Aren't these bids being put together to avoid cva and liquidation
Remember, its the best deal for the creditors....not rangers
Remember, its the best deal for the creditors....not rangers
4 bidders
- Thread starter Girvan Loyal 1690
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Nope. They're put together to get us out of administration via CVA or liquidation. No **** is gonny stroll up, pay off all the creditors, and say right let's play fitba.
If we liquidate, the creditors get **** all. If a deal can be reached with the creditors to get something of what they're owed that's a CVA.
Just reported on BBC Radio Scotland that the Singapore bidders are saying they are going the CVA route and do not want to liquidate.
So at the moment it's:
CVA - The BK's and the Singapore consortium.
Liquidation - The germans and US mobs. I'm assuming this as it was already reported that at least two of the bidders were favouring the liquidation route and these ****s haven't said anything yet.
So at the moment it's:
CVA - The BK's and the Singapore consortium.
Liquidation - The germans and US mobs. I'm assuming this as it was already reported that at least two of the bidders were favouring the liquidation route and these ****s haven't said anything yet.
Dunno. I could guess and say that as liquidation and newco is a way out of admin they see it as positive?
Craig Whyte, Craig Whytes dad and a consortium of Craig Whyte and his dad
Gambol:2580707 said:
I'm no kerrydale accountant so don't understand much but I've a few questions
Can ownership of a company be passed about if it is still in administration?
Is it within the rights of the administration team to sell a company or is it still up to the owner of the company?
Can the creditors block a takeover as they have claims to the assets?
Shouldn't the administrators call in the liquidators if the best option is a sale to someone who plans to liquidate anyway?
.
Short answer. Dunno. All I'm basically doing is posting what is being reported and my understanding of it.
What RTC has to say on the prospect of a CVA being granted:-
Many point to the logic of “something is better than nothing”. This might be true, but this situation is more complex. If Channel 4s reports are correct and Rangers directors were engaging in activities such as document shredding, it will mean that ill-will to the club will stretch back further than just the arrival of Craig Whyte.
If Rangers have been involved in a decade of persistent lying to the government, it could make a deal difficult. A pennies on the pound deal for such a company would signal that paying taxes in-full and on-time is for mugs; the smart money takes advantage of every dubious scheme going and pays a tiny amount even if caught. There is an issue of ‘moral hazard’ in letting Rangers get off lightly.
He's been right so far but who knows?
Many point to the logic of “something is better than nothing”. This might be true, but this situation is more complex. If Channel 4s reports are correct and Rangers directors were engaging in activities such as document shredding, it will mean that ill-will to the club will stretch back further than just the arrival of Craig Whyte.
If Rangers have been involved in a decade of persistent lying to the government, it could make a deal difficult. A pennies on the pound deal for such a company would signal that paying taxes in-full and on-time is for mugs; the smart money takes advantage of every dubious scheme going and pays a tiny amount even if caught. There is an issue of ‘moral hazard’ in letting Rangers get off lightly.
He's been right so far but who knows?
Sounds more wishful than anything else to me. He wants additional punishment on a company getting out of admin via CVA just because it's Rangers. Moral hazard? Aye, Rangers are the first company to get themselves in the **** and get out via CVA so let's hang them out to dry as a warning to every other company.
Whichever way you look at it, getting a CVA is not paying your dues.
They're set up so that creditors can claw back at least some of the money they're due rather than bugger all if a company goes tits up.
All fair enough.
However, if a sports team uses a CVA, aren't they just essentially not paying their debts? The intention of a CVA is to benefit the creditors who, otherwise, would end up substantially out of pocket.
In the corinthian spirit, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to compete against other sports clubs that have honoured their financial pledges.
It most certainly isn't a level playing field. A CVA should be for the benefit of creditors - using it as a way to avoid paying your debts is, at best, immoral and, at worst (in a sporting institution) unfair.
They're set up so that creditors can claw back at least some of the money they're due rather than bugger all if a company goes tits up.
All fair enough.
However, if a sports team uses a CVA, aren't they just essentially not paying their debts? The intention of a CVA is to benefit the creditors who, otherwise, would end up substantially out of pocket.
In the corinthian spirit, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to compete against other sports clubs that have honoured their financial pledges.
It most certainly isn't a level playing field. A CVA should be for the benefit of creditors - using it as a way to avoid paying your debts is, at best, immoral and, at worst (in a sporting institution) unfair.
What's to stop the likes of Hearts and Kilmarnock, both of whom have huge debt, of going down the same road?