ALL three of the remaining bidders for Rangers have refused to rule out liquidation

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Go Go Yellowscreen said:
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?
Click to expand...

1. Agree - Ignore this one

2. Thats a big number! Anyway, what difference does the value make? The HMRC still had a casting vote and rejected the CVA. That all they can do to us also. Oh and it was almost £8m, but again the value doesnt matter.

3. Not found guilty of tax evasion (dont forget, Rangers have not been charged with this). But they were heavily suspected of it (or at least avoidance) because of the very dodgy ownership from the Caymen Islands. See below:

"As you’ll no doubt be reading in the newspapers and websites over the coming days, the committee is thoroughly unimpressed by the state of football governance in general; and it has several grievances particular to Leeds United. They have concerns about the previous ownership structure and Shaun Harvey’s explanations of it, about Ken Bates’ purchase of the club from the anonymous owners, and about The FA and the Football League allowing these situations to continue; and the committee is asking that The FA, “demonstrate its new resolve by conducting a thorough investigation and, if necessary, to seek the assistance of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/03/leeds-united-ken-bates-owner
 
Mitre_Mouldmaster said:
1. Agree - Ignore this one

2. Thats a big number! Anyway, what difference does the value make? The HMRC still had a casting vote and rejected the CVA. That all they can do to us also. Oh and it was almost £8m, but again the value doesnt matter.

3. Not found guilty of tax evasion (dont forget, Rangers have not been charged with this). But they were heavily suspected of it (or at least avoidance) because of the very dodgy ownership from the Caymen Islands. See below:

"As you’ll no doubt be reading in the newspapers and websites over the coming days, the committee is thoroughly unimpressed by the state of football governance in general; and it has several grievances particular to Leeds United. They have concerns about the previous ownership structure and Shaun Harvey’s explanations of it, about Ken Bates’ purchase of the club from the anonymous owners, and about The FA and the Football League allowing these situations to continue; and the committee is asking that The FA, “demonstrate its new resolve by conducting a thorough investigation and, if necessary, to seek the assistance of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/03/leeds-united-ken-bates-owner
Click to expand...

See article above: Post 339.

You also stated that Leeds have previously been found guilty of tax evasion (post 334). That was a lie.

But I do advise you read post 339 as it completely blows your argument right out the water. And remember while you are reading it that HMRC have stated they will not to a deal with a business who have previously been found guilty of not paying tax. And they have also stated they will not do a deal while Craig Whyte is still at the club.
 
Go Go Yellowscreen said:
Leeds Utd: creditors were satisfied, not a Liquidator’s Charter

I see Leeds United are being held up as a model for Rangers to liquidate and emerge as a new club. Leeds United’s 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 AFC’s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its “exceptional circumstances” 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 ‘exceptional circumstances’ 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 Leeds’ 15 points were restored.

In summary:

Leeds United AFC Ltd’s 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 Liquidator’s 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.
Click to expand...

What is the source of this? It is incorrect.
 
Go Go Yellowscreen said:
See article above: Post 339.

You also stated that Leeds have previously been found guilty of tax evasion (post 334). That was a lie.

But I do advise you read post 339 as it completely blows your argument right out the water. And remember while you are reading it that HMRC have stated they will not to a deal with a business who have previously been found guilty of not paying tax. And they have also stated they will not do a deal while Craig Whyte is still at the club.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter, they dont need the consent of the creditors.

If the HMRC refuse us a CVA, we can still do this.
 
It is correct this is what every **** on here has been telling you.

I suggest that you revisit your research<ok>
 
YOU ARE ****ING MENTAL

Seriously, **** off with your unadulterated pish you ****ing brainless moron.

I thought ******s like Medro and BH were bad but they seem like mental colossuses compared to you.
 
Go Go Yellowscreen said:
YOU ARE ****ING MENTAL

Seriously, **** off with your unadulterated pish you ****ing brainless moron.

I thought ******s like Medro and BH were bad but they seem like mental colossuses compared to you.
Click to expand...

Spot on.....except this is what Baldrick will be telling his pals;

I went onto a Celtic forum and I told them the facts. Not one of them could put forward an argument to the contrary.
One of them got so mad he told me to "**** off" in big letters.

Our history is safe fellow bares. We know it... now Timmy knows it.
 
What was the source? It is lying to you.

Here is total proof.

Your source : "With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC&#8217;s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its &#8220;exceptional circumstances&#8221; provision."

Official Source : http://www.scribd.com/doc/87980843/leeds-cvl (go to page 8-9)

CVA was scrapped, never paid out and the football share had to be negotiated by the buyer and the football league.
 
Mitre_Mouldmaster said:
What was the source? It is lying to you.

Here is total proof.

Your source : "With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC&#8217;s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its &#8220;exceptional circumstances&#8221; provision."

Official Source : http://www.scribd.com/doc/87980843/leeds-cvl (go to page 8-9)

CVA was scrapped, never paid out and the football share had to be negotiated by the buyer and the football league.
Click to expand...

And who's going to agree to a CVA?
 
RebelBhoy said:
Who has to agree to the sale? The administrators.
Who do the administrators owe their first obligation to? The creditor




They will refuse.
And in a liquidation event..... no you can't.
Click to expand...

A pre-pack ensures the best value for the creditors. Administrators do them without even consulting the creditors.
 
A Company Voluntary Arrangement CVA is a procedure which enables a company to reach an agreement with its creditors about how debt is to be repaid. The CVA may provide for partial or full repayment depending on what the company can reasonably afford to pay.

Creditors do support CVAs if the alternative is liquidation with little or no return to creditors. The Proposal must, however, be reasonable and achievable.

A CVA can only be proposed by a company if it is insolvent or contingently insolvent. The CVA requires the approval of 75% of the voting creditors. If approved, the CVA binds all creditors irrespective of how they voted and allows the directors to retain control of their company.
 
Go Go Yellowscreen said:
A Company Voluntary Arrangement CVA is a procedure which enables a company to reach an agreement with its creditors about how debt is to be repaid. The CVA may provide for partial or full repayment depending on what the company can reasonably afford to pay.

Creditors do support CVAs if the alternative is liquidation with little or no return to creditors. The Proposal must, however, be reasonable and achievable.

A CVA can only be proposed by a company if it is insolvent or contingently insolvent. The CVA requires the approval of 75% of the voting creditors. If approved, the CVA binds all creditors irrespective of how they voted and allows the directors to retain control of their company.
Click to expand...

And your point is? You know you have lost and are just going over the same old ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back