Right im off for a while. Have a think and see if you can get your heads round the points I have discussed. They are fairly straight forward to be honest. Ill come back in a while and see how you are all coming to terms with the reality that we will be keeping our history regardless of what happens with our admin.
Self praise is no praise. I don't think you are intelligent at all. Putting so much effort into being so spectacularly and demonstrably wrong is not the sign of a bright person. Providing us with your "Pre-Packed, pre-pack argument*" and having it shredded(topical) to bits is not a sign of intelligence. *See what I did there black knight?
Good for you pal. No one on this forum has ever started a thread about administration and the history of Rangers but thank you for coming along and enlightening us. May I suggest your next port of call be Follow Follow where they mop this type of **** up? Mind you, if I were you I would be slightly more concerned about the future. Years of little income, possible court battles with Craig Whyte and in the summer all your top players leaving for peanuts to be replaced by kids and Bosmans would, I should imagine, be at the forefront of your mind rather than trying to convince yourself and everyone else who will listen that you have some Baldrick-style 'cunning plan'.
I hoped it is, but he has been on loads of forums copying and pasting his arguments. I posted a while back about how much I enjoy the time between when something bad/controversial happens to the Huns and the time they can come up with a party line. Well the Black Knight is hoping that this will be it. I have probably even said that this is what the party line would be. It is as predictable as it is inaccurate.
Why is he coming back? Its not us he has to convince its the rangers fans. There the ones who care about their history. He better have new material other than this leeds ****e
Wish I'd read these spot-on comments much earlier as they sum up the thoughts that were forming in my head - you would have saved me the moments, I've now lost forever, wading through the crap from Paul Baxendale-Walker alias Mitre_Mouldmaster. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4135658/Craig-Whyte-advisor-is-a-porn-star.html
Right back to Leeds: Why do you think the process they used for transfering to a NewCo and keeping their history would not apply to Rangers. List out the questions and I will answer them when i come back.
Were 83.5% of their shares owned by Craig Whyte? Were they facing a potential huge tax bill from HMRC? Did HMRC refuse to do a deal with them because they had previously been found guilty of tax evasion? If the Leeds process is so good why has no other club done the same since?
1. No, worse it was Ken Bates 2. Yes 3. Yes, but they could do nothing to stop it because it was a pre-pack liquidation. This method does not need the permission of the creditors. 4. They have, see Luton Town for example
1. Ken Bates is not worse than Craig Whyte and you avoided the question again. 2. How much out of interest? 3. When were they found guilty of tax evasion? So of all the clubs in Britain that have gone onto administration why have only Leeds and Luton gone down this road?
Sorry what extra detail are you asking for? Are you asking what shareholding Ken Bates had in Leeds? Obviously Craig Whyte wasnt involved. Oh and have you heard the stuff Ken Bates has been up to? He certainly pushed Whyte close! In the English Leagues, they get heavily punished for using this approach to get out of financial trouble. Usually at least a 15 point deduction. Also, often the club will have to be transfered to a new owner and the original owners can be prosecuted. So obviously the owners are not keen on doing it. Also, you have to ask yourself, how many club who have reached our predicament have not used this method! If there was another option, or if it was difficult to do, then surely you would eather hear of another method or hear of lots of clubs just stopping existing!
1. Okay, let's put Bates aside. 2. No answer? I'll tell you: it was a whopping £6m Leeds owed! Quite a bit different from potentially £90m don't you agree? 2a. And the reason for owing that money is quite, quite different from the reason Rangers potentially owe that money. 3. You said Leeds had been found guilty of tax evasion. Could you provide a link to this so I can read more about it?
everybody on this thread is talking about a liquidation event except one person. Can you guess who it is?
Leeds Utd: creditors were satisfied, not a Liquidatorâs Charter I see Leeds United are being held up as a model for Rangers to liquidate and emerge as a new club. Leeds Unitedâs circumstances are highly unlikely to bear any relationship with those at Rangers unless Duff and Phelps can agree a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement. Leeds United AFC Ltd entered administration in the control of KPMG Restructuring on 4 May 2007 and on the same day were sold to a new company Leeds United Football Club Ltd subject to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) being agreed. Both Leeds United AFC Ltd and Leeds United FC Ltd were controlled by Ken Bates. A CVA requires 75% of creditors (by value) to vote to accept a reduced percentage of the money they are owed. The company was forced to act as HMRC, who were owed in excess of £6m, had issued a winding up petition which was due to expire on 25 June 2007. Before creditors voted on the CVA several other bidders came forward with offers for the club, however, the vote, on 1 June 2007, returned 75.02% of creditors accepting the CVA offer (75.20% after a recount). Creditors can challenge a CVA within 28 days of the vote. On the 28th day, 3 July 2007, HMRC challenged. With the CVA subject to a challenge, KPMG asked for further offers for the company to be submitted by 9 July 2007. Despite the extended offer period, the administrators still accepted the offer from Ken Bates Leeds United FC Ltd. With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFCâs league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its âexceptional circumstancesâ provision. The League imposed a 15 point penalty on the club for the 2007-08 season for failing to satisfy the outstanding legal challenge in time, necessitating the âexceptional circumstancesâ rule. HMRC withdrew their objection to the CVA the following month. Leeds United subsequently appealed against their 15 point penalty citing a CVA had been agreed and that the league programme does not allow time for spurious challenges to be dealt with. The Football League refused the appeal. Believing Football League procedures were at fault, not their own behaviour, Leeds United served the League with a High Court writ to challenge the points deduction, however, both parties agreed to abide by the findings of an arbitration panel hearing. The arbitration panel found against Leeds United citing the following two reasons: A director of Leeds United FC signed an earlier agreement not to commence any proceedings against the League. Leeds United waited 7 months before commencing the action, which brought unnecessary sporting consequences on other promotion chasing clubs, specifically Doncaster Rovers, who would no longer be in an automatic promotion spot if Leedsâ 15 points were restored. In summary: Leeds United AFC Ltdâs administrators achieved the necessary 75% support for a CVA. They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left. This is not a Liquidatorâs Charter. Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.
