Charles Green meeting yesterday

[forlanssister 3,050]

The point he seems to be making is that there should have been no CVA offered until after it was known.

 

I'd love to know how the club could have survived all that time, or even be able to guarantee fulfilling fixtures.

 

That's not the point at all and you know it.

 

The point he's making is that Duff & Phelps were under no obligation to include the potential EBT liabilities thereby they gave HMRC voting power far in excess of the actual liabilities due to them merited.

[simplythebest 0]

That's not the point at all and you know it.

 

The point he's making is that Duff & Phelps were under no obligation to include the potential EBT liabilities thereby they gave HMRC voting power far in excess of the actual liabilities due to them merited.

 

The revenue must have pushed for it and had a right to it, why would Duff and Phelps do that for the sake of it? It presented a situation where we could exit administration and be back in it within months so I don't know how viable it would have been to leave the EBT stuff out.

 

Although would it be incorrect to say the money Whyte didn't pay gave them enough power anyway?

[forlanssister 3,050]

The revenue must have pushed for it and had a right to it, why would Duff and Phelps do that for the sake of it? It presented a situation where we could exit administration and be back in it within months so I don't know how viable it would have been to leave the EBT stuff out.

 

Although would it be incorrect to say the money Whyte didn't pay gave them enough power anyway?

 

Yes they could have probably blocked the CVA regardless which just makes the decision to include it even more bizarre.

 

Perhaps D&P were simply currying favour in order to get the liquidation gig?

[simplythebest 0]

Yes they could have probably blocked the CVA regardless which just makes the decision to include it even more bizarre.

 

Perhaps D&P were simply currying favour in order to get the liquidation gig?

May be worth a bit of curiosity but it's a pretty irrelevant point as far as us going forward it concerned, if there really is wrongdoing it'll come out in the wash but i'm fed up of frost going on about these things like we can't just get on with normal stuff like focussing on supporting our team because of them.

 

I highly doubt it, the end of administration is meant to be the end of the insolvency as such, a fresh start with zero debt. That senario you portray meant administration could end only for there to be the possibility of entering it again at any time and screwing up the situation even more for the creditors. I'm unsure what else they could have done, not as if there's ever been any clear indication of when a result can be expected, it's chopped and changed for 12 months.

[forlanssister 3,050]

May be worth a bit of curiosity but it's a pretty irrelevant point as far as us going forward it concerned, if there really is wrongdoing it'll come out in the wash but i'm fed up of frost going on about these things like we can't just get on with normal stuff like focussing on supporting our team because of them.

 

Yes we should focus on supporting the team , I certainly do, hard to believe I know but fact nonetheless. However I'm not naive enough to assume that nothing that has happened in the past cannot in any shape or form return to cause us difficulties.

 

I highly doubt it, the end of administration is meant to be the end of the insolvency as such, a fresh start with zero debt. That senario you portray meant administration could end only for there to be the possibility of entering it again at any time and screwing up the situation even more for the creditors. I'm unsure what else they could have done, not as if there's ever been any clear indication of when a result can be expected, it's chopped and changed for 12 months.

 

If D&P had had awarded a zero value to the EBT claim it would not have meant HMRC could claim for any liability (if the FTT find that way, which in all probability they will) after the exit of administration via either a CVA or liquidation.

[simplythebest 0]

Yes we should focus on supporting the team , I certainly do, hard to believe I know but fact nonetheless. However I'm not naive enough to assume that nothing that has happened in the past cannot in any shape or form return to cause us difficulties.

 

The possibility is there, of course the possibility is there I could be hit by a bus tomorrow and never return to this forum again. There's no possibilities concrete enough to mean that we can't move on while still having reasonable discussions, questions etc, which you pretty much do. Perhaps i'm going after frost a bit here but he seems to have a 'we're doomed' attitude to all this and sounds like he'd not have us do anything until all these 'issues' are 'resolved', he declares we cannot have a share issue so can we have season ticket sales? Is there even a point in having a team playing on the park? After all the relevant investigations could take a number of years to be concluded, if ever.

 

It's nonsense to me, things like share issues and season tickets are for all individuals to make their minds up, the vast majority of the support gave their positive answer when it came to season tickets and we'll see what it's like for the shares where everyone will have read the prospectus. But there was a genuine possibility and fear we may not see Rangers play again after last season ended, yet here we are and doing the usual stuff like debating the manager's future etc. I think it's something to be grateful for.

 

If D&P had had awarded a zero value to the EBT claim it would not have meant HMRC could claim for any liability (if the FTT find that way, which in all probability they will) after the exit of administration via either a CVA or liquidation.

 

Liquidation no, why not the CVA? Would have been the same company they were going after in that case.

[forlanssister 3,050]

The possibility is there, of course the possibility is there I could be hit by a bus tomorrow and never return to this forum again. There's no possibilities concrete enough to mean that we can't move on while still having reasonable discussions, questions etc, which you pretty much do. Perhaps i'm going after frost a bit here but he seems to have a 'we're doomed' attitude to all this and sounds like he'd not have us do anything until all these 'issues' are 'resolved', he declares we cannot have a share issue so can we have season ticket sales? Is there even a point in having a team playing on the park? After all the relevant investigations could take a number of years to be concluded, if ever.

 

The reality probably lays somewhere between the "we're doomed" and the "head in the sand" brigades. I assume we'd all like all the issues resolved so that we can move forward but alas that won't happen. Sadly I fear it will take the better part of a decade before everything is concluded and even then we'll never know the full story.

 

 

 

It's nonsense to me, things like share issues and season tickets are for all individuals to make their minds up, the vast majority of the support gave their positive answer when it came to season tickets and we'll see what it's like for the shares where everyone will have read the prospectus.

 

Yes it's up to the individual to decide whether to invest or not, I just hope nobody is that blinded by loyalty and emotion to the extent that they invest money they can't afford to lose. I sincerely hope too that before someone makes the decision to invest that they do their own thorough research into the previous business records of those involved.

 

The fact that there will be a share issue isn't in itself a surprise in fact it was to be expected somewhere along the line however the timing of the issue frankly should be a cause for concern. The prospectus will probably be as effective and as illuminating as the infamous "shareholder circular", take a look at the history of companies that have floated on AIM.

 

But there was a genuine possibility and fear we may not see Rangers play again after last season ended, yet here we are and doing the usual stuff like debating the manager's future etc. I think it's something to be grateful for.

 

Happiest day I've had all year was July 29.

 

 

Liquidation no, why not the CVA? Would have been the same company they were going after in that case.

 

Both CVA and liquidation would have effectively expunged the (probable) EBT liabilities irrespective of how much the actual sum due to HMRC actually is.

[simplythebest 0]

The reality probably lays somewhere between the "we're doomed" and the "head in the sand" brigades. I assume we'd all like all the issues resolved so that we can move forward but alas that won't happen. Sadly I fear it will take the better part of a decade before everything is concluded and even then we'll never know the full story.

 

Exactly, so I think anyone hoping for a point in the foreseeable future where there are no possible questions and doubts is deluded. We have to embrace what we have even while remaining 'vigilant' as it were.

 

Yes it's up to the individual to decide whether to invest or not, I just hope nobody is that blinded by loyalty and emotion to the extent that they invest money they can't afford to lose. I sincerely hope too that before someone makes the decision to invest that they do their own thorough research into the previous business records of those involved.

 

The fact that there will be a share issue isn't in itself a surprise in fact it was to be expected somewhere along the line however the timing of the issue frankly should be a cause for concern. The prospectus will probably be as effective and as illuminating as the infamous "shareholder circular", take a look at the history of companies that have floated on AIM.

Whatever the case it by and large is an emotional investment, so i'm sure anyone investing can afford it because you can hardly expect a return in that situation even if it is possible. A businessman is a businessman, he might have done unpopular things in his time but it's fairly easy to find out if there's any sort of crooked behaviour or allegations. The press would go for it anyway if there was.

 

They did say at the start they'd begin the flotation process by the end of the year so it's not rushed in the sense it's consistent, there's a few complaints about the timing but when is the obvious better time? The value will go up over time so actually make investment more expensive, you say yourself it could take the best part of a decade for all the liquidation proceedings etc to be concluded so they surely can't be expected to wait till then? There's questions for Green to answer but he's answered plenty and no doubt will continue to do so, problem is if you're pretty paranoid about him you'll probably just assume the answers are lies anyway. Short of agreeing to putting a bugging tracking device on himself, having all his phone conversations recorded and his computer activity monitored how can anything really be proved beyond all doubt?

 

You seem skeptical about the prospectus but from what I hear they have to be very transparent with no truth economy or the like, otherwise it's illegal.

 

Happiest day I've had all year was July 29.

 

Me as well, and rightly or wrongly I feel I have Charles Green to thank for that so that's a big reason why i'm pretty defensive of him.

 

Both CVA and liquidation would have effectively expunged the (probable) EBT liabilities irrespective of how much the actual sum due to HMRC actually is.

Can you explain this further FS? If the EBT claim wasn't included, a CVA got accepted and the tribunal declared we owed X amount a few months later how would we have been free from it? No change in the company that operated the EBTs, so I'm pretty clueless on this.

[forlanssister 3,050]

 

They did say at the start they'd begin the flotation process by the end of the year so it's not rushed in the sense it's consistent, there's a few complaints about the timing but when is the obvious better time? The value will go up over time so actually make investment more expensive, you say yourself it could take the best part of a decade for all the liquidation proceedings etc to be concluded so they surely can't be expected to wait till then?

 

The flotation is premature but it removes the need for the "investors" to fully fund us. I sincerely doubt that the value will go up any value increase will be in the period from initial purchase to flotation. I'm not for one minute advocating waiting till the liquidation process (and associated legal actions both civil and potentially criminal) ends before floating but at least until a fully audited set of annual accounts have been posted that's surely not too big an ask.

 

 

There's questions for Green to answer but he's answered plenty and no doubt will continue to do so, problem is if you're pretty paranoid about him you'll probably just assume the answers are lies anyway. Short of agreeing to putting a bugging tracking device on himself, having all his phone conversations recorded and his computer activity monitored how can anything really be proved beyond all doubt?

 

I'm certainly not paranoid about Green and I don't assume all his answers are lies however I'd be more inclined to lean towards Green if he cut out the stupid hyperbole that he continually spouts. £100m digital revenue furfuxsake, I doubt he'll even get close to matching the £15m screwed out of NTL by Murray. No debt becomes no "external debt" yet he agrees a deal with Rapid Vienna to settle the balance of Jelavic's fee what the f*&k is that if it's not an external debt, ditto re the balance of the Wallace fee.

 

You seem skeptical about the prospectus but from what I hear they have to be very transparent with no truth economy or the like, otherwise it's illegal.

 

We're listing on AIM not the LSE , the prospectus won't offer much protection just look at the history of companies that have been floated, the regulatory burden on AIM companies is very low. NOMADS effectively are self policing an arrangement which many consider a conflict of interest. It's the lack of adequate regulation which makes the AIM market an attractive place for many to do business.

 

Me as well, and rightly or wrongly I feel I have Charles Green to thank for that so that's a big reason why i'm pretty defensive of him.

 

If it wasn't Green it would have been someone else, but it is Green and for that I thank him.

 

 

Can you explain this further FS? If the EBT claim wasn't included, a CVA got accepted and the tribunal declared we owed X amount a few months later how would we have been free from it? No change in the company that operated the EBTs, so I'm pretty clueless on this.

 

Put it this way if the (potential) EBT liabilities could not have been expunged via a CVA then a CVA would never have been considered and we would have went to a very quick straight asset sale, with the benefit of hindsight that now looks as if it would've been more preferable all round especially for the creditors.

[pete 2,499]

I'm certainly not paranoid about Green and I don't assume all his answers are lies however I'd be more inclined to lean towards Green if he cut out the stupid hyperbole that he continually spouts. £100m digital revenue furfuxsake, I doubt he'll even get close to matching the £15m screwed out of NTL by Murray. No debt becomes no "external debt" yet he agrees a deal with Rapid Vienna to settle the balance of Jelavic's fee what the f*&k is that if it's not an external debt, ditto re the balance of the Wallace fee.

 

For me debt is money borrowed from a bank or on a credit card etc. I see the Wallace and Jelavic money as unpaid bills which Green could have fought. If Green thinks the same as me then we may not have any debt. It is how you look at it. Many teams count their assets including players and some not, that for me is something the same. We had millions of player assets which turned into nothing. It is all how you look and word things.