peekay

Right now Whyte is the biggest creditor to the club(£18mil to Lloyds) so if the administrators say eg "We can offer all the creditors 10p-in-the-pound back" then his decision carries substantially more weight than anyone elses. I suspect this was the reason he paid Lloyds, otherwise we would be sitting in this position with them as the biggest creditor. If, and lets face it, probably when, Rangers lose the tax case against HMRC than then would HMRC in the creditor hotseat. If the administrators offered that 10p-in-the-pound and they said no, then there's a bit of negotiation afterwards. If no deal can be reached then HMRC can demand the company goes into liquidation. Think about administration as a £1 to 1 vote type affair. If Rangers owe, say £30mil with £18mil of that due to Whyte then if the admin offers the 10p-in-pound deal with that being agreeable to Whyte then his 18million votes will always trump the other 12million votes. If, however, HMRC is suddenly awarded £75million votes then they will always trump what the other creditors want. If they figure out that what the admin are offering is substantially less than what full liquidation will bring in then that's what they'll demand. If 'before' the court releases it's decision there's a pence-in-the-pound agreement cut between Whyte and the administrators then that's the same deal HMRC get. £75mil suddenly drops to £7.5mil(using my 10p example) To my limited knowledge anyway! Oh, and "Hi folks". 'Plogies for making my first post under such a dark cloud. It's no aw ma fault, honest!