Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[jgl07]

Yeah, I'm with you two, and Alf and Cav about the licensing thing. It is a bit of a fuss about very little.

Hearts, as Cav says, got their licence to play in Europe, despite late accounts (which were heavily qualified). I've said it before, but I never did expect the SFA to be brutal about the financial fair-play rules in their first year of operation.

I think that Hearts were let off the hook with this one.

The persistent lateness of submission of accounts and the heavy qualification gives cause for concern. Couple this with the comments from Romanov about no longer propping the team up financially and the succession of late payment of wages and they can be considered very lucky to get a License at all let alone a European License.

[sadtom]

Time to take the huns to the vets.

[shagpile]

Not doubting you, but if the bit in bold is true, then you might want to talk to the admins about whether your post should stay....

Even if true, because of certain injunctions & appeals i would get it off this site ASAP.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think that Hearts were let off the hook with this one.

The persistent lateness of submission of accounts and the heavy qualification gives cause for concern. Couple this with the comments from Romanov about no longer propping the team up financially and the succession of late payment of wages and they can be considered very lucky to get a License at all let alone a European License.

If they are still about, I would like to think that they will get battered next year for a similar offence.

That said, I wonder if it's applicable for another member club to protest about the Hearts situation? For example, did St. Johnstone lose out on a European place?

[blaikie]

Time to take the huns to the vets.

Tattie sack and a few bricks in the local canal!

[jgl07]

If they are still about, I would like to think that they will get battered next year for a similar offence.

That said, I wonder if it's applicable for another member club to protest about the Hearts situation? For example, did St. Johnstone lose out on a European place?

St Johnstone got a Europa place. The only team to miss out were Hibs. Had Hearts been ruled out, the Cup Winners' slot would have gone to Hibs.

[CropleyWasGod]

St Johnstone got a Europa place. The only team to miss out were Hibs. Had Hearts been ruled out, the Cup Winners' slot would have gone to Hibs.

You sure? I thought it went to to to the next League place?

No matter.... WE SHOULD PROTEST!! We missed out on an early season start, and a pumping from a team in darkest Azerbaijan, the trip to which cost us thousands....:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

St Johnstone got a Europa place. The only team to miss out were Hibs. Had Hearts been ruled out, the Cup Winners' slot would have gone to Hibs.

If that's true, why aren't we protesting? :confused: Too much class? :dunno:

[jgl07]

You sure? I thought it went to to to the next League place?

No matter.... WE SHOULD PROTEST!! We missed out on an early season start, and a pumping from a team in darkest Azerbaijan, the trip to which cost us thousands....:greengrin

No UEFA rules are clear that there must be a representative of the domestic Cup Competition in the Europa League. I am not sure if Hibs would have got the Play-off Round place or the Second Qualifying Round.

Either way, Hibs have avoided a potential loss making humiliation.

[lapsedhibee]

Either way, Hibs have avoided a potential loss making humiliation.

Down with that sort of thing. From now on, we should stick to profitable humiliations!

[Newry Hibs]

Wasn't today the today when the local newsagent was going to be offered his £15 for the £500 owed?

Any news on this yet?

[Seveno]

I dunno, tbh. The admins are probably your best bet; they'll know better than me.

I am just a bit concerned that, if there is a media blackout, Hibs.net might get a battering.

Keep it handy though :greengrin

Damn ! Arrived too late to read it. Anything to do with a certain Police investigation at a certain bank ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Damn ! Arrived too late to read it. Anything to do with a certain Police investigation at a certain bank ?

Nope. :greengrin

[Seveno]

Nope. :greengrin

Gizza hint then :confused:

[jgl07]

Gizza hint then :confused:

Scurrilous money laundering allegations.

All totally untrue of course.

[JeMeSouviens]

Gizza hint then :confused:

It was just some old fairytale about a knight in shining armour (or was it scrap metal armour?) and his old mate Rex who lived in a land of Good Hope and something to do with a washing machine. :confused: :wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Scurrilous money laundering allegations.

All totally untrue of course.

Craig Thomson probably not involved. :agree:

[jgl07]

It was just some old fairytale about a knight in shining armour (or was it scrap metal armour?) and his old mate Rex who lived in a land of Good Hope and something to do with a washing machine. :confused: :wink:

It was International Metal armour.

[At The Edge]

It was International Metal armour.

His armour had hidden compartments, which fooled people into thinking he didn't have much armour on, when apparantley he was double protected.:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

It was International Metal armour.

With armour as heavy as that, there's no way he could do walking away....

[JeMeSouviens]

Some sober analysis on the phantom CVA:

http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rangers-fc-hmrc-and-cvas.html

[green glory]

The SPL have given the cheats an extension till June 15th to get the necessary financial documents submitted. Accounts etc. I would take that go mean dual contract info too.

https://twitter.com/bbcliammcleod/status/207116433300262912

https://twitter.com/mattlindsayet/status/207114988664524801

[Sylar]

The SPL have given the cheats an extension till June 15th to get the necessary financial documents submitted. Accounts etc. I would take that go mean dual contract info too.

https://twitter.com/bbcliammcleod/status/207116433300262912

https://twitter.com/mattlindsayet/status/207114988664524801

A "period of grace" indeed.

You just know what's coming. Irrespective of any investigation outcomes, severity of rule breaches, Rangers will be in the SPL next season under one guise or t'other.

Joke.

[Eric]

The SPL have given the cheats an extension till June 15th to get the necessary financial documents submitted. Accounts etc. I would take that go mean dual contract info too.

https://twitter.com/bbcliammcleod/status/207116433300262912

https://twitter.com/mattlindsayet/status/207114988664524801

With the fixtures being due out the following week, I wonder if the choice of 15 June has a special significance.:wink:

[Leishy1995]

A rangers fan just started laying into the SFA on twitter. Before I told him they're set to allow rangers back into the SPL. Then he said 'they need us more than we need them.' funny because last time I checked without the sfa you wouldn't have a league.

[green glory]

With the fixtures being due out the following week, I wonder if the choice of 15 June has a special significance.:wink:

That's what I was thinking. The likelihood of them lasting till then is looking slim now anyway.

If everyone keeps delaying decisions, and remember the SPL are meeting on Wednesday I think, then Duff and Duffer will be left holding the baby. Donkey Doncaster will be able to say he did all he could to help them, thus deflecting the wrath of the Mordor hordes elsewhere.

[greenginger]

A "period of grace" indeed.

You just know what's coming. Irrespective of any investigation outcomes, severity of rule breaches, Rangers will be in the SPL next season under one guise or t'other.

Joke.


Makes you wonder what other payments have been made by the Rangers Fighting Fund or perhaps it should be renamed the Rangers Slush Fund.

Any chance of an audited account of the fund being produced ?

[lapsedhibee]

With the fixtures being due out the following week, I wonder if the choice of 15 June has a special significance.:wink:

Not sure if you're implying exactly this, but judging by the standard of his previous 'arguments' I wouldn't be surprised if Donkey "Neil" Doncaster tries to suggest that it is by then too late to arrange league fixtures without The Hun and therefore the best and most reasonable thing all round is to let them carry on in the league they're already in, for the sake of the fixture list and that.

[VickMackie]

Not sure if you're implying exactly this, but judging by the standard of his previous 'arguments' I wouldn't be surprised if Donkey "Neil" Doncaster tries to suggest that it is by then too late to arrange league fixtures without The Hun and therefore the best and most reasonable thing all round is to let them carry on in the league they're already in, for the sake of the fixture list and that.

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Matty_Jack04]

2012 - the year deadline ment something completely different

[Leishy1995]

Any other team would know by now what was going to happen. They are just giving pleasure to the metaphorical pimp that is Rangers FC.
completely ignoring their responsibilities at home, with the SFA.

[snooky]

With the fixtures being due out the following week, I wonder if the choice of 15 June has a special significance.:wink:

Is that not the date the Annual Football Bible - the Wee Red Book - is released with the fixtures lists for next season :wink:

[jgl07]

Not sure if you're implying exactly this, but judging by the standard of his previous 'arguments' I wouldn't be surprised if Donkey "Neil" Doncaster tries to suggest that it is by then too late to arrange league fixtures without The Hun and therefore the best and most reasonable thing all round is to let them carry on in the league they're already in, for the sake of the fixture list and that.

The decision will be taken on Wednesday according to reports.

The fixtures will not be a problem, well at least not for the SPL. They can simply substitute Dundee for Rangers.

The silence is deafening about any CVA. Without one they will be liquidated before the end of the month as the cash will be gone. Duff and Duffer will not run the show if they cannot get their fees.

[Seveno]

Was it not a 6pm deadline for the deadline ?

[hibs0666]

A "period of grace" indeed.

You just know what's coming. Irrespective of any investigation outcomes, severity of rule breaches, Rangers will be in the SPL next season under one guise or t'other.

Joke.

The SPL can give all the grace that they want, but the huns will fail the following condition irrespective of the timing of report submission...

By not later than 31 March in each Season each Club and the Candidate Club must prove to the satisfaction of the Board that no Compensation, Development Contribution or any other sum was due or had become due and had not been paid in full to any other Club during the 12 month period prior to the immediately preceding 31 December

[greenginger]

The SPL can give all the grace that they want, but the huns will fail the following condition irrespective of the timing of report submission...

By not later than 31 March in each Season each Club and the Candidate Club must prove to the satisfaction of the Board that no Compensation, Development Contribution or any other sum was due or had become due and had not been paid in full to any other Club during the 12 month period prior to the immediately preceding 31 December


Was there any installments due to any clubs prior to 31/12 2011 ? Maybe something for Jelavic , I'm not sure of any others.

[CropleyWasGod]

The SPL can give all the grace that they want, but the huns will fail the following condition irrespective of the timing of report submission...

By not later than 31 March in each Season each Club and the Candidate Club must prove to the satisfaction of the Board that no Compensation, Development Contribution or any other sum was due or had become due and had not been paid in full to any other Club during the 12 month period prior to the immediately preceding 31 December

Is that an SPL or SFA requirement?

[greenginger]

Is that an SPL or SFA requirement?


I think it is part of the SFA club licensing rules, so it won't matter. :confused:

[hibs0666]

Is that an SPL or SFA requirement?

I picked it up from SPL rules appendix 3 financial fair play

[CropleyWasGod]

I think it is part of the SFA club licensing rules, so it won't matter. :confused:

Thought so. The fact that the SFA have been lenient in applying the licensing rules in relation to Hearts doesn't give me much confidence that they will apply the letter in Rangers' case.

[CropleyWasGod]

I picked it up from SPL rules appendix 3 financial fair play

Ah.... in that case, ignore what I just said...:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

The decision will be taken on Wednesday according to reports.

The fixtures will not be a problem, well at least not for the SPL. They can simply substitute Dundee for Rangers.

Yes but then someone would have to substitute lower down for Dundee, and someone else for the someone, and so on all down the divisions. No, it's far too much trouble and uncertainty - best to let HunFC carry on in the SPL.


The silence is deafening about any CVA. Without one they will be liquidated before the end of the month as the cash will be gone. Duff and Duffer will not run the show if they cannot get their fees.
'course there may be some large financial incentive for D&D to behave in a certain way, other than fees, that we don't know about yet...

[1875godsgift]

Yes but then someone would have to substitute lower down for Dundee, and someone else for the someone, and so on all down the divisions. No, it's far too much trouble and uncertainty - best to let HunFC carry on in the SPL.

'course there may be some large financial incentive for D&D to behave in a certain way, other than fees, that we don't know about yet...

:agree: They're waiting for their EBT

[clerriehibs]

A rangers fan just started laying into the SFA on twitter. Before I told him they're set to allow rangers back into the SPL. Then he said 'they need us more than we need them.' funny because last time I checked without the sfa you wouldn't have a league.

Not true; the sfa don't organise leagues in our country, for senior clubs. That's the job of the SPL and the SFL. Even so, SPL, SFL and SFA are only governing bodies for Scottish clubs. Not one of them is required for groups of clubs to form and to play together in a league ... therefore, the clubs are more important than the governing bodies, and that's how it should be.

[Just Alf]

I have a nagging suspicion it all goes way back to how MIM and Rangers were financed.... Lloyds certainly spat the dummy once they got a look at Bank of Scots books. Murray was basically arm twisted to sell if he wanted to save anything of his empire..... I wonder if any BoS peeps were included in those EBTs? If they were, they wouldn't be the only non RFC & MIM people involved!


Damn ! Arrived too late to read it. Anything to do with a certain Police investigation at a certain bank ?

Any similarity to what I (genuinely) surmised from reading info across a multitude of websites, and reality, is purely coincdential ............. and any similarity to people alive or dead, in jail or not ... is also a complete co-incidence

[Eyrie]

Yes but then someone would have to substitute lower down for Dundee, and someone else for the someone, and so on all down the divisions. No, it's far too much trouble and uncertainty - best to let HunFC carry on in the SPL.

'course there may be some large financial incentive for D&D to behave in a certain way, other than fees, that we don't know about yet...
Only four clubs involved though, so it's not that much hassle.

Dundee to the SPL, Airdrie Utd to Division One, Stranraer to Division Two and Govan 1690 as the new entrant to Division Three.

[Spike Mandela]

Ticketus have received their CVA proposal.

Must be galling for them to know that as soon as they accept it season tkt renewal forms will be sent out to Rangers fans and Rangers will earn more money than Ticketus. Ticketus had their money stolen imo.

[lapsedhibee]

Only four clubs involved though, so it's not that much hassle.

Dundee to the SPL, Airdrie Utd to Division One, Stranraer to Division Two and Govan 1690 as the new entrant to Division Three.

Dundee probably can't be a straightforward substitute for Rangers after the fixtures are published, though, as Dundee can't play at home on the same day as Dundee U. Rangers on the other hand can't be at home on the same day as Celtc. It'd all be too complicated. I'm coming round to Donkey D's view, that all things considered it'd be best to keep Rangers in the (top six of the) SPL.

[Spike Mandela]

Duffers statement.....

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2790824

[truehibernian]

Ticketus have received their CVA proposal.

Must be galling for them to know that as soon as they accept it season tkt renewal forms will be sent out to Rangers fans and Rangers will earn more money than Ticketus. Ticketus had their money stolen imo.

Ahhh the classic long firm fraud Spike.........

[Seveno]

CVA out tomorrow but Ticketus got advanced notice. Presumably Hector did as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

[jgl07]

Dundee probably can't be a straightforward substitute for Rangers after the fixtures are published, though, as Dundee can't play at home on the same day as Dundee U. Rangers on the other hand can't be at home on the same day as Celtc. It'd all be too complicated. I'm coming round to Donkey D's view, that all things considered it'd be best to keep Rangers in the (top six of the) SPL.

Nonsense.

They can produce two sets of fixtures, one including Rangers, one including Dundee.

[calmac12000]

Nonsense.

They can produce two sets of fixtures, one including Rangers, one including Dundee.

That's altogether far to reasonable an approach, to find favour with the SPL!

[grunt]

Dundee to the SPL, Airdrie Utd to Division One, Stranraer to Division Two and Govan 1690 as the new entrant to Division Three.Why should Govan 1690 get in before Spartans? Last time there was a vacancy in the SFL there was a vote...

[hibs0666]

Nonsense.

They can produce two sets of fixtures, one including Rangers, one including Dundee.

The SFL cannot do that though.

[jgl07]

The SFL cannot do that though.

Airdrie for Dundee in SFL1 will hardly be a major change. Neither will Stranraer for Airdrie be a major deal in SFL2.

These feeble excuses hold no water whatsoever. Not even a buffoon like Doncaster would use that one?

Administrative convenience is not the issue. It is sporting integrity against money.

[hibs0666]

Airdrie for Dundee in SFL1 will hardly be a major change. Neither will Stranraer for Airdrie be a major deal in SFL2.

These feeble excuses hold no water whatsoever. Not even a buffoon like Doncaster would use that one?

Administrative convenience is not the issue. It is sporting integrity against money.

And when exactly do you expect the clubs concerned to set their budgets?

[jgl07]

And when exactly do you expect the clubs concerned to set their budgets?

You appear to be making a (feeble) case to retain Rangers in the SPL. If so come clean.

As if Airdrie would have a markedly different budget in SFL2 as compared to SFL1?

[grunt]

And when exactly do you expect the clubs concerned to set their budgets?


As if Airdrie would have a markedly different budget in SFL2 as compared to SFL1?And any team going up a division will have an increased budget than they previously anticipated. Much easier to handle an increased budget. I'm sure they'd manage.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not true; the sfa don't organise leagues in our country, for senior clubs. That's the job of the SPL and the SFL. Even so, SPL, SFL and SFA are only governing bodies for Scottish clubs. Not one of them is required for groups of clubs to form and to play together in a league ... therefore, the clubs are more important than the governing bodies, and that's how it should be.

This isn't correct. from a practical point of view. No SFA affiliation = no referees provided by SFA, no European football, nor players able to play international football. So while in theory they could play games against each other, they'd do so with no recognition by world football, and with no referees or Craig Thomson.

[hibs0666]

You appear to be making a (feeble) case to retain Rangers in the SPL. If so come clean.

As if Airdrie would have a markedly different budget in SFL2 as compared to SFL1?

There is no need to make this feeble argument for the disposal of the huns - there are far better reasons than this marginal nonsense to chuck them out.

Don't let yourself be distracted by small technicalities - always follow the money.

[Purple & Green]

The fixtures will not be a problem, well at least not for the SPL. They can simply substitute Dundee for Rangers.

Im not convinced its that simple, I thought all spl teams are paired in the fixture computer and rangers are paired with Celtic, us and hearts etc because of the logistics of having one team home and one team away each given week. Dundee and Dundee United presumably share stewards etc so just swapping rangers with Dundee would presumably mean significant disruption for the two Dundee sides.

Have the Dundee teams played alternate weeks in different divisions?

[PatHead]

Had this forwarded to me this evening. Appreciated the guys heartfelt honesty. Wish someone would ask the simple questions and get straightforward answers.

http://shaunyfbblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/titled-by-many-13/

[PatHead]

Im not convinced its that simple, I thought all spl teams are paired in the fixture computer and rangers are paired with Celtic, us and hearts etc because of the logistics of having one team home and one team away each given week. Dundee and Dundee United presumably share stewards etc so just swapping rangers with Dundee would presumably mean significant disruption for the two Dundee sides.

Have the Dundee teams played alternate weeks in different divisions?

Yes.

[clerriehibs]

This isn't correct. from a practical point of view. No SFA affiliation = no referees provided by SFA, no European football, nor players able to play international football. So while in theory they could play games against each other, they'd do so with no recognition by world football, and with no referees or Craig Thomson.

The SFA is the governing body of the clubs; it doesn't exist if the clubs don't want it to. It always will do, because whatever shape or or form the clubs want their grouping the clubs want to take, it's always a grouping of Scottish football clubs. But the SFA only exists because the clubs want it to ... the clubs don't exist because the SFA came along.

[clerriehibs]

Im not convinced its that simple, I thought all spl teams are paired in the fixture computer and rangers are paired with Celtic, us and hearts etc because of the logistics of having one team home and one team away each given week. Dundee and Dundee United presumably share stewards etc so just swapping rangers with Dundee would presumably mean significant disruption for the two Dundee sides.

Have the Dundee teams played alternate weeks in different divisions?


It has to be simple ... the SPL f-up the so called "provincial" teams all the time with their fixture rearrangements for TV. Even if every single Dundee/Dundee United home fixture were scheduled for the same weekend, we have Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday lunchtime/3pm/evening, Sunday lunchtime/3pm, Monday evening to choose from ... if Donkey sees rescheduling as a problem, then why the f has it not been a problem to p!ss us off over the past few years when it suits them?

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

Had this forwarded to me this evening. Appreciated the guys heartfelt honesty. Wish someone would ask the simple questions and get straightforward answers.

http://shaunyfbblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/titled-by-many-13/

Is that a funny handshake he is asking us to ponder at the very end :hmmm:

[Sammy7nil]

Is that a funny handshake he is asking us to ponder at the very end :hmmm:

Looks like Super Ally may have got it wrong :cb but Mr Mccall knows how to get on in the West coast :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

The SFA is the governing body of the clubs; it doesn't exist if the clubs don't want it to. It always will do, because whatever shape or or form the clubs want their grouping the clubs want to take, it's always a grouping of Scottish football clubs. But the SFA only exists because the clubs want it to ... the clubs don't exist because the SFA came along.

Thats true, but as the clubs are now memebers of the SFA, if the SFA decided for whatever reason not to recognise what would effectively be a breakaway body, the clubs would be entirely isolated, and ultimately doomed to fail. It may seem counter intuitive as it affects the elite senior clubs, but the SFA is the governing body for the entirety of the sport in Scotland to which the SPL, SFL and all other governing bodies (youth, schools, referees, womens etc) are ultimatly responsible.

[PatHead]

Is that a funny handshake he is asking us to ponder at the very end :hmmm:

No need for a hmmm. Obvious

[clerriehibs]

Thats true, but as the clubs are now memebers of the SFA, if the SFA decided for whatever reason not to recognise what would effectively be a breakaway body, the clubs would be entirely isolated, and ultimately doomed to fail. It may seem counter intuitive as it affects the elite senior clubs, but the SFA is the governing body for the entirety of the sport in Scotland to which the SPL, SFL and all other governing bodies (youth, schools, referees, womens etc) are ultimatly responsible.

That's true as well ... but if a very significant majority of the senior clubs fell out with the others, and formed their own association, then I would think chances are UEFA would ultimately go along with the breakaways. After long and protracted court cases.

This won't happen, and is entirely unfeasible (because the SFA is the clubs), but suppose the great majority of the affiliated clubs (the ones without SFA committee members) get fed up with the SFA allowing Rankgers to break every rule in the book without the punishment we can all see is appropriate. So they break away and form SFA-2 ... ultimately, UEFA would probably have to recognise SFA-2, if it was representative of those involved in the game in Scotland.

[Greentinted]

Looks like Super Ally may have got it wrong :cb but Mr Mccall knows how to get on in the West coast :wink:

Am no sure its a big secret that Sue Barker's favourite cheeky chappie likes a bit of breast-flashing up the lodge. http://www.lodge76.wanadoo.co.uk/famous_scottish_freemasons.htm#M.

[ScottB]

Had this forwarded to me this evening. Appreciated the guys heartfelt honesty. Wish someone would ask the simple questions and get straightforward answers.

http://shaunyfbblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/titled-by-many-13/

Craig Thomson a stick on for being one of those refs :agree:

[gramskiwood]

I think this is the time for all football supporters to reclaim the game from the football cartell that is the old firm (SFA SPL RFC CFC).:bye:

[Ozyhibby]

Copied this from RTC. The poster is fairly well regarded over there as being ITK.

there has been a lot of speculation surrounding the news that more is to come out about Rangers and the seriousness of what is still to be revealed.

the first thing however is to dispel some of the wider rumours that have been doing the rounds.

this is not about match fixing, its not about bribing referees, its not about political interference , its not about banks behaving inappropriately or illegally .

I have absolutely no knowledge of any of these things.It is also highly unfair that individuals who have not been involved in any wrongdoing are speculated about. As i posted earlier the information I alluded to is not my story. I can therefore only provide a little bit of information at this time. When I am allowed to I will post more. Timing is not in my control.

The BBC documentary touched on EBT beneficiaries and the amounts they received. The nuclear information takes this further. I am able only to give you this initial bit of information just now, however the significance is enormous .

“Graeme Souness received much more than just the 30k Mark Daly mentioned. Rangers supporters, Scottish football administrators, and the legal authorities in Scotland deserve to know why he received this money a decade after leaving Rangers’ employment?”

Maybe Mr Souness could enlighten us, or maybe one his chums in the MSM could provide him with a platform to deny this.

[reservoir hibee]

can anyone tell me why and who decided this???? seems to me it could have already been dealt with?

" the SPL has granted Rangers "a period of grace" after the club missed the deadline for filing financial documents.

The Ibrox club have until Friday 15 June to provide documentation to the league or they could face sanctions."

"the financial documents sought by the SPL are required for participation in next season's top flight. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

thats them cheating again!!!!

has anybody else been allowed this perios of grace in the past?

[joe breezy]

Just realised someone has already posted this above...

Barcabhoy is the guy who is supposed to have more on Rangers - the 'nuclear' thing

He's alluding to bungs although I'm not sure how nuclear that is - Harry Redlnapp's been doing that for years...

"barcabhoy says:
29/05/2012 at 6:33 am

7

0

Rate This

there has been a lot of speculation surrounding the news that more is to come out about Rangers and the seriousness of what is still to be revealed.

the first thing however is to dispel some of the wider rumours that have been doing the rounds.

this is not about match fixing, its not about bribing referees, its not about political interference , its not about banks behaving inappropriately or illegally .

I have absolutely no knowledge of any of these things.It is also highly unfair that individuals who have not been involved in any wrongdoing are speculated about. As i posted earlier the information I alluded to is not my story. I can therefore only provide a little bit of information at this time. When I am allowed to I will post more. Timing is not in my control.

The BBC documentary touched on EBT beneficiaries and the amounts they received. The nuclear information takes this further. I am able only to give you this initial bit of information just now, however the significance is enormous .

“Graeme Souness received much more than just the 30k Mark Daly mentioned. Rangers supporters, Scottish football administrators, and the legal authorities in Scotland deserve to know why he received this money a decade after leaving Rangers’ employment?”

Maybe Mr Souness could enlighten us, or maybe one his chums in the MSM could provide him with a platform to deny this."

[s.a.m]

The SFA is the governing body of the clubs; it doesn't exist if the clubs don't want it to. It always will do, because whatever shape or or form the clubs want their grouping the clubs want to take, it's always a grouping of Scottish football clubs. But the SFA only exists because the clubs want it to ... the clubs don't exist because the SFA came along.

The SFA if responsible for the governance of football at all levels in Scotland, and UEFA and FIFA recognise them as our governing body. You are right that the clubs could play each other without the SFA, I doubt that the international bodies would recognise them - particularly if they had banded together to avoid punisment of a club which had violated their association's rules.



Edit: I've just seen the post where you ay as much - I don't know that I agree with you that UEFA/FIFA would recognise an alternative SFA, though.

[Newry Hibs]

So with the CVA out there, what happens if (I have a sneaky feeling of 'when') it's accepted?

Should our anger be directed at Hector for caving in?

RFC continue in the SPL free of any debt, as that was paid off with the £8.5m from Green. On the assumption that the transfer ban stays, is there anything to stop RFC offering current players shed loads of money to stay? If the ban is reduced, then RFC are free to buy players with money from Green & Co.

Is there any legal (forget moral) reason to stop Green / RFC spending money when they have offered a small percentage to settle up, or is that down to the creditors being gullible enough to settle?

Any future problems for RFC next season other than not having quite as much money to spend as they have in the past? Not enough to challenge Celtc, but way more than anyone else.

What about double contracts / EBTs - if found guilty could they be dumped?

[s.a.m]

This thing about Green making available a 'pot' of 8.5 million, or whatever, to appease the creditors, then spending millions which you haven't made available to them......is that allowed?
Basically saying: "Aye, I've got money, but you're no gettin it."?

[matty_f]

This thing about Green making available a 'pot' of 8.5 million, or whatever, to appease the creditors, then spending millions which you haven't made available to them......is that allowed?
Basically saying: "Aye, I've got money, but you're no gettin it."?

That would be the one thing that if I was a creditor, would make me reject the CVA. Imagine getting a penny in the pound on money that they're owe you, as you watch them chuck millions at a player. Would that not just stick in the craw?

[ancienthibby]

This thing about Green making available a 'pot' of 8.5 million, or whatever, to appease the creditors, then spending millions which you haven't made available to them......is that allowed?
Basically saying: "Aye, I've got money, but you're no gettin it."?

One of the Duffers on Beeb radio a few minutes ago would not confirm the question that the dividend had been set at 20p in the £.

Spilt the breakfast on hearing that.

Then went on to say that the divi was based on a number of forecasted revenues which were yet to be crystallised. One of these being transfer receipts from the sale of players!!

Second accident at this point.

How can the divi be based on external factors which Duff and Duffer do not control??

Is this another Big Hoose o' cards??

[Caversham Green]

can anyone tell me why and who decided this???? seems to me it could have already been dealt with?

" the SPL has granted Rangers "a period of grace" after the club missed the deadline for filing financial documents.

The Ibrox club have until Friday 15 June to provide documentation to the league or they could face sanctions."

"the financial documents sought by the SPL are required for participation in next season's top flight. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

thats them cheating again!!!!

has anybody else been allowed this perios of grace in the past?

I have a bit of sympathy with the SPL in this instance. It would be almost impossible for RFC to get an audit done while they were in administration, so they were not in a position to comply with the regulations. In itself the crime is not that great - it wasn't even a requirement until this year - and expelling them on the back of it would be unduly harsh. It's notable that the deadline is the day after the CVA meeting so it's difficult to see how they are going to manage to get the accounts out in time even then.

I think they've done their wee pink cousins a favour though, because they were also late in submitting their accounts and the SPL couldn't be seen to take action against them while giving RFC a period of grace.

[Caversham Green]

This thing about Green making available a 'pot' of 8.5 million, or whatever, to appease the creditors, then spending millions which you haven't made available to them......is that allowed?
Basically saying: "Aye, I've got money, but you're no gettin it."?

Green only has to pay what the club is considered to be worth and it's very much a buyer's market. Even so, I think it's way undervalued but if the creditors think likewise they can vote against the CVA and possibly raise an action against the administrators.

[s.a.m]

Green only has to pay what the club is considered to be worth and it's very much a buyer's market. Even so, I think it's way undervalued but if the creditors think likewise they can vote against the CVA and possibly raise an action against the administrators.

:aok: Thanks for that.

[greenginger]

One of the Duffers on Beeb radio a few minutes ago would not confirm the question that the dividend had been set at 20p in the £.

Spilt the breakfast on hearing that.

Then went on to say that the divi was based on a number of forecasted revenues which were yet to be crystallised. One of these being transfer receipts from the sale of players!!

Second accident at this point.

How can the divi be based on external factors which Duff and Duffer do not control??

Is this another Big Hoose o' cards??

They will probably include a provisional £ 25 million for the law suit against Collyer Bristow. Then when the case is lost the One penny in the pound will be reduced to a half penny for the case costs.

[Caversham Green]

One of the Duffers on Beeb radio a few minutes ago would not confirm the question that the dividend had been set at 20p in the £.

Spilt the breakfast on hearing that.

Then went on to say that the divi was based on a number of forecasted revenues which were yet to be crystallised. One of these being transfer receipts from the sale of players!!

Second accident at this point.

How can the divi be based on external factors which Duff and Duffer do not control??

Is this another Big Hoose o' cards??

The future sale of existing assets can be included as part of the CVA settlement. For example, in the year ended 31 May 2008 Motherwell paid 50% of transfer fees received to pre-administration creditors. This might be a way that the CVA could be accepted, but 20p in the £ seems more than a bit optimistic.

[Jim44]

So when the CVA goes through, and I think we all know it probably will, and when Doncaster, Regan and Tom Dick and Harry blazer brigade cook the books to ease Rangers as unscathed as possible back into the SPL (well they've never really been away have they?), Rangers under the mega-rich Green consortium will be the richest, free-est of debt football club in Scotland and possibly Britain? :rolleyes:

[BarneyK]

Green only has to pay what the club is considered to be worth and it's very much a buyer's market. Even so, I think it's way undervalued but if the creditors think likewise they can vote against the CVA and possibly raise an action against the administrators.

It's another example of the arrogance of them that they can be making public declarations of "transfer warchests" and the like whilst trying to plead poverty on a CVA. That's the thing that sticks in the craw. Hopefully the creditors will tell them where to go.

[greenginger]

The future sale of existing assets can be included as part of the CVA settlement. For example, in the year ended 31 May 2008 Motherwell paid 50% of transfer fees received to pre-administration creditors. This might be a way that the CVA could be accepted, but 20p in the £ seems more than a bit optimistic.

But what would happen to the creditors pot if the new owners failed/refused to sell any players . Would the creditors have any come-back ?

[PatHead]

Don't know what we are worrying about.

Whilst Rangers have won umpteen trophies with the taxpayers money, shafted everyone on and off the pitch and been invited back into the SPL with next to no punishment. Hearts have signed players whilst not paying there own, bumped the taxman and anyone else they can get away with and won 2 Scottish Cups and qualified for Champions League and Europa League whilst behaving like this, Motherwell have been in administration twice and have qualified for the Europa League and now qualify for Champions League. We, along with Celtic and St Mirren, have been awarded a gold star for running our business correctly. I'm sure there will be a nice rosette in our trophy room for being a good boy.

Now can someone remind me why I should spend my hard earned cash on watching such a tainted product?

(I'm not bitter honest)

[Jim44]

It's another example of the arrogance of them that they can be making public declarations of "transfer warchests" and the like whilst trying to plead poverty on a CVA. That's the thing that sticks in the craw. Hopefully the creditors will tell them where to go.

Are these creditors sitting back in isolation waiting to to see how much they are being ripped off for or will they have closed ranks to come up with a concerted agreement or disagreement? I hope they have some kind of solidarity.

[BarneyK]

So when the CVA goes through, and I think we all know it probably will, and when Doncaster, Regan and Tom Dick and Harry blazer brigade cook the books to ease Rangers as unscathed as possible back into the SPL (well they've never really been away have they?), Rangers under the mega-rich Green consortium will be the richest, free-est of tax football club in Scotland and possibly Britain? :rolleyes:

The same thing applies with a newco, albeit with a few additional sanctions shoved in there. The SPL investigation into the EBT/dual contracts is the one that should really hammer them. It won't, probably, but really should.

[jane_says]

Craig Thomson a stick on for being one of those refs :agree:

My first thoughts exactly

[BarneyK]

Are these creditors sitting back in isolation waiting to to see how much they are being ripped off for or will they have closed ranks to come up with a concerted agreement or disagreement? I hope they have some kind of solidarity.

As do I. Their avoidance of tax has cheated us once, their avoidance of subsequent responsibility cheats us again.

[Caversham Green]

But what would happen to the creditors pot if the new owners failed/refused to sell any players . Would the creditors have any come-back ?

I doubt it, and that's something the creditors will have to bear in mind.

It's possible that there could be an undertaking to transfer list some players as part of the proposal but if no-one wants to buy them there's probably not much the creditors can do.

[Spike Mandela]

I doubt it, and that's something the creditors will have to bear in mind.

It's possible that there could be an undertaking to transfer list some players as part of the proposal but if no-one wants to buy them there's probably not much the creditors can do.

What's your gut feeling Cav? Are the creditor's going to go for this? Have we wasted 300 odd pages of thread?:rolleyes:

[green glory]

I think Duff and Duffer fully intend and expect the CVA proposal to be rejected by the creditors.

[StevieC]

What's your gut feeling Cav? Are the creditor's going to go for this? Have we wasted 300 odd pages of thread?:rolleyes:

Is it not the case that there are only two creditors that count, HMRC and Ticketus?

I cant help but feel that there has been something going on behind the scenes regarding Ticketus and that they'll have some sort of sweetener lined up should they accept. My gut feeling is that what happens next is down to the HMRC.

[Barney McGrew]

But what would happen to the creditors pot if the new owners failed/refused to sell any players

Which if they have a ban on signing new players is highly likely

[Phil MaGlass]

Don't know what we are worrying about.

Whilst Rangers have won umpteen trophies with the taxpayers money, shafted everyone on and off the pitch and been invited back into the SPL with next to no punishment. Hearts have signed players whilst not paying there own, bumped the taxman and anyone else they can get away with and won 2 Scottish Cups and qualified for Champions League and Europa League whilst behaving like this, Motherwell have been in administration twice and have qualified for the Europa League and now qualify for Champions League. We, along with Celtic and St Mirren, have been awarded a gold star for running our business correctly. I'm sure there will be a nice rosette in our trophy room for being a good boy.

Now can someone remind me why I should spend my hard earned cash on watching such a tainted product? (I'm not bitter honest)

This, and definitely the bit in bold.

[TrickyNicky]

Don't know what we are worrying about.

Whilst Rangers have won umpteen trophies with the taxpayers money, shafted everyone on and off the pitch and been invited back into the SPL with next to no punishment. Hearts have signed players whilst not paying there own, bumped the taxman and anyone else they can get away with and won 2 Scottish Cups and qualified for Champions League and Europa League whilst behaving like this, Motherwell have been in administration twice and have qualified for the Europa League and now qualify for Champions League. We, along with Celtic and St Mirren, have been awarded a gold star for running our business correctly. I'm sure there will be a nice rosette in our trophy room for being a good boy.

Now can someone remind me why I should spend my hard earned cash on watching such a tainted product?

(I'm not bitter honest)

Maybe we could have a wee gold star above our badge in the inaugural " UEFA We Paid Our Taxes On Time And Lived A Little Within Our Means Cup "!

[greenginger]

Best case scenario for me would be an initial acceptance of the CVA and then on the last day of the cooling off period HMRC or Ticketus change their mind putting them into liquidation on about 14th August. That would sink them without trace. :thumbsup:

[Spike Mandela]

Maybe we could have a wee gold star above our badge in the inaugural " UEFA We Paid Our Taxes On Time And Lived A Little Within Our Means Cup "!

We could have the latin for doormats and losers printed underneath:cb

Ostiumnosce et Victos.

[TrickyNicky]

We could have the latin for doormats and losers printed underneath:cb

Ostiumnosce et Victos.

Maybe even a wee embroidered list of our recent financial honours!

" 1999-2012, on time and exemplary "

[Caversham Green]

What's your gut feeling Cav? Are the creditor's going to go for this? Have we wasted 300 odd pages of thread?:rolleyes:

Difficult to say without knowing the full details of the proposal, but I can't see how '£8.5m less administrators fees plus potential salesof what's left after the big earners have walked as a result of their wage reduction agreements' is anything other than insulting to the holders of at least £55m of debts. Particularly when the potential buyer is issuing a brochure that boasts of £113m worth of property - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/05/29/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-s-brochure-presents-glorious-future-for-stricken-club-86908-23877576/

[PatHead]

Notice the latest from BBC saying D & P still can't issue the CVA yet but "very much hope" the 2 biggest creditors will agree to its issue. Not the strongest of all phrases.

Maybe the attempt to bully HMRC in the media hasn't worked and its not quite the done deal we were led to believe was happening. Liquidation here we come...........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

[BarneyK]

Difficult to say without knowing the full details of the proposal, but I can't see how '£8.5m less administrators fees plus potential salesof what's left after the big earners have walked as a result of their wage reduction agreements' is anything other than insulting to the holders of at least £55m of debts. Particularly when the potential buyer is issuing a brochure that boasts of £113m worth of property - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/05/29/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-s-brochure-presents-glorious-future-for-stricken-club-86908-23877576/

That just shows the arrogance of them. Absolutely scandalous. :bitchy:

[Gus Fring]

Notice the latest from BBC saying D & P still can't issue the CVA yet but "very much hope" the 2 biggest creditors will agree to its issue. Not the strongest of all phrases.

Maybe the attempt to bully HMRC in the media hasn't worked and its not quite the done deal we were led to believe was happening. Liquidation here we come...........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

I "very much hope" that Messi decides to give up the cash and trophies and help out Hibs for a season or 2. Bugger all chance of it happening though.

[Geo_1875]

They really can't be expecting the main creditors to swallow their feeble attempt at a CVA. They can't confirm the settlement figure as it's reliant on income from suing other people and possible transfer fees due to Rangers. They really must be having a laugh.

[Suburban Hibby]

Difficult to say without knowing the full details of the proposal, but I can't see how '£8.5m less administrators fees plus potential salesof what's left after the big earners have walked as a result of their wage reduction agreements' is anything other than insulting to the holders of at least £55m of debts. Particularly when the potential buyer is issuing a brochure that boasts of £113m worth of property - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/05/29/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-s-brochure-presents-glorious-future-for-stricken-club-86908-23877576/

Am I just niave in thinking if they boast of 113 million of property the creditors could just tell them to raffle their CVA, let it be liquidated and then the property assets sold off to ensure a larger % of payout?

[CropleyWasGod]

Am I just niave in thinking if they boast of 113 million of property the creditors could just tell them to raffle their CVA, let it be liquidated and then the property assets sold off to ensure a larger % of payout?

Not naive at all.

The creditors do have a bit of a dilemma. Accept a certainty of £x now, or wait for liquidation and maybe get a better deal then. There has been much talk on here of the saleability of the properties, which I won't regurgitate.... but there is no certainty of getting anywhere near £113m for them.

That said, if I was a creditor, I'd be pretty p'd off about the apparent dismissiveness of my position.

[green glory]

Not naive at all.

The creditors do have a bit of a dilemma. Accept a certainty of £x now, or wait for liquidation and maybe get a better deal then. There has been much talk on here of the saleability of the properties, which I won't regurgitate.... but there is no certainty of getting anywhere near £113m for them.

That said, if I was a creditor, I'd be pretty p'd off about the apparent dismissiveness of my position.

Maybe no certainty about getting near £113m, but whatever Ibroke, Murray Park and any other assets are sold for, it would surely be worth more that the paltry amount being offered via the CVA? With much of the CVA being dependant on the court cases whose outcome can only be speculated upon, surely the creditors getting their hands on the assets provides the safest bet?

[johnrebus]

Not naive at all.

The creditors do have a bit of a dilemma. Accept a certainty of £x now, or wait for liquidation and maybe get a better deal then. There has been much talk on here of the saleability of the properties, which I won't regurgitate.... but there is no certainty of getting anywhere near £113m for them.

That said, if I was a creditor, I'd be pretty p'd off about the apparent dismissiveness of my position.



With these, 'main assets', being Ibrox and Murray Park, who is going to buy them anyway?

At the very least Ally McCoist will want the names and address of all concerned to feed to the bears.

£113m my arse..........,


:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe no certainty about getting near £113m, but whatever Ibroke, Murray Park and any other assets are sold for, it would surely be worth more that the paltry amount being offered via the CVA? With much of the CVA being dependant on the court cases whose outcome can only be speculated upon, surely the creditors getting their hands on the assets provides the safest bet?

One might think so, but go back and read the many, many posts about the asset values. Wherever they are :greengrin

[CallumLaidlaw]

Interesting about future player sales and the CVA

@mikefstv The majority of James McFadden's sell on fee from Everton to Birmingham went to creditors 4 years after exiting administration!

[ancienthibby]

Have not seen this posted earlier (apologies, if so)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

Unbelievable stuff!

[Gingertosser]

CWG,

Your probably best suited to answer my query !!

I'm a little confused as to where the BTC sits with this CVA arrangement.
My thinking is that it isn't part of it yet so HMRC are only agreeing to p/£ for the £15m, is this correct.

If they were to accept this and Rangers remained the same company could they then hit them with the BTC when it is announced from the courts, and potentially become 100% creditors, giving them more options on the outcome of any future administration.

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG,

Your probably best suited to answer my query !!

I'm a little confused as to where the BTC sits with this CVA arrangement.
My thinking is that it isn't part of it yet so HMRC are only agreeing to p/£ for the £15m, is this correct.

If they were to accept this and Rangers remained the same company could they then hit them with the BTC when it is announced from the courts, and potentially become 100% creditors, giving them more options on the outcome of any future administration.

The claim under the BTC ...£75m or whatever it is... is part of the debt that the CVA is being calculated on. So, the initial payout in any CVA would be on the assumption that RFC lose the case.

eg for ease of calculation. £170m debt, including the BTC, with a CVA pot of £8.5m. That means 5p in the £

If RFC win the case, the debt would then be £95m. The pay-out would be 8.9p, so the creditors would get an additional 3.9p.

[Caversham Green]

Have not seen this posted earlier (apologies, if so)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

Unbelievable stuff!

It was posted earlier, but here's what the Random thoughts felly has to say about it.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/billy-dodds-witness-for-the-prosecution-and-a-smoking-gun/

Pretty much what I said, but a bit more wordy :wink:.

[Saorsa]

The claim under the BTC ...£75m or whatever it is... is part of the debt that the CVA is being calculated on. So, the initial payout in any CVA would be on the assumption that RFC lose the case.

eg for ease of calculation. £170m debt, including the BTC, with a CVA pot of £8.5m. That means 5p in the £

If RFC win the case, the debt would then be £95m. The pay-out would be 8.9p, so the creditors would get an additional 3.9p.Any idea just when is that likely tae be decided, it has been dragging on for ages.

[Peevemor]

Have not seen this posted earlier (apologies, if so)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

Unbelievable stuff!

Is he really that thick? Dodds was due a certain sum after tax (which will be written somewhere in his contract). The huns payed him this sum via the EBT, thus avoiding paying the tax. This is exactly the sort of statement that HMRC's legal people want to hear.

Just because your employer deducts your PAYE & NIC, it doesn't mean it's been paid.

As for the Yorkston comments, if the huns had paid on time then Dunfermline might have been able to pay McIntyre before now. It's not rocket science.

[Caversham Green]

The claim under the BTC ...£75m or whatever it is... is part of the debt that the CVA is being calculated on. So, the initial payout in any CVA would be on the assumption that RFC lose the case.

eg for ease of calculation. £170m debt, including the BTC, with a CVA pot of £8.5m. That means 5p in the £

If RFC win the case, the debt would then be £95m. The pay-out would be 8.9p, so the creditors would get an additional 3.9p.

Except that there's a few million administrator's fees to come off first.....

[ancienthibby]

It was posted earlier, but here's what the Random thoughts felly has to say about it.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/billy-dodds-witness-for-the-prosecution-and-a-smoking-gun/

Pretty much what I said, but a bit more wordy :wink:.

Many thanks, CavG!

[poolman]

Apologies if posted already


http://skynews.skypressoffice.co.uk/newstranscripts/broadcast-exclusive-sky-news-speaks-sir-david-murray-full-interview


Bragging that the Huns won 35 trophies or so during his time :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Apologies if posted already


http://skynews.skypressoffice.co.uk/newstranscripts/broadcast-exclusive-sky-news-speaks-sir-david-murray-full-interview


Bragging that the Huns won 35 trophies or so during his time :rolleyes:

Jeff Randall is a big Rangers fan. Hence thats about as interrogative as a sit on Richard and Judys couch.

[Killiehibbie]

Am I just niave in thinking if they boast of 113 million of property the creditors could just tell them to raffle their CVA, let it be liquidated and then the property assets sold off to ensure a larger % of payout?If I was a creditor I think i'd take my chance of getting a bit more than the 5 or 10% being offered now when assets are auctioned off.

[Spike Mandela]

Maybe no certainty about getting near £113m, but whatever Ibroke, Murray Park and any other assets are sold for, it would surely be worth more that the paltry amount being offered via the CVA? With much of the CVA being dependant on the court cases whose outcome can only be speculated upon, surely the creditors getting their hands on the assets provides the safest bet?

Is this not where the administrators blackmail to the creditors comes in.

They would sell the aforementioned assets to Green at a knockdown price and into a Bill Miller style incubator company pre liquidation and the creditors get diddly squat. This is the action that troubles me most as the administrators are clearly in this case working to get the best deal for Rangers and not the creditors. If selling £113m pounds worth of assets for around £5.5m is the best deal for the creditors I would be astonished. You could get more for the scrap metal demolishing Ibrox.

They have the creditors over a barrel imo.

[BEEJ]

With these, 'main assets', being Ibrox and Murray Park, who is going to buy them anyway?

At the very least Ally McCoist will want the names and address of all concerned to feed to the bears.

£113m my arse..........,

:greengrin
Regardless of their value, it should not be possible for these assets to be transferred into a newco as is being suggested in some circles will happen. (Realise that this will have been discussed in great detail earlier on this thread, but I only drop in on this subject about once a month. :greengrin)

Meanwhile this quote from Duff & Phelps:


"It represents the best deal for HMRC and the other creditors, and while it might mean there's some monies written off by the taxman, it's the best prospect of a recovery, and therefore we very much hope and believe that HMRC will see the same viewpoint."

already wins the 2012 PR Award for Massive Understatement! :faf:

[ballengeich]

I doubt it, and that's something the creditors will have to bear in mind.

It's possible that there could be an undertaking to transfer list some players as part of the proposal but if no-one wants to buy them there's probably not much the creditors can do.

I think the reference to transfer money going into the cva refers to outstanding instalments due on previous transfers (e.g. Jelavic) and not to any potential future deals.

[lapsedhibee]

If I was a creditor I think i'd take my chance of getting a bit more than the 5 or 10% being offered now when assets are auctioned off.

Thing is though, with the McCoist precedent of encouraging violence towards anyone who doesn't kow-tow, won't the creditors have to be factoring in the cost of replacing tanned windows etc if they don't comply with the CVA proposal?

And why has McCoist STILL not been charged for that?

[jgl07]

With these, 'main assets', being Ibrox and Murray Park, who is going to buy them anyway?

At the very least Ally McCoist will want the names and address of all concerned to feed to the bears.

£113m my arse..........,


:greengrin

Indeed.

But is does not mean they have zero value.

On the assumption that there is likely to be a Newco (playing initially in the SFA), it might seem a fair deal to buy the stadium and then lease it back to the Newco at some future time. This has happened several times in England including Leeds United.

There is land around the stadium as well although I understand that it cannot be developed for some years.

[green glory]

Cara Sulieman tweeting from the Court of Session.

https://twitter.com/carasulieman/status/207442122444517376

I'm actually hoping Rangers overturn the transfer ban, as the SFA would have to expel them according to Fifa rules.

[johnrebus]

Cara Sulieman tweeting from the Court of Session.

https://twitter.com/carasulieman/status/207442122444517376

I'm actually hoping Rangers overturn the transfer ban, as the SFA would have to expel them according to Fifa rules.


One of the newspapers reported yesterday that Duff & Duffer claimed they were not aware of the Uefa/Fifa rule thingy.........,


I really do feel so sorry for the true, honest and decent Rangers fans.......,
















But then remembered that I've never met one.

:idiot:

[green glory]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

Thanks for that.... I may read it later. :greengrin

This bit stands out for me, though:-

The quantum of the Dividend is currently unknown, pending determination of the CVA Trading Costs, High Court Proceedings and the EBT Case, amongst other things.

That's helpful :rolleyes:

[Spike Mandela]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf


That didn't take long to get in public domain:greengrin

[Suburban Hibby]

Thanks for that.... I may read it later. :greengrin

This bit stands out for me, though:-

The quantum of the Dividend is currently unknown, pending determination of the CVA Trading Costs, High Court Proceedings and the EBT Case, amongst other things.

That's helpful :rolleyes:

thought exactly the same - 60 pages and no indictaion of how much they will pay- how do they expect anyone to make a decision on that?

[jgl07]

Thanks for that.... I may read it later. :greengrin

This bit stands out for me, though:-

The quantum of the Dividend is currently unknown, pending determination of the CVA Trading Costs, High Court Proceedings and the EBT Case, amongst other things.


How can anyone be expected to sign up without having a clue as to exactly what they expect to receive?

[CropleyWasGod]

How can anyone be expected to sign up without having a clue as to exactly what they expect to receive?

Indeed.

Although we may set up a wee advice shop on Hibs.Net. :greengrin

Pay us the quantum of £50 a skull, and we'll give you our best advice. (dinny freaking dae it!!)

[ScottB]

I note Greene is offering them an £8million LOAN to keep them going that must be repaid, plus interest, by 2020.

So that alone will cover what he's spending to buy the club more or less?

[stokesmessiah]

"Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter with Sevco (―the Offer Letter‖) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity. "

That £1m fee for exclusivity dropped quicker than a Govan girls knickers !!??

[greenginger]

Estimated Outcome Statement


Freehold Property Valuation £ 4,590,214.00

Four and a half million pounds for Ibrox , the car park, Murray Park, you have got to be kidding.

What ever happened to the investigation into Duff and Phelps compromised administration ?

[StevieC]

I read it as £8.3m if you accept .. errr .. minus about £6m in administrators fees and running costs.

They've agreed to sell Rangers place in the SPL to a NewCo for £5m, if the CVA fails (based on discussions with Doncaster no doubt).

For liquidation purposes they've valued all of Rangers assets (stadium, Murray Park, associated land, etc.) at £4.5m.

So basically ..
1) 3p in the pound to exit a CVA
2) less than 1p in the pound to sell SPL place to NewCo
3) bolt for your cash if you want to shut down the Big Hoose.


Option 3) for me please. :wink:


EDIT:
They have the BTC listed as an unknown in the CVA but they are saying HMRC are only due £14m in Creditors section (I assume to keep them below the 25%).
Ticketus are being classed as main Creditors at around 46% with the rest being debenture holders, Rangers "friendly" businesses, etc. .. oh and Hearts :wink:
I am guessing that they hope all Creditors will agree (and I still think they've got a behind the scenes deal in place with Ticketus) and that HMRC, without the BTC conclusion, will have to go with the CVA outcome.

I think that HMRC may be forced to take legal action and question their CVA entitlement to prevent this getting pushed through, and/or move to have D&P removed from the administartion process. This though could ultimately lead straight to liquidation and then it's a question of whether it's beneficial for the HMRC to risk ending Rangers existence, and future tax income.

Just my uneducated thoughts on the matter .. over to CG and CWG :wink:

[johnrebus]

I can't think of Duff & Phelps anymore without thinking of the, 'I can do that', woman from the Katherine Tait show.

They are obviously two guys who were hanging around Ibrox who just offered to help, but don't actually have a scooby.......,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOL2zVv7mw

[The Green Goblin]

Have not seen this posted earlier (apologies, if so)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

Unbelievable stuff!


One of the piss-poorest articles I have ever survived reading. The blast at Yorkston (which takes up the last quarter of the "article) is outrageous and frankly, nothing to do with Dodds, beyond someone having a pop at his beloved huns and him being honour-bound to defend them, as he has been doing on Sportsound for months. You could take every single sentence of that pish and tear it apart several times over, but one that stood out for me was this one:

"I was shocked to hear that 87 players and staff were involved in the EBT scheme at Ibrox – but it should also be remembered that the trusts were not illegal."

Forgive me for asking the obvious fricking question here, but if the trusts were "not illegal", then why was he "shocked"?

I really hope that if the huns get away with this, that the fans in Scotland collectively walk away from the game. I really do. It would be a stain on our national identity and integrity and if that´s how it turns out, I, for one, will walk.

GG

[Suburban Hibby]

Estimated Outcome Statement


Freehold Property Valuation £ 4,590,214.00

Four and a half million pounds for Ibrox , the car park, Murray Park, you have got to be kidding.

What ever happened to the investigation into Duff and Phelps compromised administration ?

So how does that tie in with the Greene sales document stating property valued at 113 million???

[Brando7]

Says on the rangers website : The overall costs of the administration process will be deducted from the funds available...so it that off £8.5Million? That cost must be in the millions already so that less for the creditors?

[Brando7]

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors

CVA £4,967,284
Newco £953,284
Liquidation £0

How they work that out? Freehold Property (murray park n ibrox bound to worth more than £4.5million?

[jgl07]

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors

CVA £4,967,284
Newco £953,284
Liquidation £0

How they work that out? Freehold Property (murray park n ibrox bound to worth more than £4.5million?

And who are the secured creditors then?

[Hibrandenburg]

They're definately at it. A blatant sting if ever there was one. I just can't see what they hope to achieve by this, it's as if they're begging to be liquidated. Where's the hook?

[hibs0666]

If the currants sell £10 million of players in the next two weeks the creditors will get hee haw. On that basis alone I'd tell them to get stuffed.

[StevieC]

They're definately at it. A blatant sting if ever there was one. I just can't see what they hope to achieve by this, it's as if they're begging to be liquidated. Where's the hook?

I think it's the opposite .. I think they're they're saying "accept this or we'll pull the plug on Rangers and you'll all get nowt".

A clear case of "BLUFF" if ever I saw one. :rolleyes:

[Thecat23]

Can't believe we're still chatting about this 3 months after they went into Admin. What other club/league in the world would take this long? NONE!!! Disgusting what is going on. Forget trying to work out figures guys, it matters nothing. They CHEATED, kick them out or break away from the league. Approach the first division and create a bigger league without them. If they get back in I truly am done with this league. SFA= Bottlers.

[pentlando]

Here's a bit that's confusing me slightly. Rangers are currently fighting the SFA ban on transfers for one year, citing the need for the company to trade it's way out of the predicament. In the CVA Proposal it has player transfer fee's listed as assets available to creditors.

As there is no condition I assume that 100% of the fee received by Rangers for any player sales will go to the creditors in the case they agree the CVA. Why are Rangers arguing for the overturn of the ban for trading reasons when they are not going to be able to benefit from sales of the current squad?? Unless they are only looking to reduce the wage budget, but I had assumed transfer fee's would be a large part of Green's bid.

However it's tremendous news that Green's bailout has came in the form of yet another loan, with interest, to be repaid by 2020. Just when they thought they were finished dancing to the Lloyds tune, along comes another loan!

[pentlando]

If the currants sell £10 million of players in the next two weeks the creditors will get hee haw. On that basis alone I'd tell them to get stuffed.

I may be wrong but I'm sure there was a section counting player sales from 12th May 2012 as being available to creditors.

[Caversham Green]

A few observations on a very quick read through of the proposal:

The consortium's offer is conditional on RFC playing in the SPL.

Amounts available for distribution:- £8.3; Transfer fees already due; anything arising from the Collyer Bristow case.

Amount not available:- ST income; new transfer fees (so the Motherwell scenario I described earlier isn't proposed here which means the consortium will effectively get the players for nothing and be able to sell them on for whatever they can get); SPL money (earned pre or during administration, but not available to the creditors).

Amounts due to:- Ticketus £26.7m (they could probably go after Craigie for any shortfall in the settlement)
HMRC £21.4m plus the BTC
Fitba' creditors £1.1m
Other creditors £5.5m.

Admin fees: £3m plus £500k if CVA accepted/£150k if not
Liquidation costs if CVA not accepted £1m
Legal fees & other costs in either scenario £2m

Expected funds available:- CVA £5m; Newco £1m; Liquidation nil.

The reason that liquidation is nil is because the freehold property is valued at £4.6m (recoverable value as reported in the last audited accounts £112m).

As I say, a very quick summary and I might well have missed some stuff, but that's the gist of what I've picked up.

[Spike Mandela]

If they get away with this then surely this is the blueprint for all clubs to follow. This could be Rangers most successful financial year ever.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't believe we're still chatting about this 3 months after they went into Admin. What other club/league in the world would take this long? NONE!!! Disgusting what is going on. Forget trying to work out figures guys, it matters nothing. They CHEATED, kick them out or break away from the league. Approach the first division and create a bigger league without them. If they get back in I truly am done with this league. SFA= Bottlers.

3 months is no time at all for an administration.

[StevieC]

I may be wrong but I'm sure there was a section counting player sales from 12th May 2012 as being available to creditors.

Money from players previously sold? Jelovic?

[Thecat23]

3 months is no time at all for an administration.

If this was Hibs or even Hearts that had done all this cheating we would be booted out mate. Whole thing stinks.

[Caversham Green]

I may be wrong but I'm sure there was a section counting player sales from 12th May 2012 as being available to creditors.

As I read that the transfer fees are what was due before 12 May - paras 5.14 and 5.15. Transfers after that date are specifically excluded.

What's the significance of 12 May?

[ScottB]

As I read that the transfer fees are what was due before 12 May - paras 5.14 and 5.15. Transfers after that date are specifically excluded.

What's the significance of 12 May?

The last game of their season

[CropleyWasGod]

And who are the secured creditors then?

CW's holding company has a security, but IMO there is no creditor. The proposal does say that there has been no claim made by them.

Also, Close Leasing has a security. IIRC, that is over the catering equipment.

Edit:- Close Leasing's claim is £1.56m. Also the Sports Council have a secured claim for £505k

[Caversham Green]

The last game of their season

Ah, that'll be it. Can't see why it's particularly significant for the administration though.

[Spike Mandela]

3 months is no time at all for an administration.

Am I right in thinking that over these 3 months the administrators have earned more than any of the creditors are likely to get?:rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

I note they haven't included SPL money in the Newco or Liquidation options - does anyone know if the SPL would give them their money even if they were to liquidate?

[dangermouse]

A few observations on a very quick read through of the proposal:

The consortium's offer is conditional on RFC playing in the SPL.

Amounts available for distribution:- £8.3; Transfer fees already due; anything arising from the Collyer Bristow case.

Amount not available:- ST income; new transfer fees (so the Motherwell scenario I described earlier isn't proposed here which means the consortium will effectively get the players for nothing and be able to sell them on for whatever they can get); SPL money (earned pre or during administration, but not available to the creditors).

Amounts due to:- Ticketus £26.7m (they could probably go after Craigie for any shortfall in the settlement)
HMRC £21.4m plus the BTC
Fitba' creditors £1.1m
Other creditors £5.5m.

Admin fees: £3m plus £500k if CVA accepted/£150k if not
Liquidation costs if CVA not accepted £1m
Legal fees & other costs in either scenario £2m

Expected funds available:- CVA £5m; Newco £1m; Liquidation nil.

The reason that liquidation is nil is because the freehold property is valued at £4.6m (recoverable value as reported in the last audited accounts £112m).

As I say, a very quick summary and I might well have missed some stuff, but that's the gist of what I've picked up.

Does this mean thet HMRC could scupper the CVA all by themselves?

[CropleyWasGod]

I note they haven't included SPL money in the Newco or Liquidation options - does anyone know if the SPL would give them their money even if they were to liquidate?

Maybe they assume that the SPL would retain anything due to other clubs?

On that point, I notice that they show Football Creditors separately. Other than Anglo-centric normal practice, any idea why that is?

[CropleyWasGod]

Does this mean thet HMRC could scupper the CVA all by themselves?

Yup, as could Ticketus.

[pentlando]

As I read that the transfer fees are what was due before 12 May - paras 5.14 and 5.15. Transfers after that date are specifically excluded.

What's the significance of 12 May?

Ah I see now, if I'd read the next paragraph I would have seen that season tickets and future sales were excluded assets.

One of the key things I've just dug out of that is Rangers have a provision, in Para 5.15, for future player sales and season ticket money to be used to fund CVA Trading Costs. If I was a Rangers fan my money would be going nowhere where it could be used to fund this speculative at best, derisory at worst, offer of a CVA.

[Brando7]

As per 14th Feb 2012

FIXED CHARGE ASSETS
Freehold Property Including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park £109,613,870

Now 30th June 2012

Freehold Property Valuation £ 4,590,214.00

Just doest add up for me

[pentlando]

As per 14th Feb 2012

FIXED CHARGE ASSETS
Freehold Property Including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park £109,613,870

Now 30th June 2012

Freehold Property Valuation £ 4,590,214.00

Just doest add up for me

It may be that they are valued separately in two scenarios. The first scenario is it's value with a functioning Rangers side using them. The second scenario may be it's value if not used by Rangers. For example if Rangers liquidate and you're left with Ibrox and Murray Park as standalone assets, they would need to be demolished at some cost before they would be valued at basic market value.

[jgl07]

Maybe they assume that the SPL would retain anything due to other clubs?

On that point, I notice that they show Football Creditors separately. Other than Anglo-centric normal practice, any idea why that is?

I can only think that in the event that a Newco applies to the SPL, there may be a condition that football creditors were paid off before the license could be transferred. Although this would appear to conflict with insolvency law at least as practices in Scotland.

All parties to the Rangers saga including Collyer Bristow, Ticketus, and Duff & Phelps appear to be ignorant about Scots Law so maybe that is at the root of the issue?

[JeMeSouviens]

For anyone who was worrying about a debt free Huns: even if this gets agreed, the £8.5M is, you guessed it, loaded on to RFC as a loan!

[down-the-slope]

As I read that the transfer fees are what was due before 12 May - paras 5.14 and 5.15. Transfers after that date are specifically excluded.

What's the significance of 12 May?

Day Greene sined exclusivity deal

[StevieC]

It may be that they are valued separately in two scenarios. The first scenario is it's value with a functioning Rangers side using them. The second scenario may be it's value if not used by Rangers. For example if Rangers liquidate and you're left with Ibrox and Murray Park as standalone assets, they would need to be demolished at some cost before they would be valued at basic market value.

I reckon you'd find quite a few people that would be happy to demolish it for free. Infact you could probably make a fair bit of cash allowing people to swing a sledge hammer around the stadium for a few minutes.

[pentlando]

For anyone who was worrying about a debt free Huns: even if this gets agreed, the £8.5M is, you guessed it, loaded on to RFC as a loan!

With interest :greengrin. It's not even a gift loan, if it includes interest then it's geared to make money for the provider surely. If Green is pledging to have investors queueing up with cash, why is the loan made with interest repayable?

[PatHead]

With interest :greengrin. It's not even a gift loan, if it includes interest then it's geared to make money for the provider surely. If Green is pledging to have investors queueing up with cash, why is the loan made with interest repayable?

Wonder if he will "do a Craigie" and use the loan to pay off the creditors therefore not putting in anything himself? Surely this consorteum of arabs sheiks, singapore citizens, asian billionaires could have done better than that offer

By the way is there a fit and proper test to carry out or has no one learnt from previous mistakes and we are back to good guy, good guy, w##k, good guy, tests

[Moulin Yarns]

I reckon you'd find quite a few people that would be happy to demolish it for free. Infact you could probably make a fair bit of cash allowing people to swing a sledge hammer around the stadium for a few minutes.

As i suggested many pages ago, why have they not started a 'Buy a Brick' scheme for the schemies??

They would gain money while demolishing the place at the same time.

win/win for them :wink:

[down-the-slope]

I think if I read this correctly - that they are planning on using future income (transfers/ST's to fund the current trading gap) and a LOAN repayable with interest from Greene..

So has anyone in the last 20+ years actually invested any of their own money in this shambles...or is it just serial cases of smoke mirrors and fleecing the club/fans of its own money while appearing to be the saviour :rolleyes:

I just wish there was a way the creditors could say bolt to CVA an be allowed to have assets signed over to them in lieu of debt...wouldnt take them long to make more out the situation that way...facilities rental income / flogging car park etc

[hibs0666]

The way I read this document is that, at around £4 million, the services of the Duffs is worth about the same as Ibrox and their training park.

Can someone explain to me how the stadium is worth less than £4 million when it enable income of around £30-50 million per annum?

[grunt]

I hear that the court of session has upheld the sfa transfer embargo

[hibs0666]

I hear that the court of session has upheld the sfa transfer embargo

Poor lambs - they should take it up with the United Nations now.

[pentlando]

The way I read this document is that, at around £4 million, the services of the Duffs is worth about the same as Ibrox and their training park.

Can someone explain to me how the stadium is worth less than £4 million when it enable income of around £30-50 million per annum?

That's the whole point, it enables that income, it doesn't generate that income itself, and is valued as such. It's a means to an end, the end being Rangers. Without Rangers playing at Ibrox, Ibrox itself is pretty much worthless as it is. Unless another similar size team (possibly NewCo Rangers) would want to use it in it's current state.

[hibs0666]

That's the whole point, it enables that income, it doesn't generate that income itself, and is valued as such. It's a means to an end, the end being Rangers. Without Rangers playing at Ibrox, Ibrox itself is pretty much worthless as it is. Unless another similar size team (possibly NewCo Rangers) would want to use it in it's current state.

And without Ibrox the Rangers income stream immediately diminishes. Assuming that Ibrox will generate income for the next 20 years the stadium is worth only £200,000 per annum to the new owner as a revenue enabler. Total pish.

[grunt]

I hear that the court of session has upheld the sfa transfer embargoNow I'm hearing something different. Sorry for posting rubbish. (Don't know why I said that, it's all I seem to do).

[CallumLaidlaw]

#rangers have won - the decision has been referred back to appeal tribunal.

[Wembley67]

And been awarded expenses

[CallumLaidlaw]

Judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to SFA disciplinary tribunal for bringing game into disrepute.

[grunt]

So, what now?

[Greentinted]

News seeping out from STV at the Court of Session
Rangers 'win'

https://twitter.com/#!/carasulieman

[ScottB]

So the SFA need a new punishment then? Given the previous statements, expulsion?


Presumably the giant UEFA branded sword of Damocles is about to come crashing down on the lot of us in 3... 2...

[hibs0666]

Judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to SFA disciplinary tribunal for bringing game into disrepute.

FFS the SFA had a judge on the appeals panel and he couldn't provide the appropriate guidance?

The moment of me turning my back on the Scottish game is getting closer and closer.

[Kaiser1962]

In fairness to St.Mirren they sold their ground in order to clear their debts.


Don't know what we are worrying about.

Whilst Rangers have won umpteen trophies with the taxpayers money, shafted everyone on and off the pitch and been invited back into the SPL with next to no punishment. Hearts have signed players whilst not paying there own, bumped the taxman and anyone else they can get away with and won 2 Scottish Cups and qualified for Champions League and Europa League whilst behaving like this, Motherwell have been in administration twice and have qualified for the Europa League and now qualify for Champions League. We, along with Celtic and St Mirren, have been awarded a gold star for running our business correctly. I'm sure there will be a nice rosette in our trophy room for being a good boy.

Now can someone remind me why I should spend my hard earned cash on watching such a tainted product?

(I'm not bitter honest)

[Benny Brazil]

Judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to SFA disciplinary tribunal for bringing game into disrepute.

Laughing stock of world football in every way.

[marinello59]

So, what now?

They get off with it.

[PatHead]

Suppose that will mean the ultimate sanction then. Expulsion!!!!!!!!!!!

Go on SFA dare ye.

[hibs0666]

Laughing stock of world football in every way.

So the available punishments are:


fine
suspension
expulsion from Scottish Cup
termination of membership.


Have the SFA got the danglies for the battle?

[marinello59]

So the SFA need a new punishment then? Given the previous statements, expulsion?


Presumably the giant UEFA branded sword of Damocles is about to come crashing down on the lot of us in 3... 2...

Expulsion was an available sanction I think. What do you think the chances are of that happening though.

[down-the-slope]

That is just unbeleivable judgement.....(as mentioned an eminemt judge was on appeals panel)

Football wants its own rules until they don't suit...then go to law....SFA better get a grip of this pronto....

[Zondervan]

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?:dunno:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103765-rangers-win-court-of-session-appeal-against-scottish-fa-signing-ban/

[down-the-slope]

What would Celtic think if this gets Scotland kicked from Euro Comps......

[TheEastTerrace]

SPL embargo still stands though.

Do the SFA have the balls to follow through their strong judicial panel statements? And could we be now entering Sion territory?

[Mon Dieu4]

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?:dunno:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103765-rangers-win-court-of-session-appeal-against-scottish-fa-signing-ban/

That's only cause they are still in admin, if they come out of it then they can sign players again

[Brando7]

Ban been lifted ffs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18248766

[Benny Brazil]

So the available punishments are:


fine
suspension
expulsion from Scottish Cup
termination of membership.


Have the SFA got the danglies for the battle?

Is that a rhetorical question? :greengrin

[Saorsa]

They should now be kicked out.

[down-the-slope]

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?:dunno:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103765-rangers-win-court-of-session-appeal-against-scottish-fa-signing-ban/


The Court of Session have found in Rangers' favour in a hearing against the Scottish FA over an enforced registration embargo
The matter will now be referred back to the governing body's appeals tribunal for a new hearing.
The judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to the Scottish FA to punish a club for bringing the game into disrepute.
Despite the ruling, Rangers are still unable to sign players as they are under a separate registration embargo imposed by the Scottish Premier League for being in administration.


Hmmm...But if they get their CVA...No administration and so they are free from debt and no sanction...

Grow some and punt them......

[Smidge]

SPL embargo still stands though.

Do the SFA have the balls to follow through their strong judicial panel statements? And could we be now entering Sion territory?

Going to court in the first place was the FC Sion territory.

Would be interested to see the full judgement, as I'm pretty sure the relevant SFA bye-laws were ambiguous enough to allow ANY punishment that the tribunal thought appropriate.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's a Craig Thomson of a decision and no mistake!

SFA panel has to decide between looking weaker than the Hibs midfield or growing a pair and following through the logic of their decision: suspension of membership.

Will it be the same 3 man panel that heard the previous appeal or do they rotate to the next 3?

[HibeeN]

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?:dunno:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103765-rangers-win-court-of-session-appeal-against-scottish-fa-signing-ban/

Presumably this means that under SPL sanctions they are still banned from signing players until they exit administration, but after that they are free to do so. As opposed to being completely banned for 12 months.

[ScottB]

Seems worth posting this about FC Sion from its wiki page:



In 2008, controversy came to Sion when they signed Essam El-Hadary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essam_El-Hadary), leading to a two-year "registration period" ban for Sion from June 2009, and an international playing ban for El-Hadary for four months,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-3) due to El-Hadary still being under contract at his former club Al Ahly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahly_S.C.).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-4) FC Sion appealed this action, but the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland confirmed the FIFA, DRC and CAS decisions in 2009 and 2010 respectively.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-5) However the lengthy legal battle (including the temporary reprieve), meant that the ban was only practically instituted first in the winter window of 2010–11 season.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-6)
Although gaining a place in the qualifying round of the 2011-12 Europa League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_UEFA_Europa_League) by winning the previous season's Swiss Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010-11_Swiss_Cup), Sion were excluded from the Europa League byUEFA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA) after fielding ineligible players in their play-off victory over Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_F.C).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-7) On 2 September, the Swiss Football League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Football_League) rejected the registration of one more player, Brian Amofa.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-8)
On 30 September 2011, the SFL decided to provisionally qualify the six new signings, namely Stefan Glarner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Glarner), Billy Ketkeophomphone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Ketkeophomphone), Mario Mutsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Mutsch), Pascal Feindouno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_Feindouno), José Gonçalves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gon%C3%A7alves) and Gabri García (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabri_Garc%C3%ADa), to comply with the ongoing legal process.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-9) FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA respectively in the Tribunal Cantonal de Valais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valais) and the Tribunal inVaud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaud), however both actions were dismissed.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-11) The club's earlier appeal was dismissed by UEFA Appeals Body on 13 September.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-12) FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA in CAS, but withdrew the former claim. The hearing of the latter claim was set on 24 November.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-13)
On 25 October, the Discipline Commission (fr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): Commission de discipline) of SFL suspended all six players for five games.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-14) It was reported that each player filed their legal claim in civil court instead of using the Swiss FA and CAS "sports court" system, which the ban was requested by FIFA.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] On 27 October, as a "provisional and super-provisional measures",[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-15) UEFA invited FC Sion to a match schedule consultation once UEFA lost the legal battle.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-16)
On 31 October 2011, Sion sent a complaint to the European Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-17) FIFA also won the legal battle in civil court in November. Previously the civil court of Martigny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martigny) andSaint-Maurice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Maurice,_Switzerland) (both city of Valais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valais)) ordered FIFA to confirm the signing of those six players on 3 August, a consequence of law suit brought out by the players. On 16 November, the FIFA and SFL appeal was upheld in the Valais canton court.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-18)
On 15 December, CAS upheld the complaints by UEFA, affirming its right to discipline Sion according to previous agreements. CAS also lifted the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud (Cour civile) on 5 October 2011.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-19) After the ruling, FIFA threatened to suspend Swiss national and club teams from international competition if FC Sion were not appropriately penalized for its ostensible rules violations.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Sion#cite_note-20) In late December 2011, the Swiss Football Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Football_Association) complied with FIFA's demands and penalized Sion 36 standings points (based on how many matches ineligible players were involved), moving the club to last place in the league standings and putting the club at risk of relegation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relegation) if the ruling stands.

[pentlando]

And without Ibrox the Rangers income stream immediately diminishes. Assuming that Ibrox will generate income for the next 20 years the stadium is worth only £200,000 per annum to the new owner as a revenue enabler. Total pish.

If Ibrox is removed Rangers income stream may only diminish slightly, as they could in theory play temporarily at Hampden or Celtic Park. Without Rangers, what use is Ibrox?? That's why the value drops so much. There is no way Ibrox or Murray Park could be of value in their current state so literally become bits of land with expensive demolition costs before they become valuable once more.

[Smidge]

This is worth a read on the sports law implications of Duff and Duffer's decision to go to court:

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/civil-action-recipe-for-disaster.html

Interesting, as well, that it suggests they had a good chance of success.

[Gus Fring]

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

[CallumLaidlaw]

Stv journo on twitter -

FIFA eyes now on Scottish FA to uphold their rulebook and punish Rangers for taking this matter to court.

FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".

FIFA insist Scottish FA must stop Rangers using law courts. FIFA also insist Scottish FA provides means for arbitration, which they didn't.

In a nutshell, the Scottish FA will already be in bother from FIFA for not upholding their statutes. More so if they don't punish Rangers.

[EuanH78]

Wow, just wow. So now what? UEFA/ FIFA get involved?

Is this proof the SFA cant govern their own member clubs?

Interesting times ahead I feel. I was also musing earlier that maybe Mad Vlad aint so mad after all, seems he just applied Rangers business model to Hearts. Circular loans and EBT's. If it's good for the goose and all that - no wonder he's pissed off at the media monkeys...

[jgl07]

That's the whole point, it enables that income, it doesn't generate that income itself, and is valued as such. It's a means to an end, the end being Rangers. Without Rangers playing at Ibrox, Ibrox itself is pretty much worthless as it is. Unless another similar size team (possibly NewCo Rangers) would want to use it in it's current state.

Glasgow City Council are committed to Ibrox for the 2014 Commonwealth Games for starters.

[ScottB]

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

The point is, do they consider the offence, which stated that only match fixing would have been worse, to be closer to the rejected as too severe kicking them out option, or just upping their fine / kicking them from the cup.


As with Scion, FIFA / UEFA weighed in when the Swiss failed to punish them in line with their offences. By the end of this, when everything is out in the open, the hope is that the same happens with Rangers.

[HibbyAndy]

They should now be kicked out.



They most certainly should, But they wont.

[hibs0666]

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

But they also said that the other sanctions were too weak. This could run and run.

[green glory]

Stv journo on twitter -

FIFA eyes now on Scottish FA to uphold their rulebook and punish Rangers for taking this matter to court.

FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".

FIFA insist Scottish FA must stop Rangers using law courts. FIFA also insist Scottish FA provides means for arbitration, which they didn't.

In a nutshell, the Scottish FA will already be in bother from FIFA for not upholding their statutes. More so if they don't punish Rangers.

Which journo? So I can follow

[Saorsa]

They most certainly should, But they wont.I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.

[HibbyAndy]

I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.



100%:agree:

[Gus Fring]

Given that the sanction was not available to the SFA within the rules, surely the fact that taking the SFA to court isn't allowed in the rules either means that the SFA are under no obligation to pay any attention to the court of session? What would stop them from saying "Thanks for the advice wiggy, but with all due respect, beat it!"

Seems to me applying a sanction that "wasn't available" is exactly the same as starting a court case not being available?

So either the SFA can ignore it and show they have some balls, both to the public and UEFA. Or UEFA steps in like the proverbial headmaster and threatens to punish everyone unless the club responsible is dealt with accordingly?

[jgl07]

Sion won in the Swiss courts and look what happened there.

A 36-point deduction.

If the SFA take no action I can see UEFA/FIFA adopting a similar line.

[CropleyWasGod]

Given that the sanction was not available to the SFA within the rules, surely the fact that taking the SFA to court isn't allowed in the rules either means that the SFA are under no obligation to pay any attention to the court of session? What would stop them from saying "Thanks for the advice wiggy, but with all due respect, beat it!"

...and I think this why the preferred way would have been to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In other news, FIFA have finally woken up to the Rangers threat:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18244958 :greengrin

[CallumLaidlaw]

Which journo? So I can follow

@stvgrant

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Ive long suspected everything that's gone before was just the jockeying for positing buying time and that Rangers would pull a rabbit out the bag if not the football club separate from holding company (and bad man Whyte) or now as it appears - the incompetence of the scottish footballing authorities.

The game is a bogey and the authorities and regulators I've long criticised before all this mess have now shown themselves to be unfit to govern.

Give us our respect and game back. FIFA better step up to the plateon thisone - I'm not holding my breath.

Can't they see the link between the OF monopoly and the lack of talent pool for the Scottish national team. Bad enough k owing your team can only play for 3rd but allied to a national team team that is unlikely to qualify for a major tourney any time soon just where is it headed?

[CraigHibee]

the huns think they have wrangled out of this one but i'm sure FIFA are keeping an eye on developments.

they simply CANNOT get away with this, they are not untouchable and i'm hoping they are punished severely by FIFA

[joe breezy]

FIFA Statement - well done Huns for getting the big boys involved at last

FIFA has warned the Scottish Football Association it must take action after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.

The Scottish Premier League side won a case at the Court of Session on Tuesday, with a judge ruling the Scottish FA had no power to impose a signing ban on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.

A statement from FIFA read: "At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.

"In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.

"As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.

"FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."

Rangers' case will now be referred back to the original appeal tribunal, which has been ordered to operate within the framework which exists.

Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.

**More to follow...*

tp://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103811-fifa-warn-scottish-fa-they-must-punish-rangers-for-using-law-courts/

[steakbake]

I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.

Is there not a template open letter on Kickback that we can use to send our views to Messrs Blatter and Plattini?

[JeMeSouviens]

FIFA better step up to the plateon thisone - I'm not holding my breath.


First warning shot from Switzerland:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/103811-fifa-warn-scottish-fa-they-must-punish-rangers-for-using-law-courts/

[joe breezy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2151242/Winners-lose-Court-victory-finish-fallen-Rangers.html


Winners lose: Court victory 'could finish' fallen Rangers
By JOHN GREECHAN
PUBLISHED: 23:37, 28 May 2012 | UPDATED: 23:37, 28 May 2012
Comments (21)
Share

Rangers have been warned that a successful court appeal against their one-year transfer embargo could end up with them being kicked out of football.
The Ibrox club, who expect to publish Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposals on Tuesday morning - after yet another delay - will be back in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday, seeking a judicial review of the 12-month signing ban imposed by an independent SFA panel.

On track: Administrator Paul Clark says CVA agreement is moving along
But leading sports lawyer Dan Chapman, of Full Contact Law, told Sportsmail: 'If the courts were to say that they wished to overturn the transfer ban, the SFA will have to say they don't recognise the decision of the court.


'And, if Rangers want to impose the decision upon them, the SFA will have no choice but to expel them. Otherwise, the game is in utter disarray and anarchy, with no one paying any attention to a decision by the governing body.
'If the Court of Session find in favour of Rangers, the SFA certainly don't have to accept.
'They will say: "If you want us to accept that, you are further breaching the rules - which means we'll expel you. In that case, your legal remedy is pretty pointless because you're no longer a club allowed to play in our leagues".
'It would be a futile victory. It seems to be that, for want of a better expression, it's been a bit of a cock-up.'

No-win situation: Win for Rangers would be a phyrric victory
While the case in Edinburgh resumeson Tuesday , Rangers have also promised to publish details of the pence-in-the-pound offer to creditors needed to deliver the club from administration.
Having initially scheduled to issue a CVA last week and again yesterday, Duff & Phelps last night blamed 'administrative alterations' for the delay - but insisted that Rangers could be out of administration by June 14.
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said last night: 'A formal notice of the CVA meetings will be sent to all creditors and shareholders of the club tomorrow, providing further details of the CVA process.
'The proposal will offer the best return for all stakeholders.
'If approved by creditors, the CVA proposal will rescue the company and finally enable it to exit administration.
'Details of the CVA proposal have been finalised today and there has been additional consultation with certain stakeholders.
'Rangers supporters should be reassured the CVA process is on track. The creditors' meeting to consider and, hopefully, approve the CVA will be held on Thursday, June 14.'
The CVA letter will trigger a £3m payment from would-be owner Charles Green, who has repeatedly refused to name all of the investors involved in his mystery consortium.
Rangers will now need major creditors, including HMRC and Ticketus, to agree to the terms in order to avoid taking the newco route out of administration - incurring further footballing penalties.
The SPL have confirmed, meanwhile, that Rangers have been granted a 'period of grace' over submission of accounts.
Officially without an SFA licence until they provide the documentation, the league have given them until June 15 to fulfil requirements.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2151242/Winners-lose-Court-victory-finish-fallen-Rangers.html#ixzz1wHB6z300

[Saorsa]

Is there not a template open letter on Kickback that we can use to send our views to Messrs Blatter and Plattini?I have nae idea about anything on that exists on keechboak.

[Caversham Green]

So, before Rangers went to the CoS their actions had taken them close to suspension/expulsion. They have now appealed at the CoS in direct contravention of the SFA and higher authorities rules, so they must have crossed the line. There is no alternative, they have to be expelled or suspended by the SFA if Scottish Football has any hope of survival.

The international authorities would jump at the chance to combine the British associations and the SFA would give them a great opportunity to do so by deferring to UEFA here. We've reached the crossroads and there's only one road we can take to survive. Rangers have succeeded in turning their own drama into everyone's crisis and it could end up realising their wish of Scottish clubs playing in English leagues. Ironically they won't be around to enjoy it because we can be sure that UEFA will not allow them to continue as a football club.

[CropleyWasGod]

So, before Rangers went to the CoS their actions had taken them close to suspension/expulsion. They have now appealed at the CoS in direct contravention of the SFA and higher authorities rules, so they must have crossed the line. There is no alternative, they have to be expelled or suspended by the SFA if Scottish Football has any hope of survival.

The international authorities would jump at the chance to combine the British associations and the SFA would give them a great opportunity to do so by deferring to UEFA here. We've reached the crossroads and there's only one road we can take to survive. Rangers have succeeded in turning their own drama into everyone's crisis and it could end up realising their wish of Scottish clubs playing in English leagues. Ironically they won't be around to enjoy it because we can be sure that UEFA will not allow them to continue as a football club.

I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.

[Saorsa]

So, before Rangers went to the CoS their actions had taken them close to suspension/expulsion. They have now appealed at the CoS in direct contravention of the SFA and higher authorities rules, so they must have crossed the line. There is no alternative, they have to be expelled or suspended by the SFA if Scottish Football has any hope of survival.

The international authorities would jump at the chance to combine the British associations and the SFA would give them a great opportunity to do so by deferring to UEFA here. We've reached the crossroads and there's only one road we can take to survive. Rangers have succeeded in turning their own drama into everyone's crisis and it could end up realising their wish of Scottish clubs playing in English leagues. Ironically they won't be around to enjoy it because we can be sure that UEFA will not allow them to continue as a football club.Hopefully there will be lots of pressure on the SFA/SPL from UEFA/FIFA. One club :bye: or all clubs and the national side :bye:

Perhaps this sort of thing should help make up the minds of those who are thinking about supporting the huns.

[jgl07]

I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.

Come in Agent Clark, your task is almost complete.

[down-the-slope]

The irony is that Rangers thinking they are the Big fish in a wee pond that can do what they like...are about to find out that Scotland is a wee Fish in the Big pond that is world football...and Platinni has vowed to get tough.....nice easy wee fish target given to them to get their message across to the big boys (like EPL / Seria A) that things like this will Not be ignored...

[Caversham Green]

I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.

I've been thinking the same thing, although I was wondering if they were just looking for someone else to pull the trigger. To raise this action without being aware of the regulations was an act of gross negligence, if they were aware of them they are challenging the authority of the SFA and UEFA. Totally destructive either way.

[ancienthibby]

I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.

Even the Beeb reporter describing it as a 'pyrrhic victory'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

Time to raise a glass gets closer!

[millarco]

I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.

This might be a daft question but how do the creditors benefit from today's transfer ruling? If Duff and Phelps are solely acting in their interests, I can't see how fighting the decision (running up further billable hours I assume) will make any difference to the return they receive? The only thing I can think of is it being a condition of the takeover. Unless I'm understanding the Duff and Phelps role wrong.

[CropleyWasGod]

This might be a daft question but how do the creditors benefit from today's transfer ruling? If Duff and Phelps are solely acting in their interests, I can't see how fighting the decision (running up further billable hours I assume) will make any difference to the return they receive? The only thing I can think of is it being a condition of the takeover. Unless I'm understanding the Duff and Phelps role wrong.

Not a daft question at all.

If the Green bid were to fall apart tomorrow, then the admins might want to find another buyer. A club that "can" buy players is going to be more attractive than one that can't.

All pretty academic, of course, but I suppose they have to be seen to provide for all eventualities.

The above, of course, would be their justification. The cynic might say it's got F all to do with the creditors, and more to do with saving the club.

[down-the-slope]

I know this is not Rangers....but with match fixing in Italy (allegedly :wink:)....It seems there is a whole washing line of dirty laundry in world football....and this seems the worst of all and right at the Herat of things

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18232533

[CallumLaidlaw]

Bad news for #Rangers:They wanted embargo thrown out with no further hearing- judge rejected that & proposed return to SFA appeal tribunal.

[EuanH78]

I've been thinking the same thing, although I was wondering if they were just looking for someone else to pull the trigger. To raise this action without being aware of the regulations was an act of gross negligence, if they were aware of them they are challenging the authority of the SFA and UEFA. Totally destructive either way.

I think the same. D & P probably dont want there houses torched by rabid huns, much better let the SFA (muscled by UEFA) to take the 'fall' though personally, I would consider it an honour :greengrin

[jgl07]

This might be a daft question but how do the creditors benefit from today's transfer ruling? If Duff and Phelps are solely acting in their interests, I can't see how fighting the decision (running up further billable hours I assume) will make any difference to the return they receive? The only thing I can think of is it being a condition of the takeover. Unless I'm understanding the Duff and Phelps role wrong.

I can only infer that Green may have stated that the deal would be off if the transfer ban was not lifted. Otherwise there is no justification for the actions by the administrators.

I would guess that many of the Rangers players will be able to 'walk' when the window opens later this week. If the team are to remain competitive, then they will have to be persuaded to stay by offering more cash.

A Rangers team filled with youth players and journeymen pros is not likely to prosper even in the very weak SPL. The crowds will fall off and rebuilding will be set back for years as the glory hunters departed leaving only the knuckle-draggers and a genuine supporters.

[millarco]

Not a daft question at all.

If the Green bid were to fall apart tomorrow, then the admins might want to find another buyer. A club that "can" buy players is going to be more attractive than one that can't.

All pretty academic, of course, but I suppose they have to be seen to provide for all eventualities.

The above, of course, would be their justification. The cynic might say it's got F all to do with the creditors, and more to do with saving the club.

Cheers. Would probably count myself in the latter camp, though I think Duff and Phelps probably underestimated the scrutiny they'd be under in their role. Wonder if HMRC had been able to block the appointment at the very start whether things would have been any different, under a Big 4 administrator for example.