euan2020 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 looping back - god knows ow Duff & Phelps earned GBP2.8M in 4 months http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18797395 I guess 12/13 people charging GBP 2,800 a day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Interesting to see what their evidence for this action is. I thought greens offer for the assets was the only credible one, but who knows what other stuff theyre going after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, ShedTA said: Interesting to see what their evidence for this action is. I thought greens offer for the assets was the only credible one, but who knows what other stuff theyre going after. BDO will essentially be using the creditors funds for this action, so they must be pretty sure on what they are doing. Otherwise they are leaving themselves open to an action themselves. Like you say, it will be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Rangers liquidation costs rise by £2.2m since April last year Matt Coyle The cost of oldco Rangers' liquidation process has risen by almost £2.2m since April last year, it has been revealed. The figures were revealed in the most recent report to creditors by liquidators BDO and show the price of the process, which began in October 2012, has risen from £10.8m to £12.95m in the 15 months since the firm's last report. oooooft https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1380154-rangers-liquidators-in-30m-legal-action-against-administrators/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 22 minutes ago, euan2020 said: Rangers liquidation costs rise by £2.2m since April last year Matt Coyle The cost of oldco Rangers' liquidation process has risen by almost £2.2m since April last year, it has been revealed. The figures were revealed in the most recent report to creditors by liquidators BDO and show the price of the process, which began in October 2012, has risen from £10.8m to £12.95m in the 15 months since the firm's last report. oooooft https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1380154-rangers-liquidators-in-30m-legal-action-against-administrators/ Its expensive work- though some will obviously be offset by the victory against Collyer Bristow. Most of the 10million in the first pot came from the settlement against them, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, euan2020 said: Rangers liquidation costs rise by £2.2m since April last year Matt Coyle The cost of oldco Rangers' liquidation process has risen by almost £2.2m since April last year, it has been revealed. The figures were revealed in the most recent report to creditors by liquidators BDO and show the price of the process, which began in October 2012, has risen from £10.8m to £12.95m in the 15 months since the firm's last report. oooooft https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1380154-rangers-liquidators-in-30m-legal-action-against-administrators/ Who pays that then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Who pays that then? Comes from the creditors pot, they have to report back on each £ they spend and it's overseen by the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Stu101 said: Comes from the creditors pot, they have to report back on each £ they spend and it's overseen by the court. And so what happens when the total is bigger than the creditors pot? do they start selling assets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: And so what happens when the total is bigger than the creditors pot? do they start selling assets? that was already done 4 years ago when sold to Green consortium not aware of any other assets being held back liquidators should be collating liquid assets then distributing pence in the pound what they are trying to do just now is create more value/assets by challenging that Duff & Phelps did not act in best interest of creditors normally the major creditors get to choose administrators, but on that occassion Whyte got to choose and HMRC had to accept the proposition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 TBF I remember a lot of people expressing surprise at Duff and Phelps' handling of the administration. Holding onto expensive players when you would have thought they would sell/ off load them etc. the price for assets was another debatable. in fact did they not even try and sign Daniel Cousin while in admin? that was madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, euan2020 said: that was already done 4 years ago when sold to Green consortium not aware of any other assets being held back liquidators should be collating liquid assets then distributing pence in the pound what they are trying to do just now is create more value/assets by challenging that Duff & Phelps did not act in best interest of creditors normally the major creditors get to choose administrators, but on that occassion Whyte got to choose and HMRC had to accept the proposition Is the club still potentially liable for 'stuff', or is this now out with the club and between those mentioned in the various articles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, BlueGaz said: Is the club still potentially liable for 'stuff', or is this now out with the club and between those mentioned in the various articles? the new club isnt no. its a different club. this all refers to Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, ShedTA said: TBF I remember a lot of people expressing surprise at Duff and Phelps' handling of the administration. Holding onto expensive players when you would have thought they would sell/ off load them etc. the price for assets was another debatable. in fact did they not even try and sign Daniel Cousin while in admin? that was madness. I remember that too. But I have been claiming through the courts on something similar business wise and personnel involved (which was the companies only income) where not able to be counted as assets, even though they were the sole income. But dont fully understand it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, BlueGaz said: Is the club still potentially liable for 'stuff', or is this now out with the club and between those mentioned in the various articles? New owner/club wont be liable for anything I think (my opinion) there was potential at time in 2012 that the sale to Green could have been reversed if it was considered that the sale was not in the interest of the creditors certainly in personal bankruptcies any unfair sale could be subject to clawback examples in US http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/clawbacks-preferential-fraudulent-transfers.html# I'm just discussing directionally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, BlueGaz said: I remember that too. But I have been claiming through the courts on something similar business wise and personnel involved (which was the companies only income) where not able to be counted as assets, even though they were the sole income. But dont fully understand it all. would it not be the players contracts/registration that held the value and were marketable ? although these were cancelled under liquidation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Time to get this title back to just the first 3 words surely ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 33 minutes ago, dipped flake said: Time to get this title back to just the first 3 words surely ? I'd have said getting shot of an under performing manager was the opposite of a crisis! Glass half full and all that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 On 08/02/2017 at 11:58 AM, euan2020 said: would it not be the players contracts/registration that held the value and were marketable ? although these were cancelled under liquidation. I haven't got a clue to be honest. Not sure how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Fairbairn said: I'd have said getting shot of an under performing manager was the opposite of a crisis! Glass half full and all that!! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 On 2/11/2017 at 4:38 AM, dipped flake said: Time to get this title back to just the first 3 words surely ? If that's what the OP had it titled as, then yes, and it never should have been changed as it has the OP's name attached to it, and that's not what he typed out or intended it to say. (The duties of Admin shouldn't include trying to rewrite history or trying to be 'cute' with their smart-aleckie wording on a poll. They should be 'invisible' like a referee in a well officiated match. There's getting involved, and then there's getting unnecessarily involved.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymac Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: If that's what the OP had it titled as, then yes, and it never should have been changed as it has the OP's name attached to it, and that's not what he typed out or intended it to say. (The duties of Admin shouldn't include trying to rewrite history or trying to be 'cute' with their smart-aleckie wording on a poll. They should be 'invisible' like a referee in a well officiated match. There's getting involved, and then there's getting unnecessarily involved.) Sense of humour by-pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Just now, andymac said: Sense of humour by-pass. Scotty is somewhat miopic when it comes to "The Rangers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymac Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Just now, Fairbairn said: Scotty is somewhat miopic when it comes to "The Rangers". Somewhat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 5 hours ago, andymac said: Sense of humour by-pass. Nope. (I get all that... ...'three words'... because The Rangers are definitely in trouble any way that you look at it.) Now, here's what I'm asking... Why, on what right, and on who's authority, has the thread title changed previously? And what's the point (at all) in a useless (to begin with) and now closed poll still being show on the board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Nope. (I get all that... ...'three words'... because The Rangers are definitely in trouble any way that you look at it.) Now, here's what I'm asking... Why, on what right, and on who's authority, has the thread title changed previously? And what's the point (at all) in a useless (to begin with) and now closed poll still being show on the board? I think it was changed by a passive aggressive mod who wanted to get at thplinth but knew due to experience that trying it upfront was futile. So they added the vacuous poll and edited the title. No doubt thinking themselves safe, much like they did the first time thplinth brought up the financial death of Rangers and was roundly mocked in a similiar manner. Obviously a slight miscalculation, the 2nd one in a row on the subject. Quote Link to comment 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.