Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Cabbage East]

The big house. It must stay open.

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyway, here's the SFA statement - sorry if already linked.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...36&newsID=9459

A bit more encouraging. Over to you, SPL.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't get the latest announcement. If the required cuts are so severe doesn't that tell them they should get on with it? Do thery really expect that a buyer will come along with the investment to plug the funding gap of the playing squad and other costs they have kept intact as well as covering the outstanding debt claims?

I would guess they're expecting the court case to go in their favour?

[Hibs07p]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wonder what grounds they found Whyte not to be a fit and proper person.
If its previous business dealings and non payment of taxes then I suspect Dave King would also fail?
More pressure on Whyte to sell up the cynics would suggest and keep Rangers alive a little longer.

See also that 10 non OF clubs to meet ASAP, I tell ya SPL 2 is on its way very soon

Not so sure. Maybe a gathering to sharpen the knives, to ensure a fairer cut of future revenues and voting rights.

GGTTH

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't get the latest announcement. If the required cuts are so severe doesn't that tell them they should get on with it? Do thery really expect that a buyer will come along with the investment to plug the funding gap of the playing squad and other costs they have kept intact as well as covering the outstanding debt claims?

Which one? lol... there have been a few today.... the one you're talking about is almost chip paper.

I don't think they do expect that a buyer will come along. I think they are now putting the pressure on to weed out the time-wasters, and to say to the rest (the one?) "show us the money". They have again said that they'd prefer to get a CVA, but they don't want to leave themselves open to the accusation that they didn't actively seek a buyer.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would guess they're expecting the court case to go in their favour?

... but do they have enough cash to last until then?

Dah dah daaaaahhhhhhhh...

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... but do they have enough cash to last until then?

Dah dah daaaaahhhhhhhh...

Beeb radio just reported that there's a new statement from Duffus and P(lease)helpus to the effect that they will not be paying the Arabs their cup-tie money, since there are 'mitigating circumstances' which the reporter was suggesting could be the 'fit and proper' person statement from Lord N Smith.

Another brick falls from 'the Big Hoose'

[brog]

"These are difficult choices but the survival of the Club is of paramount importance".

AS DH1875 said earlier, businesses go to the wall every day of the week & the administrators' job is to secure the best value for creditors & shareholders. They cheerfully lay other people off & close businesses down without any regard for the human cost involved, until it comes to Rangers! Their statement above should only be true if the survival of Rangers coincides with the best value for creditors etc.
Separately, I'm registered for VAT. For my 2nd ever 1/4ly submission HMRC were due me several hundred pounds so naively I didn't submit, intending to set off money due to me against 3rd 1/4 return. Within weeks I had a demand from HMRC telling me in the absence of a return they had assessed me as owing them £5,000!! Of course I submitted by return & a phone call resolved matters but how did Rangers get away with defaulting on millions for many months? As the above seems to demonstrate there's different rules for different folks.
PS, I should say the VAT branch of HMRC have been extraordinarily efficient with me over 4 years of dealing with them which makes the lapse with Rangers even more questionable.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Beeb radio just reported that there's a new statement from Duffus and P(lease)helpus to the effect that they will not be paying the Arabs their cup-tie money, since there are 'mitigating circumstances' which the reporter was suggesting could be the 'fit and proper' person statement from Lord N Smith.

Another brick falls from 'the Big Hoose'

I think it's back to the Unfair Preference debate that we all had about Dunfermline.

Taking the view that paying DAFC was essential to RFC continuing playing in the SPL, paying DUFC is not as important, since RFC are out of the Cup.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would guess they're expecting the court case to go in their favour?

There is a hearing set for 30th March but I can't see a decision being reached that day , besides which any losing claimant will probably appeal.

This could run for months, if not years. This money won't be the Huns salvation.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"These are difficult choices but the survival of the Club is of paramount importance".

AS DH1875 said earlier, businesses go to the wall every day of the week & the administrators' job is to secure the best value for creditors & shareholders. They cheerfully lay other people off & close businesses down without any regard for the human cost involved, until it comes to Rangers! Their statement above should only be true if the survival of Rangers coincides with the best value for creditors etc.
Separately, I'm registered for VAT. For my 2nd ever 1/4ly submission HMRC were due me several hundred pounds so naively I didn't submit, intending to set off money due to me against 3rd 1/4 return. Within weeks I had a demand from HMRC telling me in the absence of a return they had assessed me as owing them £5,000!! Of course I submitted by return & a phone call resolved matters but how did Rangers get away with defaulting on millions for many months? As the above seems to demonstrate there's different rules for different folks.
PS, I should say the VAT branch of HMRC have been extraordinarily efficient with me over 4 years of dealing with them which makes the lapse with Rangers even more questionable.

Again, it's about the difference between fixed-term contracts and permanent employments.

As for the VAT, I am sure that RFC would have had the same pressure from HMRC that you had. Reminders, telephone calls, assessments and the like; everybody gets them. The difference, of course, is that you sorted it and did the right thing. The rules aren't different... you just chose to obey them.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's back to the Unfair Preference debate that we all had about Dunfermline.

Taking the view that paying DAFC was essential to RFC continuing playing in the SPL, paying DUFC is not as important, since RFC are out of the Cup.

I don't have the quote to give you, Mr Croppers, but what I heard was suggesting that the Craikie White 'fit and proper person' edict from 'm'Lud' gave the Admins an escape clause for not paying. We'll see!

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On a seperate note, Paul Murray who is making all the running to be the next owner of Rangers, was previously a Director of Rangers at the time they were making all the alleged payments to players. HOW THE F@~K IS HE GOING TO PASS THE FIT AND PROPER TESTS AT THE SFA??????????????????

Thinking about it I hope he does become the preferred buyer, the SFA then refuse him a "licence" and Rangers are so far into debt no-one else can take them on.

Well the Blue Knoghts will have to put Dave King as frontman.

Hang on.......

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't have the quote to give you, Mr Croppers, but what I heard was suggesting that the Craikie White 'fit and proper person' edict from 'm'Lud' gave the Admins an escape clause for not paying. We'll see!

Within minutes of the SFA announcement, Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We note the findings and announcement by the Scottish Football Association.

"We look forward to stating the club's case to the judicial panel.

"In broad terms, we believe there are mitigating factors and we hope to demonstrate the distinction between the club and the actions of any individuals."

So sod all to do with Unfair Preference then?

Interesting though....

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... but do they have enough cash to last until then?

Dah dah daaaaahhhhhhhh...

This is what I'm getting at. They keep talking about severe cuts needed to run the club and those same cuts will surely be required under a new owner or do they really feel a new guy will just cover it all and happily take on a compmay losing money?

Should they not be ensuring that the club didn't make a further month of a loss?

They can't be betting everyting on a buyer coming along who wants the full staff left as it is because he will pay it all off himself? That seems a quite dangerous and negligent assumption given the overall state of things.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is what I'm getting at. They keep talking about severe cuts needed to run the club and those same cuts will surely be required under a new owner or do they really feel a new guy will just cover it all and happily take on a compmay losing money?

Should they not be ensuring that the club didn't make a further month of a loss?

They can't be betting everyting on a buyer coming along who wants the full staff left as it is because he will pay it all off himself? That seems a quite dangerous and negligent assumption given the overall state of things.

They're not betting anything on getting a new owner, I reckon. Like anyone with half a business brain, they know there's sod all to sell. But, at the risk of repeating myself again, they have to keep that option open.

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Again, it's about the difference between fixed-term contracts and permanent employments.

As for the VAT, I am sure that RFC would have had the same pressure from HMRC that you had. Reminders, telephone calls, assessments and the like; everybody gets them. The difference, of course, is that you sorted it and did the right thing. The rules aren't different... you just chose to obey them.

I agree but you don't often ( ever? ) see Administrators coming out with statements saying " The survival of the business is paramount".

That's really not their concern, unless as I said that move coincides with their obtaining the best value for creditors & shareholders. What it is I believe is that the Administrators are in an almost unprecedented spotlight & they're trying their utmost to convince Rangers' supporters that they're trying to save the club. I wouldn't want their job just now!

[stokesmessiah]

Just seen and tweet (and lost it as quickly as i had found it) saying that 100 SPL clubs minus the OF are meeting up next week to discuss radical plans??

Anyone else seen something along those lines?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree but you don't often ( ever? ) see Administrators coming out with statements saying " The survival of the business is paramount".

That's really not their concern, unless as I said that move coincides with their obtaining the best value for creditors & shareholders. What it is I believe is that the Administrators are in an almost unprecedented spotlight & they're trying their utmost to convince Rangers' supporters that they're trying to save the club. I wouldn't want their job just now!

That is a factor, IMO. I mentioned a while back that they were probably unprepared for the depth of the scrutiny. If they ever did have a plan cooked up with CW, I reckon it was abandoned when they discovered the reality of the situation.

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just seen and tweet (and lost it as quickly as i had found it) saying that 100 SPL clubs minus the OF are meeting up next week to discuss radical plans??

Anyone else seen something along those lines?

I'm sure you mean 10 clubs?
Getting too excited on the keyboard😄

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm sure you mean 10 clubs?
Getting too excited on the keyboard

I know that many of us wangt to seethe SPL expand but not to 100!

[WindyMiller]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... nahhh.... just think of the fun we would have missed!!

Fairynuff

[stokesmessiah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm sure you mean 10 clubs?
Getting too excited on the keyboard

No, it's the new radical SPL. People wanted a bigger league and they have got it. Also, due to the size of the league they are introducing football in the summer....autumn.....winter.....spring.....summer. ...autumn...winter....you get the idea!

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Within minutes of the SFA announcement, Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We note the findings and announcement by the Scottish Football Association.

"We look forward to stating the club's case to the judicial panel.

"In broad terms, we believe there are mitigating factors and we hope to demonstrate the distinction between the club and the actions of any individuals."

So sod all to do with Unfair Preference then?

Interesting though....

Going back to 'ancient' times, of course, I seem to remember doing deals which were subject to conditions before monies could be released.

The legal term used to be - conditions being 'cured'.

I suspect this is at the root of the monies held back by Craikie Whyte's lawyers.

In other words, if the conditions had been satisfied, the monies would have been released.

Suggests to me that these conditions remain unsatisfied.

So, two fingers are pointing somewhere!

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just seen and tweet (and lost it as quickly as i had found it) saying that 100 SPL clubs minus the OF are meeting up next week to discuss radical plans??

Anyone else seen something along those lines?

Correct Alasdair Lamont quoting Jim Spence

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This from @bbcjimspence All 10 SPL clubs excluding Celtic and Rangers plan to meet next week to discuss radical changes to Scottish football

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Going back to 'ancient' times, of course, I seem to remember doing deals which were subject to conditions before monies could be released.

The legal term used to be - conditions being 'cured'.

I suspect this is at the root of the monies held back by Craikie Whyte's lawyers.

In other words, if the conditions had been satisfied, the monies would have been released.

Suggests to me that these conditions remain unsatisfied.

So, two fingers are pointing somewhere!

Put the bloody fingers away, ya cheeky auld get

I'm not following you....I'm talking about the DUFC money, but are you not talking about the Collyer Bristow money?

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would guess it's the disqualified director thing since that's what has been talked about so far.

Anyway, here's the SFA statement - sorry if already linked.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...36&newsID=9459

This to me looks like the SFA are playing a straight bat.

Particularly like the end of the statement:

"...I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. Specifically, areas of potential breach to be considered by the Judicial Panel include:
· Obligations and duties of members
· Official return
· Financial records
· Division of receipts and payment of expenses (Scottish Cup)
I would like to clarify the situation relating to possible non-disclosure of payments to players, and in particular the Employee Benefit Trust. Having noted the Scottish Premier League’s intention to investigate this matter, the Board has decided to allow the SPL to complete this process, given our potential status as the appellate body. We retain our position until such time as the SPL’s investigation is concluded.
Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the Cup Competition Rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A Notice of Complaint has been issued to that effect.”

Bringing the game into disrepute. Could have told them that years ago if they'd only asked

Die, you vile home for the sub-normal, just f*** off and die, forever.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Put the bloody fingers away, ya cheeky auld get

I'm not following you....I'm talking about the DUFC money, but are you not talking about the Collyer Bristow money?

Yup!




By the way, the fingers were never pointed at you!

I was just surmising that either side could do this to the other!!

[Seveno]

Can I respectfully suggest to Duff and Phelps that they consult the gentlemen of ***ushima on how to manage the consequences of a tsunami, a fire and a nuclear meltdown.

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can I respectfully suggest to Duff and Phelps that they consult the gentlemen of ***ushima on how to manage the consequences of a tsunami, a fire and a nuclear meltdown.

By the time they've got through this they'll be advising ***ushima.