annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Think the BTC is part of the cva.this is why no payments will be made to creditors until both the BTC and action againgst CB are decided.Could take years before creditors see any money.Have a read of the CVA document, BTC hasn't been ruled upon yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I think a few people are getting confused as to what the HMRC payment the CVA covers. It only covers the PAYE and tax payments, not the EBT case as that one is still to be decided by the FTT.So i dont think it will be accept by the HMRC as out of £8.5million only £3million will be available to the CVA pot after scum & villany (sorry duff and phelps) take their 30 pieces of silver.Its different down south as all footballing debts must be settled in full before any CVA is accepted.So all in all i dont know if it will be accepted or not!!. they could accept the CVA amount and hope that the tax tribunal fucks us over and we be in shit street again, with the not accepting any kind of deal and insisting on full payment then and there of whatever amount the FTT decide to hit us with.Is that true? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Share Posted June 11, 2012 Is that true? NO MarvinMarvels is prob a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Yes. Read the CVA document if you want proof. HMRC are creditors due nearly £15m for paye etc. There's a note that says BTC is yet to be concluded but there's potential exposure to £75m. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 NO MarvinMarvels is prob a Yes. Read the CVA document if you want proof. HMRC are creditors due nearly £15m for paye etc. There's a note that says BTC is yet to be concluded but there's potential exposure to £75m.What is it to be? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 What is it to be?Make your one mind up with some light reading :-)http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,824 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I think it will. The £3m difference between what creditors will get if we are liquidated and if we get a CVA should hopefully mean that they'll decide to accept in order to get as much money as possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcb 1,167 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Have a read of the CVA document, BTC hasn't been ruled upon yet.I'm well aware the BTC hasn't been ruled upon. if the ruling goes againgst us then pot for creditors is diluted.If any monies are won in the action versus Collier Bristow then the pot is increased thus the reason i said it could take years before creditors see any money.If i'm talking crap i apologize. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I'm well aware the BTC hasn't been ruled upon. if the ruling goes againgst us then pot for creditors is diluted.If any monies are won in the action versus Collier Bristow then the pot is increased thus the reason i said it could take years before creditors see any money.If i'm talking crap i apologize.Yes all that is true. But it doesn't make BTC part of the CVA. CVA could be agreed, we come out of administration then BTC rules against us and we have £75m to pay. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Make your one mind up with some light reading :-)http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdfI wouldn't know where to start with that! Can't you just tell us all because everyone to a man believes the big tax case is part of the CVA, i am not convinced it is and see no way it can be. A definitive statement that the big tax case is not part of the CVA. If that is the case then any parties planned for Thursday are pointless as our biggest threat is still to come. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcb 1,167 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Yes all that is true. But it doesn't make BTC part of the CVA. CVA could be agreed, we come out of administration then BTC rules against us and we have £75m to pay.Will have a look at the CVA document but at first glance i believed that any agreement on the CVA from HMRC would include the BTC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Will have a look at the CVA document but at first glance i believed that any agreement on the CVA from HMRC would include the BTC.It will be a mega boot in the balls if it isn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I might be wrong. But I spent a while reading the CVA doc and that's what I gathered from it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
annanbear 5 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 If it is included and you crystallise d+p's 75m estimate. That means 90m. It they're offered just a few million then their view is that the players are worth more than the £ offered in CVA so they would say no and instruct liquidators to sell players and recoup cash. I don't think they will though as we're worth more to them in the long run once back on track bringing in millions per year for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 If it is included and you crystallise d+p's 75m estimate. That means 90m. It they're offered just a few million then their view is that the players are worth more than the £ offered in CVA so they would say no and instruct liquidators to sell players and recoup cash. I don't think they will though as we're worth more to them in the long run once back on track bringing in millions per year for them.Wouldn't we do that anyway in a newco form or in our new form after liquidation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 If it is included and you crystallise d+p's 75m estimate. That means 90m. It they're offered just a few million then their view is that the players are worth more than the £ offered in CVA so they would say no and instruct liquidators to sell players and recoup cash. I don't think they will though as we're worth more to them in the long run once back on track bringing in millions per year for them.Liquidators cannot sell players as far as I'm aware. In the event of liquidation the players walk.I as under the impression that the pot included TBTC. Of it doesn't then the last four months will have been for nothing if we lose it. Brian Kennedy suggested that it would be rolled into the CVA even if no verdict was announced.With this in mind I think it will be rejected and we will have to NewCo. Hope I'm wrong though. I think HMRC will take the view that we deliberately went into administration to attempt to roll all debt into a CVA so will reject it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Of course the CVA includes the BTC.Does anyone really believe we would do a CVA, exit admin and then be faced with a bill for £75m.Anyone who says we are is at it IMO.It's utter nonsense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I might be wrong. But I spent a while reading the CVA doc and that's what I gathered from it.You didn't understabnd what you read then.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB 599 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Theres no way hearts are going to take pennies in the pound dealthere chairman is a nutcaseHe wont have any say in it, as long as the tax man and ticketus agree then 70% of the dept owed to creditors has been approved. Hearts could challenge the CVA in the cooling off period but the alternative is then to get ferk all. I am also not sure if the hearts fee is due at present and if we leave administration because the fee is due afterwards it is not payable in full. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaystrue 10 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 We have to keep believing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor_Chang 1,078 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Honestly no Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc#1. 1,877 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Yes yes yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Well one things for certain.... Fridays newspapers will all be bought by taigs!! And yes I think we're due some good fortune and the c.v.a will be passed, also this tax case could yet go for us and owe zilch Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMe 25,327 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 it's a yes from me Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broxi 11,711 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Rangers backed to seal CVA dealA leading football finance expert predicted on Sunday night there was a ‘better than even chance’ of key creditors HMRC and Ticketus approving Charles Green’s CVA proposal.The English businessman requires a minimum of 75 per cent of creditors - voting on a pound-per-vote basis - to back his plan, which is believed to offer as little as 9p in the pound.Some 276 creditors, from small businesses owed a few hundred pounds to HMRC and Ticketus who are owed around £15million and £25m respectively, have the right to vote at Thursday’s meeting.Given the spread of the £55m debt, however, both Ticketus and HMRC hold the balance of power as to the success or failure of the CVA.And Neil Patey, of accountancy giants Ernst & Young, last night told Sportsmail he feels the key indicators point to the CVA proposal being carried and the club that was formed in 1872 continuing in its current form.‘I was initially in the camp that said it was more likely than not that it (CVA) would be rejected by HMRC,’ he revealed. ‘To be honest, I’m now in the camp that thinks it’s more likely HMRC will vote it through.‘I say that for two reasons: The way the options have been presented gives the creditors a very stark choice. It’s £8.5m gross for a CVA or £5.5m for a newco route. There’s a £3m incentive there which would probably rise to £4m by the time you take in liquidation costs.‘They (HMRC) have been put in, let’s say, a difficult position by Duff & Phelps whereby if they want the better return, it’s going to be by a CVA.‘In addition to that, there seems to be quite positive noises coming from Duff & Phelps and Charles Green.‘I won’t count my chickens. There’s still a chance HMRC will reject this. But the noises and the structure of the deal lead me to believe there’s maybe a better than evens chance that HMRC will sign up to this. I feel Ticketus will be thinking along similar lines.’If the CVA proposal is rejected, Duff & Phelps will sell the assets — primarily Ibrox and Murray Park — to Green’s consortium.It’s anticipated disgraced owner Craig Whyte might challenge this sale in court because of a holding charge he claims to have over the assets.But Patey believes the deal reached by the administrators and Green is watertight.‘If that scenario unfolds, I think it’s unlikely Duff & Phelps will entertain any other offers for the assets,’ he added. ‘Duff & Phelps say that there’s a binding agreement both ways so, on the face of it, they can entertain any further offers for the assets. If they did, Charles Green would have the right to sue them.’Green, meanwhile, stated Rangers may be able to sign players even before they come out of administration.Ordinarily, a club is banned from signing players while in administration but SPL rules state that, with board approval, clubs may replace players whose contracts expire.Rule 6.20 of the SPL’s regulations makes provision for signings being made in special circumstances by clubs who have suffered an insolvency event.While there is no guarantee the SPL board would approve any signings, with several players’ contracts expiring, that could allow Rangers to use the rule to bring replacements in. ‘If you are correct, that is an avenue open to the club,’ Green said in a radio interview last night. ‘No money is required for players. Most are free because of the financial crisis across Europe.’Green also confirmed he told a fans’ meeting on Wednesday that he has a list of 19 transfer targets, five of whom are involved at Euro 2012.And he says he has added £1.5m to the budget Ally McCoist and Duff & Phelps had been working to for next season.One of the names believed to be under consideration is Bolton’s Martin Petrov. The 33-year-old Bulgarian is thought to be keen on a move following Bolton’s relegation from the Premiership.Green also confirmed a £10m stadium-naming deal with ‘an airline investor or alternative’ was under consideration. ‘I’ve been speaking to a number of people, some of whom are connected to our investors, some not,’ he added. ‘I’ve said all along, stadium-naming is an emotive issue but, whatever we do, it would always be Ibrox Stadium.’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2157407/Rangers-backed-seal-CVA-deal.html?ito=feeds-newsxml 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.