Jump to content

Paul Clark and David Whitehouse


simplythebest
 Share

Recommended Posts

its a strange kind of administration so far.

unlike any other clubs I have witnessed.

I think its because they know there is Rangers money somewhere,but trying to track it down!

edit-I mean the Jela money(5m?)would stave of sackings!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

its a strange kind of administration so far.

unlike any other clubs I have witnessed.

Rangers appears to have been run in a strange way for the last nine months under Whyte, so perhaps it's not so surprising that the administration itself appears a little strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit-I mean the Jela money(5m?)would stave of sackings!

I was under the impression that the administrators said in their first press conference that they believed that the Jelavic money had entered the club. It didn't appear to be clear what amount had entered the club, or indeed what amount Everton were required to cough over up front. I recall them saying that some of the transfer fee was deferred, which is hardly surprising as Everton is a bit strapped for cash and most tranfer deals these days include incremental payments based on performance, appearances and future transfer payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agenda is probably the wrong word.

plan perhaps.

I asked the IP guy about that yesterday also.

His reply was that there is a team working for the Administrators, some of them very experienced who have been in insolvency for many years. They know exactly how administrations run, the processes that need to be gone through and, importantly, how the two Administrators usually operate. They would be able to smell a rat. Staff leave. Staff talk. Staff get disgruntled. He reckoned that the Administrators would be found out if they did anything untoward and therefore won't.

For instance, there is a major stushie among IPs just now about the Portsmouth administration - virtually every IP believes the Administrator should not have take on the job because of a conflict of interest. Indeed even the other guy, Andronikou, should never have been going for it either because of a conflict. The reputations of these two IPs have taken a battering amongst their peers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really poor comment from you to mock someone's disability. :disappointment:

Not related to this comment but why, in your opinion, would Craig Whyte have wanted D&P to be the administrators rather than any other company, knowing that these court orders etc might happen? Also, why was David Grier spotted with Craig Whyte prior to him completing the takeover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the IP guy about that yesterday also.

His reply was that there is a team working for the Administrators, some of them very experienced who have been in insolvency for many years. They know exactly how administrations run, the processes that need to be gone through and, importantly, how the two Administrators usually operate. They would be able to smell a rat. Staff leave. Staff talk. Staff get disgruntled. He reckoned that the Administrators would be found out if they did anything untoward and therefore won't.

For instance, there is a major stushie among IPs just now about the Portsmouth administration - virtually every IP believes the Administrator should not have take on the job because of a conflict of interest. Indeed even the other guy, Andronikou, should never have been going for it either because of a conflict. The reputations of these two IPs have taken a battering amongst their peers.

He spoke about the situation at Pompey, yet Whyte and Grier getting cosy back in July hasn't raise any eyebrows within the profession?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to this comment but why, in your opinion, would Craig Whyte have wanted D&P to be the administrators rather than any other company, knowing that these court orders etc might happen? Also, why was David Grier spotted with Craig Whyte prior to him completing the takeover?

That is the elephant in the room

Link to post
Share on other sites

He spoke about the situation at Pompey, yet Whyte and Grier getting cosy back in July hasn't raise any eyebrows within the profession?

He said it was interesting that there had been the previous connection but that because Grier had acted for Group and it was now Rangers in Administration then it was justifiable. (He also said there would be Chinese walls, which weren't worth the virtual bricks they'd be built with!) As it was grey rather than black and white (his firm, he said, would probably have said no) it wasn't a clear conflict like Portsmouth so wasn't a major issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He said it was interesting that there had been the previous connection but that because Grier had acted for Group and it was now Rangers in Administration then it was justifiable. (He also said there would be Chinese walls, which weren't worth the virtual bricks they'd be built with!) As it was grey rather than black and white (his firm, he said, would probably have said no) it wasn't a clear conflict like Portsmouth so wasn't a major issue.

Thanks, boss. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to this comment but why, in your opinion, would Craig Whyte have wanted D&P to be the administrators rather than any other company, knowing that these court orders etc might happen? Also, why was David Grier spotted with Craig Whyte prior to him completing the takeover?

I can only assume that Whyte believed that an HMRC choice of Administrator would have been even worse for him. Only time will tell whether he was mistaken in the belief that D&P would be a good choice for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only assume that Whyte believed that an HMRC choice of Administrator would have been even worse for him. Only time will tell whether he was mistaken in the belief that D&P would be a good choice for him.

Would say it's obvious that would have been the case if HMRC had won the right to name administrators. And it should be remembered that when he did this Whyte was Rangers so in-essence he did throw protection around the club, well to buy time to see if a solution can be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only assume that Whyte believed that an HMRC choice of Administrator would have been even worse for him. Only time will tell whether he was mistaken in the belief that D&P would be a good choice for him.

you sum it up in your own words ; worse for him, but it may have been better for the club after all hmrc have nothing to hide

Link to post
Share on other sites

you sum it up in your own words ; worse for him, but it may have been better for the club after all hmrc have nothing to hide

It may have been better means it may also have been worse, so it's hard to see how making that point advances your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the information below, how would HMRC be able to appoint an administrator of their choice?

How is the Administrator Appointed? - under the Insolvency Act 1986, an Administrator can either be appointed in the the following ways:-

Appointment by the Court - a court will only initiate an administration order if it is satisfied that the company will not be able to pay its debts and that the order is likely to achieve its goals. The application for the order to the court, can be carried out by either of the creditors, the company or Directors. The applicant must notify all parties that the order has been applied for. Upon hearing of the application, the court may to a number of things:-

◦approve or dismiss the application

◦make an interim order

◦delay any proceedings using an adjournment

◦treated as a winding up petition

Appointment by floating charge holder - an Administrator may also be appointed by the holder of a 'floating charge'. The floating chare holder must hold a debenture secured upon a substantial proportion of companies property assets. If an Administrative Receiver or Liquidator has already been appointed, then an Administrator may not be appointed.

Appointment by The Company or Directors - this can only be achieved if at least five business days written notice has been provided to person(s) entitled to appoint an Administrative Receiver. A statutory declaration to the Court from the Company must be made, stating that the company cannot pay its debts and that it is not in liquidation.

http://www.businesslifeline.com/administration-order.asp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the information below, how would HMRC be able to appoint an administrator of their choice?

Not sure if anyone actually said HMRC would be able to appoint an administrator. I certainly didn't. I think the discussion was about the choice HMRC put forward as administrator, for the court to decide who was appointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been better means it may also have been worse, so it's hard to see how making that point advances your argument.

this is my take by getting duff & phelps in he was trying to hide the full depth of his deception and his own lack of money to save the club he spotted a dying body and is attempting to strip the bones clean it amazes me that the serios fraud branch are not involved yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might just be bluff and bluster from D&P but here is today's article from the Rhecord (no links, please). They certainly don't appear to be doing Whyte any favours!

Mar 3 2012 Exclusive by James Traynor and Keith Jackson

RANGERS’ administrators want to force Craig Whyte to hand back his shares for free.

Duff and Phelps fear they won’t find a buyer unless the shamed owner severs all ties with the club.

They will urge him to deliver on his promise to act in Rangers’ best interests by walking away for good.

The Record understands that administrators believe Whyte has no power to break up the club’s assets and keep Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion Car Park for himself.

They are convinced he has not invested a penny of his own cash, aside from the £1 he used to secure Sir David Murray’s majority shareholding.

And they believe the ­Ticketus deal – from which Whyte raised £24.4million against future season ticket sales to wipe out an overdraft with Lloyds Banking Group – can be declared legally null and void.

That would blow away any hold Whyte has over the club because he used the Ticketus money to fund his takeover.

Duff and Phelps are ­determined to make him give in as quickly as possible to help them smooth the way for a new takeover.

Whyte plunged Rangers into crisis when he failed to pay around £15million in PAYE tax and VAT.

Former director Paul Murray and his Blue Knights ­consortium are believed to be in pole position to rescue the club and have been locked in talks with Duff and Phelps.

But a takeover could be made a great deal more costly if the accountants carry through with their proposals to shed 11 players.

That would add millions to the cost of rebuilding the squad and making Rangers strong enough to compete.

Former Rangers manager Walter Smith warned Whyte a year ago that around £25million would have to be spent on the squad before the start of this season.

He believed that would be vital to give his successor Ally McCoist a realistic chance of beating Celtic to win a fourth successive SPL title and making an impact in Europe.

But Whyte failed to come up with the goods and shedding players would leave Rangers in an even weaker position.

It is likely that Murray, or any other buyer, would prefer to cover the cost of wage ­deferrals and keep the current squad together than finance the rebuilding which will be necessary if numbers are further reduced.

Yesterday, Duff and Phelps secured a court order to seize £3.6million from Whyte’s lawyers.

Money from the Ticketus, deal was transferred to law firm Collyer Bristow before Whyte’s takeover.

Duff and Phelps have confirmed that, apart from the £18million used to pay off Lloyds, they could not find the rest of money.

Co-administrator Paul Clark said they believed it to be held in a lawyer’s account related to Rangers’ parent company.

Collyer Bristow handled the finances during the purchase of Sir David Murray’s shares.

It also emerged yesterday that Collyer Bristow could face bankruptcy if a ruling forces them to pay out millions of pounds.

They face an action at the High Court in London brought by 500 investors in an alleged sham investment scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...