Rangers Have gone into Administration

omg this guy. youtube what have you done to the world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pDk75Y1SZ4

Have missed a lot here (though see my name has been invoked - yikes). Couple of comments:

Now the security arrangements are opaque to say the least but, on the presently availabel information, it looks like this: CW didn't pay off the debts of Rangers when he took over, he bought them, and is, as everyone knows, the secured creditor. The club (well, the company) is in hock to him to the tune of £18m secured. This means that when it comes to the sale of the company/club, CW has an £18m head start on all the other potential buyers. This is why he is the most likely buyer of the company from the administration. BUT

Yes, the administrators are not validly appointed, which is fucking hilarious (and reflects muy badly on the law firm advising D&P). It's questionable whether the administrators can actually petition to have themselves appointed (appointment of administrators can only be done by directors or creditors, aiui). What is also interesting is that unless and until the appointment fuck up is rectified, they have not been appointed so on a strict legal reading: (a) the points deduction should go back on - technically, rangers are not in administration (b) Wylde and Celik are not free agents, pay cuts have not been agreed etc because the "administrators" did not have the power to agree such matters. Ultra vires. [Disclaimer, the SLT blog may have covered this already - apologies if it did, ilx is more worksafe than slt, so I haven't read slt].

For clarity, I work in corporate (so the takeover would be my area), not so much of the restructuring/insolvency work (so the administration stuff I am not so hot on). However, the whole saga has been like catnip for Glasgow lawyers, so everyone is talking about it (though, of course, not betraying any confidential information), which gives me the benefit of some sound technical analysis (which I miscontrue and fill with errors in the retelling).

omg @ wee wullie bluenose

(a) the points deduction should go back on - technically, rangers are not in administration (b) Wylde and Celik are not free agents, pay cuts have not been agreed etc because the "administrators" did not have the power to agree such matters.

much as I enjoyed the points deduction this might well finish off my aching sides if true

tbf, I can't see the Powers That Be reinstating the points because even if Rangers are not now properly in administration, they will be shortly. Same with the player contract amendments - it would do if the players were to turn round and say "oh hey, legal technicality, pls give me back my cash" when the club is not solvent. It might be a line of attack for any non-footballing staff who've been laid off (if any, don't know) but any claim they would have would be work fuck all in the "second" administration.

calumerio, that's fascinating stuff, thanks. A quick glance through SLT suggests their initial appointment was valid, but I may be misreading this.

The effect of it being granted would be that they become administrators under an administration order, rather than by a notice of appointment. One effect of this would be that they could no longer be removed by the company. This is perhaps an indication that Duff & Phelps (D&P) saw potential conflict with the Company in the form of Mr Whyte.

Query in the comments as to whether HMRC (or Whyte, should he realise he's backed the wrong horse) could apply to have their own administrators appointed instead.

Non-playing staff not allowed to have been laid off -> the return of Gordon Smith!

Would welcome them getting their points back, tbh, would shut up all the mathematically-challenged gimps chuntering on about tainted titles.

id love to get rid of the spl/sfa/sfl suits and organisation and start again with one new body with entirely new and untainted people

Are there any countries with a single governing body covering both the league and the national association? Assuming the SPL member clubs aren't going to resign en masse and reapply to the league, I'm ok with the current setup in principle, but a whole bunch of reform and transparency wouldn't go amiss.

Campbell Ogilvie finally decides he'd better say something.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1335&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=9490

and says, inevitably, nothing at all.

Yep. Anyone fancy asking him who did deal with registrations from the mid-90s onwards.

BBC hack (Allan Price) on twitter reporting, as you suggested upthread, that Rangers might not actually be in administration after all. Link as soon as I get one. The lolz just keep a-coming.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300551-rangers-administrators-in-court-move-over-clubs-fsa-membership/

"This consent has now been sought and granted and our appointment has to be ratified by the Court of Session on March 19. It is envisaged that this hearing is a formality and that the process will not impact in any way the progress of the insolvency.

"Until such time we act as interim managers of the company and the powers provided to us by the court are identical to those of administrators, so as to ensure that the case can continue with the same level of speed and focus as has been developed to date."

Expect resolution some time around, well, never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17396756

In exchange for the funding, Ticketus received the rights to future season ticket sales.

However, the administrators will be back at the Court of Session for a second day on Friday, looking for permission to go back on that deal.

Lawyers for finance firm Ticketus claim the deal is legally binding.

Duff and Phelps want to tear up the agreement on the basis that the debt could discourage bidders who may want to takeover the club.

uh... we sold some stuff and we want to sell it again, basically?

Duff and Phelps also alleged elsewhere to have devalued what's left of the club by negotiating cut price release clauses for all the players who accepted pay cuts - meaning whoever buys the club has to give them all new deals again or let them all go in the summer, if anyone wants them.

by negotiating cut price release clauses for all the players who accepted pay cuts
Commercially, it would seem to make more sense to assume that the players' agents negotiated for the cut price release clauses, rather than D&P. It would protect their assets, sorry, players from being stranded in Div 3, or, indeed, from having to remain on a fraction of their previous wage.

yes, the agents negotiated and D&P agreed the deals. i suppose them devaluing the club isn't a problem for a prospective buyer as long as he accepts the team he buys won't include most of its top players next season.

what are your thoughts on this? are D&P at risk here?

http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.com/2012/03/administration-or-not-latest-from.html

‘interim managers are likely to be within the definition of shadow directors……and as such may be exposed to an action for wrongful trading if they allow the company to trade for any significant length of time, given that it is insolvent.’

yes, the agents negotiated and D&P agreed the deals. i suppose them devaluing the club isn't a problem for a prospective buyer as long as he accepts the team he buys won't include most of its top players next season.
Which is where you get the disjunct between the objectives of the administrator (protect the creditors by saving the company) and the objectives of liquidation (dispose of assets to realise value for creditors). tbh, I would guess that most of the value of the club is in the branding.

The mlm summary is how it was explained to me by the insolvency lawyer who sits next to me (he spends a lot of time laughing at this whole thing, btw). Practically speaking, I am not sure there is merit in pursuing D&P on this score. It would set a hell of a precedent and might make IPs less keen on taking on work. In any event, the company was always (well, not always, but you know) insolvent to the tune of £1m a month. There may have been ways of making the required savings and, as ailsa has pointed out, the easiest way to do that is sack all but the yoot team, but that wasn't done. Whether that is because D&P have had to plan for both eventualities (CVA or liquidation) or not, I don't know.

Just read that back - it's rambly bollocks, sorry.

The entire thing is rambly bollocks, mostly, so anything that sheds light in layman's terms without descending to the level of the Daily Record is fine by me.

Thoroughly enjoying Alex Thomson's investigations, btw.

(that first sentence was a compliment. A rambly bollocksy one, naturally)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuJdifESaP8&sns=em

If Hugh Adam babbling is the smoking gun then Rangers should be fine.

Two more reports over the next two nights.

Nothing most of us didn't already know, but nice to see some scathing criticism used on national telly.

Andy Coyle ‏ @STV_Andy
"We Don't Do Walking Away" to be played at Ibrox ahead of the Glasgow derby. If you've missed it, watch here: http://bit.ly/wWsOup

ahahahahaahahaaaa

What with that and the hilarious tweeting/blogging of CelticTaxCase, I've almost got over the disappointment of Sunday already.

you should follow and promote this guy https://twitter.com/#!/Ce1ticTaxcase nudge nudge wink wink

:)

there's already another fakey CeItic one so maybe not worth the effort

Wait so does this mean that the actual celtictaxcase one isn't satire?!

i think people were unsure to begin with but are leaning towards it being satire. it's hard to tell!

Ticketus wins court case, plus costs. Looks like Rangers is theirs for the taking, if they can do a deal with HMRC. Can't see other parties wanting to buy Rangers and pay Ticketus for 100,000 tickets over the coming years.

oops, jumped the gun - he refused to rule on it - meaning the agreement stands

I think where this leaves Ticketus is that the agreement stands for so long as D&P think it should stand - the general principle in administration is that the administrators are not bound by the contracts entered into before the administration began. If D&P decide that the club is a more saleable prospect with the possibility of receiving some season ticket income over the next four years (and why wouldn't they?), then they can/will rescind the Ticketus agreement. Which would leave Ticketus as another of the unsecured creditors (except to the extent that Ticketus have some security higher up CW's chain).

If D&P decide that the club is a more saleable prospect with the possibility of receiving some season ticket income over the next four years (and why wouldn't they?), then they can/will rescind the Ticketus agreement.

So why go to court to tear it up?

The application was for directions to see if D&P could be prevented from tearing up the Ticketus agreement. Ticketus had indicated that the agreement (I think) created a trust relationship, meaning that even if the agreement were terminated, Rangers would have to hold the proceeds of subsequent season ticket sales for the benefit of Ticketus. The court said, rightly, that this was a silly argument and that, without further information, it could not provide the directions D&P sought. So this means that (a) Ticketus "trust" argument is not strong and therefore (b) D&P have a better chance (though not a certainty) if they proceed unilaterally to terminate the Ticketus arrangement.

Here is a link to the judgement (which I haven't read).

Reading that, it looks like Ticketus are in exactly the same position as any other punter with a season ticket, except theirs cost £25m - the administrators can simply refuse to honour it. If they haven't got cast-iron security somewhere in Whyte's empire, that's a massive fuck-up.

I note they've anticipated and reserved their position to appeal, though.

any notion of how likely to be bullshit this report is? (particularly the involvement of the owner of one Chicago MLS club?)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/04/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-fans-warned-to-be-cautious-over-club-9-sports-bid-for-administration-hit-club-86908-23810233/

The words Daily Record indicate bullshit.

I have no idea how Rangers can turn a profit of millions. No European income. Players on deferred wages with release clauses. No income from the first 25k season tickets for the next four years. Don't own merchandising rights. Don't even own their catering operations.

Oh aye, and between £50m and £100m owed to the taxman.

that's kind of what I was guessing but I am not well versed in the ways of UK papers. thanks!

There's definitely likely to be something in it, but I can't see it being anything other than liquidation then trying to turn a profit out of a phoenix company.

All of the Celtic fans I know read the Daily Record - is this an anomaly? What is the Celtic paper? I mean, like me, they don't believe what it says, but no-one reads anything else! We maybe get 1 Sun a day, and 1 Star a week left at the bar, compared to dozens of DR per day. All very odd.

Most I know have been boycotting since the Thugs and Thieves story and rely on internet sources these days. There's not really a Celtic paper as such. I don't buy any of them and only read online if articles of interest linked to via twitter or forums.

Some chatter on internetz about imminent liquidation. Am holding fire until I find reliable sources.

I should point out that I get my news and views from sources shared and used by more internet-savvy media-literate fans with little time for the mainstream Scottish media. There are plenty others who have had the Record as their paper of choice for years and continue with this despite lies, pish, spin and Traynor. No accounting for lack of taste or nous.

Thanks a lot for the responses, really I just want to try and gauge how likely it is our owner is going in on another club when he has trouble managing the one he already owns ;)

...or principle. I keep giving them page hits despite myself (when they are only source for a story, or do something roffle-worthy) though remain grateful to those who copy articles in full so I don't have to. Genuinely can't remember the last time I bought it.

Shite, my phone ate half my response.

This newspaper has previous for selling false hope to deluded Rangers fans. If yer man was serious, he'd have been in when they were up for sale previously before tax shit got real. There's a possibility of vulturing in and attempting something post-liquidation by creating something viable to attract the fanbase, but fuck knows what form that would take.

What is the Celtic paper?

LOL @ the very idea of this in Scotland

^ now now, that's the sort of thing that'd get you called ridiculous and paranoid, despite the Record going "off the radar wealth? Aye, we'll have that. Nah, we didn't check, we just wrote what Whyte's PR people told us to. More red wine and succulent lamb? Don't mind if I do..."

Yikes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17592209
I don't like the sound of this. Of course, trying to do the same to the insurmountable debt to HMRC might not be so easy. I get the uneasy feeling they might manage to fudge something out of all this, but hopefully I'm wrong.