Sobatai 70 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I thought it was a nationwide rule?No. That's why HMRC has been so dogged in pursuit of Rangers. It's purely a rule of the FA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Not sure, but it's defo not solely dependant on this. HMRC = 75. something % of the creditors therefore, they MUST agree. Nobody else matters, as far as I'm aware.Correct! HMRC are the only one that can accept/decline the CVA..i keep reading on here people saying Ticketus are the major creditor when they aren't.The BTC is in dispute but it's still a debt on the clubs books along with the STC..join these two amounts together and hmrc are more than 75% of the debt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I think it's 75% of creditors, that's why we could get away with only having to pay a fraction of the debt, like 10p out of every pound, or to put it another way 10% of the total debtNo bud, read my earlier post. Page 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of Orange 84 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This may be a daft question but if ticketus are successful in their claim against shyte and recover their £20 odd mil, how can they then be part of a CVA? Surely this would equate to them receiving more than they are legally owed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Correct! HMRC are the only one that can accept/decline the CVA..i keep reading on here people saying Ticketus are the major creditor when they aren't.The BTC is in dispute but it's still a debt on the clubs books along with the STC..join these two amounts together and hmrc are more than 75% of the debt.Total debt excluding the potential btc liability is £55m approxTicketus are owed £27 or roughly 49% of the cva potHmrc are owed £14/15mill approx or 26% of the Cva potTotal of both is 75% ish, the rest is made up of smaller firms & smaller no.s.Either or could block the Cva If they wanted to Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 If the debt you are owed is more than 25% of the aggregate debt then you can block a CVA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This may be a daft question but if ticketus are successful in their claim against shyte and recover their £20 odd mil, how can they then be part of a CVA? Surely this would equate to them receiving more than they are legally owed?I "think" they are going to chase whyte for the difference between what they get from the Cva and what they were owed.Ie they were owed £27m total, if they get £4mill from Cva, then they'll chase whyte for £23mill I think anyway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hemdale1873 167 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Correct! HMRC are the only one that can accept/decline the CVA..i keep reading on here people saying Ticketus are the major creditor when they aren't.The BTC is in dispute but it's still a debt on the clubs books along with the STC..join these two amounts together and hmrc are more than 75% of the debt.BTC is listed as potential debt not actual debt as things stand Rangers total quantifiable debt right now is £55m not the worst case scenario of £134m.No one knows if Rangers will win the case or lose it, even if it is lost the exact amount is unknown. So you cant really count something that may or may not happen as real debt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 BTC is listed as potential debt not actual debt as things stand Rangers total quantifiable debt right now is £55m not the worst case scenario of £134m.No one knows if Rangers will win the case or lose it, even if it is lost the exact amount is unknown. So you cant really count something that may or may not happen as real debt.In saying that (which I pretty much completely agree with btw),BK etc seem to think the btc is irrelevant and if we lose it will only dilute hmrc's pence in pound from current Cva pot. I don't understand how it can work both ways!?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of Orange 84 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I "think" they are going to chase whyte for the difference between what they get from the Cva and what they were owed.Ie they were owed £27m total, if they get £4mill from Cva, then they'll chase whyte for £23mill I think anywayMaybe but I would think if you are bringing a lawsuit of that size against an individual based on the personal guarantees of shyte himself (no laughing at the back!) you would need to claim whatever was guaranteed which, going by ticketus rumblings, is there or thereabouts the whole sum the borrowed?Time will tell I suppose but this stuff is unbelievably frustrating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 BTC is listed as potential debt not actual debt as things stand Rangers total quantifiable debt right now is £55m not the worst case scenario of £134m.No one knows if Rangers will win the case or lose it, even if it is lost the exact amount is unknown. So you cant really count something that may or may not happen as real debt....the BTC isn't as you say a "potential" bill..we were sent that bill and didn't pay up and because of non-payment... got fined.. got more penalties and more fines..it climbed and climbed and we launched an appeal..it's a debt and it IS included in D&P's accounts for the club as posted somewhere in another thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Duff and Phelps are returning to CoS to inform the court that they do not adjudge ticketus to be legitimate creditors, the court previously advised D&P to facilitate their own avenue of escape from a claimed liability lodged by ticketus, as it was not the CoS's function to advise the administrators on the course they should take in relation to ticketus and disputed liability.This could be a good thing for us.Ticketus have said they will now chase Whyte for the money they loaned, the administrators are going to court to say Ticketus aren't legitimate creditors (as they are now chasing Whyte for the money) so that means if the court decides they aren't a legitimate creditor the CVA pot gets way more attractive to HMRC because Ticketus aren't in it anymore!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,556 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Please note there is no Football Creditors rule in Scotland. That rule is the reason why HMRC will consistently vote against CVAs is England, as that rule means that football Christies must be paid first, and as I understand it, in full before anyone else, therefore not all creditors are being treated equally. This doesn't apply in Scotland and is the reason why HMRC may accept our CVA Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Atheist 178 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 lol, Give people a chance.Fans are obviously concerned and no doubt many will sign up to forums to ask important questions that are bothering them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Tickets are the major creditor just now with a debt of 27 million,we only owe HMRC around 15 million,we would need both of these to agree before we can get a CVAHMRC were listed in the administration notice as £15m of undisputed unpaid tax, plus unknown amounts for the big and small tax cases. To get a CVA, they will have agreed figures for the liabilities in respect of those two cases. It doesn't make a difference to the total amount we pay out, but it would mean more or less for HMRC vs the other creditors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 BTC is listed as potential debt not actual debt as things stand Rangers total quantifiable debt right now is £55m not the worst case scenario of £134m.No one knows if Rangers will win the case or lose it, even if it is lost the exact amount is unknown. So you cant really count something that may or may not happen as real debt.The way it works with tax tribunal cases is that HMRC sends an assessment, and the tax payer goes to the tribunal to appeal the assessment. Until such time that the appeal is successful, the liability stands, but collection is suspended until the verdict is given. Rangers knows how much the assessment is for, so they could drop the appeal and put the whole amount in, or perhaps agree a lower figure in return for withdrawing the appeal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Remember footballing creditors take priority over non footballing creditors as per the FCR, a rule which non other than HMRC are in court to try and get ride ofNot in Scotland. That is an English FA rule. Actually, English insolvency law says something different, but the English FA are entitled to expel clubs from membership if football creditors aren't paid in full, and a liquidated club with no FA membership could yield less money for other creditors than doing a CVA with football creditors paid in full, so the other creditors might vote for it on that basis. However HMRC don't as a matter of principle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwallowsHisOwnSpunk 7,912 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Sorry why are people saying "Duff and Duffer" just because Paul Murray, the fat cunt Mark Dingwall and co and have managed to convinve their loyal followers that D&P are out of their depth to deflect the fact the bid from TBK was teribble and the administrators could have never accepted it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of Orange 84 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I personally call em abbot & Costello cos they're a right pair a jolly craicsters and have had us "up to our knees" in bullsh*t statements during most of their tenure. The "48 hours" statements being prime examples, nothin to do wi dingwall, I formed that opinion all on my ownsome!! Hurrah Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupret 223 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 Ah, that didn't go down well ...I was hoping for a simple English translation for below"Ticketus had a motion trying to argue that the way expenses of their actions etc were to be calculated should be one way and the Administrators argued it should be another way (on a lower scale of fees) Lawyers among you will know what the difference between party/party and agent/client scales are."hhttp://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rangers-administration-in-court-again-on-friday-18th-may-7/I will get my coat, but I am taking whiskey on route, still very confused by lawyer pish Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ger50champ 300 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Like so many guys with power in the legal world nowadays theres taigs all over the place and Im willing to bet this Judge Lord Carloway is one.When you here Spew Keevins saying we should trust in him to make the appropriate decisions on many occasions then that says it all for me.Remember this is the same guy that hounded Bobby tait in Killie game where we blew 10in a row where in his last game he was put under incredible pressure with accusations of bias from Spew etc.Yes he was a bluenose but its the way the beggar media went about letting the world know that he just might not be honest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The character is called 'Ruprecht' not 'Rupret''. Just thought I'd let you know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.