Bill Miller's CVA plan

[allanh91 75]

As we know, HMRC and Ticketus will make the 75% required for a CVA to be passed or failed.

As we also know, liquidation involves an asset sale. Rangers' assets are Ibrox, MP, Players etc.

Now... if Bill Miller's newco has all those assets, and the debt lies with the oldco - would that not technically mean that if a CVA wasn't agreed, then the creditors would literally get no money from an asset sale, as the assets have all been transferred?

This would mean that it may in fact be EASIER to construct a viable CVA with our creditors?

Delete this if I'm talking crap admin, just thought I'd share my thoughts.

[ogbg 20]

As we know, HMRC and Ticketus will make the 75% required for a CVA to be passed or failed.

As we also know, liquidation involves an asset sale. Rangers' assets are Ibrox, MP, Players etc.

Now... if Bill Miller's newco has all those assets, and the debt lies with the oldco - would that not technically mean that if a CVA wasn't agreed, then the creditors would literally get no money from an asset sale, as the assets have all been transferred?

This would mean that it may in fact be EASIER to construct a viable CVA with our creditors?

Delete this if I'm talking crap admin, just thought I'd share my thoughts.

The £11M he pays will become assets of the oldco

[bilko89 507]

As we know, HMRC and Ticketus will make the 75% required for a CVA to be passed or failed.

As we also know, liquidation involves an asset sale. Rangers' assets are Ibrox, MP, Players etc.

Now... if Bill Miller's newco has all those assets, and the debt lies with the oldco - would that not technically mean that if a CVA wasn't agreed, then the creditors would literally get no money from an asset sale, as the assets have all been transferred?

This would mean that it may in fact be EASIER to construct a viable CVA with our creditors?

Delete this if I'm talking crap admin, just thought I'd share my thoughts.

I'm no expert but I was along the same thinking as you.

[BlueThunder 8,454]

Miller's newCo won't get the players, unless they leave and rejoin voluntarily.

[allanh91 75]

The £11M he pays will become assets of the oldco

So that's a personal risk on his part?

£11m out of £55 million plus possible big tax case and small tax case losses would still be a reasonable amount for creditors.

Not Ticketus, but they shot themselves in the foot, if you ask me by not getting on board with TBK.

[allanh91 75]

Miller's newCo won't get the players, unless they leave and rejoin voluntarily.

I don't understand this - did Celtic's players all have to sign on the dotted line in 1994?

And did ours have to do the same last year?

I would have thought that they just went where the club was.

[ogbg 20]

So that's a personal risk on his part?

£11m out of £55 million plus possible big tax case and small tax case losses would still be a reasonable amount for creditors.

Not Ticketus, but they shot themselves in the foot, if you ask me by not getting on board with TBK.

He's buying something so he needs to pay for it.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

The oldco will have (at least) the balance of monies from the winning bid to be shared out. There's also the small matter of the £25m court case vs Collyer Bristow to follow in due course.

[allanh91 75]

Good points guys, apologies as I'm by no means a knowledgable man in the world of finance.

But the general consensus would be that BM's CVA could be a more attractive offer for the creditors? And there would be more time for negotiation and discussions over it?

[ogbg 20]

Good points guys, apologies as I'm by no means a knowledgable man in the world of finance.

But the general consensus would be that BM's CVA could be a more attractive offer for the creditors? And there would be more time for negotiation and discussions over it?

But Whyte can still block any CVA

[Blue and True 311]

I thought the same thing and was going to ask.

So if we transfer all the good stuff ie assets then this only leaves 11 million.

So that all they can get.

Would it not be easier if they simply agreed to take the 11 million and left everything else as is?

Or would the law not allow this?

From my very basic grasp on this they will only get a max 11 million so why put us to all the bother of going new co

Take the money walk away (as we dont)everyone is happy iiisshhh

[theiconicman 2,996]

He pays £11.2m to old co and takes possession of the club (meaning Ibrox, Murray Park, players, staff, contracts the whole caboodle). Old co then has £11.2m in the bank and whole host of creditors.

There really isn't any reason for refusing the CVA as the only asset in the company is the cash, unless there is some legal prejudice. I.e. it might hurt Ticketus' case against Whyte if they agree a CVA, or if HMRC contest the floating charge Whyte has.

[Blue Army Faction 28]

The £11M he pays will become assets of the oldco

Yes, that £11m will be the only assets the old co have, everything else left behind will be debts. So it is up to HMRC and Ticketus to either agree to a CVA based on that £11m or to force the old co into liquidation, but with no other assets available I can't see how they will benefit from the liquidation route as I imagine the cost involved will be more meaning less of the £11m to share.

[allanh91 75]

So Whyte remains (a large) threat to the safety of the oldco?

If he blocked a CVA he'd have HMRC, Ticketus, the fans and every other creditor after him

[Alnic3856 358]

And if the merger doesnt happen before the start of the new season then what? We have a newco club with no fecking players and a transfer embargo in place? Someone needs to clear that up for me I asked in another thread and seems no one knows, the players get left behind with old club so where are the newco's players coming from?

[ogbg 20]

Yes, that £11m will be the only assets the old co have, everything else left behind will be debts. So it is up to HMRC and Ticketus to either agree to a CVA based on that £11m or to force the old co into liquidation, but with no other assets available I can't see how they will benefit from the liquidation route as I imagine the cost involved will be more meaning less of the £11m to share.

One reason why HMRC in particular might want to go down winding-up route is to get an investigation on what happened. I believe this is compulsory following such an event.

[allanh91 75]

And if the merger doesnt happen before the start of the new season then what? We have a newco club with no fecking players and a transfer embargo in place? Someone needs to clear that up for me I asked in another thread and seems no one knows, the players get left behind with old club so where are the newco's players coming from?

I'm pretty sure if Bill Miller has any smarts he will have everything we need to begin the new season in the newco.

[Blue Army Faction 28]

And if the merger doesnt happen before the start of the new season then what? We have a newco club with no fecking players and a transfer embargo in place? Someone needs to clear that up for me I asked in another thread and seems no one knows, the players get left behind with old club so where are the newco's players coming from?

My understanding is that the players will not be left as assets of the old co, but be persuaded to transfer to the new co, although some have contracts allowing them to walk and others may refuse to move. Case of waiting to see what the players do.

[jmo21 15]

Yes, that £11m will be the only assets the old co have, everything else left behind will be debts. So it is up to HMRC and Ticketus to either agree to a CVA based on that £11m or to force the old co into liquidation, but with no other assets available I can't see how they will benefit from the liquidation route as I imagine the cost involved will be more meaning less of the £11m to share.

The longer admin for old co goes on, the more D&P eat into the £11mill pot.

That being said, they are pursuing court cases for £25mill.

How likely is for those cases to be won, how long will it take, and how long will the creditors (HMRC and Ticketus) be prepared to wait on the chance of getting more money? Could they cut their losses and force a CVA or liquidation immediately to get their hands on the £11 mill? What difference at the point does a CVA or liquidation mean to the amount of money they will get? Is it the same? more or less?

Why would Miller need the old co to be merged if he already has the history, Auchenhowie, Ibrox, hopefully some players?

What would Miller "get" by merging the old co back in? Wouild it just be to get into Europe instead of suffering a 3 year block due to new co?

So many questions, and he hasn't even completed the purchase yet.

[gunslinger 270]

As we know, HMRC and Ticketus will make the 75% required for a CVA to be passed or failed.

As we also know, liquidation involves an asset sale. Rangers' assets are Ibrox, MP, Players etc.

Now... if Bill Miller's newco has all those assets, and the debt lies with the oldco - would that not technically mean that if a CVA wasn't agreed, then the creditors would literally get no money from an asset sale, as the assets have all been transferred?

This would mean that it may in fact be EASIER to construct a viable CVA with our creditors?

Delete this if I'm talking crap admin, just thought I'd share my thoughts.

a swift cva is likely for those reasons.

but that's just one hurdle for the oldco.

[allanh91 75]

What would Miller "get" by merging the old co back in? Wouild it just be to get into Europe instead of suffering a 3 year block due to new co?

Obviously not for Miller, but Rangers would get the honour of paying our debts.

[Polo 1,435]

But Whyte can still block any CVA

Whyte can't block a CVA. He will still own RFC plc once the CVA has been finalised though. Until his shares are relinquished one way or another

[Polo 1,435]

Miller's newCo won't get the players, unless they leave and rejoin voluntarily.

That's nonsense. The players will automatically transfer across to the newco. There is a grey area over whether or not they can object to transferring though. If they were able to opt out like that then whoever didn't want to transfer to newco would be released on a free by oldco.

[BlueThunder 8,454]

That's nonsense. The players will automatically transfer across to the newco. There is a grey area over whether or not they can object to transferring though. If they were able to opt out like that then whoever didn't want to transfer to newco would be released on a free by oldco.

Are you sure about that? You have a source? I'd like it to be true but everything I've seen suggests otherwise unless this 'incubation' company idea changes things and the written press haven't picked up on it as they seem to suggest any newCo would not get the players.

[Polo 1,435]

Are you sure about that? You have a source? I'd like it to be true but everything I've seen suggests otherwise unless this 'incubation' company idea changes things and the written press haven't picked up on it as they seem to suggest any newCo would not get the players.

When you sell a business its employees automatically transfer to the newco under TUPE unless they specifically object to the transfer.

Fraser Wishart has said that the PFA took legal advice and that they believe TUPE would apply to the Rangers players. Theoretically they would all be able to object to a move to newco and be released on frees.