something had to give for us. no, and its yet to be confirmed we do either. frankly is d&p hadn't reduced the value then effectively freed our entire squad we could have paid off hmrc and made the first payment to ticketus. it would have been a hard slog out of bother certainly but much easier than our current predicament. of course that may change if we lose the big tax case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 no, and its yet to be confirmed we do either. frankly is d&p hadn't reduced the value then effectively freed our entire squad we could have paid off hmrc and made the first payment to ticketus. it would have been a hard slog out of bother certainly but much easier than our current predicament. of course that may change if we lose the big tax case. The time to pay off HMRC was when the debts were being accumulated, and that was under Whte's watch not D&P. Just who was going to get this CVA approved ? If you think that TBK's bid was going to get a CVA approved then you are being naive in the extreme. Even a couple million more (which, if things are to be believed by some, is all it would have been) would NOT have given HMRC a great deal more cash and they wouldnt have gone for the CVA anyway. "Freed the entire squad" ? Really ? How did that happen then ? It happened because a CVA couldnt be agreed and that the players wouldnt TUPE. I am not sure that you can blame that on D&P. How were they going to get a CVA agreed ? It would clearly have taken a higher bid to get HMRC onside.... and do you know of anyone that was prepared to put a SUFFICIENTLY high enough bid in to get the CVA ? I dont. More likely is that we would have went into liquidation with an asset sale and then the club was open to vultures anyway. TBK were not going to get the CVA you craved. It wasnt going to happen, no matter what they say. D&P, if they are to be believed, said HMRC were "accomodating" and looked like they would agree a CVA. Seems HMRC changed that stance and you cant really blame D&P for that. As for freeing players, and somebody mentioned not selling Naismith...... maybe I am missing something but we entered administration in February and the transfer window was shut at that point, so who were we going to sell him to ? And even if we agreed a fee with another club he wouldnt have been obligated to sign - he could still have not TUPED and walked on a free for more money for himself. It is amusing how you make this all seem very clear and very straight forward. But the reality is that TBK had no more chance of getting a CVA than Green did. No more at all. D&P made mistakes, for sure. But this wasnt the easiest of administrations with one of the country's largest institutions. Anyone thinking that the administration process would be perfect and without troubles, especially knowing the weave SDM had and, even worse, the one that Whyte had, is being naive IMO. As for the Motherwell comparison, that is a poor comparison. The quantum of cash they had as liabilities was far smaller. Revenue streams far smaller. Cost base far smaller. Operations far smaller. In short, their administration was a far simpler process than the Rangers one. I wouldnt be surprised if the D&P administration fees are actually in line with other companies of similar size and stature to us, although I am sure that could be far from wrong too. 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.