Guest Post by James Forrest
Those who like to read the techno-thrillers of Tom Clancy will remember well the scene in The Sum of all Fears, when the nuclear bomb explodes in Denver, outside the stadium where the Super Bowl is being played. Clancy handles the moment in two very distinct chapters. The second is a vivid and frightening examination of the explosion’s terrible effects as they are felt, firstly in Denver and then experienced around the world.
Before that, he devotes an entire chapter to the mechanics of the explosion itself. Chapters like this are either what attract readers to Clancy in the first place or turn them off entirely. It is technical, it is complex, and the layman who reads it and fully understands it is indeed a massive geek. Of all the times he has loaded the reader with technical detail, this is probably when he risked most in terms of keeping you interested in the story. Yet it works. The chapter is not long, but nor is it short. And the events in it span not seconds but fractions of a second
It was in that chapter I first learned the term “shake”, so named for the old aphorism “a shake of a lamb’s tail”. A “shake” is a term used in nuclear physics. It represents ten nanoseconds. To grasp fully the size of that, consider that there are a billion nanoseconds in a second. The chemical process involved in a nuclear detonation involves a number of “shakes”, with a chain reaction usually completed in 50.
Clancy’s decision to devote an entire chapter of the book to a few nanoseconds came back to me over and over again during the weeks and months of the Rangers crisis. It became clear to me that, drawn out though the events following administration were, what we were seeing was not the effect of the explosion but the explosion itself. Those months were our nanoseconds. Every day, every revelation, every moment we thought was a separate event, was merely a peek inside the bomb case, at the chemical process of a chain reaction.
I would say the chain reaction was completed on the day HMRC announced they were refusing the CVA proposal. That was the detonation. It’s only now we’re witnessing the explosion, and its effects, and in my view we are still a long way from the end of that process. We have had the initial double flash thermal pulse and we’ve seen some EMP effects, but the real damage is still to come. The shock wave and the fireball have yet to spread, and their cumulative effects could yet annihilate Ibrox and extend as far as Hampden.
Am I making claims of “financial Armageddon”? No, I’m not. I never believed the collapse of Rangers would devastate Scottish football. I thought then, and now, that it was scaremongering nonsense to even suggest it. It didn’t matter to me whether the authorities were spreading those stories because of a deep-seated love of the Ibrox club, or because they had bonuses at stake, or out of their own internal, personal weaknesses. Those stories were inconsistent, based on worst case scenarios which were never likely to materialise, and insulting. The notion that the game in this country amounts to no more than one or two teams is offensive.
I love football. I always have. I’m a Celtic supporter, but my interests in the game extend far beyond my own club. At its best, football is a tremendous unifier of people, from those wonderful stories about Christmas Day in the trenches of World War I to the matches organised every year between Palestinian and Israeli children. The game has the potential for tremendous good. I am proud that my own club’s supporters have honoured the dead of Hillsborough and Ibrox. I am proud they unfurled a banner to the Benfica player Miklos Feher, and invaded Seville and showed that city how to party. I am proud of every moment when the supporters of a club applauded an injured player, or staged a silence to honour an official or competitor at another team. Although there are some who would use this sport in a divisive way, who would hijack it for their own ends, I believe this game can still be an inspiration, and find the best in all of us.
I think what happened during this summer, as the fans of every club in the land made their voices heard, was one of the greatest moments in Scottish football’s recent history. I believe it will have an impact far beyond one season. I think it was special.
My concern, as I’ve said, is that the appalling effects of the detonation at Ibrox are still to be fully realised. I am worried about the impact they could yet have on all of us.
Let me be quite specific about the two things that worry me most. They are to do with the decision to grant Sevco/Rangers a license to play in the Scottish Football League this year.
First, I believe the license was granted without sufficient guarantees being given by Charles Green and others that they would respect the decisions taken by the independent judiciary panel of the SPL in relation to EBTs, and secondly, I am concerned that not enough is known about Green and his financial backers, or plans for Rangers, for the authorities to be satisfied that the club is in good financial health. I don’t believe for one second anyone can allay my fears in these two areas. It is obvious to all that due diligence has not been done, and the entire situation at Rangers/Sevco is still shrouded in doubt, and that anything may yet happen.
The independent panel investigating dual contracts is going to have to make the most momentous decision in the history of the game in the UK. I do not believe what Rangers are accused of has any precedent. We are talking about a decade or more in which the results of every single match might be in doubt. Every single game. The rules were not written to envision such an appalling breach of faith. It would seem almost inevitable that stripping of titles will be the smallest of Charles Green and Ally McCoist’s concerns if this verdict goes against them.
Frankly, I don’t see an alternative to suspending Rangers membership of football in this country for at least two years, with points deductions and monetary fines to follow when the suspension period is done. This is not harsh; in fact it falls far short of the maximum penalty, which is expulsion from the game altogether, and as it is the authorities are going to have to do a damned good job of setting out the reasons why that ultimate sanction is not applied. It will not be enough to say it would damage the game in Scotland to wipe the club away. To allow a decade of malfeasance to pass without that ultimate sanction would create the perception that Rangers is above the law, and I cannot think of anything that would do the game more harm than for any club to be considered too big, or too important, to be subject to the regulations.
With their money on the table, I don’t see any way Charles Green and his cohorts will accept the judgement of the independent panel if it has an impact on their plans to recoup their investments. With the way he’s rallied the Rangers fans behind him recently, by essentially talking about a conspiracy against them, I don’t see how he convinces them to accept sanctions, even if he personally was inclined to do so. He has painted himself into a corner where now, if he wants his money at all, he has to fight, and keep on fighting. Without the written guarantee that the club would accept whatever the panel decides, without recourse to the law, I will be shocked if this matter doesn’t end up in the courts somewhere down the line, because I don’t think for one second he signed up to that particular demand.
I think the SFA backed down on this, the most fundamental matter of them all.
Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.
At an early stage in the Rangers crisis, a couple of people told me they thought the club would not play football for at least a year. I told them of all the possible scenarios that was the most unlikely, because I honestly could see no way back for them once they had gone. There is no precedent I am aware of, anywhere, for a football club taking a “year out” only to return. Certainly, in the context of the Scottish game I didn’t see how it could be done without creating one almighty shambles, or by bending the rules until the elastic snapped.
Yet I’ve since become convinced that it was the correct course of action. The club calling itself Rangers FC is still in a state of flux. The issues still surrounding it are enormous and potentially devastating. There are any number of ways in which the entire edifice could utterly collapse. The liquidators and HMRC could yet challenge the takeover, or the coming share issue. Craig Whyte may yet emerge and take a claim to the courts. The share issue itself could be an utter failure, leaving the club unable to meet annual running costs. All of this, even without the vast effects of the EBT case, which has the potential to wash the whole club away.
Had Rangers been out of the game for a year, these issues could have been properly explored, dealt with and put behind them, and the game as whole.
Of course, it’s just possible that the worst is over. It’s possible that this particular nuclear detonation, like the one is The Sum of All Fears, is an enormous “fizzle”, that the appalling destruction unleashed will not be on the thermonuclear level which could obliterate our hopes of a fresh start, of forward motion for the whole game. It might be that everything at Ibrox is hunky-dory, that this, all I’ve written, is the product of a febrile imagination, on the same level as the financial Armageddon nonsense we spent the summer hearing about.
It may well be, but only if the people who’ve been right all along have suddenly gotten it wrong. The evidence all points to something big, and bad, coming this way.
The smart folks will be hunkering down in their shelters for a while yet.
James is a co-editor of the Famous Tartan Army Magazine, latest issue out 17th October (digital, and free), featuring women’s football
So what are the chances now of a successful IPO on the AIM market before Christmas, given that the main players appear to have broken ranks and turned on each other? Is that nil or zero?
I think AIM have a reputation to protect, so why would they get embroiled in this mess for a percentage of £20million? Small beer to them, very little upside, and an enormous potential downside.
Time to rally the bears again, Charles, nobody likes us, we don’t care, let’s show they t–gs, etc, etc. You can do it, Charlie, a private share offer, no details, no supervision, just give us the money quick, or it’s goodbye RFC. The bears will lap it up- the rest of us just wait, watch and wonder exactly how stupid a large group of people can really be.
Question for the legal types – is there any repercussion to Media House if it comes out they knowingly disseminated a falsehood, or does the onus all fall on the client in whose name said falsehood was produced?
here is this evening’s BBC Scotland item (hopefully) courtesy of AMAC on Celtic Minded
http://youtu.be/eRZgksPT7vY
mrgreenwhytebrown says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:11
We’re all technically creditors of RFC, therefore if the sale to Sevco isn’t reversed we all lose out. The best price possible should be obtained for the creditors pot. And if the SFL has to be held in abeyance whilst something is sorted out – then so be it. Otherwise all the big fish in England are being shown a way out of any similar issues heading their way,
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:02
“Grier (I believe it was Grier) is heard calling a PR type………”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Not just any old PR type …..
http://www.mediahouse.co.uk/ramsay.htm
I reckon Ramsay will be getting a call from Marty in NY.
I wonder if the IT dept at Duff and Duffer (copyright acknowledged) have been instructed this evening to re-build Mr Grier’s email account – to see if Media House have passed him a draft statement/press release? The New York office will not make a comment without understanding the full context.
So did Whyte record his conversation with Green?
Is he being paid for his revelations?
For those who missed it or outside UK
http://youtu.be/eRZgksPT7vY
Sorry Tommy, thought I had posted the video earlier but just noticed I was signed out and didnt re-check to see if had been posted yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20088667
tonight’s story
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:45
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:02
“Grier (I believe it was Grier) is heard calling a PR type………”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Not just any old PR type …..
http://www.mediahouse.co.uk/ramsay.htm
I reckon Ramsay will be getting a call from Marty in NY.
———-
Help ma boab! Some respected individuals are beginning to look very silly by their association to this. I’ve always believed truth will out but never expected Mr Whyte to aid the process 🙂
obsessionat says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:04
I don’t know why but that is one of the episodes of Coldtiz I recall !. Do you think that individuals involved in this Oldco/Newco debacle have eaten lamb infected with BSE ?
Tommy says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 19:28
Thanks for the link, absolutely astonishing. Planning to publicly lie, in order to mislead the tax authorities and let them continue with the plan. It really does beggar belief.
If anyone has any of the other stuff I would really appreciate a link to it.
You could be standing in a pub – want something in the MSM – get mediahoose on the blower – give them a general idea of whatever you care – doesn’t need to be accurate – they draft out a statement – it green lighted – and printed in our rotten media the next day [should you wish]
What a putrid state of affairs
And response stateside from yesterday
“We do not respond to information that is taken out of context, as we believe is the case in the BBC story. “We welcome the opportunity to review a complete copy of the information that the BBC references in its story.”
Be careful what you wish for Marty…………
Guys and Gals, We may have to remove our tongues from our cheeks when we refer to “Oor Hero, The Googlie Eyed One!”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20088667
Duff & Phelps ‘asked Craig Whyte to lie over ticket deal’By Mark Daly
BBC Scotland Investigations Correspondent
Rangers administrators tried to persuade the club’s former owner Craig Whyte to lie about their knowledge of the Ticketus deal which was used to buy the club, the BBC can reveal.
Duff & Phelps asked Mr Whyte to lie because they were afraid HMRC would remove them as administrators over a potential conflict of interest.
The revelations are contained in a recorded conversation between the firm’s David Grier and Craig Whyte.
Duff & Phelps has not yet commented.
The Ticketus deal – which saw three years of Rangers season tickets sold to London finance firm Ticketus for £25m – was uncovered eight months after the Motherwell-born businessman bought the Glasgow club.
Mr Whyte used the money to pay off Rangers’ £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
The revelation caused anger among Rangers fans, who accused Mr Whyte of lying about how he funded his purchase last May.
In February 2012, when Rangers went into administration and Duff & Phelps took over, the firm confirmed the existence of the Ticketus deal, saying it was “a matter which we are looking at and trying to understand”.
As well as being appointed administrators after the club plunged into insolvency, Duff & Phelps were also involved in Craig Whyte’s takeover.
And a BBC Scotland investigation broadcast in May suggested that Mr Grier, a senior Duff & Phelps partner, may have known about the controversial Ticketus deal before the Whyte takeover was complete.
Mr Whyte’s conversation was recorded a week after the BBC aired claims about Duff & Phelps and Ticketus
Mr Grier, and Duff & Phelps, denied the claims and said he was unaware of this particular Ticketus deal until August 2011.
The recorded meeting between Mr Whyte and Mr Grier was held a week after the BBC documentary was aired.
It revealed that Mr Grier not only knew that Mr Whyte had sold season tickets to fund the club’s acquisition, but that they were intent on denying this because they thought they could get away with it.
It also showed an attempt was made by Mr Grier to get Mr Whyte to agree to the publication of a press release which would vindicate the firm of any knowledge about the Ticketus deal used to buy the club.
Mr Grier said: “We knew that Ticketus was a funder but we did not know that Ticketus would be used for acquisition funding and that is our line.
“So any assistance you can give with that would be considered appropriate because the concern is that when it comes to sparring, with cards on the table HMRC kicks off and it’s just a completely disastrous situation.”
Mr Whyte: “Yep. It’s a disaster.”
Mr Grier: “A f****** disaster.
Mr Grier: “So we need urgently the support to say that we were not conflicted and not involved in the Ticketus financing arrangement and if we get that we say to HMRC, look we’ve told you …were not involved in, and actually we were not conflicted.
Mr Grier: “You got to say that we were not part of the Ticketus finance, I am not asking you to say we didn’t know about it, we knew about Ticketus as a funder – but we were not part of the Ticketus financing arrangements.”
Mr Whyte said: “No part of the arrangements?”
Mr Grier: “No part in the arrangements, there is a form of words….”
The statement suggested by Mr Grier was to be drafted by Duff & Phelp’s PR advisers, Media House and sent to Mr Whyte.
The following day, the statement Craig Whyte was supposed to make was sent from a Hotmail address purporting to belong to a Ted Smith.
‘Voice recognition’
Mr Whyte never released the statement and the recording is to be used in a forthcoming court case involving Duff & Phelps and Mr Whyte’s former lawyers Collyer Bristow.
BBC Scotland has been able to confirm with a voice recognition expert that the recording is of Mr Grier.
On Wednesday, after excerpts from the recording were broadcast by the BBC, Duff & Phelps’ spokesman, Marty Dauer, said: “As we have previously stated, Duff and Phelps maintains that our conduct of the Rangers administration was carried out to the highest professional standards.
“We do not respond to information that is taken out of context, as we believe is the case in the BBC story.
“We welcome the opportunity to review a complete copy of the information that the BBC references in its story.”
So MCR were leading the negotiations with LBG – and knew about TU
So what was CW doing – just as he was told or what?
So could be lots just planted in the MSM was framed up to suit an agenda – isn`t that deception?
Was Ramsay not the chap that MD was calling on the phone in the first programme on this… the same chap that was failing to show and/or produce an interviewee promised to MD as I seem to recall (the one where a significant number of people thought it was a set up of MD talking to a disconnected phone)
Wonder if Ramsay is the TD who is TD every post withn seconds of it being posted…….
GT – correct – same pleb!
Paul’s posted
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/mark-daly-lands-more-blows-on-duff-phelps-alleged-mr-grier-tried-to-get-mr-whyte-to-lie/
We have all thought that a lot of dodgy stuff has been going on.
But wtf it is hard to take this all in.
Incitement to conspire against the Scottish judiciary and HMRC.
In plain sight on the BBC.
Ma heid’s birlin’
Hi Jack,
Thank’s for looking in and adding to the entertainment.
Any chance you could get Jim Traynor to write an article on using covertly recorded conversations in Court? A few of us were chewing over that topic earlier today.
Cheers!
Rangers Tax-Case@rangerstaxcase
@kennythecelt @riddrie Lots of people will disappointed at what BDO don’t do. Extremely unlikely that any part of this will be reversed.
Brings me back to a post I made a week or two back. Legislation covering insolvency is a joke. It allows SDM to be duped…. aye right …. and allows for the Whytes, Griers et al. to swing into action under the ‘respectable’ umbrella of Administration. I’m sure that Rangers Tax-Case is right, but I still cannot understand why, at the moment of failure of the CVA proposal, BDO weren’t brought in. If only to question the agreed disposal in CG’s favour of the depleted assets. It should come as no surprise to any of us that shysters , potential adversaries in court, should talk ‘tactics’ in a restaurant over Cordon Bleu mutton.
Is it illegal to record any conversations in the UK that might have any negative consequences with regards to Sevco/TRFC/RFC/Mr Green or D&P? Especially if these conversations might prevent the current Club/company pretending they can continue as if everything is OK?
Similarly it would seem no journalist may publish ANY story about TRFC/RFC/Sevco including anything about their fans and intimidation, unless said journalist includes ALL acts of intimidation, by any other football Club, ever. Any journalist ignoring this, wil be dismissed as being unbalanced in his view, and therefore a Rangers-hater and anything he or she has written is therefore irrelevant. (an example of this will be available tomorrow, from Alex Thomson).
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
@THE_TBK If buyer bought in good faith, deal stands. If evidence points to Green + D&P conspiring to alienate assets, all hell breaks loose
From last week – post the CW CMcL “allegations”
“They should not be given any credibility given the source. It should be remembered that Mr Whyte’s takeover of Rangers is now the subject of an on-going criminal investigation and we have provided evidence to that inquiry.
“In addition, as administrators, we instigated legal proceedings against Mr Whyte’s solicitors in the High Court in London and those proceedings are centred round the very serious allegation that Mr Whyte was involved in a conspiracy which deprived Rangers of many millions of pounds.
Para 2 here – states openly [for the first time I think] that CW was involved in a `conspiracy`
Interesting use of `conspiracy` – Think this is an English definition but no matter the gist is that in criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some point in the future – and might have started on this course of action.
.
.
Well now – after tonight? – pot kettle black thing – or what?
alex thomson @alextomo
#c4news Friday. Exclusive: senior Scottish QC spells out what real intimidation means and takes aim at Rangers manager Ally McCoist.
If these recent disclosures are all still part of the big diversion it is still pretty good stuff re D&P etc.
Ticketus must still be the main focus however.
What are they doing to recover £27m?
Who are they pursuing and why?
Or, more importantly, who are they not going chasing and why not?
Often quoted on here but it’s true, follow the money.
Must be fun in Media House just now.
A minor point, but don’t forget Duff & Phelps, acting in their capacity as the previous owners of Rangers, had to give the SFA their assurance that Sir Charles Green was a fit and proper person in order to obtain the licence.
In the light of this evening’s BBC Scotland revelations, I wonder if there are now a few twitchy bums on the 6th floor at Hampden for so readily taking Grier’s outfit at their word?
Still trawling googling for interesting snippets to do with ‘administration’ and dodgy administrators.
Came across this by accident. Not about ‘administration. but ‘phoenix’ or nearly ‘phoenix companies
‘Naming and shaming…
A recent Court of Session case considered the offence of trading under a prohibited name, and clarified that the offence exists even outwith the “phoenix company” situation.
Background – almost a phoenix
A company named Aqua Seal IT Limited was placed into liquidation by HMRC in May 2003.
Then, in 2005, a company named Aquaseal UK Limited was incorporated. This second company traded under the name “Aquaseal”. Two of the directors of Aqua Seal IT Limited became directors of Aquaseal UK Limited.
Over two years had passed since the liquidation of Aqua Seal IT Limited, and so it should be noted that the situation does not fit the classic phoenix company resurrection.
Aquaseal UK Limited in turn also owed monies to HMRC, and was itself put into liquidation in 2006. Facing limited recovery prospects from Aquaseal UK Limited, HMRC opted to pursue the directors personally for the debt.
Director’s personal liability
This personal liability was sought on the basis of sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act 1986. These provisions create the offence of trading under a prohibited name without leave, and impose personal liability for debts incurred while trading under that name.
The offence and subsequent liability is one of the few instances where a director can be found personally liable for the debts of his company. This is an example of a creditor “piercing the corporate veil”.
When does liability arise?
The provisions mean that where a company has gone into insolvent liquidation, a director or shadow director of that company (who acted as director in the 12 months prior to liquidation) cannot act as a director or be involved in the business or management of another company with the same name, or a name which is so similar so as to suggest an association. The ban lasts for five years.
If a director acts in contravention and trades under a prohibited name, he commits an offence and may incur a fine. More importantly, he can become liable, in terms of section 217, for the debts incurred by the company trading under a prohibited name. The risks involved in doing so can be huge.
Aquaseal’s arguments
The director tried to defend HMRC’s action on the following grounds:
that the original Aquaseal company was not insolvent when it went into liquidation, meaning that the prerequisite of section 216 was not satisfied;
the director had only been a director of the original company for a short time, and on grounds of equity, section 216 should not apply to him;
that the directors had paid a lump sum to the liquidator of the original company, meaning that no monies should be payable to HMRC; and
that the term “Aquaseal” was a generic term, and did not therefore amount to a prohibited name.
The Court disagreed with the director on all grounds. It found that:
as the original company was placed into insolvent liquidation at the hands of the Revenue, and no attempt was made to defend the petition or recall the interlocutor awarding liquidation, then on the face of it the company was insolvent, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary;
as to the short period of the director’s involvement in the original company, the Court found that the statutory provisions left no room for judicial discretion on liability;
the lump sum settlement paid by the directors to the original company was in settlement of claims by the liquidator for misfeasance and wrongful dispositions of company property, and so was wholly unrelated to the Revenue’s present action; and
the names of the two companies were not only similar on the face of it, but as they carried out very similar work and both traded from Glasgow, that the names were so similar as to suggest an association.
Accordingly, decree was granted in favour of HMRC, and the directors were found liable. The case sends out a warning that the Courts will interpret the prohibited names provisions strictly, even in cases which do not fit the classic phoenix company scenario.
Officers of companies which have gone into liquidation should be very careful in accepting appointments in other companies with the same or similar name. HMRC in particular clearly views prohibited names violations as a way to look behind company limited liability and at the directors themselves.’
As legal people say, circumstances alter cases.
But I was cheered a little by that snippet.
Read it at http://www.semplefraser.co.uk/a/InsolvUpdateOct11
Back to top
Paymex – Scottish guidance sought
Those who are active in the English IVA market will be familiar with the decision in Paymex Limited v HM Revenue and Customs ([2011] UKFTT 350 (TC)). The Revenue have indicated that they will not be appealing the decision. ICAS have sought legal advice on the applicability of the decision in Scotland, so Scottish IPs would be wise to familiarise themselves with the decision given its potential applicability to Trust Deeds.
The Paymex decision held that supplies in connection with the establishment and supervision of consumer IVAs are exempt supplies of financial services for VAT purposes in terms of the relevant VAT legislation. In short, IPs should not be charging VAT on invoices for fees and disbursements in IVAs.
Guidance issued for English IPs states the following:
no VAT to be charged on invoices in IVAs for nominee and supervisory services and disbursements;
where VAT has been charged previously, IPs should consider claiming refunds on open cases to remedy the position for the benefit of creditors. Legal advice is awaited as to whether this is necessary where the recovery would be negligible;
the position on claiming refunds in closed cases is to be confirmed as the IPs standing to claim a refund in this situation is questionable;
where a case is about to be closed the IP should consider whether it would be appropriate/possible to delay closure pending resolution of the VAT issue;
the time limit for claims is four years;
HM Revenue require IPs to confirm that refunds paid will be passed without deduction to the estates from which VAT was paid in the first place; and
although VAT refunds are not technically realisations in the estates, some of the English Recognised Professional Bodies have indicated that it would not be improper for the IP to take payment for existing fee approvals from these funds.
Until such time as the Scottish position is clarified, IPs may consider the appropriateness/possibility of continuing any Trust Deed on their books where the VAT position is likely to have a significant impact on the realisations to the estate. Clearly the debtor’s position will also have to be taken into account.
Back to top
CVA successes?
Earlier this year we covered JJB Sports’ second successive CVA and looked at the deciding factors in the success and failure of retail CVA proposals. We now look at a recent report analysing the returns and rescue prospects in CVAs.
In recent times, CVAs have been used in the retail sector as a means of preserving goodwill and employment and allowing a business to continue trading its profitable units. The coverage of the high profile retail CVAs as a means of shedding unprofitable stores at the expense of the landlords has put the procedure under the spotlight. Landlords bearing the losses are often sceptical when assured that they’ll fare better in a CVA than they would under an alternative insolvency regime and with retail CVAs said to be up 15% since summer 2010, the debate is set to rumble on.
Those in favour of the CVA route believe that it is a valuable rescue tool for a good business in difficult economic conditions. The opposing view is that the CVA process is open to abuse to take advantage, in the current climate, by imposing store closures on landlords and driving down rents.
The Insolvency Service conducted research into a sample of CVAs from the past five years, examining whether the process led to rescue of the business and a respectable return for creditors. Their preliminary report was published earlier this year.
CVA outcomes
The Insolvency Service Report found that:
of the CVAs commenced in 2006, 14% emerged intact from the procedure;
a further 13% of the cases studied were ongoing in 2011 so may be added to the “success” category in due course;
53% entered an insolvency procedure following premature termination of the CVA; and
18% were immediately dissolved on exit from CVA.
Returns from CVAs
The Report’s findings were that:
in cases with a ”rescued” outcome, the average return to creditors is 37% of the debt owed. In 24% of rescued cases, returns of more than 50% were recorded;
in cases where the CVA was prematurely terminated and followed by administration or liquidation, returns were poor at 6% and 1% respectively. Zero returns were common where the contributions to the CVA fell short of the costs of the process; and
in dissolution on exit cases, the research suggests that the CVA can be a productive vehicle for a wind down. In 41% of these cases, no dividend was generated for creditors but the average return from the remaining 59% of cases was 30%.
The message from the Report is that a properly constructed CVA can provide a considerably better return than administration or liquidation.
Going forward, economic conditions will need to improve for there to be any substantive change to how CVAs are viewed. At present, landlords may view a CVA as the lesser of two evils when weighed against an empty unit, no tenant prospects and rates liability but as the market improves, attitudes are likely to change.
The matters covered in this ebulletin are intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. They are not intended, and should not be used, as a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. Semple Fraser LLP will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.
for further information please contact: jennifer antonelli
Back to top
Click here to send this page to a friend Email to a Friend
Click here to print this page Printable Version
> Back to eBulletins
I am looking for or
The TDer has been aboard all day. Troll.
Sorry folks: lost control of the ‘copy’ button;thought i had stopped when I reached the link reference. And no refreshment yet taken, btw.
While its a good thing that all the cheating and lies are coming out, with hopefully some serious repercussions to those in it, I cant help but feel its too late.
Green won’t be stopped but odds on him with TRFC existing for long are even longer. They will go out of business somehow leaving a void to be filled.
So thats back to square one but with little chance of any sort of Rangers being reborn. Some may say this is what they want/wanted. I didnt, I wanted oldco to go and for a new entity playing out of Ibrox to be born without the baggage of old rangers starting from the real bottom of the wrung and show they deserve to be brought into the SFL. This my have been an optimistic hope (1 that an entity would be born and 2 the baggage wouldnt still be there!). Who would want to touch IBROX et all now with it likely to be mired in court procedings for quite a while.
That chance is gone now, there was one shot and thats blown away by the spivs in the city and the donuts in the football associations.
The silver lining is that the void will most probably be filled by a deserving football club such as Spartans….welcome them when they arrive.
DM
Apologies to those who have seen it.
Here’s last nights Newsnight thing for those who haven’t seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DC3IDsC2BwQ
exiledcelt says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 20:41
Wait till Brenda sees this!!!
Amazing what you can find on the internet……
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/davidgrier
Past
Head of Client Relations at Royal Bank of Scotland 2001-2005
The same RBS that Murray was so cosy with? Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that he knows Dodgy Dave quite well?
Imagine him being involved with the Ticketus deal and the administration. It’d almost look like Murray knew what was going on as well. Duped indeed.
But I’m just a wannabe internet bampot. 😉
BDO should unwind the sale and ask THE Rangers fans to simply buy the assets for £20M instead of giving it to Chuckles
that’ll be a better deal for everyone – and they seem keen to pay it.
would be an ideal way to test their loyalty
Any one else wish Paul Mcbride QC was still here to get to the bottom of all this. So many slithering snakes in the grass. Just what a shambles. Just back from Barcelona and catching up with the news. You cant figure out who to believe and trust all of them in this story are dirty. Corporate law by the looks of it all is a complete waste of time which the clever ones know how to navigate and abuse.
Murray’s bank was BofS not RBS.
exiledcelt says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 20:41
alex thomson @alextomo
#c4news Friday. Exclusive: senior Scottish QC spells out what real intimidation means and takes aim at Rangers manager Ally McCoist
==============================
Must be reference to McCoist’s rabble-rousing “who are these people ?” after the Independent Tribunal ruling? [Unless there’s more ?]
And has Charlie organised buses to take foaming Sevco fans to the Ch4 offices – so they can demonstrate angrily outside that “they don’t do initimidation” ? 🙄
obonfanti88 (@obonfanti88) says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:00
There is discussion on KSDS on same thing – not posting it here as it contains the h word that rhymes with sun so if you are offended don’t click – but otherwsie it seems well thought out
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11821741&t=8731534
Ah, my mistake. Still reading that KDS link, Grier does seem to be Murray’s man. Would still leave Murray’s “duped” claim looking somewhat misleading
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:23
Mr Grier was also Operations Manager at Bank of Scotland from 1997 – 2001.
The KDS piece is actually very believable and raises some very good points. I wonder if Mr Whyte when he get’s shafted will reveal all with recordings. This story ain’t going to end for at least 10 years.
If there’s one thing this epic clusterf**k has show it’s the grubby nature of Scottish financial and banking institutions.
Alex Thompson was absolutely right when he said this isn’t really about football.
Nothing can be trusted then – even CoS appointments who seem to have `masters` that call the tune
Nothing! – football or otherwise – All faith now gone – completely shot – endless shame upon shame
So…is Grier on gardening leave yet ?
obonfanti88 (@obonfanti88) says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:33
—————————————————————————-
Donald Muir and David Grier go way back.
David Grier was with Whyte the day he took over rangers.
At the beginning of March David Grier was seen by a tabloid newspaper going into David Murray’s Charlotte Square offices.
exiledcelt says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 20:41
alex thomson @alextomo
#c4news Friday. Exclusive: senior Scottish QC spells out what real intimidation means and takes aim at Rangers manager Ally McCoist.
===========================
Now that sounds interesting.
Humble Pie says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:34
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:23
Mr Grier was also Operations Manager at Bank of Scotland from 1997 – 2001.
========================================
I know but the post I was replying to inferred that it was the RBS that had helped Murray, not B of S. Just clarifying the situation.
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:49
Me too ! No worries !
Yeah I got my banks mixed up lol.
I start at the Daily Record tomorrow! 🙂
oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 21:41
The KDS piece is actually very believable and raises some very good points. I wonder if Mr Whyte when he get’s shafted will reveal all with recordings. This story ain’t going to end for at least 10 years.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Probably just 5 years with time off for good behaviour! 😆
“There can be no whitewash at the White House” – Richard Nixon April 30 1973
“For specific criminal actions by specific individuals,those who committed these actions must.of course,bear the liability and pay the penalty” – Richard Nixon April 30 1973
This from a guy who really knew how to get things on tape.
Celtic Underground @celticrumours
Hearing rumours that Ogilvie signed off on at least 10 EBT’s and side letters. That’s President of the SFA Campbell Ogilvie.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 22:01
C0rrupt b@stard if true.
Plenty of (largely unexpected) TDs tonight. Suspiciously organised!?
Chapeau to Mr McConville…laughed out loud at his yellow belt gag! Good auld Craigie boy – the gift that keeps on giving just got a lot better and much more to come! Is there anything better than the public exposure and ridicule of the corporate liar? D&P are toast IMHO
Thought so!!!
Would it be within Lord Hodge’s remit to send a couple of officers round to Craig Whyte with official paperwork allowing them to confiscate his phones, computers, etc. to see if there are any other wee conversations on record?
I know we are all enjoying the drip feed but there are serious legal ramifications.
bect67 says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 22:07
Plenty of (largely unexpected) TDs tonight. Suspiciously organised!?
——
Nah – the TRFC hounds aren’t as OBSESSED as to do something like that. 🙂 🙂
‘In the light of this evening’s BBC Scotland revelations, I wonder if there are now a few twitchy bums on the 6th floor at Hampden for so readily taking Grier’s outfit at their word?’
_________________________________________
News update 22.11 – The Fat Lady has, reportedly, been seen entering the Theatre..
briggsbhoy says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 20:09
I don’t know why but that is one of the episodes of Coldtiz I recall !. Do you think that individuals involved in this Oldco/Newco debacle have eaten lamb infected with BSE ?
I remember that one as well, dont know about the bse lamb, but I do remember him pishing himself, it was the final proof.
ahh, what a couple of days..like many others, i’m excited about who else could feature on Our Hero’s tape collection–maybe it was just D+P?? I wouldn’t think he’s did it with Minty, as he’s in cahoots with Minty, or at least was in cahoots from the outset–but maybe Minty set out to set-up Our Hero as a covienient mug and now Minty is, like certain others in this omnishambles(c) , bricking it–knowing someone has a very big axe to grind–and that someone has been going around recording folk–and i’m not surprised, Our Hero has been branded the biggest liar the earth has ever seen–by the Daily Record in particular.
Jack, what’s your idea’s on how Media House are going to handle this? Do you think you might lose the Daily Record as your propaganda organ–sooner than later?? I think there could well be carnage for the Daily Record/Sunday Mail editorial when the parent group learn Jim Traynor and Co have basicaly destroyed their papers reputation and more importantly to the share holders, destroyed a massive potential in readership because RFC via Jack Irvine and Media House have simply alienated such a readership, by way of very blatant lies and PR drivel on behalf of said people.
You know what; It’s too late for the DR too and indeed Ibrox will soon have no football team as residents (The Homeless Jakes and Junkies Of Govan F.C. the exeption possibly…) Charlie is losing the plot–lets be honest here, the guy talks one utter load of pash–and on a grandiose scale and he simply blows away the competition with ease. Yes, Our Hero can bull-sh..i..t with the best of them but Charlie is just in another league. He’s on a par with David Icke if truth be told.
But the berr’s love him–and the trips to NI only reinforce his standing amongst the knuckle-draggers, it makes you wonder–is there really no-one, even barely, credible amongst the RFC community who are not either crooked tax dodgers, complete idiots or even anyone that can simply be taken seriously? Really, no-one?? Oh, I forgot–that’s what the Daily Record is there for! You are not doing a great job at the mo Jack becuase it looks like the roof is pretty much near to falling in–are you honestly going to have Traynor and Jangles write yet more complete and utter rubbish?? I might actually buy the DR to get a laugh on the way to work–with a bit of imagination–surely you can even better floating-hover pitches and casinos–im counting on you Jack!
paulsatim @ 20:56
Seen it 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 ………… Karma
As I’ve said before only Clark & Whitehouse have told a judge porkies, they’re donald ducked now. Duff & Duffer © might want the money back & screw the takeover of MCR, I doubt any of the shenanigans were on the due diligence.
It might be time for Mr Grier to be the next sacrificial lamb.
Senior says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 22:15
‘In the light of this evening’s BBC Scotland revelations, I wonder if there are now a few twitchy bums on the 6th floor at Hampden for so readily taking Grier’s outfit at their word?’
_________________________________________
News update 22.11 – The Fat Lady has, reportedly, been seen entering the Theatre..
—————————————————————————————————————–
This’ll just be for the rehearsals before the show starts then.
I’ll bet Jabba and Chick are the pantomime horse this year with Doddsy as the clown.
Guidi is bound to be one of the ugly sisters
Duff and Duffer just repeating their denial from earlier on the BBC Scotland news there.
More on Newsnight later. No doubt Jabba will be wheeled in. Literally.
Now given that in most cases in the TV/movie series, the police keep going up the chain getting everyone to squeal on the ones above them to get to the top, it may well be working out that way……
CW realises that he is an “irrelevance” in truth apart from the money he owes to Ticketus – I always wondered why admins would be so harsh towards the owner of the club they were brought in to do the admin – bet they regret that now!
CW tapes Grier for 2 hours spouting a confession in effect………
Now – what does Grier do next – from the D&P statement they say “it was taken out of context” meaning they know what is in the transcript as BBC may well have provided it to them beforehand. SO
Does he take the wrap and start preparing to be locked up for the next few years alongside people who would never be allowed near the club he sat with CW for 2 hours….
Or
Does he start doing a CYA and show how he was not the person pulling the strings……..
Family bag of revels, popcorn, beer duely ordered – this is going to be better than any Andrew Lloyd Weber production………..
Mark Daly @markdaly2
More from me on Duff & Phelps on @NewsnightScot at 11
obonfanti88 (@obonfanti88) says:
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 22:34
Duff and Duffer just repeating their denial from earlier on the BBC Scotland news there.
More on Newsnight later. No doubt Jabba will be wheeled in. Literally.
—————————————————————————————
As angus1983 says: again D&P are not responding by responding in this second response below. I wonder if all future “non-responses” will be coming from the Big Apple and how that will effect Jack and Ramsey’s nice little earner? Let’s hope Mark Daly puts another lump of coal on the Sevco fire in Newsnight Scotland tonight.
RANGERS STATEMENT
(Issued on behalf of Duff and Phelps)
“As we have previously stated, Duff & Phelps maintains that our conduct of the Rangers Administration was carried out to the highest professional standards. We do not respond to information that is taken out of context, as we believe is the case in the BBC story. We welcome the opportunity to review a complete copy of the information that the BBC references in its story.” – Marty Dauer, Duff and Phelps spokesperson.
For those of you who remember Stephen King’s book the stand, it all kicked off with Project Blue, a super bug that escaped from a lab and almost wiped out civilisation
This off course leads to the ultimate Good against Evil war, and old Abaigail’s comment that there is a storm coming
I wonder if King was a prophet ? 🙂
Pariahs!!
Tommy @ 22:49
And the highest professional standards involved running up a £4 million trading loss, effectively creditors’ money, while they were in charge
A joke of an administration, overseen by joke administrators
We do not respond to information that is taken out of context, as we believe is the case in the BBC story. We welcome the opportunity to review a complete copy of the information that the BBC references in its story.”
It can only be out of context if you know the whole portion and can know that this was not the topic being discussed or he explained the portion or clarified it later in the conversation…..
If they claim not to have all the info, then the context is in the portion given – and it is not out of context
Shame that lawyers cannot be as pedantic as me!