Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Matty_Jack04]

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.

Iv been thinking the timing of all this over myself , Theyv nearly made a CVA proposal and won a case so they can buy players all on the same day, surely the creditors will be slightly annoyed that there planning on spending more before Theyv settled the previous spending?

It's more bizarre by the day

[CropleyWasGod]

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.

At their very first press conference, Paul Clark did acknowledge that they would be subject to the most intensive public scrutiny.

No sheet, Sherlock....

As for your last sentence, I am duty bound to spit at, and resist, any efforts by the Big 4 to do anything. :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

there will be Rangers players packing their bags as we speak...in the short term this decision had added more uncertainty to the situation as who knows when SFA will arrange another hearing (unless they just say :na na: to CoS judge)...and what the outcome will be with more Dudlines being passed by the day...

Agent X .....'I'm a Rangers Player...Get me out of here!!!'

Not long till the windows open and the summer fun cranks up a notch or 2 :greengrin

[millarco]

At their very first press conference, Paul Clark did acknowledge that they would be subject to the most intensive public scrutiny.

No sheet, Sherlock....

As for your last sentence, I am duty bound to spit at, and resist, any efforts by the Big 4 to do anything. :greengrin

:greengrin

[green glory]

'Significant' Fifa story soon.

https://twitter.com/rburgessbbc/status/207502153017868288

Might be the statement mentioned by STV earlier.

[The Green Goblin]

I am probably way off here, but is it possible that some folks at the SFA are actually hoping that FIFA come in heavy-handed and make the decision that they don´t have the guts to make, so that after the huns implode, they can point at FIFA and say, it wisnae us, it wis them?

[PatHead]

Been thinking about the poor level of offer again. Surely the administrators could start selling off players as assets just now (well after 1 June). I know they wouldn't get full market value but if the rumours of cut price deals of say £1m for Bocanegra, Naismith, Whittaker etc they would raise a lot more than £5m. Can the creditors not insist on a yard sale to raise funds? Just returning to the original job for the admins- look after the creditors interests. Yes it would make Rangers less attractive for a buyer but would probably raise a lot more in funds for HMRC et al.

Would a creditor be able to sue Duff and Duffer for not acting in their interests?

[StevieC]

...in the short term this decision had added more uncertainty to the situation as who knows when SFA will arrange another hearing

My take is that if they organise another hearing then they are accepting the court decision .. if they accept the court decision they are breaching their own (and FIFA's) rules. Surely they have to simply ignore the court decision, inform Rangers that this is what they are doing and STRONGLY recommend that they do the same. IF Rangers try to breach the embargo then they'll have the full weight of the SFA, UEFA and FIFA bearing down on them and the outcome wont be pretty.

Well not pretty for them that is ... I'm sure the rest of us will enjoy it.

[millarco]

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.

That was my thought. They should have to operate at a sustainable level, even if that means cutting right back and not being competitive at the top of the league. The lack of humility shown by the club and the clamour by the powers that be to maintain the status quo suggest that won't happen.



Iv been thinking the timing of all this over myself , Theyv nearly made a CVA proposal and won a case so they can buy players all on the same day, surely the creditors will be slightly annoyed that there planning on spending more before Theyv settled the previous spending?

It's more bizarre by the day

And plenty more to come I'm sure. Any wagers on how many pages this thread gets to before dying out?

[StevieC]

Been thinking about the poor level of offer again. Surely the administrators could start selling off players as assets just now (well after 1 June). I know they wouldn't get full market value but if the rumours of cut price deals of say £1m for Bocanegra, Naismith, Whittaker etc they would raise a lot more than £5m.

The Green offer will be based on the players remaining.
If they sell the players then the Green offer will be withdrawn.
If the Green offer is withdrawn then liquidation might be the only option left. I'm not sure the timescale will allow another buyer to come in, Green could be the last throw of the dice from a creditors perspective (HMRC excluded).

[Spike Mandela]

This is getting ridiculous, nobody seems to be able to punish Rangers for ANYTHING.

This year could be Rangers greatest year ever and the year the rest of us finally realise we might as well pack up and go and play golf on a weekend.

[jgl07]

Been thinking about the poor level of offer again. Surely the administrators could start selling off players as assets just now (well after 1 June). I know they wouldn't get full market value but if the rumours of cut price deals of say £1m for Bocanegra, Naismith, Whittaker etc they would raise a lot more than £5m. Can the creditors not insist on a yard sale to raise funds? Just returning to the original job for the admins- look after the creditors interests. Yes it would make Rangers less attractive for a buyer but would probably raise a lot more in funds for HMRC et al.


Why would anyone pay a transfer fee for a player who can probably declare themselves a free agent? All of the top players appear to have deferred(*) 75% of their wages for the past two months or so. Now they appear to being offered 5 pence in the pound (?) on the wages deferred.

Is that not breach of contract?

* I assume that the balance of the wages were deferred rather than conceded by the players concerned. I would guess that many will have insisted on a 'walk away' option in return for the wage reduction.

[Matty_Jack04]

Been thinking about the poor level of offer again. Surely the administrators could start selling off players as assets just now (well after 1 June). I know they wouldn't get full market value but if the rumours of cut price deals of say £1m for Bocanegra, Naismith, Whittaker etc they would raise a lot more than £5m. Can the creditors not insist on a yard sale to raise funds? Just returning to the original job for the admins- look after the creditors interests. Yes it would make Rangers less attractive for a buyer but would probably raise a lot more in funds for HMRC et al.

Would a creditor be able to sue Duff and Duffer for not acting in their interests?

West brom wanted Naismith and offered 2million which somehow got rejected, the creditors could surely make more off the assets than what green has put on the table

[Seveno]

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 am one for conspiracy theories but, in this case, I go for the incompetence theory.

[soupy]

I am probably way off here, but is it possible that some folks at the SFA are actually hoping that FIFA come in heavy-handed and make the decision that they don´t have the guts to make, so that after the huns implode, they can point at FIFA and say, it wisnae us, it wis them?


This is exactly what I'm thinking, and thank god FIFA have the balls to do something....

[Spike Mandela]

'Significant' Fifa story soon.

https://twitter.com/rburgessbbc/status/207502153017868288

Might be the statement mentioned by STV earlier.

Think it may be this.......


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

[ancient hibee]

FIFA and UEFA couldn't care less-they will do nothing.

Green's "offer"is actually a loan to Rangers repayable with interest.If the creditors fall for this one they deserve to lose their money.They should insist that players are sold to raise funds and cut wages.

[Seveno]

So what does Craigy get from ths CVA ? I find it hard to believe that he is walking away with just £2.

Is he part of the consortium ? Retaining ownership of Ibrox to rent to the consortium ? Just waiting for the inevitable liquidation ?

[Onion]

I am probably way off here, but is it possible that some folks at the SFA are actually hoping that FIFA come in heavy-handed and make the decision that they don´t have the guts to make, so that after the huns implode, they can point at FIFA and say, it wisnae us, it wis them?

:agree:You're not way off at all. That's my take on the situation, and if you were in the SFA's shoes wouldn't you be working towards this ? They are in a dammed if they do, dammed if they don't predicament. A FIFA/UEFA bail-out is just what this situation needs.

[Hibs7]

Why are duff and duffer not being paid 8 p in the pound, surely they are owed money from.Rangers too.
The whole thing stinks and the SFA should throw the book at them, give them the worst punishment legally possible.

[steakbake]

I am probably way off here, but is it possible that some folks at the SFA are actually hoping that FIFA come in heavy-handed and make the decision that they don´t have the guts to make, so that after the huns implode, they can point at FIFA and say, it wisnae us, it wis them?

This is the one, I reckon. The SFA are hoping it gets taken out their hands because they don't have the spine to do it themselves.

[millarco]

Why are duff and duffer not being paid 8 p in the pound, surely they are owed money from.Rangers too.
The whole thing stinks and the SFA should throw the book at them, give them the worst punishment legally possible.

Administrators are paid in full, otherwise nobody would ever to the job. Whether they've earned their £3m+ is a different matter.

[Derek Dougan]

Administrators are paid in full, otherwise nobody would ever to the job. Whether they've earned their £3m+ is a different matter.

Can you see any of the creditors accepting 9p in the £, when Duff and Duffer are taking over £5.5M themselves? I'm almost convinced that Whyte will be trousering a few quid from that.

[ekhibee]

Administrators are paid in full, otherwise nobody would ever to the job. Whether they've earned their £3m+ is a different matter.

They're actually getting over £5.5 million, more than the offer they've made to the creditors!!

[strummbo]

its all a sham ... them swines will end up still in the spl....

the sfa/spl/sfl are bending over backwards to ensure that they will

the judiciary will back them up, other spl clubs will support them

its all a total stick on i think

[camhibby1]

Can you see any of the creditors accepting 9p in the £, when Duff and Duffer are taking over £5.5M themselves? I'm almost convinced that Whyte will be trousering a few quid from that.

As a matter of principal every publicly funded creditor (Ambulance Service; Royal Mail; Strathclyde Police and others) should reject this CVA and announce that they are rejecting it on the grounds that Rangers in 'allegedly' being involved in tax evasion have denied, by their actions much needed funds for these very publicly funded bodies. I am loathing the cheating and conniving more and more and just wish they would disappear for ever.

[blackpoolhibs]

its all a sham ... them swines will end up still in the spl....

the sfa/spl/sfl are bending over backwards to ensure that they will

the judiciary will back them up, other spl clubs will support them

its all a total stick on i think

I'm hanging my coat on FIFA or UEFA doing the job right, as like you i have no faith in those cowards and corrupt pricks in charge at the SPL/SFA anymore.

This is the crossroads imo for football in our country, if they get this wrong they might have the huns back, but imo they will lose a huge amount of non old firm fans.

[strummbo]

bh... i dont think folk would stop goin, i will keep going as will others

could't not support my team because of the opposition. that would be crazy

tis a crossroads though yer right there

[millarco]

Can you see any of the creditors accepting 9p in the £, when Duff and Duffer are taking over £5.5M themselves? I'm almost convinced that Whyte will be trousering a few quid from that.

I hope not, but they might see it as the only way of recovering anything (and potentially guaranteeing future income). Will all come down to HMRC/Ticketus anyway.

[millarco]

Enjoyed the invitation to supporter debenture holders, presenting the option "to surrender their Benefits in exchange for a distribution via the CVA". Wonder how many of the Bears will surrender...

[Spike Mandela]

bh... i dont think folk would stop goin, i will keep going as will others

could't not support my team because of the opposition. that would be crazy

tis a crossroads though yer right there

Wrong. I feel strongly enough that it's not about supporting this team or that, it's about paying good money into a morally bankrupt, corrupt game where all chips are stacked against non OF teams. Hibs strategy of living within our means has brought us tediously dull teams and gains us no benefit whatsoever in the short or long term.

My overriding feeling is 'what is the point?'. I am a season ticket holder but if Rangers aren't dealt with in a fashion I consider suitable I will walk away and take the hit this year. Scottish football would be pointless.

[blackpoolhibs]

bh... i dont think folk would stop goin, i will keep going as will others

could't not support my team because of the opposition. that would be crazy

tis a crossroads though yer right there

I think you might be surprised, I'd go to the derby games probably, God knows why though?

Apart from that, I won't bother. I won't be boycotting hibs, I'd just be finished with the game as it is bent.

[strummbo]

my uncle took out 2 debentures at ibrox. i wasnt pleased, but he said that the idea of having 'dominic' on the plate on the chair was too good to miss. fair enough i thought

[The Green Goblin]

I think you might be surprised, I'd go to the derby games probably, God knows why though?

Apart from that, I won't bother. I won't be boycotting hibs, I'd just be finished with the game as it is bent.


This. And I bet you could substitute "hibs" there for many other teams in Scotland and you'd have the opinion of many fans that the powers-that-be don't really believe will walk away. I think if they decide to call that bluff, they're going to get an awful shock.

[Newry Hibs]

Just trying to catch up a bit ....

Can someone do a quick summary as to why FIFA / UEFA may act as per Sion? Weren't they (Sion) in the wrong? (I know RFC aren't particularly looking good), but RFC have gone to court who have said an action against them was wrong. As much as I don't like them, surely they have 'the law' on their side, so I don't really get why FIFA / UEFA would object. What if the sanction was totally unreasonable (e.g. play all their matches on one leg) wouldn't they be right to go to court?

Also, hasn't Green via the CVA made his offer now? Is it retractable? What if Ticketus and HMRC said yes tomorrow?

Lastly, is Green's offer a loan? Isn't that a bit dodgy in itself? I thought he had 20 or so multi millionaires to pump money in. Surely they would get their investment back and then some.

[PatHead]

The Green offer will be based on the players remaining.
If they sell the players then the Green offer will be withdrawn.
If the Green offer is withdrawn then liquidation might be the only option left. I'm not sure the timescale will allow another buyer to come in, Green could be the last throw of the dice from a creditors perspective (HMRC excluded).

The point I'm making though is that Green's offer is pathetic. If players were sold they could raise say £15m and pay more to the creditors with liquidation than Green is offering. Rangers continuation should not be a consideration for admins if they are not continuing to make payments in future.

[frazeHFC]

Teams owed money are only getting 9 pence in the pound. Why??? If they can't pay it then they should die. If they are to stay as a club then why should other teams suffer?

[GordonHFC]

I always worried that the sanction was a made up one because the panel thought that a fine was not enough and a suspension was too much. I think the currants may have shot themselves in the foot here as the only course I can see the panel taking is now suspension. If there is nothing available in the middle then suspension it has to be ?

[Gus Fring]

Just trying to catch up a bit ....

Can someone do a quick summary as to why FIFA / UEFA may act as per Sion? Weren't they (Sion) in the wrong? (I know RFC aren't particularly looking good), but RFC have gone to court who have said an action against them was wrong. As much as I don't like them, surely they have 'the law' on their side, so I don't really get why FIFA / UEFA would object. What if the sanction was totally unreasonable (e.g. play all their matches on one leg) wouldn't they be right to go to court?

Basically, from what I understand, its irrelevant whether Rangers are right or not, no team is allowed under FIFA rules to take their Association to "Ordinary Court".

Heres the rule


http://i46.tinypic.com/6sct20.jpg

[ballengeich]

I was surprised by today's news as I felt that the presence of Lord Carloway on the SFA panel was meant to ensure that the proceedings would be conducted in a way that would ensure that this kind of legal challenge would be dismissed. I expect the next step to be an SFA appeal against today's court verdict.

It seems that the court did not reject the SFA's right to punish Rangers, just the particular sanction chosen. A one year suspension would have been legal. That would also now scupper the cva without Hector having to lift a finger as Green's offer is conditional on Rangers being in the usual competitions.

[DH1875]

bh... i dont think folk would stop goin, i will keep going as will others

could't not support my team because of the opposition. that would be crazy

tis a crossroads though yer right there

Going to ER will always be an option. Going anywhere else, won't be an option. Ibrox and Rugby park are already out for me and I'm sure more will follow as we find out who votes for a rangers newco.

[PatHead]

I always worried that the sanction was a made up one because the panel thought that a fine was not enough and a suspension was too much. I think the currants may have shot themselves in the foot here as the only course I can see the panel taking is now suspension. If there is nothing available in the middle then suspension it has to be ?

Easiest solution is for SFA to tell Rangers to withdraw their appeal. If they fail to do so expulsion will follow as it is only option open to SFA with Fifa on their case. Green will withdraw his pathetic offer and liquidation will follow. I do think Rangers have shot themselves in the foot with this.

[Newry Hibs]

Basically, from what I understand, its irrelevant whether Rangers are right or not, no team is allowed under FIFA rules to take their Association to "Ordinary Court".

OK. Thanks. Look forward to some FIFA action. How funny will it be that basically RFC kill themselves, though as ever I think bugger all will happen to them.

[ScottB]

Interesting...


Prior to the court's decision, the world governing body Fifa said: "Fifa will ask the member association (SFA) to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
"Fifa will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."

[Gus Fring]

Interesting...

Looks to me like FIFA is giving the SFA a last chance to man up and slap Rangers with a suitable punishment or FIFA will have to step and hit everyone with a punishment.

[jgl07]

Looks to me like FIFA is giving the SFA a last chance to man up and slap Rangers with a suitable punishment or FIFA will have to step and hit everyone with a punishment.

How about:

Banning Celtic, Motherwell, Hearts, Dundee United, and St Johnstone from Europe next season.

Banning Scotland from the World Cup Qualifiers.

That should do for starters.

[Kaiser1962]

Looks to me like FIFA is giving the SFA a last chance to man up and slap Rangers with a suitable punishment or FIFA will have to step and hit everyone with a punishment.

FIFA/UEFA are rife for being taken to almost every court in every land because of the way football is set up and conducts its business. They (FIFA) cant allow it to happen or the whole system will crumble and, as has already been seen in Switzerland, they dont usually mess about.

As others have said this may well be the get out the SFA have been looking/waiting for.

[Jim44]

I always worried that the sanction was a made up one because the panel thought that a fine was not enough and a suspension was too much. I think the currants may have shot themselves in the foot here as the only course I can see the panel taking is now suspension. If there is nothing available in the middle then suspension it has to be ?


Kicking them out of the Scottish Cup is the only sanction left. Big deal. Suspension or expulsion won't even be a consideration for Donkeyhead and the other Hun sympathisers.

[HibbyRod]

Kicking them out of the Scottish Cup is the only sanction left. Big deal. Suspension or expulsion won't even be a consideration for Donkeyhead and the other Hun sympathisers.


Surely EUFA/FIFA wouldn't let them get away with that? :confused:

[Leithenhibby]

How about:

Banning Celtic, Motherwell, Hearts, Dundee United, and St Johnstone from Europe next season.

Banning Scotland from the World Cup Qualifiers.

That should do for starters.


This is what the Swiss FA where threatened with, they (uefa) must step in soon and sort out this sorry mess. :agree:

Time to wrap it up me thinks .... :wink:

[ScottB]

Surely EUFA/FIFA wouldn't let them get away with that? :confused:

Nope, the key with Scion was that FIFA insisted that they had to be punished in a way that was appropriate to their crime. If the SFA are 'forced' to go soft because of a civil court action, FIFA will demand more or kick the whole of Scottish football out into the wilderness...

[Onion]

Wrong. I feel strongly enough that it's not about supporting this team or that, it's about paying good money into a morally bankrupt, corrupt game where all chips are stacked against non OF teams. Hibs strategy of living within our means has brought us tediously dull teams and gains us no benefit whatsoever in the short or long term.

My overriding feeling is 'what is the point?'. I am a season ticket holder but if Rangers aren't dealt with in a fashion I consider suitable I will walk away and take the hit this year. Scottish football would be pointless.

And there are thousands who think exactly the same way :agree: Paying good money to watch a corrupt sport is just plain daft.

[snooky]

Nope, the key with Scion was that FIFA insisted that they had to be punished in a way that was appropriate to their crime. If the SFA are 'forced' to go soft because of a civil court action, FIFA will demand more or kick the whole of Scottish football out into the wilderness...

They won't have to kick us very far then.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just heard on the radio, but no link yet.....

"BBC Scotland understands" that there is increased "animosity towards Rangers" because of the Court action.

Encouraging :agree:

[green glory]

Just heard on the radio, but no link yet.....

"BBC Scotland understands" that there is increased "animosity towards Rangers" because of the Court action.

Encouraging :agree:

From?? Getting excited here lol.

[CropleyWasGod]

From?? Getting excited here lol.

Other clubs, apparently.....

[steakbake]

How humiliating is it though, that our own FA has been asked to take a proper decision and manage the situation by the international body?

If this now goes from the SFA back to FIFA, surely Doncaster has to lose his job? He's clearly well out of his depth that he can't make the decisions that are blindingly obvious to anyone looking on.

That's before we even get to the blatant collusion by some sections of the media.

[Onion]

Just trying to catch up a bit ....

Can someone do a quick summary as to why FIFA / UEFA may act as per Sion? Weren't they (Sion) in the wrong? (I know RFC aren't particularly looking good), but RFC have gone to court who have said an action against them was wrong. As much as I don't like them, surely they have 'the law' on their side, so I don't really get why FIFA / UEFA would object. What if the sanction was totally unreasonable (e.g. play all their matches on one leg) wouldn't they be right to go to court?

Also, hasn't Green via the CVA made his offer now? Is it retractable? What if Ticketus and HMRC said yes tomorrow?

Lastly, is Green's offer a loan? Isn't that a bit dodgy in itself? I thought he had 20 or so multi millionaires to pump money in. Surely they would get their investment back and then some.

If clubs were to resort to the courts to resolve issues arising in the game, there would be complete carnage, in fact there would be no game - just a series of court cases - esp given the amount of money at stake in the English Leagues and Europe.

[green glory]

Other clubs, apparently.....

Even the Queen's probably getting pissed off with them by now lol.

[Brando7]

Just trying to catch up a bit ....

Can someone do a quick summary as to why FIFA / UEFA may act as per Sion? Weren't they (Sion) in the wrong? (I know RFC aren't particularly looking good), but RFC have gone to court who have said an action against them was wrong. As much as I don't like them, surely they have 'the law' on their side, so I don't really get why FIFA / UEFA would object. What if the sanction was totally unreasonable (e.g. play all their matches on one leg) wouldn't they be right to go to court?

Also, hasn't Green via the CVA made his offer now? Is it retractable? What if Ticketus and HMRC said yes tomorrow?

Lastly, is Green's offer a loan? Isn't that a bit dodgy in itself? I thought he had 20 or so multi millionaires to pump money in. Surely they would get their investment back and then some.

This might clear a few things up for u

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/rangers-cva-at-a-glance/

[Beefster]

How humiliating is it though, that our own FA has been asked to take a proper decision and manage the situation by the international body?

If this now goes from the SFA back to FIFA, surely Doncaster has to lose his job? He's clearly well out of his depth that he can't make the decisions that are blindingly obvious to anyone looking on.

That's before we even get to the blatant collusion by some sections of the media.

Doncaster works for the SPL. Regan is in charge at the SFA.

[lapsedhibee]

As much as I don't like them, surely they have 'the law' on their side, so I don't really get why FIFA / UEFA would object. What if the sanction was totally unreasonable (e.g. play all their matches on one leg) wouldn't they be right to go to court?

Would only be outrageous if they made Rangers play with eleven left-footers.

Quite liking your suggested punishment, though that dive that people do now for penalties - where the attacker leaves his trailing foot against the defender and simultaneously brown-trouts himself forward - would become tricky.

[Onion]

How humiliating is it though, that our own FA has been asked to take a proper decision and manage the situation by the international body?

If this now goes from the SFA back to FIFA, surely Doncaster has to lose his job? He's clearly well out of his depth that he can't make the decisions that are blindingly obvious to anyone looking on.

That's before we even get to the blatant collusion by some sections of the media.

The irony is that it went to court because the Huns thought the punishment was too HARSH :greengrin

I always thought FIFA/UEFA would step in when it was clear that the SFA/SPL were just forgiving all RFC's transgressions. In saying that, it wasn't exactly the SFA who imposed the penalty.

So, when can we expect Ally and the crazy minority to demand to know the names of the faceless FIFA officials who are calling for proper punishment :greengrin

[steakbake]

Doncaster works for the SPL. Regan is in charge at the SFA.

Doncaster is central to the mishandling of the situation. Isn't the management of the country's premier league answerable to the SFA because of the way the situation has been pursued? Business interests over sporting integrity? Or does it not work like that? Genuine question.

[Leithenhibby]

Nope, the key with Scion was that FIFA insisted that they had to be punished in a way that was appropriate to their crime. If the SFA are 'forced' to go soft because of a civil court action, FIFA will demand more or kick the whole of Scottish football out into the wilderness...


We have already been there for a few years now! :greengrin

[johnbc70]

Kicking them out of the Scottish Cup is the only sanction left. Big deal. Suspension or expulsion won't even be a consideration for Donkeyhead and the other Hun sympathisers.

I agree, they will get kicked out the Scottish Cup. Big deal. I want FIFA to step in and sort this mess out as the SFA and the SPL have had months now and achieved nothing.

[jgl07]

Doncaster works for the SPL. Regan is in charge at the SFA.

But Doncaster must bear the prime responsibility for letting the situation get to the stage it is. The SFA are in the firing line as a result.

Doncaster must go but Regan can stay as far as I am concerned.

[Beefster]

Doncaster is central to the mishandling of the situation. Isn't the management of the country's premier league answerable to the SFA because of the way the situation has been pursued? Business interests over sporting integrity? Or does it not work like that? Genuine question.


But Doncaster must bear the prime responsibility for letting the situation get to the stage it is. The SFA are in the firing line as a result.

Doncaster must go but Regan can stay as far as I am concerned.

I'm not disputing that Doncaster is a useless git. You can't blame him for the SFA messing up/being useless though - the SFA are just as responsible as the SPL.

[ScottB]

[/B]

They won't have to kick us very far then.

Banning us from international football would be a mercy, not a punishment!

[jgl07]

I'm not disputing that Doncaster is a useless git. You can't blame him for the SFA messing up/being useless though - the SFA are just as responsible as the SPL.

Have the SFA messed up?

They at least are trying to punish Rangers until Doncaster with his bucket of whitewash.

[Colr]

Just heard on the radio, but no link yet.....

"BBC Scotland understands" that there is increased "animosity towards Rangers" because of the Court action.

Encouraging :agree:
from whom?

[down-the-slope]

Its amazing how many people have no idea of the football structures and responsibilities in Scotland - now I agree that one body running it all would be best...but vested interests mean thats unlikely.

The SFA is the member of UEFA / FIFA so its they / Regan / SFA Board that has to get to grips with this aspect of the situation

[CropleyWasGod]

from whom?

Other clubs, apparently

[CropleyWasGod]

Have the SFA messed up?

They at least are trying to punish Rangers until Doncaster with his bucket of whitewash.

They have messed up if, as the judge suggests, they didn't know their own rules.

The bigger mess-up, I would suggest, is on the part of Rangers.

[down-the-slope]

BBC Scotland has learned that a number of SPL clubs are extremely disappointed with the ruling.
One club chairman said there was an "increased animosity" towards Rangers after they took the case to court

Sounds like an off the record response...lets hope the CVA gets rejected as they are really peeing off the people that need to agree a NewCo....only needs 5 to take the hump and they are sunk

[CallumLaidlaw]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7785874/Green-issues-CVA-appeal

Poor poor rangers!!

[EuanH78]

Have the SFA messed up?

They at least are trying to punish Rangers until Doncaster with his bucket of whitewash.

I dont think the SFA have messed anything up...yet and I'm no apologist for them, they have imposed a punishment on the Huns that to be honest was actually quite leniant given the severity of the transgressions - that the Huns are too stupid to just take it on the chin and would rather incur the wrath of FIFA/ UEFA for further flagrant rule breaking is not the SFA's fault. Whether the SFA now have the cajones to follow through remains to be seen, however.

[seanshow]

""Twitter Exchange

James : I’m a Rangers fan who cares…really…go to division 3
and start again, cos we are really not wanted in the top league.

Malcolm: James, I’m a Stranraer fan – you’re not wanted in Division 3 either!""

Made me chuckle :greengrin

[CentreLine]

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.

Could this be the intention from the very start. Bring Scottish football to the brink and finish it as a seperate entity?
Was there not a rumour some time back that Rangers, or an arm of Rangers, had purchased a Blue Chip League Club for no obvious reason? Now supposing Scottish football goes to the wall as you suggest and all clubs then came under the FA of England then there would be nothing to prevent a club playing their English league games in a Scottish stadium. Enter the Blue Chip league club suddenly able to play their games at Ibrox...............It all may sound a little far fetched but nothing about the way this administration has gone can leave anyone surprised............ Do you see where I am going with this?

[steakbake]

Archie MacPherson goes into bat for the huns.

[CropleyWasGod]

Archie MacPherson goes into bat for the huns.

There it is..... swept away. Wooooooooooooooooooooooooof.

[shagpile]

archie macpherson goes into bat for the huns.


ooooofff!

[BarneyK]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7785874/Green-issues-CVA-appeal

Poor poor rangers!!

That story is first class. £8.5million in the pot, £5.5m + going to Duff and Phelps. From a debt of £135 million they are proposing £3.5million. Hilarious.

[Colr]

That story is first class. £8.5million in the pot, £5.5m + going to Duff and Phelps. From a debt of £135 million they are proposing £3.5million. Hilarious.

if hmrc step in and preemptively liquidate, do d & p then join the. creditors?

[sambajustice]

I was just wondering if the BBC wee at the wind up when they said that if the CVA is accepted then the Huns would exit Administration on 12th JULY!!!!!!!!!!

:faint:

[Spike Mandela]

That story is first class. £8.5million in the pot, £5.5m + going to Duff and Phelps. From a debt of £135 million they are proposing £3.5million. Hilarious.

Can't HMRC just get a surveyor in and have Ibrox and Murray Park valued?

[Biggie]

someone at the SFA should get their bollocks roasted for not knowing their own rules...'kin amateurs
P.S Oh aye, **** off archie

[CropleyWasGod]

if hmrc step in and preemptively liquidate, do d & p then join the. creditors?

They can't do it, whilst the administration is ongoing.

[Leithenhibby]

Could this be the intention from the very start. Bring Scottish football to the brink and finish it as a seperate entity?
Was there not a rumour some time back that Rangers, or an arm of Rangers, had purchased a Blue Chip League Club for no obvious reason? Now supposing Scottish football goes to the wall as you suggest and all clubs then came under the FA of England then there would be nothing to prevent a club playing their English league games in a Scottish stadium. Enter the Blue Chip league club suddenly able to play their games at Ibrox...............It all may sound a little far fetched but nothing about the way this administration has gone can leave anyone surprised............ Do you see where I am going with this?

Only until Independence :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't HMRC just get a surveyor in and have Ibrox and Murray Park valued?

Why would they? That would cost money. All they need to do is vote against the CVA.

[scoopyboy]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7785874/Green-issues-CVA-appeal

Poor poor rangers!!

Let me say first of all a lot of this financial and legal stuff has me a bit confused, not my area of expertise.

How can people be asked to vote to accept a CVA when it doesn't specify what they are being asked to accept?

It's like one of these silly TV Quiz shows.

Newsnight at 11pm on BBC2 is going to be good seemingly.

[BarneyK]

Can't HMRC just get a surveyor in and have Ibrox and Murray Park valued?

Isn't Green already shouting to anyone who'll listen that they're worth £115 million or something? That is, unless it's for the benefit of creditors...then they're worthless.

[Bishop Hibee]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7785874/Green-issues-CVA-appeal

Poor poor rangers!!

No wonder Green wants a CVA. He's due £4m if his plans work out.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/05/29/charles-green-could-rake-in-4m-windfall-from-plans-to-save-rangers-86908-23877539/

My gut feeling is the SFA will go with the £100,000 fine and maybe a 3 year ban from the Scottish Cup. The same Scottish Cup many huns were wanting to boycott. Hardly a punishment. The whole farce is beginning to stink to high heaven.

[joe breezy]

Hun feature on newsnight Scotland now

[Colr]

No wonder Green wants a CVA. He's due £4m if his plans work out.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/05/29/charles-green-could-rake-in-4m-windfall-from-plans-to-save-rangers-86908-23877539/

My gut feeling is the SFA will go with the £100,000 fine and maybe a 3 year ban from the Scottish Cup. The same Scottish Cup many huns were wanting to boycott. Hardly a punishment. The whole farce is beginning to stink to high heaven.

could Brian Kennedy step in and make a higher offer for the assets and start a bidding war?

[Colr]

Hun feature on newsnight Scotland now

keep us up to date.

[JohnStephens91]

Have UEFA or FIFA not stepped in yet to either stamp out the manky Gers or the Scottish league system yet? Surely taking the national football association to a court which isn't the Court of Arbitration for Sport is directly contravening the rules that UEFA and FIFA have. I have a funny feeling the Bluenosers will be saved by the brownosers in the the SFA/SPL with limited sanctions, or that Scottish football will be almost wiped out completely because of Rangers thinking they are above all the rules and laws of the game in Scotland.

[blackpoolhibs]

Prof Chris Bailey in London seems to think HMRC will take the 9p in the £ offer.

[matty_f]

Prof Chris Bailey in London seems to think HMRC will take the 9p in the £ offer.

Great. I think we should all push to pay less than a tenth of our tax liabilities in that case.

[DH1875]

keep us up to date.


It's a load of kite so far. A lot of questions have still to be asked and answered :brickwall. Somethings happening on the 14th June :confused:.

[Jonnyboy]

Great. I think we should all push to pay less than a tenth of our tax liabilities in that case.

Yep and if they refuse I'll simply re-invent myself as Newco Jonnyboy :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

CHARLES GREEN has put himself in line for a potential £4million windfall from his plan to keep the padlock off the front doors of Ibrox.
Record Sport can today reveal secret details of Green’s proposals to save Rangers from extinction.
The plans have been published in a glossy 24-page presentation to prospective investors.(why a prospectus when investors were already in the bag)
Green claims anyone willing to invest in his rescue mission will double their cash as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. (good selling pont for ST sales ...Not)
And the document reveals Green also stands to personally pocket a multi-million pound bonus from the deal, despite not laying out a penny of his own money on the takeover. (its what Rangers owners do...risk anybodys but their own money)
The Yorkshireman is still trying to recruit more financial muscle and hopes to raise as much as £40m from investors. (flap flap oink)
Last week he was scheduled to provide £2.7m – needed, it’s thought, to pay the club’s wage bill until a CVA is accepted in early July – but administrators were left empty handed. (another dudline missed...cant believe D&P still working with tis guy)
However, after a day of talks yesterday, Green delivered enough cash to allow Duff and Phelps to proceed with the proposal to the club’s creditors. (sounds like it was touch and go)
Green will be given time to raise the £8.5m (so he doesnt even have the paltry amount being put into the pot to pay D&P...I mean the creditors)required for the CVA pot but he has now convinced Duff and Phelps the cash is there to keep the club in business throughout June.
In his confidential ‘Investor Presentation’ Green reveals his plan to buy the club through holding company Sevco 5088.
He will then become chief executive and says the club will be floated on the AIM stock market later this year when his group of investors stand to ‘double’ their money.
The brochure says: “Founding investors who put up the first £10,000,000 will receive 10,000,000 additional shares at a value of £1 per share on a pro rata basis effectively doubling their contributions.”
Green also stands to make a fortune as the brochure reveals he is “being incentivised by 10 per cent of the enlarged share capital of the holding company post completion”.
Duff and Phelps confirmed last night the CVA notice will go out this morning but, should that fail, Green outlined his plan B.
In the document it is stated “in the very unlikely event a CVA is not agreed by creditors” Sevco will pick up Ibrox and Murray Park at a knock down £5.5m.
It also describes ‘advantages’ to a Newco being banned from Europe for three years, including slashing the first-team wage bill from £18m to around £11m.(well the Bears can't say they have not been warned)

[Spike Mandela]

Newsnight Scotland gets a couple of financial 'experts' on who have a jolly old laugh at questions regarding the clear discrepancies and valiuations in the CVA but agree it's acceptance is a shoe in. The whole administration process at football clubs is showing to be a sham.

[down-the-slope]

Prof Chris Bailey in London seems to think HMRC will take the 9p in the £ offer.

Did you see the lady almost laugh when she said offer could end up a negative p in the £ if tax case and 47 other unknown costs pile in....got the impression she thought CVA offer was a big steaming pile but could not out rightly say so

[johnbc70]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

[Jonnyboy]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

IIRC correctly the punishments available are suspension from competition or removal of membership of the SFA

Either way I hope it hurts :wink:

[Mon Dieu4]

Never thought id say this but Mon the FIFA!!

[stokesmessiah]

Am i right in thinking the SPL clubs are meeting up again tomorrow?

[CropleyWasGod]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

The assistant ref will have his flag up for offside.

[ScottB]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

100%

In fact, are they intending for this to happen? If we assume liquidation to be the desired endgame here, which it is. Green doesn't want blamed for pulling the trigger, Duff & Duffer don't want any more heat on them, so why not make a pointless legal move that is guaranteed to go badly for you, and get you punted out the league. they can then blame FIFA for it, liquidate the club and Green buys what's left and tries to newco his way into the SPL...


Of course it ignores that this action, which going by the Scion case threatens the very existence of Scottish football will **** off all the other clubs, as we are already seeing suggestion of, and that if they annoy FIFA / UEFA enough, they will want to ensure they end up dead and stay dead...

[gramskiwood]

The assistant ref will have his flag up for offside.

:top marks

[lapsedhibee]

Did you see the lady almost laugh when she said offer could end up a negative p in the £ if tax case and 47 other unknown costs pile in....got the impression she thought CVA offer was a big steaming pile but could not out rightly say so

I heard her say that too, but couldn't quite believe that I had.

Shirley that's pish?

Even if Green's consortium of squillionaires only puts in a total of £1, and the final debt after the BTC is lost is calculated at £825742052057235913m, the creditors can never be offered a negative amount? :confused: Either she was very very nervous about being on the tellybox, or she has yamathematical tendencies.

[hibs0666]

100%

In fact, are they intending for this to happen? If we assume liquidation to be the desired endgame here, which it is. Green doesn't want blamed for pulling the trigger, Duff & Duffer don't want any more heat on them, so why not make a pointless legal move that is guaranteed to go badly for you, and get you punted out the league. they can then blame FIFA for it, liquidate the club and Green buys what's left and tries to newco his way into the SPL...


Of course it ignores that this action, which going by the Scion case threatens the very existence of Scottish football will **** off all the other clubs, as we are already seeing suggestion of, and that if they annoy FIFA / UEFA enough, they will want to ensure they end up dead and stay dead...

Why would liquidation be the desired endgame if you can pick up the club for a pound? If Green pulls this off then he is some man.

[Spike Mandela]

IIRC correctly the punishments available are suspension from competition or removal of membership of the SFA

Either way I hope it hurts :wink:

Or a ban from the Scottish Cup or £100,000 fine.

If the SFA tribunal has option to go softer or tougher punishment which would they choose? I say softer but Fifa pressure Might push it towards suspension.

[CropleyWasGod]

Or a ban from the Scottish Cup or £100,000 fine.

If the SFA tribunal has option to go softer or tougher punishment which would they choose? I say softer but Fifa pressure Might push it towards suspension.

There are now two "crimes" to be punished. The first one, the disrepute charge, has to be reconsidered. The second one is taking the case to Court.

Higher, higher :greengrin

[BEEJ]

Can't HMRC just get a surveyor in and have Ibrox and Murray Park valued?


Why would they? That would cost money. All they need to do is vote against the CVA.
[I'm sorry, this will have been answered before; but for the latecomers to this thread ....]

Would Ticketus (with or without HMRC) not be better off saying no to the CVA and taking Ibrox and Murray Park as assets instead?

They would then be able to secure an income stream indefinitely from whatever form of RFC rose from the ashes of liquidation and needed somewhere to play their home fixtures. Such an income stream over time would be worth more than 8p in the £ today.

Why do the physical assets belonging to RFC only seem destined to go into the hands of Green if the CVA is rejected?

:confused:

[ScottB]

Why would liquidation be the desired endgame if you can pick up the club for a pound? If Green pulls this off then he is some man.

Because the Orange hordes refuse to accept a CVA isn't a total impossibility and hounded out the last guy who dared to suggest otherwise?

[Eyrie]

Let me say first of all a lot of this financial and legal stuff has me a bit confused, not my area of expertise.

How can people be asked to vote to accept a CVA when it doesn't specify what they are being asked to accept?

It's like one of these silly TV Quiz shows.

Newsnight at 11pm on BBC2 is going to be good seemingly.
That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

[I'm sorry, this will have been answered before; but for the latecomers to this thread ....]

Would Ticketus (with or without HMRC) not be better off saying no to the CVA and taking Ibrox and Murray Park as assets instead?

They would then be able to secure an income stream indefinitely from whatever form of RFC rose from the ashes of liquidation and needed somewhere to play their home fixtures. Such an income stream over time would be worth more than 8p in the £ today.

Why do the physical assets belonging to RFC only seem destined to go into the hands of Green if the CVA is rejected?

:confused:

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been? :greengrin

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

[DH1875]

That's what I don't understand either. If the Big Tax Case goes against them, then it will slash the already paltry amount that each creditor can receive.

Add in the dodgy property valuation and the creditors have to hold out for more since they have sod all to lose anyway.

Anyone actually know when the big tax case will be herd. I don't get how the likes of ticketus can vote on the CVA until they know the outcome of that.

[Spike Mandela]

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been?

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

My understanding of this scandal though is that the administrators will sell the main assets off cheaply to Green rather than just liquidate and the look for a highest bidder for the liquidated assets. Never in a million years can administration be seen as 'getting the best for the creditos'. It's a giant Legal .con.

[CropleyWasGod]

Anyone actually know when the big tax case will be herd. I don't get how the likes of ticketus can vote on the CVA until they know the outcome of that.

It has been ongoing for months. Part of the reason for the slow process is that every transaction involving an EBT has to be examined. As we have seen, that is more than a few.....

[jgl07]

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

Please explain.

That doesn't appear to tie in with the figures I have seen and the large number of indeterminate figres.

[BarneyK]

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

I thought 8.5p was the upper level?

[CropleyWasGod]

My understanding of this scandal though is that the administrators will sell the main assets off cheaply to Green rather than just liquidate and the look for a highest bidder for the liquidated assets. Never in a million years can administration be seen as 'getting the best for the creditos'. It's a giant Legal .con.

They can't do that, though. If they try to sell off assets cheaply, any creditor can petition the Court to stop the sale.

[BEEJ]

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been? :greengrin
Sorry, guv! :greengrin


No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.
Right, that's what I thought. So why does it seem to be assumed that Green will naturally inherit these assets post liquidation for next to nothing?

Ticketus, as a private entity, could seek these assets at their knockdown value in return for some of the money owed to them and then lease the stadium to the next ugly RFC monster to emerge from the slime.

No?

[BarneyK]

Late? I'll say you are!! WTF have you been? :greengrin

No-one, other than the admins, is allowed to take charge of the assets, whilst administration is ongoing. In any event, I don't think HMRC as an entity would have the power to own property in that way.

If the CVA is rejected, it's liquidation time.... and the liquidator would then dispose of the assets for as much as possible.

Isn't it Newco time after the failed CVA? And what assets? The players are free to go at that point, and the brick and mortar appears to exist in a dual universe where it is worth simultaneously hunners of millions and **** all. (Something to do with Quantum Mechanics, I think)

[DH1875]

I thought 8.5p was the upper level?


Me to. I thought if the BTC goes against them they were talking about creditors getting negative amounts less than 1p.

[BEEJ]

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.
Do you mean halve?

If the BTC goes against Rangers the 8.5p becomes just 2p or even less. Or so we were advised by Newsnight this evening.

[Spike Mandela]

They can't do that, though. If they try to sell off assets cheaply, any creditor can petition the Court to stop the sale.

If the CVA fails the stated aim is to sell the assets to Green for £5.5m. It's in the CVA document is it not?:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Please explain.

That doesn't appear to tie in with the figures I have seen and the large number of indeterminate figres.

£135m debt, with the BTC. £8.3m for creditors. That's about 6.3p/£

£60m debt without the BTC is about 13.8/£

Okay, I know the admin fees have to be taken off. But, the point I was making is that, if the BTC goes with RFC , the payout will double.

Your point about it being indeterminate, though, is very important.

[CropleyWasGod]

If the CVA fails the stated aim is to sell the assets to Green for £5.5m. It's in the CVA document is it not?:confused:

That might be their plan, but it doesn;t have to work that way. Again, if a creditor thinks that's too low, then they can have it stopped.

[blackpoolhibs]

Did you see the lady almost laugh when she said offer could end up a negative p in the £ if tax case and 47 other unknown costs pile in....got the impression she thought CVA offer was a big steaming pile but could not out rightly say so

I did, but was not sure which way to take it?

I was not sure if like you say, she thought it was a pile of poo, or she thought they might just have pulled it off and got away with murder?

[snooky]

On Newsnight the sports lawyer says that it is in FIFA and UEFAs rulebook that any club that takes its member association to a civil court MUST be punished. So according the rules the SFA need to punish Rangers for taking this to the civil court, plus reconsider the punishment for the original offence. I think Rangers could have really scored an own goal here.

Ban them from the Scottish Cup next season!
(To run concurrently with the same SPL ban).

That'll show them who's Boss!

[BarneyK]

£135m debt, with the BTC. £8.3m for creditors. That's about 6.3p/£

£60m debt without the BTC is about 13.8/£

Okay, I know the admin fees have to be taken off. But, the point I was making is that, if the BTC goes with RFC , the payout will double.

Your point about it being indeterminate, though, is very important.

Aye, dinnae forget the Admin fees...a trifling amount :agree:

[Lungo--Drom]

Quantum :greengrin


could Brian Kennedy step in and make a higher offer for the assets and start a bidding war?

[Lungo--Drom]

Quantum :greengrin


Isn't it Newco time after the failed CVA? And what assets? The players are free to go at that point, and the brick and mortar appears to exist in a dual universe where it is worth simultaneously hunners of millions and **** all. (Something to do with Quantum Mechanics, I think)

[Just Alf]

If the CVA fails the stated aim is to sell the assets to Green for £5.5m. It's in the CVA document is it not?:confused:

It is, bottom line though is that Duff and Duffer are legally bound to maximise any return on what's left.... That "might" be as a going concern but it could also be as a fire sale.... Players, training ground ( remembering the planning restriction has eased) and of course ibrox itself. If they go for the sell it all to one guy option then they have to be able to demonstrate that's the best option, of they can't then the legal ramifications could put THEM out of business ..... And I can promise they'll be watched very closely through all this!

[Just Alf]

Kicking them out of the Scottish Cup is the only sanction left. Big deal. Suspension or expulsion won't even be a consideration for Donkeyhead and the other Hun sympathisers.

And apologies for a follow up post, but having another look at earlier pages..... Got to agree with Jim here, I'm really worried about all this :-(

[stoobs]

If FIFA's rules state that the Scottish courts hold no sway with how the SFA can punish their clubs, then I don't see how the SFA could then change from their original decision, to make the transfer ban into a suspension or some such.

If the SFA do change their original decision, then regardless of what they change it to, they will still be seen to have changed in the face of what the Scottish Court decided. This would result in the SFA, and by extension FIFA, being dictated to by a court, rather than an official FIFA sanctioned panel. Even if they change the decision to a harsher punishment, they will still seem weaker.

They might be allowed to punish Rangers a second time for taking legal action in the courts though, so they could now end up with a transfer embargo plus whatever punishment is in the rules for taking legal action against the SFA.

Any idea what these could be? I don't know if it counts as bringing the game into disrepute, or if there are a different set of options in a FIFA rule book somewhere, most likely being a fine I imagine.

PS I imagine that the SFA will be looking to clarify their rule book in time for next season!

[Part/Time Supporter]

Interesting point is that apparently D&P have not been paying taxes since RFC went into administration. HMRC are now due £21.37M (per page 49 of their CVA proposal). The figure due to HMRC when they went into administration was about £14M. It's possible that the £21M figure includes the wee tax case, which D&P have now quantified as being just over £3M (para 5.24), which wasn't quantified in their previous report. That still leaves a difference of about £4M due to HMRC which should be secured, because it relates to the period Rangers have been in administration.

For some reason or other, D&P have not indicated this in their estimated outcome for creditors. If the additional £4M to HMRC is removed, that leaves about £1M in the pot for all creditors (including the pre-administration HMRC amount). This would leave them with (at best) 2p in the £, or less than 1p if the big tax case goes against Rangers.

[IWasThere2016]

I trust this thread is a .net record?!? Credit must go to Fudd and Flaps for this :agree:

[grunt]

Interesting point is that apparently D&P have not been paying taxes since RFC went into administration.
Good point, well spotted. It would be helpful if we had a decent press in this country which could do this sort of analysis and could ask intelligent questions of D&P.

[lapsedhibee]

It would be helpful if we had a decent press in this country which could do this sort of analysis and could ask intelligent questions of D&P.

What, you don't think that Archie MacPherson, some hun apologist accountant, and some hun sitting on an STV sofa for fifteen minutes blethering pish constitutes investigative journalism at its finest? :dunno:

[steakbake]

I trust this thread is a .net record?!? Credit must go to Fudd and Flaps for this :agree:

Wasn't the calendar signing thread longer?

This a lot of wind and pish in this thread but so far, some jack booted admin hasn't put it in the vault...yet. Enjoy it while you can!

[HibeesLA]

Wasn't the calendar signing thread longer?

This a lot of wind and pish in this thread but so far, some jack booted admin hasn't put it in the vault...yet. Enjoy it while you can!

re: calender signing

Replies: 6,619
Views: 116,976


The end of that thread had a lot of wind and pish also.

[Lucius Apuleius]

re: calender signing

Replies: 6,619
Views: 116,976


The end of that thread had a lot of wind and pish also.

Hmm, so around 50% more wind and pish. Anyone else like to have 50% more wind and pish.

[Seveno]

If the CVA works, in some form or other, that might be the best solution. It still leaves a very weakened Rangers in financial terms with operating costs that they are unable to sustain. Especially if it takes a few months to conclude and they are still in Administration at the start of the new season, so having more points docked.

More importantly, it avoids them walking from the sins of the past, the results of which could be :

1) The SFA tribunal deciding to impose one of the options that they are allowed in respect of bringing the game into disrepute e.g. suspension for say a year.

2) The SFA being forced by FIFA to punish them for taking them to the Court of Session e.g an additional suspension or termination.

Meanwhile, we still have the 'nuclear story' to develop which seems to be about the allegation of bungs being paid to a former employee via the EBT.

Termination of the club's licence, liquidation of the business ......welcome to Tescoville sur Clyde.

[Jim44]

Aye, dinnae forget the Admin fees...a trifling amount :agree:

The administrators' fee is far more than the creditors will receive collectively, according to the news last night.

[down-the-slope]

The 8.5p being bandied about is on the assumption that the BTC goes against them. If it doesn't, that amount will probably double.

Woop de doop.

Not what was being said by the experts calculations on Newsnight...they reckoned 2p in £ if BTC is lost and even that the 47 outstanding cost items in the 'offer' could even lead to no pot at all and in effect a negative p in the £

[matty_f]

If the CVA works, in some form or other, that might be the best solution. It still leaves a very weakened Rangers in financial terms with operating costs that they are unable to sustain. Especially if it takes a few months to conclude and they are still in Administration at the start of the new season, so having more points docked.

More importantly, it avoids them walking from the sins of the past, the results of which could be :

1) The SFA tribunal deciding to impose one of the options that they are allowed in respect of bringing the game into disrepute e.g. suspension for say a year.

2) The SFA being forced by FIFA to punish them for taking them to the Court of Session e.g an additional suspension or termination.

Meanwhile, we still have the 'nuclear story' to develop which seems to be about the allegation of bungs being paid to a former employee via the EBT.

Termination of the club's licence, liquidation of the business ......welcome to Tescoville sur Clyde.

Is that for the Souness payment? :confused:

[Seveno]

Just been on the phone to Mysteg Meg and here's the lowdown :

1) The SFA will impose a set of draconian punishments on Rangers for taking them to Court.
2) Rangers will cease to exist.
3) The enraged Rangers Supporters Trust will blame Duff & Phelps for failing to check the rules of the game.
4) Duff & Phelps will sue Duff & Phelps for professional negligence.
5) The Pursuers will win their case.
6) The Professional Indemnity Insurers for Duff & Phelps will refuse to meet the claim due to a breach of policy terms i.e. the action was a 'deliberate act'.
7) Duff and Phelps will go into administration.
8) Paul Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps will predict that they will successfully come out of administration within one month.
9) Mystic Meg will sue Whitehouse for breach of copyright in coming out with ridiculous predictions.
10) The story will run for eternity.

It goes without saying that Ally McCoist will demand to know the real name of Mystic Meg, for the sale of transparency.

[TrickyNicky]

Hmm, so around 50% more wind and pish. Anyone else like to have 50% more wind and pish.

No thanks I have more than enough!

Lately I've taken to drinking light beer, you can certainly drink faster which gives the appearance of a well trained bevvy merchant however it requires much more frequent visits to the men's room, thus giving off the appearance of being one of Gary O'Connor's off yer facebook friends.

The Light beer is extremely gassy and seems to give me 50% more wind and pish- it really makes me feel bloated!

I often find myself looking down at my own manhood, trying to hurry it along and wondering if a bigger japs-eye would help.

Anyone know how much p in the pound is acceptable before liquidation?

[down-the-slope]

Anyone else like to be a fly on the wall at Hampden today......I think a few might think this is a good day for a sickie....:greengrin

I have just found out I have to go to Hampden next Friday....I do hope that turns out to be an exciting day in the story...will be quite happy to give my thoughts to any passing news crews :cb

[Seveno]

Is that for the Souness payment? :confused:

Allegedly, there were a lot of payments over a number of years to a former employee. Can't possibly name him on a public forum.

[Matty_Jack04]

Not what was being said by the experts calculations on Newsnight...they reckoned 2p in £ if BTC is lost and even that the 47 outstanding cost items in the 'offer' could even lead to no pot at all and in effect a negative p in the £

I haven't been watching news night I v half given up on any decent journalism been given to this and instead use this thread

Haven't I seen or heard that if the CVA is rejected then the creditors would receive around 5.5million? Now it's being mentioned that if it's accepted they could get hee haw for there troubles

Don't know if maybe I'm talking pash but if I'm not there's only one option

[Jack]

It seems from all accounts that Green has about as much money as I do – indeed I may be able to get my hands on more!

But it appears you don’t need any actual money to either buy the rancid club, or if it goes into liquidation, money to buy the assets.

What's to stop some hobo punting up and making a bid?

Also something I cant get my head round is the secret investors involved in Greens bid.

How can due diligence have possibly been gone through when they refuse to have their names known?

That’s as well as all the other reasons they're dead, see below.

[Jack]

They've gone to civil court - dead

Double contracts – double dead

Already found guilty of a whole host of stuff - dead dead dead

EBTs not looking good - dead x52

£55m in debt with about £90m more to come - dead

More whispers going on than you get in the Whispering Gallery on a school holiday about stuff that the SOCA 6s and international arrest warrants are made of - really seriously dead dead dead dead dead dead.

Inciting criminal damage, violence and death threats - dead

Just be****ingcause - dead

[Seveno]

They've gone to civil court - dead

Double contracts – double dead

Already found guilty of a whole host of stuff - dead dead dead

EBTs not looking good - dead x52

£55m in debt with about £90m more to come - dead

More whispers going on than you get in the Whispering Gallery on a school holiday about stuff that the SOCA 6s and international arrest warrants are made of - really seriously dead dead dead dead dead dead.

Inciting criminal damage, violence and death threats - dead

Just be****ingcause - dead


They should have had you on Newsnight last night. Much better than the two numpties.

:not worth

[CallumLaidlaw]

Any rangers fans I know on Facebook were last night giving it the GIRUY to the SFA and saying that the over rule is their "1st step to recovery". Are they really that blinkered? Do they really think that is the punishment quashed?

[Caversham Green]

If FIFA's rules state that the Scottish courts hold no sway with how the SFA can punish their clubs, then I don't see how the SFA could then change from their original decision, to make the transfer ban into a suspension or some such.

If the SFA do change their original decision, then regardless of what they change it to, they will still be seen to have changed in the face of what the Scottish Court decided. This would result in the SFA, and by extension FIFA, being dictated to by a court, rather than an official FIFA sanctioned panel. Even if they change the decision to a harsher punishment, they will still seem weaker.

They might be allowed to punish Rangers a second time for taking legal action in the courts though, so they could now end up with a transfer embargo plus whatever punishment is in the rules for taking legal action against the SFA.

Any idea what these could be? I don't know if it counts as bringing the game into disrepute, or if there are a different set of options in a FIFA rule book somewhere, most likely being a fine I imagine.

PS I imagine that the SFA will be looking to clarify their rule book in time for next season!

First of all, I'm not convinced that Lord Glennie has got it right. From what I can see there is no prohibition of a signing embargo in the rules but they do allow the panel to levy whatever sanction they deem appropriate - I can't see how the judge reached his conclusion on that basis. The normal remedy would be for the SFA to appeal against the judgement, but I doubt whether UEFA's rules allow that. On the other hand, if they do just go ahead with the embargo they could now be open to a lawsuit from Rangers for going against the direction of the court. I wonder if they could go to CAS.

The legal action by Rangers shows a member club dissenting from its association so the charge would be bringing the game into disrepute. In some ways the answer is becoming ever clearer - expulsion or a year's suspension would override the need for a signing embargo and punish RFC appropriately for their continuing misdemeanours and it's within the rules that RFC signed up to, so no possibility of a lawsuit. We just need someone with guts to carry it out.

I can't see that the SFA have done too much wrong TBH, but as my old ma said when I wallpapered her front room -


What a f*****g mess.

[TrinityHibs]

Allegedly, there were a lot of payments over a number of years to a former employee. Can't possibly name him on a public forum.

Can we play a hangman game on this one? You know the one where you start with a lot of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and then get to guess letters.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can we play a hangman game on this one? You know the one where you start with a lot of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and then get to guess letters.

I'm first with the letter S.... and there are three of them :greengrin

[Judas Iscariot]

I don't have anywhere near a clue as to how any of this CVA, BTC, HMRC etc etc stuff works but I did get the jist that the Huns are saying if the CVA goes through there will be a pot of circa 8.5mil for creditors but less 5.5mil for D & P admin fee, leaving less than 4mil for creditors..

My question is, why arent they being made to sell Ibrox, Murray Park, Players etc etc to pay off as much of what they owe as possible?

Surely the previous mentioned "assests" are worth far more than 4mil?

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sfa-fury-as-judge-throws-out-rangers-transfer-ban.17734308


The SFA, which has been left to foot the bill for Rangers' legal costs, will be required to impose another punishment. Only suspension, a further fine or expulsion remain.

Fifa, world football's governing body, last night warned action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge the embargo.

The exact punishment is yet to be decided, but could involve the club being ejected from next year's Scottish Cup, or further fines.

It could even mean the doomsday scenario of Rangers being thrown out of football, although this remains an unlikely prospect, given the club's economic value to the Scottish game.

The SFA is angry that Rangers deliberately set themselves on a direct collision course with the game's lawmakers, with one source saying: "We could be looking at expulsion now. Rangers should be careful what they wish for."

SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment.

[Caversham Green]

I don't have anywhere near a clue as to how any of this CVA, BTC, HMRC etc etc stuff works but I did get the jist that the Huns are saying if the CVA goes through there will be a pot of circa 8.5mil for creditors but less 5.5mil for D & P admin fee, leaving less than 4mil for creditors..

My question is, why arent they being made to sell Ibrox, Murray Park, Players etc etc to pay off as much of what they owe as possible?

Surely the previous mentioned "assests" are worth far more than 4mil?

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

[s.a.m]

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

.....which is 1.5 million more than is currently on offer to the creditors, after costs?


Edit: Obviously, I forgot that the administrators would have to be paid in this scenario also........

[Bill Milne]

Apologies if it has been said already, but Lord Glennie is, effectively, calling a senior QC and a Supreme Court judge a pair of morons for failing to see the apparent lack of regulation covering a transfer embargo. I can't see either of these gentlemen being impressed by this line of reasoning so I can see this case being bounced back to the Court of Session by Lord Carloway in particular. I suspect words may have already been exchanged on this topic.

[Judas Iscariot]

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

Is that not only if they become a newco?

So D & P get more money than any of the creditors who are actually entitled to it?!

What a farce!!!

Wasnt MP, IP & other assests valued at over 100mil not so recently?

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sfa-fury-as-judge-throws-out-rangers-transfer-ban.17734308

"SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment."

:agree: Half-season suspension is not enough. Suspend them for 35 of the 38 games, allowing them 3 televised bigotfests to keep The Donkey happy, then relegate them for having no more than than 9 points.

[Seveno]

I'm first with the letter S.... and there are three of them :greengrin

Hmmm... I think that you might guess the soonest.

[CropleyWasGod]

Hmmm... I think that you might guess the soonest.

Dunno, my brain's gone all Gray...mmm

[Caversham Green]

Is that not only if they become a newco?

So D & P get more money than any of the creditors who are actually entitled to it?!

What a farce!!!

Wasnt MP, IP & other assests valued at over 100mil not so recently?

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.

I only skim read the document, but Close Finance have a secured claim, presumably over the catering equipment. This will be the infamous "pie mortgage".

[grunt]

... as my old ma said when I wallpapered her front room -
What a f*****g mess.
:greengrin

[johnrebus]

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.



Indeed it is.

But are'nt Duff & Duffer being investigated by their own regulatory body, regarding the BBC TV programme conflict of interest stuff?

Yet to hear about this outcome.



:cb

[johnbc70]

Apologies if it has been said already, but Lord Glennie is, effectively, calling a senior QC and a Supreme Court judge a pair of morons for failing to see the apparent lack of regulation covering a transfer embargo. I can't see either of these gentlemen being impressed by this line of reasoning so I can see this case being bounced back to the Court of Session by Lord Carloway in particular. I suspect words may have already been exchanged on this topic.

But if the SFA appeal this then it shows they are being influenced by a civil court and that does not sit well with FIFA, best thing is SFA stick with original punishment and hand out further punishment to Rangers for taking this to court in the first place (as they are obliged to do under FIFA rules)

[grunt]

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/a-permanent-embarrassment-and-an-occasional-disgrace/

[CropleyWasGod]

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/a-permanent-embarrassment-and-an-occasional-disgrace/

I am intrigued by his hinting at HMRC's conditions for accepting a CVA.

[thebakerboy]

If FIFA's rules state that the Scottish courts hold no sway with how the SFA can punish their clubs, then I don't see how the SFA could then change from their original decision, to make the transfer ban into a suspension or some such.

If the SFA do change their original decision, then regardless of what they change it to, they will still be seen to have changed in the face of what the Scottish Court decided. This would result in the SFA, and by extension FIFA, being dictated to by a court, rather than an official FIFA sanctioned panel. Even if they change the decision to a harsher punishment, they will still seem weaker.

They might be allowed to punish Rangers a second time for taking legal action in the courts though, so they could now end up with a transfer embargo plus whatever punishment is in the rules for taking legal action against the SFA.

Any idea what these could be? I don't know if it counts as bringing the game into disrepute, or if there are a different set of options in a FIFA rule book somewhere, most likely being a fine I imagine.

PS I imagine that the SFA will be looking to clarify their rule book in time for next season!

Taking Sion as an example they were never allowed (I don't think) to play the players they had signed under the transfer embargo and were ejected from the Europa league. In response to their continued resort to the courts they were deducted a further 36 points and were only saved from relegation because another team were ejected from league totally. They then had to play off against a team from the lower division and won it to stay up. This was all under pressure from FIFA , so RFC and the SFA lookout , big brother is watching and Celtic are involved because it was in the match against them that Sion played illegally signed players and drew FIFA's attention to the whole matter so they will be watching closely.

[calmac12000]

Indeed it is.

But are'nt Duff & Duffer being investigated by their own regulatory body, regarding the BBC TV programme conflict of interest stuff?

Yet to hear about this outcome.


:cb

Indeed this whole fiasco, from the start of administration has been nothing short of a total farce. None of the parties involved can take credit from their conduct. Its long overdue for the blame to be laid at the door of the guilty party i.e. Rangers and their apologists. I am frankly sick to fed up listening to how Scottish football needs Rangers a club who have stolen money from everyone in this country and are doing their best to trash what little is left of the reputation of Scottish football. If the SFA don't throw the book at them now, I simply despair.

[grunt]

I am intrigued by his hinting at HMRC's conditions for accepting a CVA.Isn't this the guidance about HMRC's view on CVAs being affected if they believe that PAYE/NI has been purposefully withheld? I can't remember where I saw this, there has been so much to take in. I liked the RTC conclusion:


There comes a time when Scottish football must act to prevent further damage. In doing so, it has a chance of making the stain of embarrassment less permanent. Of the options available, a one year ban from all competitions would seem to be a starting point for considering apt punishment. The next penalty down the list of official sanctions- exclusion from the Scottish Cup- would be far too lenient for a club that appears to have completed the entire 2011/12 season without paying any PAYE or NIC. Other clubs had to cut costs and make tough decisions to get through the year. Other clubs had to take roughly half of their staff budget and hand it over to HMRC. Even in administration, Rangers got to avoid cutting their playing squad by screwing the British taxpayer over yet again. Allow them off with a wrist-slap and many fans will just see Scottish football as a form of professional wrestling with Rangers FC as the scripted winner.

[Steve-O]

"SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment."

:agree: Half-season suspension is not enough. Suspend them for 35 of the 38 games, allowing them 3 televised bigotfests to keep The Donkey happy, then relegate them for having no more than than 9 points.

Is that Andy Kerr from the supporters group for real? He doesn't seem to realise that the SFA are there to PUNISH them? :confused: Apparently the SFA should be doing everything to ensure they keep playing? The attitude from the lot of them is truly beyond belief!

[CropleyWasGod]

Isn't this the guidance about HMRC's view on CVAs being affected if they believe that PAYE/NI has been purposefully withheld? I can't remember where I saw this, there has been so much to take in. I liked the RTC conclusion:

Yeah, there is an HMRC web-page that sets out their attitude. I haven't time to look for it just now, but from memory there was something about keeping PAYE and VAT payments going. However, my reaction to reading that at the time was that it was almost irrelevant, in light of HMRC's normal policy on CVA's for football clubs.

[Caversham Green]

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/a-permanent-embarrassment-and-an-occasional-disgrace/

A very good article again that reflects the growing anger that everyone outside Rangers Football Club must be feeling.

I wonder if it's time to start up a petition demanding their removal/suspension from the game (as opposed to the survey that Doncaster apparently managed to creep out of its findings).

[joe breezy]

I got a friend request a few weeks ago from a guy on Facebook, a Hun I've met before and had a pint with, but ultimately a Hun.

Yesterday he had 'get it up yis, IRA child molesters' and he's got some silly stat about their 'march to hampden' as his profile pic

I know another couple of alright Rangers fans but the majority of them are like the above - I want them to die completely. Do I hate Rangers more than I love Hibs? I don't think so but maybe...

The analogy would be do you hate Hitler more than you love Britain during the Second World War? They are the football equivalent of the nazis

[grunt]

What, you don't think that Archie MacPherson, some hun apologist accountant, and some hun sitting on an STV sofa for fifteen minutes blethering pish constitutes investigative journalism at its finest? :dunno:Haha that amused me. Just on the subject of Archie MacPherson, he nearly made me smash my TV last night. To come out with the "Scottish football needs Rangers" line after all that's happened defies belief. He seems to have not listened to anything that's been said since 14 Feb.

[Steve-O]

Haha that amused me. Just on the subject of Archie MacPherson, he nearly made me smash my TV last night. To come out with the "Scottish football needs Rangers" line after all that's happened defies belief. He seems to have not listened to anything that's been said since 14 Feb.

Given he's probably older than Rangers themselves I think it is fair to completely dismiss anything that senile old goat says.

[BarneyK]

Originally Posted by RTC
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
There comes a time when Scottish football must act to prevent further damage. In doing so, it has a chance of making the stain of embarrassment less permanent. Of the options available, a one year ban from all competitions would seem to be a starting point for considering apt punishment. The next penalty down the list of official sanctions- exclusion from the Scottish Cup- would be far too lenient for a club that appears to have completed the entire 2011/12 season without paying any PAYE or NIC. Other clubs had to cut costs and make tough decisions to get through the year. Other clubs had to take roughly half of their staff budget and hand it over to HMRC. Even in administration, Rangers got to avoid cutting their playing squad by screwing the British taxpayer over yet again. Allow them off with a wrist-slap and many fans will just see Scottish football as a form of professional wrestling with Rangers FC as the scripted winner.

This is exactly where I am with this. WWE isn't a proper sport, and the Scottish game would become pretty far from proper sport if they go unchecked, not just through the EBT's and the various tax issues but with regards the ridiculous TV clause where the OF are not allowed to finish outwith the top 6, not to mention relegation. The game's a bogey if we are dictated to in this way.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

I got a friend request a few weeks ago from a guy on Facebook, a Hun I've met before and had a pint with, but ultimately a Hun.

Yesterday he had 'get it up yis, IRA child molesters' and he's got some silly stat about their 'march to hampden' as his profile pic

I know another couple of alright Rangers fans but the majority of them are like the above - I want them to die completely. Do I hate Rangers more than I love Hibs? I don't think so but maybe...

The analogy would be do you hate Hitler more than you love Britain during the Second World War? They are the football equivalent of the nazis

My girlfriend (a new Hibby) lives in South Lanarkshire near Larkhall. Her Facebook 'friends' are all blue bigots. Some of the stuff they post would make your eyes bleed.

I hope their club dies.

[ballengeich]

But if the SFA appeal this then it shows they are being influenced by a civil court and that does not sit well with FIFA, best thing is SFA stick with original punishment and hand out further punishment to Rangers for taking this to court in the first place (as they are obliged to do under FIFA rules)

From what I understand of the Sion case the Swiss FA won an appeal against the club and weren't punished for going back to court. After that they were able to take sanctions under FIFA rules without worrying about the consequences in their legal system. I think that if the SFA think they have a chance of winning an appeal they will go ahead as success would remove the dilemma of whether to defy FIFA or defy the law of Scotland.

I suspect that Lord Carloway and the other leading legal lights who were on the SPL and SFA tribunal panels will have been surprised and none too impressed by yesterday's judgment so I expect an appeal to be lodged.

If that's unsuccessful and Rangers are still around, a year's suspension from football should finish them off even without further possible action when the dual contract report gets completed.

[bighairyfaeleith]

in theory I think FIFA could ban the british under 21 team from the olympics as a punishment. They threatened the swiss with this and as we are part of the british team they could get dragged into this as well.

Add a different dimension to the argument and help raise the conversation to a new level I think:wink:

[joe breezy]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/plenty-of-inconsistencies-but-similarities-just-as-worrying.17736993

Twelve months on from Craig Whyte buying his majority shareholding for £1 and leaving the club in debt to his Wavetower group, Green and his consortium are about to buy Rangers for £2, and leave the club in debt to Sevco, their holding company. The similarities should be enough to raise indignation among fans, but instead there is only uncertainty.

The mood is one of fatigue. Supporters have become drained by the endless setbacks and Green's pursuit of a Company Voluntary Arrangement had offered a rare moment of hope. Yet that should have been countered by the contents of the CVA Proposal published yesterday. Green's £8.5m offer is a loan, to be paid back by or before 2020, with interest thought to be 8%. So Rangers will come out of administration in debt, even although two weeks ago Green pledged that the club would never be in debt again.

Inconsistencies have become the hallmark of Green and administrators Duff & Phelps. When the deal was first announced, the Englishman spoke of a consortium of 20 investors, only to admit later that "five or six" were involved. He claims to have raised £20m, but spent last weekend frantically contacting Scottish businessmen asking for investment. The CVA proposal going out was due to trigger the first seven-figure instalment of his purchase price, believed to be £2.7m, but as late as Friday he had only raised £1m.

According to the CVA proposal, Green's loan will be drawn down in mid-July, so what about the club's running costs? Duff & Phelps had demanded that all bidders provide funds to meet those from 1 June onwards over and above their offer price. All of them did, except Green. A £3.6m Administration Trading Shortfall is included in the proposal and is deducted from Green's offer price. So the creditors are effectively paying the club's running costs.

With huge fees generated by Duff & Phelps of £3m, then a further £1.8m in legal fees, the costs of the administration are almost as much as the creditors are receiving from the Green consortium's loan. The administrators' fees are unchallenged, even although there is an argument that Duff & Phelps have destroyed value during the process. The proposal also includes £2m in Player Transfer Fees (factored), even although Rangers are due £3.7m in transfer monies. The £1.7m has been written off; to cover more running costs?

The creditors also have justifiable cause to question why Duff & Phelps opted for Green's bid when the considered opinion of several financial experts Herald Sport consulted is the CVA proposal does not represent better value than some other offers. Assets which should have fallen to the creditors are falling to Green's group, including any recoveries made from payments claimed back from Phil Betts and Regenesis of around £500,000.

Each of these factors alone should have caused alarm among supporters, but together they are reasons for fans to bring more scrutiny to bear on the men who are about to take control of their club. Green's consortium is even gaining a fixed security over the main assets, Ibrox and Murray Park, in the same way as Whyte, yet supporters are wary of the consequences of challenging him.

"We're pleased that the CVA process has commenced," says Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly. "But I'm not comfortable with [the £8.5m being a loan]. It's the alternative to a bad lot, in terms of finding a way to start to move forward. The exact terms in which that loan is serviceable is something we'll need to consider."

Early in the administration, Duff & Phelps declared they would not sell to "another Craig Whyte". Green's background apart, the administrators admit they do not even know the identities of all the members of the consortium who will end up owning the club. They have also signed a deal that allows Green to buy the assets in a newco scenario, even although an open bidding process at that stage would likely raise more than £5.5m.

When Bill Miller was named preferred bidder, Rangers fans were fully engaged with investigating the American and questioning his means and motives. The same is not happening with Green and his consortium. This is due to several factors: the season is over, so fans aren't congregating and talking together in numbers; the three main fans' groups were all backers of the Blue Knights, and so fear that coming out against Green will only cause friction with other fans; and the realisation that liquidation is ever closer because the money runs out on June 1.

Yet of the four final bidders, two are still ready to move immediately should Green's offer collapse, and even as late as last week were preparing for that eventuality because of doubts about his funding. All three of the other bidders have decided to keep a low profile since losing out in the final auction, but they have not withdrawn their interest. "I'm still apprehensive that there are a lot of large hurdles to overcome," cautioned Kerr.

Rangers fans need to judge Green on his pledges and his actions, not on the basis that it seems as if he is the last man standing.

[Gingertosser]

Expulsion from the Scottish Cup might not be all that lenient, as it would derail the sale of Rankers.

It's part of the CVA conditions that they have to take part in all competitions.

[hibs0666]

Let's get above the detail here and see what's really going on. What we have is a straight-forward power struggle between Rangers and the rest of Scottish football, no more no less. The powers that be have pursued a policy of appeasement until now, and it has failed miserably. Something has to give.

Decisions will be taken in the next few weeks that will either see Rangers becoming the de-facto decision-making authority for Scottish football or the authorities will re-assert their right to govern. If Rangers prevail the ramifications for Scottish football are massive. A victory for the authorities will have massive repercussions for Rangers.

Battle lines are now drawn, and there must be only be one winner.

[green glory]

Let's get above the detail here and see what's really going on. What we have is a straight-forward power struggle between Rangers and the rest of Scottish football, no more no less. The powers that be have pursued a policy of appeasement until now, and it has failed miserably. Something has to give.

Decisions will be taken in the next few weeks that will either see Rangers becoming the de-facto decision-making authority for Scottish football or the authorities will re-assert their right to govern. If Rangers prevail the ramifications for Scottish football are massive. A victory for the authorities will have massive repercussions for Rangers.

Battle lines are now drawn, and there must be only be one winner.

There can be only one!

[Stevie Reid]

According to the CVA proposal, Green's loan will be drawn down in mid-July, so what about the club's running costs? Duff & Phelps had demanded that all bidders provide funds to meet those from 1 June onwards over and above their offer price. All of them did, except Green. A £3.6m Administration Trading Shortfall is included in the proposal and is deducted from Green's offer price. So the creditors are effectively paying the club's running costs.

This just gets more and more unbelievable and disgusting.

[joe breezy]

This is a comment from Barcabhoy on the Rangers Tax Case blog - this is the guy who says he has the 'nuclear stuff' re bungs, Souness etc


Barcabhoy says:
30/05/2012 at 11:14 am
8 0 Rate This
Spartans were thrown out of the Scottish Cup because they only put one date on a players contract, rather than the required 2 signatures. They were also fined £4,000 , which is approximately 5% of their total annual income.

Thrown out, as in banned from playing in the competition for an entire season.

Compare that with the possibility of the SFA applying the same sanction to Rangers, and fining them 0.2% of their annual income.

For a list of proven offences which are growing by the day, and already are unmatched in the history of Scottish Football.

Rangers and their apologists are looking for a less severe punishment than that meted out to a club who missed out one date on a contract !!

We all know what they are guilty of , they have already been found guilty. We know there is more and worse to come, much worse. The SPL enquiry has to find them guilty of illegal registration. The evidence in the public domain isn’t anecdotal, it’s Prima Facie level proof of guilt. Billy Dodds helpful intervention merely confirmed the direct involvement of the owner and chairman .

The fact that Rangers paid Souness at a time he was not employed by Rangers, not once but multiple times, and at a time he was employed by a competitor European club, is beyond anything Redknapp and Allardyce were even accused of.

And Souness isn’t the only one with something to fear. There were others who were not named in the BBC documentary who received payments.

However that’s for later. The fundamental point here is that Rangers are demanding a punishment less severe than Spartans. That cannot even be a consideration for the SFA.

A year long suspension from football is the very least the SFA can now hand down to them

[joe breezy]

Hun post on facebook, glad there's an unsubscribe button

"If the CVA is accepted and voted through, it will be approved on June 14th, then given the period of grace, exactly 4 weeks later the Bears are out of administration.

Which coincidentally falls on the same day we celebrate King William III defeating King James at the Battle of the Boyne!"

[Sean1875]

Hun post on facebook, glad there's an unsubscribe button

"If the CVA is accepted and voted through, it will be approved on June 14th, then given the period of grace, exactly 4 weeks later the Bears are out of administration.

Which coincidentally falls on the same day we celebrate King William III defeating King James at the Battle of the Boyne!"

There are no words... all you can do is laugh :dunno:

[PatHead]

On BBC

Rangers "got away lightly" with recent sanctions for bringing them game into disrepute, according to the former Scottish FA president John McBeth.
The Ibrox club had a 12-month transfer embargo imposed by the SFA overturned by the Court of Session on Tuesday. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18248766)
Speaking to BBC Scotland, John MacBeth said: ''Rangers got away lightly with their transfer embargo.''
And MacBeth said the SFA could impose stricter punishment on the club.
''The SFA should go away and look at their books to determine what their next step should be," he continued. "They could throw them out of the league.''
McBeth, who was a vocal critic of FIFA president Sepp Blatter while in office, also claimed that SPL clubs could survive in a league without Rangers.
''Football would survive without Rangers, maybe not at the same level, and the game would may be lose some fans - but so be it,'' he said.
"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

The first "administrator" to have spoken any sense in this entire matter.

[grunt]

Does anyone have a link to the D&P CVA proposal document?

[JeMeSouviens]

"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''


Nailed. :agree:

[Caversham Green]

Does anyone have a link to the D&P CVA proposal document?

Originally posted by Green Glory earlier in the thread....

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

[Twa Cairpets]

I trust this thread is a .net record?!? Credit must go to Fudd and Flaps for this :agree:

I think that's an incredibly harsh way to describe Caversham Green and CropleyWasGod. I think they've been exemplary in keeping us informed.
:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I think that's an incredibly harsh way to describe Caversham Green and CropleyWasGod. I think they've been exemplary in keeping us informed.
:greengrin

:top marks

[grunt]

Originally posted by Green Glory earlier in the thread....

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

[Jones28]

My girlfriend (a new Hibby) lives in South Lanarkshire near Larkhall. Her Facebook 'friends' are all blue bigots. Some of the stuff they post would make your eyes bleed.

I hope their club dies.


Had a girlfriend who's dad was full on neo Nazi, swastika painted on his shed, skinhead.

What team did he support again....:hmmm:

[grunt]

Here's an odd story - which I don't quite think is correct. I've emailed the author asking where she gets her figures from - will post if and when I hear back...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2180847/administrators-run-gbp179m-rangers?WT.rss_f=&WT.rss_a=Administrators+to+run+up+%C2%A317.9m+bill +at+Rangers&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


According to details contained within proposals to place Rangers into a company (http://www.hibs.net/#) volutary arrangement (CVA), the administrative team has run-up about £5.5m in fees for their work in compiling an exit from administration.However, as a supervisor of the CVA they are likely to add a further £6.2m, and another £6.2m as liquidators, to their tab. A CVA and liquidation process can run for several years, but no details have been provided within the proposals as to the estimated timescale for Rangers' CVA.

[stokesmessiah]

Apparently the meeting of SPL clubs has now finished ?

[Ozyhibby]

And votes were taken but nobody is speaking to the media.

[green glory]

Apparently the meeting of SPL clubs has now finished ?

Neil Doncaster about to speak to the media.

[grunt]

Neil Doncaster about to give news conference on today's SPL meeting on FFP. Follow @mcclymontscott (http://www.hibs.net/#!/mcclymontscott) for updates

[jonty]

#SPL clubs will now face penalties for not paying players on time and for not paying HMRC obligations on time


#SPL say no application for Rangers newco on the table, but in future such proposals will be considered by SPL member clubs not SPL board
@gordonchree
(whoever he is)

[Benny Brazil]

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

If there are future proposals for newco, any sanctions will be considered on individual basis

12:56 PM - 30 May 12via Twitter for iPhone · Details

4m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

New rules over paying players and taxman on time introduced

4m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

Penalty of greater of ten point/one third of previous season's total for going into admin is passed


5m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

SPL clubs approve new fair play rules. Decision on newco to be taken by all clubs. No fixed pens for newco

[Moulin Yarns]

Neil Doncaster about to give news conference on today's SPL meeting on FFP. Follow @mcclymontscott (http://www.hibs.net/#!/mcclymontscott) for updates

Seems all was passed at the meeting (Radio)

[Hibs Class]

Seems all was passed at the meeting (Radio)

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

[stokesmessiah]

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

Was supposed to be this one.

[grunt]

I asked Al Lamont - his reply Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontRe vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

[Benny Brazil]

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

Re vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

[jgl07]

Was supposed to be this one.

That will be first item on the agenda after Rangers go tits up.

[Hibs Class]

I asked Al Lamont - his reply Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontRe vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

Ta - any idea when AGM is?

[silverhibee]

And votes were taken but nobody is speaking to the media.


Sneaking out the side door. :agree:

[grunt]

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontAn SPL board meeting taking place now regarding Rangers dual contracts allegations. Hopefully an update later

[joe breezy]

DUFF & PHELPS administrators are likely to rack up about £17.9m in fees for their work at collapsed Scottish football club Rangers.

Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were appointed joint administrators to the club on 14 February.

According to details contained within proposals to place Rangers into a company volutary arrangement (CVA), the administrative team has run-up about £5.5m in fees for their work in compiling an exit from administration.
However, as a supervisor of the CVA they are likely to add a further £6.2m, and another £6.2m as liquidators, to their tab. A CVA and liquidation process can run for several years, but no details have been provided within the proposals as to the estimated timescale for Rangers' CVA.
The £5.5m fee for the administrators' work so far includes time costs and legal fees for several legal actions, including forcing ex-owner Craig Whyte's lawyers, Collyer Bristow, to hand over £3.9m, and a separate legal action against them which is due to finish later this year.

The administrators also managed to convince bidder Sevco to transfer £200,000 for running costs in exchange for exclusivity rights to the club.
Sevco, a consortium of investors fronted by Charles Green, are willing to advance Rangers £8.3m following CVA approval.
The club hopes to exit administration through a CVA which needs 75% or more of creditors, by value of debt, to approve the deal.
However, after administrator fees and other costs such as player transfer fees and trading costs it is likely unsecured creditors will receive between 3p - 9p for every pound owed.
HM Revenue & Customs are the second largest unsecured creditor with debts of £21.5m and Ticketus is the largest with £26.7m.


Read more: http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2180847/administrators-run-gbp179m-rangers#ixzz1wM3DMtph
Accountancy Age - Finance, business and accountancy news, features and resources. Claim your free subscription today.

[joe breezy]

Charles Green voting at an SPL meeting????!!!



CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch
WTF! How can Charles Green vote in an SPL meeting? Astonishing.

[Benny Brazil]

so as I read it these are the proposals that have been approved:

SPL PROPOSALS
•Minimum of 15 points deducted from any club entering administration
•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

But that does nothing to clarify the position on a newco admittance to the SPL - or did I miss that discussion?

[jgl07]

Charles Green voting at an SPL meeting????!!!

CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch
WTF! How can Charles Green vote in an SPL meeting? Astonishing.

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

[JeMeSouviens]

These were passed:

•Greater of 10 points or 1/3 of previous season's total deducted from any club entering administration
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

These werent:

•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons

Additionally, all clubs to vote on transfer of share to any Newco and any sanctions applied to the Newco to be decided on an individual basis.

[joe breezy]

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9345&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Doncaster Newco proposal doesn’t get the votes

Posted on 30 May, 2012 by Paul67

An SPL general meeting today passed several less-significant Financial Fair Play rules (pay your taxes and players) but did not approve a proposal from chief executive, Neil Doncaster, that a mechanism should be introduced to parachute a Newco into the top division in Scottish football for the first time in history.

It would have taken 8 votes to see this controversial proposal pass, which it clearly didn’t get. The SPL reserves the right to vote a Newco in at any point in the future, but those hoping to buy the assets of Rangers were not issued a ticket to the SPL today.

Surprised?

Perhaps connected to the above matter…. The SPL board will this afternoon consider issues relating to allegations Rangers rigged the system for over a decade with dual contracts.

There are too many permutations for me to digest these developments with any accuracy. At first pass, the news appears to be on the upside of what I was expecting earlier in the day.

[Caversham Green]

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

He might even be the owner if he's paid his two quid to Craigie.

[Part/Time Supporter]

These were passed:

•Greater of 10 points or 1/3 of previous season's total deducted from any club entering administration
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

These werent:

•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons

Additionally, all clubs to vote on transfer of share to any Newco and any sanctions applied to the Newco to be decided on an individual basis.

Sounds good, the two rejected proposals were the ones that would have given a legitimate path back into the league for any newco.

[joe breezy]

Should result in a vote of no confidence in Doncaster...is what some are saying on the twittersphere

[Spike Mandela]

Sounds good, the two rejected proposals were the ones that would have given a legitimate path back into the league for any newco.

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

[calmac12000]

I'll take all this under advisement, particularly as I doubt we're anywhere near having all the facts.

[joe breezy]

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

He's thinking about buying a football club with a group of shady characters...being able to vote on behalf of Rangers already is bizarre

Surely it should be ascertained if these people are fit to be Directors of a football club first?

[joe breezy]

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

I don't see how you can say it's made it easier when a Doncaster penned motion to allow newcos into the SPL was rejected?

[Andy74]

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

Yep. What I said the last time! They can be voted back scot free.

[green glory]

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.

More walking away?

[Andy74]

I don't see how you can say it's made it easier when a Doncaster penned motion to allow newcos into the SPL was rejected?

They are allowed now with a vote. This proposal would have made a link to the old co and introduced sanctions.

There seems to be huge misunderstanding on this point generally.

[JeMeSouviens]

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

The confirmation that all clubs (presumably in 8-4 vote) are required to approve the transfer rather than just the SPL board makes the New Club's entry harder. I think you'll find if they get over that hurdle the sanctions on a Hun New Club will be at least as tough as those not voted in. The barrier to getting them passed today is probably the much more severe effect they would have on a smaller New Club being written into the rules.

[blackpoolhibs]

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.

More walking away?

I cant believe the whole thing is not stopped now, and dealt with when all the facts are out in the open?

[easty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18265663

McBeth, who was a vocal critic of FIFA president Sepp Blatter while in office, also claimed that SPL clubs could survive in a league without Rangers.


''Football would survive without Rangers, maybe not at the same level, and the game would may be lose some fans - but so be it,'' he said.

"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''



Quite right. :agree:

[grunt]

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.


Where did you hear this?

[CropleyWasGod]

Yep. What I said the last time! They can be voted back scot free.

.. and they can also be refused entry. The way I read the rejected proposals is that a Newco WOULD get back in, but with those sanctions.

[Andy74]

The confirmation that all clubs (presumably in 8-4 vote) are required to approve the transfer rather than just the SPL board makes the New Club's entry harder. I think you'll find if they get over that hurdle the sanctions on a Hun New Club will be at least as tough as those not voted in. The barrier to getting them passed today is probably the much more severe effect they would have on a smaller New Club being written into the rules.

What sanctions would that be? There are none currently allowed for?

[green glory]

Where did you hear this?

https://twitter.com/tonymckelvie/status/207814881146191875

[Andy74]

.. and they can also be refused entry. The way I read the rejected proposals is that a Newco WOULD get back in, but with those sanctions.

No, it didn't make it any more automatic.

[CropleyWasGod]

[U]If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

Quite right. :agree:

Yep.. that is a superb sound-bite. :agree: