Members of the RST have expressed concern following a disturbance at Ibrox yesterday (Sunday 13th May). The club have reported the incident to police and a STV report can be seen at the link below.

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/99727-group-disturbance-at-rangers-stadium-as-object-thrown-at-rangers-staff/

The RST board have received reports and seen online and pictorial evidence of those involved and it is clearly a group of Celtic fans who are returning from Celtic Park. We have also received reports of sectarian insults being used towards both Rangers staff and visitors to the stadium.

We encourage any witnesses to contact the police via the form below:

https://www.strathclyde.police.uk/hate_crime/

As a matter of extreme urgency the three leading Rangers fan organisations have asked for an immediate meeting with the club administrators, Duff and Phelps.

In view of the recent history of the club and the purchase process all Rangers fans are highly nervous about the identity of potential owners and that they have the ability to deliver promises made in bidding for the club.

Fans are the major investors in Rangers and deserve clarity on potential owners and the plans they have for the club ahead of completion of a deal.

ANDY KERR, PRESIDENT, RANGERS SUPPORTERS ASSEMBLY
JOHN MACMILLAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, RANGERS FC SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION
GORDON DINNIE, CHAIRMAN, RANGERS SUPPORTERS TRUST

A:  How difficult has it been to conduct the Administration of Rangers?

This has not been an easy task. There are many complications including:

1. Whether without any adverse HMRC tribunal outcome the company was insolvent at all
2. Whether running out of cash implies a need to restructure, not simply collapse into insolvency proceedings
3. Whether Craig Whyte or his anonymous lieutenant Phil Betts were ever remotely competent to run a business far less a business of the size and diversity of Rangers
4. Whether, taking the Ticketus concealment as an example, all relevant information had been provided at the pre-appointment, assessment stage
5. Whether the haste with which the appointment was made, including the question marks surrounding validity of the appointment at Craig Whyte’s instigation, made responsibility more onerous from day 1.

B:  So the Administrators are due some sympathy for the circumstances in which they accepted appointment. Apart from one thing – disclosures within the Joint Administrators’ Report of earlier involvement.

1. They had been advising Craig Whyte for months on the terms and conditions of his share purchase
2. They carried out the due diligence on the Club’s trading and financial position and so had access to all detailed records of the Club
3. Craig Whyte was company secretary of Pritchards (Formerly Wills & Co) which was a specialist in the management of regulatory relationships of PLUS Market listed companies
4. They were engaged almost immediately post-acquisition to advise upon capital restructuring options, including assessment of the capital actually required
5. They had been engaged, stood down and re-engaged to deal with HMRC on the Big Tax case and on the ongoing PAYE default, on which the Club failed to adhere to three different payment plans
6. They had repeatedly reviewed or prepared cash flows, none of which in the event proved to be reliable.

So the Administrators cannot really be excused on the grounds of not knowing what they were getting into, can they?

C:  What are the objects of Administration and the duties of the Administrators?

1. First objective is to preserve the Club/Company, not just the business but the corporate entity, as a going concern
2. If that is not possible, the second objective is to obtain a better outcome for creditors than would have been obtained if Administration had not taken place
3. The first duty is to act as Officer of the Court
4. The second duty is to act as agent of the Club / Company in the interests of the creditors; that means everyone except those who owe the club money, the directors and shareholders. The powers conferred legally on the Administrators are extremely wide, rightly so

D:  So have the Administrators consistently pursued these objectives and fulfilled these duties?

1. By obtaining salary sacrifices or deferrals from players they pursued the first objective. However, given the subsequent SFA transfer embargo, which in fairness seems to have been an arbitrary decision of an anonymous panel, for which they cannot be blamed, the preservation in the short term may seriously damage the preservation in the longer term
2. They began work with detailed knowledge of the HMRC tribunal proceedings, yet apparently made no attempt to force HMRC to the point of declaring the Tribunal’s decision.
3. They began work with an understanding of the sports regulatory framework in which the Club / Company operates, yet have been remarkably weak or passive in pushing to know what SFA / SFL / UEFA rule breaches would be ruled upon, and the applicable range of sanctions. At the very least this was needed to ensure bidders were bidding on an equal footing, even although the successful bidder would retain scope to appeal or negotiate rulings, penalties or sanctions in due course

So they have failed to act as agents of the company in the interests of creditors through ensuring all bids invited were capable of comparison on an equal footing. That is likely why so much time was spent in poring over bids – apples were being compared to oranges and bananas

E:  Has the bidding process been handled properly – dare one say, professionally?

1. They invited bids; gave instructions to bidders; and set deadlines for bids. Not one deadline set has been respected.
2. There are allegations, from Ng and now from Brian Kennedy, that apparent agreements with the Administrators were not adhered to by the Administrators. There is the suspicion that information within bidder submissions and negotiations was given to Ticketus which Ticketus applied in their own interests; jumping ship from Blue Knights to Ng, for example.
3. There was the farce of granting preferred bidder status to a bidder whose interests were not anywhere near certain, who withdrew almost instantly after having been given preferred bidder status, and from whom no non-refundable deposit had been obtained.
4. It is difficult to see where after 87 days there was one bid (Miller’s) whereas immediately after Miller’s withdrawal there were three bids, two completely new, plus Brian Kennedy lurking in his self-declared “last option” status. The stalking horse has become the show pony.
5. The result has been a shambolic decline into a Dutch auction which may be rescued from embarrassment by Ng’s willingness to seek returns in the long term; and to have no fear of a gamble.

So it is hardly credible for the Administrators to say that the bidding process has been efficiently and cost-effectively executed

F:  Is it likely that the successful bid will achieve the second objective – of a better return to creditors than liquidation?

1. This presents us with real difficulty.
2. The Blue Knights had prepared a bid which involved exit from Administration through a CVA – the purest way of preserving the Club / Company as a going concern, and the most flexible means of achieving returns to creditors over the life of the CVA. Maybe the Blue Knights initial payment into the CVA pot was low; maybe not enough effort went into identifying surplus assets; maybe not enough was known of SPL / SFA sanctions to place a quantum on future payments into the CVA, but enough information was available to create a structure from which future payments could be reasonable estimated to enable creditors to compare the CVA outcome with liquidation outcome, as the CVA formal proposal document must do.
3. Other bidders, notably Ng, favoured acquisition by newco from liquidation, to put the Club / Company and creditors out of their respective financial misery
4. Miller proposed an unworkable hybrid, although it appears that current bids are working along a newco model which preserves the Club / Company in CVA limbo whilst assets are stripped out into a newco
5. Having frittered away time through leaving creditors to assess factors and estimate financial consequences which they acting as agents of the Club / Company should have clarified, the bidding process became extremely inefficient
6. By apparently locking the bidding process into a newco structure, the creditors are exposed to a CVA of the Club / Company simply being collapsed into liquidation if they do not accept the terms of the CVA; the recoverable assets will have already been purchased and therefore placed beyond the reach of the creditors in either CVA or liquidation.
7. If newco is deemed by the authorities to be the continuing Club, against which playing and other penalties and sanctions will be imposed, there is no logical reason to have the old Club / Company in a CVA.
8. Liquidation crystallises claims; the powers of a Liquidator are wide, whereas the powers of the Supervisor of a CVA are almost non- existent in this context, the only sanction being to place the Old Club / Company into liquidation if the CVA fails. Liquidation is likely more cost-efficient and may be the consequence of the old Club / Company anyway
9. Not only does this not achieve a better outcome, it conceivable enforces a worse outcome

So the actions of the Administrators have potentially worsened the outcome to creditors rather than improved them

The above analysis, based solely on information gleaned from the public domain, leaves D&P with a sick scorecard.

• The Administrators cannot really be excused on the grounds of not knowing what they were getting into
• They are unlikely to meet the first objective of Administration and may not meet even the second objective
• They have failed to be proactive as agents of the company in the interests of creditors, taking reasonable steps and making reasonable enquiries to ensure all bids invited were capable of comparison on an equal footing.
• The actions of the Administrators have potentially worsened the outcome to creditors rather than improved them

Criticism on these grounds is therefore entirely fair.

This was sent to the RST by an interested party and friend of Rangers and we thought it sufficiently relevant to share with our membership.

"I listened very carefully to the Neil Doncaster interview on BBC Sportsound tonight, and then consulted the SPL website. (It is disappointing that Jim Spence and Jim Traynor continue to give credence to the “SPL” fans review which as we know was not independent, that said 90% of fans questioned wanted no newco to have automatic re-entry to the SPL.)

Having listened to what was said and having read again what is proposed, it seems to me that

• Neil Doncaster has clarified that the intent of the SPL new sanctions is to bring them into line with England, Premier and Championship.
• If a Club enters Administration or Liquidation and the assets etc are sold to a newco, the newco will suffer a 10 point deduction for two seasons following, as well as the season in which they enter an insolvency process. They will also lose entitlement to 75% of the income they would receive from membership of SPL for those two years. They would not be evicted from the SPL - only finishing at the foot of the table at the end of the league season can cause that.
  
  
• If a club enters Administration and exits through a CVA, these penalties do not apply. (I am not sure about Liquidation, although it is possible to exit Liquidation via CVA.)

So

• It looks as though the Blue Knights can escape these new penalties completely because their proposal is to exit Administration by CVA. No newco is involved. There is the risk that savvy creditors, aware of the full impact of the proposed rule changes, may seek to increase the future contributions to the CVA pot by reference to the penalty that newco would suffer under the new rules, given that by rejecting a CVA proposal the creditors can effectively force liquidation.
  
  
• Thus although the creditors do not get to choose between the CVA and the newco solutions as D&P will select the preferred bidder, a savvy creditor can effectively press for Miller by indicating that they will vote to block the B Kn CVA, leaving D&P to have to select Miller.
  
  
• Whether Miller would then see his bid as viable under the new penalty regime is another matter. I do not think Miller quite grasps this point as he has been demanding that future penalties are only financial. I cannot imagine that he is willing to accept the 75% restriction on share of SPL income for any number of years under this regime.
  
  
• However, it means that if no deal is done with Miller before the rules are changed, the Miller bid will suffer extensively.

Perhaps that's why Monday’s vote was postponed; to ensure that Miller has the chance to consider what the rule change will do to his bid. I am not sure that D&P have grasped the full implication of this either; perhaps they have and that’s why they are leaving negotiations with the authorities to the preferred bidder."

To all of the Rangers Family,

Rangers Fans Unite would like to thank everyone who took part in last Saturday's march from Queen's Park to Hampden Stadium, a march in protest of the Scottish Football Association's recent sanctions imposed on Rangers Football Club.

As anticipated, the demonstration passed peacefully with Strathclyde Police Chief Superintendent Andy Bates remarking: "There were no arrests at today's protest and I'm delighted at the way that the supporters conducted themselves."

Spanning all age groups, the Rangers support assembled on the day to show that if they feel the need to make a statement, they will be heard.

During the demonstration, fellow fans of all generations marched shoulder to shoulder. This was precisely what Rangers Fans Unite had planned and hoped for, a day where the entire Rangers family came together to voice their opposition to what they feel is such a severe and unjust punishment.

This is just the beginning of our united front. With the size of support we know we have, we can build on the success of Saturday's march. We must continue to defend our beloved club where we feel injustice has occurred. There is a real possibility that our club could be placed into liquidation and we must aim to prevent this at all costs. Now that all the Rangers groups are working together, action will be taken to face the challenges ahead.

Tomorrow morning, Monday 30th April at 9:00am, the delegates of the member clubs of the Scottish Premier League meet at Hampden Stadium in Glasgow. The twelve clubs will consider a number of rule changes on "Financial Fair Play" which could have a massive effect on Rangers Football Club. The great response to Saturday's 'call to arms' has sent out a clear message across Scottish Football that simply cannot be ignored. And while we understand the urge to protest against yet another governing body, after constructive discussions among our united support, we propose that further demonstrations should not take place until we are fully aware of any actions the SPL may take.

Unity is strength and unity shall be maintained!

All Together Now,

Rangers Fans Unite