Andrew Dickson, Head of Football Administration

[the gunslinger 3,366]

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.

 

my contention is that if you cut costs and sold assets you could have paid the bulk or all of the immediate debt.

 

which was only really 16 million of unpaid tax by whyte and 4 million of trade creditors.

 

ticketus would have had to get their first payment later and of course further down the line hmrc may well win a huge claim.

 

but they may not of course.

 

things would have changed dramatically certainly. but probably not as dramatically as they have done now.

 

you could even have sold us to a bidder who took on the my much reduced debt perhaps.

 

hindsight is wonderful but anyone can tell you I said all this would happen if we were liquidated and that d&p were making a tit of it long ago.

[craig 5,199]

my contention is that if you cut costs and sold assets you could have paid the bulk or all of the immediate debt.

 

What assets were they going to sell ? The only assets of value are players, for the most part - Ibrox and Auchenhowie were never going to be sold. They couldnt sell players as the transfer window was closed. How would they sell them in February ? Lets move to cutting costs... the MAJOR costs of the club are players. So the way to cut costs ? get rid of players. Cant sell them.... so would have to make them redundant. So which is it ? You cant have both here GS - you cant cut the costs AND sell the players.

 

The only other way of cutting costs would be to get rid of other staffers, and I dont think even you believe they were going to be enough to pay off the immediate debt

 

which was only really 16 million of unpaid tax by whyte and 4 million of trade creditors.

 

I am not doubting those numbers. I also am not bringing the EBT into it because that clearly isnt what put us where we are given there has been no decision on it yet.

 

ticketus would have had to get their first payment later and of course further down the line hmrc may well win a huge claim.

 

but they may not of course.

 

We owed 20 million plus ticketus, right ? Where was that money coming from ? We couldnt sell players, it was outwith the transfer window. I dont recall us getting dispensation to sell players outwith the window.

 

And cost savings wouldnt have helped either - any staffing cuts would merely have plugged the gap between income and expenses anyway - remember, we were running at a monthly loss so we would only have been plugging that gap.

 

things would have changed dramatically certainly. but probably not as dramatically as they have done now.

 

I disagree. I dont see how we were going to be able to meet the liabilities given that we couldnt sell players ans reducing costs wouldnt have bringing enough income in to pay off the debts.

 

you could even have sold us to a bidder who took on the my much reduced debt perhaps.

 

Which bidder was looking to do that ? Do you know of any ? I didnt see anyone taking it on. And HMRC, I thought, made it clear that it wasnt about the liability, it was about chasing after Whyte and/or SDM. They wanted a pound of flesh and I dont think it was anything to do with the 14 mill tey were owed. So selling to someone prepared to take the debt on could also have made no difference to a CVA.

 

hindsight is wonderful but anyone can tell you I said all this would happen if we were liquidated and that d&p were making a tit of it long ago.

 

You are completely ignoring the fact that HMRC said they wouldnt have accepted a CVA anyway. Didnt matter who was bidding for us, they said they wouldnt have accepted. So what were the alternatives ? I am seriously interested, even with hindsight, given the facts we have, who would have prevented the CVA.

 

I am by no means a D&P lover, although I will readily admit that I gave them the benefit of the doubt for probably too long, but I dont believe that they could have prevented the CVA - there werent enough bidders with high enough bids and they also were being spun a yarn by HMRC as to how likely they were to work with D&P and the bidders.

[simplythebest 0]

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.

The revenue themselves at the time of rejection pretty much said liquidation became about being able to do a full investigation into our history and find evidence to pursue individuals.

 

Yes their heads may have been turned if the CVA was worth about 50 million or even more, but you'd have needed Sheik type bidders to throw that much money in just to get swallowed up by creditors.

 

It's total delusion to think that a couple of extra million would have made a difference, even though that's speculation anyway as far as TBK go. Gradually paying the taxman back was clearly never going to happen either, he wanted his money or pound of flesh (the old company) ASAP.

[Zappa 0]

The revenue themselves at the time of rejection pretty much said liquidation became about being able to do a full investigation into our history and find evidence to pursue individuals.

 

Yes their heads may have been turned if the CVA was worth about 50 million or even more, but you'd have needed Sheik type bidders to throw that much money in just to get swallowed up by creditors.

 

It's total delusion to think that a couple of extra million would have made a difference, even though that's speculation anyway as far as TBK go. Gradually paying the taxman back was clearly never going to happen either, he wanted his money or pound of flesh (the old company) ASAP.

 

I think a cash CVA pot of about £15m to £20m would have been something that HMRC wouldn't have been able to reject.

[simplythebest 0]

I think a cash CVA pot of about £15m to £20m would have been something that HMRC wouldn't have been able to reject.

 

You think? Would have been a pretty miniscule amount still.

 

You have to remember as far as HMRC were concerned we owed the EBT money as well, confirmed or not.

[Zappa 0]

You think? Would have been a pretty miniscule amount still.

 

Maybe not £15m because with the administration & legal fees taken off it there would have been under £10m left for HMRC and the other creditors, but I certainly think a cash CVA pot of £20m or so would have given HMRC a situation where they were practically forced to accept it because even with the huge administration & legal fees taken off it there would still have been a very large sum of money left in the creditor pot.

 

All that was really needed was a CVA offer which would leave a large sum in the pot so that HMRC and other creditors would actually get something back, but the CVA proposal finally submitted by Duff & Phelps and Green's group wasn't going to leave the creditors with much if any cash at all. It was a CVA proposal destined to fail because it was designed to fail.

[simplythebest 0]

Maybe not £15m because with the administration & legal fees taken off it there would have been under £10m left for HMRC and the other creditors, but I certainly think a cash CVA pot of £20m or so would have given HMRC a situation where they were practically forced to accept it because even with the huge administration & legal fees taken off it there would still have been a very large sum of money left in the creditor pot.

 

All that was really needed was a CVA offer which would leave a large sum in the pot so that HMRC and other creditors would actually get something back, but the CVA proposal finally submitted by Duff & Phelps and Green's group wasn't going to leave the creditors with much if any cash at all. It was a CVA proposal destined to fail because it was designed to fail.

So why did HMRC declare reasons that weren't to do with the monetary value?

[Zappa 0]

So why did HMRC declare reasons that weren't to do with the monetary value?

 

I can't answer that question because I don't believe they'd have said the same if the amount of cash in the proposed CVA pot for creditors had been enough.

[simplythebest 0]

I can't answer that question because I don't believe they'd have said the same if the amount of cash in the proposed CVA pot for creditors had been enough.

 

Yes, but I think you're being optimistic about what would have been 'enough'. The revenue went after Rangers to make a point if anything, so I don't understand why you're so certain they'd have needed to accept something just 11 million or so higher when they believe they're owed about 100 million.

 

Don't understand this 'designed to fail' thing either when it's the largest CVA that was offered, even if you agree with gunslinger's conspiracy theories TBK were offering pretty much the same. The administrator fees isn't something decided mid-way through the process either. Nothing was 'designed to fail', we simply had no bidders with the wealth or desire to put up more, and HMRC made a choice.

[craig 5,199]

I think a cash CVA pot of about £15m to £20m would have been something that HMRC wouldn't have been able to reject.

 

That is all good and well but who was going to offer that ?

 

There wasnt one single bid that was sufficient enough to get even close to that amount.