Admin / duff and phelps / debt

[Ayrshirebear73 27]

I am sitting here thinking of the Whyte saga. I have a question.

If we take the total debt figure published by duff and phelps and remove the ebt claim as currently we have been found innocent. Then remove the ticketus debt as a court has told Whyte it is his to pay back. Then remove the small tax case amount that Whyte was to pay as part of the purchase agreement. Then take off the paye that Whyte decided to run up over his time in charge.

Where does this put the total debt figure at? Did we actually have a debt that couldn't be paid?

Also does anyone know how much the rangers fighting fund paid off to the small creditors?

[trublusince1982 768]

Pretty sure bdo said they will recoup around £50m which will cover more than is owed by a considerable amount.Something Clyde one in particular seem to have missed

[Guardian 4,281]

Rangers had a debt of about £18m as I recall, and we were paying it off at £1m a year as per agreement with LBG.

That was all fine and well within our means.

Then along came HMRC demanding tens of millions of pounds. Seeing that could put us into administration if we lost the case (they were not to know it would take years), they were keen to get Rangers sold ASAP so they could recoup their loan.

That is why they forced Murray into accepting Whytes offer. Murray offloads Rangers, LBG get their cash back, and Whyte takes the fall for what happens next, whatever that may be. (at that time)

With that huge claim from HMRC hanging over us we couldn't get a credit line and money problems got worse and worse.

Whyte came in, didn't pay the tax etc and you know what happened next.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

But for the EBT fiasco it's doubtful if we'd even have gone into admin'.Our debt outwith the HMRC small case,would have be no more than Aberdungs present debt.Our prob was the main debt was with HMRC.Whyte played with fire and the Club got burned.

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

Pretty sure bdo said they will recoup around £50m which will cover more than is owed by a considerable amount.Something Clyde one in particular seem to have missed

From where ??

[Douglas Cameron 179]

Mate after an exchange I had with Gogzy earlier I was thinking the same thing. I downloaded the detailed creditors listing earlier and if I get a quiet day at work will do some analysis on how the "£134m" is reduced.

Numbers that are irrelevant are:

The big tax case

Ticketus

I would also argue that the £14m odd owed to HMRC for Whyte's delinquent nonpayment should also be ignored.

Then we have the £7m odd for debentures. This is not cash owed. It is more accurately assets lost by these people when we went into admin.

I will crunch the numbers but we probably went into admin for a "debt" of at most £20m. Cash is always king but when you consider we have a £50m turnover that is an extraordinary scenario

[Ricky_ 893]

the financial state of oldco is something which we should pay attention too.

Write off the ridiculous sum HMRC wanted for the BTC, i think the final figure touted by D&P for that alone was around 70m. We're not liable for that thanks, taxman.

The small tax case WAS won by HMRC however, and Whytes non-payment of PAYE combined with the small tax case does remain as debt that Oldco should have paid - so that stands at around 9m i think.

Again, ticketus claims, that should be written off now that Whyte has been found to be liable for that claim, not Oldco. It's also arguable that it was never a 'debt'. They purchased tickets and those tickets are no longer for sale. A bit light buying a ticket for a flight in the summer but the airline goes bust. That's another claim of, what was it, £24m we can write off.

[Guest Andypendek]

Sobering, depressing, reading.

[cushynumber 25,178]

Mate after an exchange I had with Gogzy earlier I was thinking the same thing. I downloaded the detailed creditors listing earlier and if I get a quiet day at work will do some analysis on how the "£134m" is reduced.

Numbers that are irrelevant are:

The big tax case

Ticketus

I would also argue that the £14m odd owed to HMRC for Whyte's delinquent nonpayment should also be ignored.

Then we have the £7m odd for debentures. This is not cash owed. It is more accurately assets lost by these people when we went into admin.

I will crunch the numbers but we probably went into admin for a "debt" of at most £20m. Cash is always king but when you consider we have a £50m turnover that is an extraordinary scenario

its was always ridiculous - especially when you look at other clubs - Hearts - £24M...Aberdeen - £16M....These clubs are in a far more precarious position than we ever were or are ever likely to be again as there turnover is a fraction of ours

[Ayrshirebear73 27]

You all seem to be coming down the same way I am thinking. I was rounding things up a bit but in my head I was getting ebt 80 million. Ticketus 30 million. Wee tax case 5 million. Paye 14 million. To me that's 129 million. Total debt was 135 million so we owed 6.

But some of that six was future instalments on players such as Wallace and jelavic.

I am dreading the thought that we actually went into admin with no actual debt because of Whyte being a conman.

[Ayrshirebear73 27]

This is all leading me onto my second point. Conspiracy theory time.

Why did hmrc allow Whyte to run up non payment for what ten months? Why not let it be known after two or three?

Did hmrc know they had lost the tax case against rangers in the feb when they decided to push for admin. Was the paye allowed to be run up to allow them to do this?

[Guardian 4,281]

It was always the case the oldco was essentially put out of business by HMRC.

No business could trade properly with that axe hanging over it and threatening to fall at any second.

The seasonal financial highs and lows, caused by the nature of season ticket sales and winnings, is exacerbated by the lack of a credit facility to smooth out the troughs.

Cash flow was strangled and even more problems ensued.

There is no doubt however, we were on track to reduce our debt and were running as a well managed club. This was largely down to Donald Muir and LBG (arguably the same thing)

At the time Muir and LBG were lambasted by the board for strangling the club of investment for players, which makes mini murrays claims to be responsible for the debt reduction seem very strange.

Had the tribunal acted in good time, Rangers could very well have escaped administration and all the punishment.

Despite timmy reports to the contrary, none of this was Rangers own doing. The club was being managed properly until HMRC and then Whyte appeared.

[bornabear 6,201]

HMRC's demand for the BTC of £70m was included in the total, the case which HMRC lost.

As I see it, there could be a claim against HMRC as they scuppered the CVA claiming they were owed more than 50% of the total.

Taking the Portsmouth situation, HMRC refused a CVA and a judge ruled they could not do that as they (HMRC) were owned less than 50% of the money Portsmouth owed and threw it out.

So as I see it, HMRC were claiming £70m which was still undecided on, which they eventually lost. Therefore without that £70m, HMRC's debt did not amount to more than 50% and in law (Portsmouth case) could not enforce the objection to the CVA.

I would expect BDO to know this and I hope they go after HMRC bigtime.

[JCDBigBear 10,810]

It is highly likely that the debt would have increased as we exited Europe at the early stage. It was only European cash (Champs League) that kept the accounts in order as it were. It could be said we could probably have sold a couple of players (Jelavic + a.n. other) to make up for the loss of Euro cash. Lloyds would probably have forced the sale in fact to ensure we kept reducing the overall debt.

[daviecooper01 826]

HMRC's demand for the BTC of £70m was included in the total, the case which HMRC lost.

As I see it, there could be a claim against HMRC as they scuppered the CVA claiming they were owed more than 50% of the total.

Taking the Portsmouth situation, HMRC refused a CVA and a judge ruled they could not do that as they (HMRC) were owned less than 50% of the money Portsmouth owed and threw it out.

So as I see it, HMRC were claiming £70m which was still undecided on, which they eventually lost. Therefore without that £70m, HMRC's debt did not amount to more than 50% and in law (Portsmouth case) could not enforce the objection to the CVA.

I would expect BDO to know this and I hope they go after HMRC bigtime.

I think the figure is 75% of the debt, but the same reasoning holds true.

[JCDBigBear 10,810]

We need to remember that the BTC is not yet done as HMRC appealed the decision. Whilst it has no effect on RFC now it could still have been if we had not gone down the newco route.

[bornabear 6,201]

I think the figure is 75% of the debt, but the same reasoning holds true.

The Judge in the Portsmouth case ruled it to be 50%.

[Dutchy 1,200]

What ever way you want to cut it, I still say the bank caused our problems with their impatience and general greedy attitude.

All of our subsequent problems started with the bank forcing Murray to sell.

[Ayrshirebear73 27]

Somebody needs to get this message out in the media. Especially radio snide. We keep getting told we cheated. We walked away from debt. We did this we did that. If it turns out we actually owed next to nothing and were deliberately damaged by Whyte we should be highlighting the figures at every opportunity.

Mad Phil spouts his agenda and its taken as the truth in certain media. Why are rangers or lets say Derek Johnstone laying out these figures for all to see. Folk who don't know. Other clubs fans just assume we owe it all because that is the figure the media use.

[Guardian 4,281]

It is highly likely that the debt would have increased as we exited Europe at the early stage. It was only European cash (Champs League) that kept the accounts in order as it were. It could be said we could probably have sold a couple of players (Jelavic + a.n. other) to make up for the loss of Euro cash. Lloyds would probably have forced the sale in fact to ensure we kept reducing the overall debt.

However it was only the HMRC claim that was driving LBG to reduce the debt so fast.

The bank ultimately did us a favour by reducing the debt.

[Big Al 55 9,241]

Pretty straightforward, had Murray not used EBTs we would be absolutely fine.

[Dutchy 1,200]

Pretty straightforward, had Murray not used EBTs we would be absolutely fine.

I don't think there was anything wrong with using EBT's. According to the judge anyway, so as annoying as Murray may have been, it wasn't the use of EBT's that put us in our present circumstance of woe.

[st1965 14]

Totally correct. I have maintained this all along that HMRC are to blame. Even with the whyte farce the HMRC refused to accept the CVA and subsequently liquidated the holding company. This is what should now be challenged through the courts by shareholders of the oldco. David Murray u have an incredible chance to redeem yourself here!!! Step up to the plate or forever be remembered for messing up the good name of Rangers.

[simplythebest 11,453]

I don't think there was anything wrong with using EBT's. According to the judge anyway, so as annoying as Murray may have been, it wasn't the use of EBT's that put us in our present circumstance of woe.

No tax case no Whyte.

[Big Al 55 9,241]

I don't think there was anything wrong with using EBT's. According to the judge anyway, so as annoying as Murray may have been, it wasn't the use of EBT's that put us in our present circumstance of woe.

What do you mean the 5+ years it took to reach a split decision, do you understand what effect the tax case hanging over us had on our saleability? He put us in real danger by choosing to use EBTs.

No tax case no forced sale, no administration. He is a serial risk taker and now we are paying for his mistakes while he enjoys his vineyards and multi-million pound properties all over the world. He took one risk too many with Rangers and should never have been permitted to do so.

Hopefully no one person will ever have enough control to wield such carnage on us ever again.

His legacy will forever be that he put one of the world biggest footballing institutions in a position of incredible weakness, so much so we were sold to a charlatan, and he knew fine well what he was doing.