SPL Administration Rules - Changed?

[Sylar]

I was just reading something on the BBC Sport Gossip column which claims thus:


Rangers face the nightmare scenario of being deducted 25 points if they are forced into administration.

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that the rules regarding administration in the SPL, were a 10-point deduction?


[Gretna] went into administration on 12 March 2008 after Mileson's withdrawal of support. Under SPL regulations, this resulted in an automatic ten point deduction

Have the rules been changed, or this more evidence of "institutional bias against the fine institution that is Rangers Football Club"?

[Beefster]

Dundee were penalised 25 points by the SFL but I think that was as a repeat offender.

[Sylar]

Dundee were penalised 25 points by the SFL but I think that was as a repeat offender.

The SFL also don't have a firm set of guidelines in place for administration - Livingston were also a second offender when it happened to them, and were dumped 2 divisions. It's assessed on a "case by case" basis.

The SPL appears to have something in place, but that got me wondering if the penalty has changed.

[Gettin' Auld]

Wee story about it in the Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/10/28/rangers-could-face-25-point-deduction-if-tax-case-forces-ibrox-club-into-administration-86908-23520319/)

[JeMeSouviens]

The SFL also don't have a firm set of guidelines in place for administration - Livingston were also a second offender when it happened to them, and were dumped 2 divisions. It's assessed on a "case by case" basis.

The SPL appears to have something in place, but that got me wondering if the penalty has changed.

Livingston were dumped to the bottom because they couldn't guarantee to fulfill their Div 1 fixtures.

The Record are making this up anyway (quelle surprise). There is no precedent for a Scottish club failing to come out of administration and a new successor company being allowed back in the same division with a points penalty. The relevant examples are:

- Gretna, liquidated.
- Airdrie, attempted to reform as a new company but were denied any return to the league at all. Gretna got in instead. Airdrie United subsequently bought out Clydebank and renamed them.

[JeMeSouviens]

I was just reading something on the BBC Sport Gossip column which claims thus:



Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that the rules regarding administration in the SPL, were a 10-point deduction?



Have the rules been changed, or this more evidence of "institutional bias against the fine institution that is Rangers Football Club"?

The 10 point deduction is for entering administration. The usual route out would be via an agreement with creditors to accept a "pennies in the pound" deal, so that the club can continue to exist as the same company and exit administration.

The record is speculating that HMRC (as by far the largest creditor) could block such an agreement and push for the Huns to be liquidated instead. A phoenix-Huns new company would then arise, attempt to come to a deal with the administrators to buy the stadium etc. and attempt to carry on as NewHuns FC or the like.

They should be forced to apply to start in Div3 but you can already hear the rumblings of a Hunspiracy to get them straight back into the SPL "for the good of Scottish football" etc. :grr:

[Gettin' Auld]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg72/LiviBhoy/whytecountdown.jpg

[Cropley10]

Going into Admin is no biggie for the Huns. They'd still be top on GD.

I thought insolvency is more likely - as Whyte needs to put his hand in his pocket very soon and is unlikely to do that.

I nicked this from the rangerstaxcase.com blog

"If insolvency is inevitable, the smart move for Whyte is simply to pay off the obligation to a receiver rather than to Rangers prior to insolvency. If Whyte opts for receivership (and if he defeats any legal challenges to his appointment of a receiver), he will get all of that payment back less expenses. (As regular readers of this blog will know well, a receiver acts solely to recover the debt owed to the holder of a ‘floating charge’. In buying Rangers’ debt to Lloyds, Whyte has acquired this legal privilege of priority repayment above everyone else except recipients of statutory payments. Only once the secured creditors are paid in full would other creditors receive anything). So, rather than seeing his money consumed by “old Rangers”, Whyte is able to keep his powder dry while satisfying his legal obligations too late to do the current company any good. (Viewers of Mark Daly’s recent BBC Scotland documentary on Whyte’s business history will feel a sense of deja-vu). Alternatively, Whyte might be more benevolent than many believe and he may choose to pour in cash until the tax tribunal returns a result. That would indeed be a surprise. This would take his investment in Rangers up to a figure of about £33m. The prospect of a return on his investment would disappear at such a figure. Basically, Rangers’ failure to qualify for the Champions’ League scuppered any sensible prospect that Rangers could survive to face down HMRC in “the big case”. Only a substantial cash injection now will prevent insolvency in the coming weeks."

[Kaiser1962]

Very good spot and interesting stuff




Going into Admin is no biggie for the Huns. They'd still be top on GD.

I thought insolvency is more likely - as Whyte needs to put his hand in his pocket very soon and is unlikely to do that.

I nicked this from the rangerstaxcase.com blog

"If insolvency is inevitable, the smart move for Whyte is simply to pay off the obligation to a receiver rather than to Rangers prior to insolvency. If Whyte opts for receivership (and if he defeats any legal challenges to his appointment of a receiver), he will get all of that payment back less expenses. (As regular readers of this blog will know well, a receiver acts solely to recover the debt owed to the holder of a ‘floating charge’. In buying Rangers’ debt to Lloyds, Whyte has acquired this legal privilege of priority repayment above everyone else except recipients of statutory payments. Only once the secured creditors are paid in full would other creditors receive anything). So, rather than seeing his money consumed by “old Rangers”, Whyte is able to keep his powder dry while satisfying his legal obligations too late to do the current company any good. (Viewers of Mark Daly’s recent BBC Scotland documentary on Whyte’s business history will feel a sense of deja-vu). Alternatively, Whyte might be more benevolent than many believe and he may choose to pour in cash until the tax tribunal returns a result. That would indeed be a surprise. This would take his investment in Rangers up to a figure of about £33m. The prospect of a return on his investment would disappear at such a figure. Basically, Rangers’ failure to qualify for the Champions’ League scuppered any sensible prospect that Rangers could survive to face down HMRC in “the big case”. Only a substantial cash injection now will prevent insolvency in the coming weeks."