Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[StevieC]

So if my memory serves me right they now dont need the SPL, SFA, Scottish Football, UEFA and FIFA. Do they know they are a football club???

Most of them don't .. football is just something that goes on whilst they have a right old loyalist get-together.

[stokesmessiah]

That's what i thought as well, here's hoping

I wonder if £1m would be enough to deliver a big body blow to Charlie Greens plans for der hun.

Is it not also likely that Rangers will now face seperate charges for bringing the game into disrepute after taking it to the court of session?

[CropleyWasGod]

I wonder if £1m would be enough to deliver a big body blow to Charlie Greens plans for der hun.

Is it not also likely that Rangers will now face seperate charges for bringing the game into disrepute after taking it to the court of session?

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.

[Saorsa]

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.good, they can ban them from the cup for the original charge and expel them for the second. :thumbsup:

[hibs0666]

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.

[stokesmessiah]

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.

Then why put that clause in?

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.

It's fundamental to his offer.

[down-the-slope]

Newsnight on now - the interviewer is behaving like a real trumpet and being pretty rude when N D is trying to answer the questions honestly....bit stupid

[stokesmessiah]

Newsnight on now - the interviewer is behaving like a real trumpet and being pretty rude when N D is trying to answer the questions honestly....bit stupid


I thought that too, trying to be a paxman.

He did ask one good question after summarising everything had happened....."Is the SPL fit for purpose?" I dont think it is.

[hibs0666]

It's fundamental to his offer.

It's not binding on D&P to chuck him out if the are emptied from the scottish cup - it will be green's decision and IMHO the loss of income from one Scottish Cup won't make a blind bit of difference. They don't do walking away remember, except from the debts that they rack up. Getting emptied from the SPL would be a different kettle of salmon.

[stokesmessiah]

While SFA are now in consultation with FIFA over Rangers situation, my info is that SFA have not told Rangers new disciplinary proceedings have begun over their decision to go to Court of Session. That's not to say it won't happen, but it hasn't at this stage.

@BBCAlLamont (http://twitter.com/BBCAlLamont)

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I thought that too, trying to be a paxman.

He did ask one good question after summarising everything had happened....."Is the SPL fit for purpose?" I dont think it is.

They are pretty much demonstrating that.

Now here's a question I've been pondering - is that not then something Rangers can appeal to Court of Arbitration on or FIFA. It'd be akin to getting let off on a technicallity cos someone didn't do there job properly?

And given that Celtic are not anamoured or at time respectful of/with the Scottish football authorities ... Behind the scenes could they be looking to the future to get more amenable people in key posts?

[s.a.m]

Apparently Stewart Regan is on Twitter, answering questions right, left and centre. I'm off to my bed, but it sounds worthwhile for those of you who do the Twitter thing.:aok:

[Spike Mandela]

another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18284888


poor Rangers, how unpleasant this administration process is...

Don't quite get his logic regards not discussing sanctions for a newco. He says we aren't faced with the proposition of a newco yet so didn't want to set fixed penalties. However they aren't faced with a new case of administration either but they are happy to cement new sanctions for any new case of administration.

I can only deduce from this that they don't want to set any fixed sanctions until after any Rangers newco transpires and they can be as leniant as they like.

[Hibrandenburg]

Once a Hun always a Hun.

Oops, can I be arrested for that these days?

Only if Rommel makes a complaint.

[Cropley10]

Nobody wants to pull the trigger. They're terminally ill but everyone knows all hell will let loose when the day finally comes and the Big Hoose closes.

[cabbageandribs1875]

have the SFA forgot about the punishment for the sectarian singing in the game against killie at bigotbrox, over three months ago :confused: i think they have missed a great chance to hit rangers with a huge fine, that will teach them, knowing full well any fine would just go into the now famous 'pot' , fans would think that the SFA are big and hard and not cowards, and the buns could just laugh at not actually losing anything:rolleyes:


i also heard a rumour the greek government have asked for duff & phelps services, apparently they have a little debt as well

[silverhibee]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/31/rangers-in-crisis-spl-confirm-ibrox-club-have-handed-over-files-relating-to-double-contracts-probe-86908-23880629/

[snooky]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/31/rangers-in-crisis-spl-confirm-ibrox-club-have-handed-over-files-relating-to-double-contracts-probe-86908-23880629/

I'm not suggesting that lawyers are dishonest fellows, but I would have thought it would have been prudent to employ a firm from anywhere but Glasgow to look at the books.

Can I nominate Larkhall as a possible alternative?

[Cropley10]

Says on the bbc website that the money from any player sale wouldn't go to the creditors.
I struggle to see how keeping the players was in the creditors best interest.

Think it's always been about disposal of the assets.

[VickMackie]

Then why put that clause in?

It gives him something to bargain with now. They can drop that clause and endear themselves to the fans and sticking it up to the SFA at the same time.

[joe breezy]

Doncaster and Regan are both saying the right things.

These are legal situations and have to be dealt with in this way. No emotions, no self preference (although clearly Doncaster was preferring to keep the Huns in the SPL a few weeks ago) simply stating the facts and the rules.

The SFA have only got 3 punishments left; suspension, expulsion or a Scottish Cup ban. They won't be looking at lessening the penalty so suspension is a real possibility.

[Just Alf]

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

Some very strange reactions to our press statement tonight. To summarise in bite-sized chunks....

1. Decision to go back to appeal body who will consider remaining sanctions open to them.

2. No appeal will be made to a civil court for a football matter

3. Two Supreme Court Judges had different opinions on the same point

4. The Judicial Process was never questioned, simply which sanction was selected. Judges had different opinions on what was allowed

5. A new hearing will take place at the earliest opportunity

also says.....

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

@THE_TBK We are in consultation with FIFA at present.


he's actually giving as good as he's getting and mosy of the guff is coming from Rankgers so their butts are maybe starting to squeak :greengrin

I've also shared that "Dear non bears" letter with him! :-)

[greenginger]

Has the judge given any reason as to why he thinks the signing ban was not competant and covered by " any other sanction " clause ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't quite get his logic regards not discussing sanctions for a newco. He says we aren't faced with the proposition of a newco yet so didn't want to set fixed penalties. However they aren't faced with a new case of administration either but they are happy to cement new sanctions for any new case of administration.

I can only deduce from this that they don't want to set any fixed sanctions until after any Rangers newco transpires and they can be as leniant as they like.

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual merits.

They DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

[CropleyWasGod]

Has the judge given any reason as to why he thinks the signing ban was not competant and covered by " any other sanction " clause ?

No, but he did sign the verdict "Chucky R. La."

[Just Alf]

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual situation.

The DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

One bit I liked in the ND interview was when discussing that he made a wee slip.....

it was words to the effect "Any Newco wanting entry into SPL will now be voted on by all the teams rather than the board so it's the teams that will oppose...err... decide on a per occasion basis"

made me wonder..... probably a load of tosh and nothing in it but at least I can dream!

:wink:

[Caversham Green]

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

[SurferRosa]

I've also shared that "Dear non bears" letter with him! :-)

This was a comment posted in the Sun and sums up exactly what they think.. you might want to share this wee titbit with him aswell Alf...:aok:

" John Knox (https://profile.thesun.co.uk/profiles/ea0db97d-505b-4b8f-950e-0aaddf5670bd/) A one year ban from the Scottish cup is all we are getting...Debt free...Transfer embargo dealt with...The future is bright..Thanks Tax Payers...lol "




Yep, BRITISH tax payers.....they`ll sing the songs and wave the flags, shout about " the Queens 11 " and all the while stick two fingers up at the country they profess to love....w*****s.

[BarneyK]

Heard him (Doncaster) on the radio this morning talking about Ghandi not passing a fit-and-proper test to own an SPL club. Can anyone elaborate on the point he was making, and/or the substance he was ingesting?

[JeMeSouviens]

Heard him (Doncaster) on the radio this morning talking about Ghandi not passing a fit-and-proper test to own an SPL club. Can anyone elaborate on the point he was making, and/or the substance he was ingesting?

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

[PatHead]

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

Personally I don't think FIFA would accept this. The bottom line is that Rangers took the SFA to court and crossed that line. They have to be punished for that or other clubs could follow suit to make a point. I think it all came down to posturing by Rangers and it has backfired big style. They will still need to be hit with a "suitable" penalty in the eyes of FIFA.

[stokesmessiah]

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

:aok:

This is think is pretty much spot on as to how it will play out.

[BarneyK]

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

[PatHead]

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

Think the point was that it was people who have criminal convictions and there was no financial aspect in the rules.

[stokesmessiah]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=221710

Interesting thread on the bears den...amazing how some people react to what are some decent comments. I have noticed that if anyone dares to say anything on that website that might be remotely sensible and not quite the party line the instant response has something to do with kids and bheasts.

[JeMeSouviens]

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

Yes, which is the point Doncaster was trying to make, I think.

[Caversham Green]

Personally I don't think FIFA would accept this. The bottom line is that Rangers took the SFA to court and crossed that line. They have to be punished for that or other clubs could follow suit to make a point. I think it all came down to posturing by Rangers and it has backfired big style. They will still need to be hit with a "suitable" penalty in the eyes of FIFA.

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

[CropleyWasGod]

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

[Paisley Hibby]

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

You make good points too CG. However, the problem is that the transfer embargo may be a deal breaker for Green. Also, the SFA have FIFA breathing down their necks and a big legal bill because of Rangers' court challenge. The SFA could decide to make a new SEPARATE charge against Rangers for making the legal challenge as that is a clear breach of the rules. The signs seem to be that they are not planning to do that, maybe because there's no point fining them as they will not get the money anyway. It's a complete and utter mess.

[PatHead]

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

Before they took SFA to court I was definately of the opinion that Rangers would get away with it as they would wriggle out blaming the Old Board and Craig Whyte. Since they took the action though there has been a total change in press outlook at the situation and any sympathy they may have had has fallen away. Even the press seem to believe that Scottish Foootball is bigger than Rangers and Rangers have overstepped the mark in putting Scottish football at risk. How will they all get their jollys off to Euros, meetings in 5 star resorts around the world, etc? Even Jim Traynor, Chick Young, Billy Dodds etc have been defeaning by their silence.


Just hope I am right and its Div 3 here they come!

[Mon Dieu4]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=221710

Interesting thread on the bears den...amazing how some people react to what are some decent comments. I have noticed that if anyone dares to say anything on that website that might be remotely sensible and not quite the party line the instant response has something to do with kids and bheasts.

that website has become my guilty pleasure, they are unreal and i thought you could get done for posting views like that today, love the fact they are in deep trouble but still have a thread on what flag are you flying for the jubilee Haha

[BarneyK]

Yes, which is the point Doncaster was trying to make, I think.

Fair enough. I tend to drift away after about 30 seconds of one of his speeches.

[joe breezy]

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

They have the power to do it but it would go against the Court of Session, which still holds some sway, whether or not clubs should go that way, therefore there needs to be another (stronger probably) punishment meted out

[green glory]

FIFA putting pressure on the SFA. Should be a statement today.

https://twitter.com/janelewissport/status/208491515071303681

[joe breezy]

that website has become my guilty pleasure, they are unreal and i thought you could get done for posting views like that today, love the fact they are in deep trouble but still have a thread on what flag are you flying for the jubilee Haha

I enjoyed looking on the mutants for a while, now they bore me and I just want them exterminated

[CallumLaidlaw]

#Fifa confirm that they've spoken to the #Sfa over the #Rangers situation. Talks will continue and they hope to release a statement today.

[Caversham Green]

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.


You make good points too CG. However, the problem is that the transfer embargo may be a deal breaker for Green. Also, the SFA have FIFA breathing down their necks and a big legal bill because of Rangers' court challenge. The SFA could decide to make a new SEPARATE charge against Rangers for making the legal challenge as that is a clear breach of the rules. The signs seem to be that they are not planning to do that, maybe because there's no point fining them as they will not get the money anyway. It's a complete and utter mess.

I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

[JeMeSouviens]

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

[lapsedhibee]

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

This logic seems sound. Question next: How could it be in the interests of Craig Whyte, Duff & Duffer, or Green Charlie to have the Huns suspended? (I've listed three interested parties separately there, though as we know they may all turn out to be in cahoots.) The idea that suspension might trigger a desired liquidation without any of these three getting any blame won't wash now shirley, as it was Duff & Duffer's action which ensured that FIFA got involved?

[ronaldo7]

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.

[joe breezy]

a poignant post from kerrydale street

"In athletics and horse-racing, hurdles races present a unique challenge. An indomitable will and unmatched athletic prowess are not enough to ensure victory; fail to negotiate one of those barriers, even the last one with the finish line in sight, and you are out.

Life is a hurdles race, with multiple obstructions blocking the direct path between you and your important goals. Sometimes you just have to accept things as they are and get on with it. Sometimes you can plot a judicious course that lets you achieve your objectives while easing or even avoiding some of those challenges, but most of us know that the Easier Path is usually anything but.

At the very least least, you try not to make things any more difficult than they already are, but all of us know people who are their own worst enemies. The routinely eschew straightforward solutions that are obvious to others, complicate matters, alienate their family and friends, and turn their lives into an endless series of obstacles. In extreme cases, they create insuperable problems for themselves and for those around them, with tragic consequences. Rarely do they do this deliberately, but all too often they choose the Easier Path when taking on a challenge would bring an infinitely greater reward.

Amongst that group, our prurient attention is frequently drawn to individuals who despite a gilded inheritance and the innumerable social and financial advantages that go with it turn to excess and dissipation, and ultimately squander everything in a riotous display of narcissism and self-indulgence.

Consider the curious case of Rangers Football Club (in administration). Fifteen short years ago it was the dominant force in Scottish football, virtually unchallenged in its own back yard and with realistic ambitions of building a solid reputation as a leading player in Europe. A once-enfeebled Celtic had made enough of a comeback to pip Rangers at the post in a league that at times both teams seemed eager to lose, and with that Rangers’ coveted 10-in-a-row was gone. However, with a well-Established advantage over its old rivals and a turnover close to double that of Celtic, a Generation of Domination for Rangers seemed virtually assured; a straightforward, disciplined execution of the existing business plan would more than likely have been enough to secure it.

Rangers’ owner was not satisfied with that; he wanted more and he wanted it now. His search for ever-greater success was never subjected to any analysis of whether money could or should be thrown at the club, for the simple reason that he never once reached into his own pocket; Rangers’ Easier Path to dissolution was financed first with injections of capital from external investors, then with the club’ own capital base, followed by huge amounts of borrowing and finally by the evasion of legitimate tax liabilities in ever-more flagrant style.

In 1998, Rangers had the option of a largely unimpeded route to a successful, stable, prosperous and trophy-laden future. Today, it faces the loss of every trophy and virtually every individual match victory it has secured over the intervening years, and must fight for its very existence.

Over the next few months, Rangers must face several daunting challenges; and it must do so whilst bereft of money, leadership or (increasingly) friends. Amongst these are:

1 The proven SFA disrepute charge now being referred back to the Appellate Panel.

2 A further SFA charge for going to the CoS. This is not yet certain, but Stewart Regan tweeted last night that the SFA is in discussion with FIFA on the issue and it seems unlikely that FIFA will want to fudge a high-profile example of what is for them a very important issue.

3 Its impending liquidation – CVA my bahookie – and the need for a NewClub to go cap in hand to a disaffected SPL membership and try to cobble together 8 votes for a parachute.

4 The enquiry on player registrations and its seemingly inevitable conclusion that rules have been breached for a decade or more, and on a scale that dwarfs the 2011/12 disrepute charge, for which suspension and expulsion were actively considered.

5 Potentially, the ‘nuclear’ allegations regarding bungs to ex-managers and others, which if substantiated would surely lead to a fraud investigation in addition to the severe sporting penalties that would apply.

Any one of these issues has the potential to wipe Rangers from the face of Scottish football, or at least sideline it for an extended period and reduce it to a humbled, vastly-reduced rump of what it once was. And then there are the ‘unknown unknowns’.

This is no mere hurdles race, but a monstrous obstacle course of Rangers’ own creation, which it must face virtually alone, as the good-time friends who once adhered to the club are drifting away as the long-overdue ending of its largesse becomes ever more apparent, even to the most sycophantic among them.

There is something terribly sad about this all, the damage that has been done to so many other parties, the jobs that will be lost and the lives blighted by Rangers’ demise. There is also – finally – a real sense of justice being done, a righting of wrongs. A mighty hubris has preceded an equally mighty fall.

Some will mourn the end of Rangers as we have known them. Many others will agree with Oscar Wilde’s comment on the maudlin fictional death of Little Nell: “you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh”."

[Paisley Hibby]

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.



I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

[Caversham Green]

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

The embargo would break the deal that's on the table now, but another deal could be struck that would keep the big hoose open which is fast becoming the best that the huns can hope for. Expulsion would kill them stone dead, so it's agree and suffer or disagree and die. They got themselves into this mess and they must accept the consequences.

[SteveHFC]

The Ibrox club, must either accept the original 12-month transfer ban or risk being banned form Scottish football. (The Daily Mail) :thumbsup:

[ScottB]

The Court of Session has no power over the SFA, if they want they could stick to their guns and impose the ban, which would set up a Scion type situation of Rangers no doubt attempting to ignore it.

At this stage I think 2 options emerge; 1. The ban stands, Rangers ignore it and get themselves pumped out of the game at the end of FIFA's rath. Or 2. The SFA ditches the ban and kicks them out now, either for a year or permanently, don't think it matters which as it means death either why.

[IFONLY]

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.


Aye and they would still beat us in the final.

[Spike Mandela]

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual merits.

They DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

Exactly the point I was making. This shows an illogical way of dealing with issues which Doncaster has already stated publically that he considers are basically the same.

[Seveno]

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

[jgl07]

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

That would not be acceptable to me.

Any deal that keeps Rangers in the SPL will finish Scottish Football for me.

[joe breezy]

I'm reading the threads, twitter updates etc every day but as far as I can see this SFA thing is just for recently bringing the game into disrepute.

just the Craig Whyte stuff, which is a tiny proportion of what they've actually done ie there's plenty other stuff they can still be found guilty of. Even if it was just a Scottish Cup ban it wouldn't mean they're going to be in the SPL next season.

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting comment from "Paulie Walnuts" on RTC, who is a lawyer I believe.

(to clarify, Richard Keen represented RFC, Aidan O'Neill the SFA)



I think suspension is very much on the cards. Anyone with experience of Lord Carloway will know that he is a hard man when he feels he has to be. He will certainly not bottle the decision or be scared of doing it. As you say we will find out then if the CAS will entertain an appeal then because despite what the ill informed peepul think there is no route to judicially review a suspension.

We will have to see whether Glennie writes on this. But I am told by those who sat through the hearing that he made very clear that there was no question of him acceding to Rihard Keen’s submission that he might slice out the embargo leaving only the fine standing, to the extent that he cut off Aidan O’Neill’s response on that issue by saying AO’N didn’t need to address it because it wasn’t going to happen. His reasoning was that the tribunal had selected the embargo as a compromise because they thought a fine woefully insufficient and suspension or expulsion too severe, but if Rangers wanted to force the tribunal to make that choice it was absolutely entitled to do so and was absolutely entitled to select suspension or expulsion.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm reading the threads, twitter updates etc every day but as far as I can see this SFA thing is just for recently bringing the game into disrepute.

just the Craig Whyte stuff, which is a tiny proportion of what they've actually done ie there's plenty other stuff they can still be found guilty of. Even if it was just a Scottish Cup ban it wouldn't mean they're going to be in the SPL next season.

Correct. This is the outcome of the Nimmo-Smith enquiry which concerned events surrounding the takeover and Whyte's subsequent ownership.

[CropleyWasGod]

Exactly the point I was making. This shows an illogical way of dealing with issues which Doncaster has already stated publically that he considers are basically the same.

I think he made "those" statements before the latest meeting, though, didn't he? As others have said, his stance seems to be shifting. Indeed, it probably has to, given that the clubs have made those decisions.

[CropleyWasGod]

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.

[Spike Mandela]

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.


Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

[JeMeSouviens]

Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

I think the SPL and SFA are 2 very different beasts when it comes to this saga. SPL/Doncaster have so far followed a Hun at all costs mentality, SFA/Regan much less so. SFA judicial panels came up with the signing embargo and upheld it on appeal. No reason to think they will go easy 3rd time, especially with FIFA watching over their shoulders.

[Sergio sledge]

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

Its important to note that it is not a transfer embargo, but a ban on new registrations. That means, existing players can be re-signed or sold. This means Rangers can sell any players they wish (high earners) and keep any players they can agree salaries with. The only thing they can't do is sign new players over the age of 18. They have hardly made any signings for years and I'm sure under Walter Smith they went over a year without making a signing, so it won't kill them. It would mean they would have no chance of winning the league, but they'd still be able to put together a squad (from their existing players) that would be capable of holding their own in the SPL.

[Gus Fring]

Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

I don't think they can go more lenient. They must still be punished for the original crime but they must now also be punished for dragging the game into the ordinary courts. Neil Donkeycaster and all his chums could come out of Hampden wearing full Rangers strip waving a union jack and shouting "We arra Peepul" it won't make a blind bit of difference to FIFA.

[Caversham Green]

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

[Gus Fring]

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

How much of an impact will not getting Craig Whyte's shares have on Greens takeover? I posted a number of pages back that he stated that the deal to get Whytes shares is void if the CVA fails.

[stokesmessiah]

Its important to note that it is not a transfer embargo, but a ban on new registrations. That means, existing players can be re-signed or sold. This means Rangers can sell any players they wish (high earners) and keep any players they can agree salaries with. The only thing they can't do is sign new players over the age of 18. They have hardly made any signings for years and I'm sure under Walter Smith they went over a year without making a signing, so it won't kill them. It would mean they would have no chance of winning the league, but they'd still be able to put together a squad (from their existing players) that would be capable of holding their own in the SPL.

I think a lot of it is to do with the season after next though....with a vastly depleted squad they might find it hard to qualify for Europe, which i believe if they dont go down the Newco route there is no reason for them not to get access. THey will expect to finish in the top 4 next season and get into Europe and the additional income that provides may be a vital part of Greens business plan. ??

[Caversham Green]

How much of an impact will not getting Craig Whyte's shares have on Greens takeover? I posted a number of pages back that he stated that the deal to get Whytes shares is void if the CVA fails.

It wouldn't matter because he's starting a new company. The old Rangers FC plc (IA) would be selling all their assets to this newco which would then become the football operation. The oldco would then use the proceeds of the sale (£5.5m) to pay of the creditors in liquidation.

[Sergio sledge]

I think a lot of it is to do with the season after next though....with a vastly depleted squad they might find it hard to qualify for Europe, which i believe if they dont go down the Newco route there is no reason for them not to get access. THey will expect to finish in the top 4 next season and get into Europe and the additional income that provides may be a vital part of Greens business plan. ??

Are they not banned from Europe for 3 years?

[CropleyWasGod]

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

That's not how I read it.... but feel free to slap me down :greengrin

I read it as 1. as you say, there is no CVA without SPL or SC football, but also

2. the WHOLE DEAL, ie "if the CVA fails, we buy the assets..." is also off if there is no SPL/SC.

So... it's (a) if there's SPL/SC next season, and the CVA works, then bingo. (b) if there's SPL/SC, and no CVA, we'll buy the assets. (c) if there's no SPL/SC, we are out.

Thoughts?


Edit.. I have just had another thought. If there is no CVA, they buy the assets, and then the SPL says "you're no getting in".... then does the deal have to be reversed?... or has CG just got the bargain of the year?

[stokesmessiah]

Are they not banned from Europe for 3 years?


As far as i know it is only 1 season, the 3 yr ban is IF they go down the Newco route.

[Sergio sledge]

As far as i know it is only 1 season, the 3 yr ban is IF they go down the Newco route.

Oh right, I see. :aok:

[Alan62]

It's all getting a bit dull now. They're dead. The only things that need to be confirmed are the time and cause of death. Mind you, that in itself may end up being a 300+ page thread ...

[stokesmessiah]

Apologies if already posted, no real new news in it..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18294684

[joe breezy]

the thing is we are looking at suspension and expulsion just for a bit of non tax payment by Whyte whilst none of the juicy stuff (EBTs / bungs to Souness etc) has even been looked at yet...

[Caversham Green]

That's not how I read it.... but feel free to slap me down :greengrin

I read it as 1. as you say, there is no CVA without SPL or SC football, but also

2. the WHOLE DEAL, ie "if the CVA fails, we buy the assets..." is also off if there is no SPL/SC.

So... it's (a) if there's SPL/SC next season, and the CVA works, then bingo. (b) if there's SPL/SC, and no CVA, we'll buy the assets. (c) if there's no SPL/SC, we are out.

Thoughts?


Edit.. I have just had another thought. If there is no CVA, they buy the assets, and then the SPL says "you're no getting in".... then does the deal have to be reversed?... or has CG just got the bargain of the year?

Reading the proposal again, para 4.22 says the conditions include "Approval of this Proposal"; acquisition of the Group Shares for a quid and consents for participation in the leagues and cups.

Para 4.23 then says "In the event this CVA is not approved" Green must purchase the assets and business for £5.5m.

My reading of that is that only the CVA carries the condition of playing in the competitions, particularly since the obligation to buy is contained in a new paragraph.

As far as the bargain is concerned, Green is either going to get an operating and debt-free Rangers FC for nothing (the £8.5m is an interest-bearing loan that will be repaid in eight years) or he's going to get Ibrox, Murray Park, all the fixtures and fittings (apart from the pie heater apparently), all the training equipment, vehicles etc and the contracts of whichever players are willing to move across - that could include Naismith and McGregor - for £5.5m. Either way he's getting a helluva bargain.

[CropleyWasGod]

Reading the proposal again, para 4.22 says the conditions include "Approval of this Proposal"; acquisition of the Group Shares for a quid and consents for participation in the leagues and cups.

Para 4.23 then says "In the event this CVA is not approved" Green must purchase the assets and business for £5.5m.

My reading of that is that only the CVA carries the condition of playing in the competitions, particularly since the obligation to buy is contained in a new paragraph.

As far as the bargain is concerned, Green is either going to get an operating and debt-free Rangers FC for nothing (the £8.5m is an interest-bearing loan that will be repaid in eight years) or he's going to get Ibrox, Murray Park, all the fixtures and fittings (apart from the pie heater apparently), all the training equipment, vehicles etc and the contracts of whichever players are willing to move across - that could include Naismith and McGregor - for £5.5m. Either way he's getting a helluva bargain.

Okay, I am not convinced about the backing-out bit... but moving on... :greengrin

Am I right in saying that, in the event of the £5.5m buy-out being triggered..... any creditor can then say "hold on, we can get a better deal elsewhere"? Because, if there is a better deal out there, D&P aren't fulfilling their duties.

[joe breezy]

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markhateley/2012/06/euro-hopefuls-motherwell-shoul.html#more

Arf

[stokesmessiah]

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markhateley/2012/06/euro-hopefuls-motherwell-shoul.html#more

Arf

Clocked that earlier, amazing how quickly they turn on "one of their own" when they don't tow the party line is'nt it?

[Spike Mandela]

HATELY SHUT YOUR MOUTH (SAYS THE HEADLINE ON THE THREAD IN hun MEDIA)

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markhateley/2012/06/euro-hopefuls-motherwell-shoul.html#more

Arf

Suddenly HIS son is affected and he starts to talk sense. What a transparent wally he is.:rolleyes:

[Paisley Hibby]

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.



I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

But it beggars belief that D&P/Green/RFC would risk everything going to the CoS if the signing embargo was negotiable. I'm heartened by the post referring to RTC text quoting what was said at Court. That seems to suggest that it IS open to the SFA to impose the harsher penalties of expulsion/suspension despite what the two Panels previously thought about those being too harsh. But does the SFA have the balls to do that?

[Spike Mandela]

But it beggars belief that D&P/Green/RFC would risk everything going to the CoS if the signing embargo was negotiable. I'm heartened by the post referring to RTC text quoting what was said at Court. That seems to suggest that it IS open to the SFA to impose the harsher penalties of expulsion/suspension despite what the two Panels previously thought about those being too harsh. But does the SFA have the balls to do that?

The two panels both insisted any punishment should be a deterrent. I think most clubs would risk losing a year in the Scottish cup to avoid paying £14m in PAYE and other debt. The decision the panel should make is clear.

[MB62]

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

[Caversham Green]

Okay, I am not convinced about the backing-out bit... but moving on... :greengrin

Am I right in saying that, in the event of the £5.5m buy-out being triggered..... any creditor can then say "hold on, we can get a better deal elsewhere"? Because, if there is a better deal out there, D&P aren't fulfilling their duties.

The terms of the £5.5m deal are confidential so there may be a back-out clause in that, but I remain convinced that the CVA document doesn't make the purchase deal contingent on SPL membership or cup competitions - we can agree to differ.

And yes, the creditors can challenge the deal - it becomes a straight liquidation as far as they are concerned and they would have the usual legal remedies (I don't actually know what they are though...). I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC or Ticketus were already taking steps to ensure that D&P don't get the liquidation gig if they're not going to approve the CVA.

[Spike Mandela]

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

I am sure the creditors can challenge the liquidation price leagally if they so choose.

[CropleyWasGod]

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

What you say is in the CVA offer document. As Cav says, and I agree with him, the creditors do have the right to challenge the £5.5m deal if they think there are better deals out there.

Thus far, though, I haven't seen anything that looks fraudulent in D&P or Green's activities.

[down-the-slope]

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.


Well added to 3 years out of Europe (if the still arrogantly beleive they would be in the SPL and even then have any hope of qualifying) when Euro income was part of all the various potential purchasers cash flows at least in years 2 + 3....

[Caversham Green]

I received this e-mail from a mate who sort of works in the finance industry and have to say, if he is right, then the outcome is scary and wholly wrong

<<Duff & Phelps have agreed with Charles Green that if the CVA is not accepted by the creditors, that they will sell to his consortium, a debt free Rangers including all existing assets (stadium/training ground/ players and all other assets, cars,fixtures & fittings etc) for £5.5 million, which matches to the penny the bill Duff & Phelps have submitted as secured creditors.
This means that they are holding a gun to the head of the creditors and basically saying your choice is take what scraps are on offer or take nothing.
I can't quite believe this is possible myself, but this is what will happen.
So unless the other 11 clubs stand up to this blatant fraud ( and I consider Duff & Phelps to me major players in the fraud) then Rangers are going to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.
Duff & Phelps are laughing all the way to the bank.

Personally I think the whole farce is a matter for the police!!>>

Was wondering if CWG or Caversham could maybe comment on the likelyhood of this happening?

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

[Mon Dieu4]

Well added to 3 years out of Europe (if the still arrogantly beleive they would be in the SPL and even then have any hope of qualifying) when Euro income was part of all the various potential purchasers cash flows at least in years 2 + 3....

They would probably get a better return on £5.5m worth of lottery tickets

[down-the-slope]

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

I did notice that Rangers have circa £3.5million 'cash at bank' currently - convieniently the same as D&P's fees (the additional £2million being legal fees / expenses)

There is plenty odd stuff - but the strangest is that they CONTINUE to trade (with D&P at the helm) and are still running up a tax bill and not paying....

I would have had HMRC kick my door down by now if thats how I was operating :rolleyes:

[jgl07]

That's pretty much what I was saying a few posts ago. If McGregor and Naismith (among others) agreed to move to the newco they could immediately be sold for their full market value and the creditors would get none of it. The buyout option leaves just under £1m (estimated) for distribution to the creditors with no comeback against the new RFC. I think they'd have a case for a malpractice suit against D&P though.

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

[CropleyWasGod]

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

[HFC 0-7]

What you say is in the CVA offer document. As Cav says, and I agree with him, the creditors do have the right to challenge the £5.5m deal if they think there are better deals out there.

Thus far, though, I haven't seen anything that looks fraudulent in D&P or Green's activities.

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

[grunt]

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it.
Doesn't this all depend on the outcome of the creditors vote after the first D&P report? There was a proposal in there which, if accepted, would allow D&P to agree a deal on behalf of the creditors without referring back to them for approval. I would have hoped that at the very least HMRC and Ticketus would have voted against that proposal, but since we've never been told the outcome of the creditors meeting, we don't know.

[Just Alf]

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

It's a good question and a difficult answer... I remember at the beginning having a look at the laws around asset stripping and what you mention is VERY CLOSE to that..... the problem seemed to be that none of that type of argument is black and white so obviously open to some wriggle room :-( ..... all comes down to how much of a gamble Duff and Duffer want to take with their OWN business.

[CropleyWasGod]

If D&P agree to sell the assetts to Greene without liquidating the company, can the creditors do anything about it. Is this not what the newco route was all about, buy the good parts and leave all the rubbish and debts behind.

The admins have a duty to get a.better return for the creditors than they would get in a liquidation . If the 5.5 m deal is as good as they would get elsewhere , so be it. If there is a better deal out there, the creditors would have to demonstrate that to have the sale reversed .

[snooky]

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

Sounds a bit shifty - can't see Rangers Newco (or Oldco) touching that with a bargepole.










:fibber:

[The Green Goblin]

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

As would Princess Anne.

[DH1875]

Its really starting to get on my wits end. So much so that if this all ends up going the way I think it will, I'm starting to think I'll jack it all in. Could be a free ST up for grabs.

[Cropley10]

Why would McGregor and Naismith agree to such a move?

Naismith has a buyout clause at £2 million and it has been suggested he could attract a fee of up to £7 million. He could get far better personal terms by invoking the buyout.

Except he's a Hun

[snooky]

Except he's a Hun

I would imagine there could be a bit of coaxing from AMcC & fellow fans for the 'free agents' to stay and not desert the sinking ship.

[Eyrie]

I'm wondering whether any fine levied by the SFA would fall within the CVA, or if it would be a liability to be paid in full? Could make it worthwhile for the SFA to wait until the CVA vote is held, then hit the Huns with the maximum fine both for the original charge and for going to court.

Meanwhile any intelligent Hun (insert your own jokes) should be in favour of a newco starting life in Divison Three, which can't be punished for any of the sins of the current Huns.

[ancient hibee]

He could, though, get a slice of his transfer fee from the NewCo.

Or a bigger slice from the club buying him at a knock down price.

[Bostonhibby]

I would imagine there could be a bit of coaxing from AMcC & fellow fans for the 'free agents' to stay and not desert the sinking ship.

:agree: Could maybe offer them some form of under the table EBT to sweeten the deal? :greengrin

[joe breezy]

Stewart Regan's reply to Celtic Trust re clarification on SFA rules

http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_article&id=375

[SurferRosa]

So where is the cash coming from to pay full wages....no players are going to be leaving the huns at the moment it seems.

Who`s paying for this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18302280?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[CropleyWasGod]

Stewart Regan's reply to Celtic Trust re clarification on SFA rules

http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_article&id=375

I am a little confused. He seems to be suggesting that the licensing rules are being properly applied. However, according to the reports of Hearts AGM, they have been granted their license to play in Europe, despite their not satisfying the requirements.

Am I misreading something?

[Hibs Class]

So where is the cash coming from to pay full wages....no players are going to be leaving the huns at the moment it seems.

Who`s paying for this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18302280?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Short answer is it's coming from the pot that would otherwise be available to creditors. If they laid players off then the CVA would be able to offer a larger payout to creditors, all other factors being equal. It's basically theft.

[SurferRosa]

Short answer is it's coming from the pot that would otherwise be available to creditors. If they laid players off then the CVA would be able to offer a larger payout to creditors, all other factors being equal. It's basically theft.

So if this is the case......it would appear that the court and judge that appointed them see nothing wrong in this..

[Hibs Class]

So if this is the case......it would appear that the court and judge that appointed them see nothing wrong in this..

D&P would argue they are preserving value as otherwise the players could walk away for nothing. However, as has been said before, this must be the football club administration that has seen by far the fewest player layoffs, and the fact that the insolvency practitioners association (I think) is investigating D&P would suggest that there are concerns about how they've mishandled it.

[Andy74]

So where is the cash coming from to pay full wages....no players are going to be leaving the huns at the moment it seems.

Who`s paying for this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18302280?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

If you pay your taxes then you are!

[CropleyWasGod]

D&P would argue they are preserving value as otherwise the players could walk away for nothing. However, as has been said before, this must be the football club administration that has seen by far the fewest player layoffs, and the fact that the insolvency practitioners association (I think) is investigating D&P would suggest that there are concerns about how they've mishandled it.

The concerns are over the alleged conflict of interest. One can't properly judge their handling of it until it's over.

[HFC 0-7]

The admins have a duty to get a.better return for the creditors than they would get in a liquidation . If the 5.5 m deal is as good as they would get elsewhere , so be it. If there is a better deal out there, the creditors would have to demonstrate that to have the sale reversed .

But is setting up a newco and leaving the debt behind liquidation? D&P, IMO, should already have been selling assets (the players). Is selling the stadium etc not just the same thing?

[semaj64]

Just watching the mafia's greatest hits. Why is it that the downfall of the mafia was due to tax evasion yet we pamper to the Gers.

Sonny (http://www.hibs.net/name/nm0001001/): How's Rangers?
Clemenza (http://www.hibs.net/name/nm0144710/): Oh, Rangers... won't see the People no more.



http://images.wikia.com/godfather/images/3/3a/Woltz_horse_head.png

[Sumner]

Scottish fitbaw is dying in the dirt, and this tawdry affair is burying it. Get them the hell out, re-jig the leagues to 18 top teams, get prices down, or it's over.. kids already watch Match of the Day, and avoid the Crappenfest that is Sportscene. Re-invent it FAST men in suits, or watch the Rangers turn it to dust

[Paisley Hibby]

Scottish fitbaw is dying in the dirt, and this tawdry affair is burying it. Get them the hell out, re-jig the leagues to 18 top teams, get prices down, or it's over.. kids already watch Match of the Day, and avoid the Crappenfest that is Sportscene. Re-invent it FAST men in suits, or watch the Rangers turn it to dust

:top marks

[RyeSloan]

To me Green is not a real buyer...at best it's a loan based on the assets of a newco or a post admin rangers. If I was a creditor I would be asking why should I bother with the CVA as it's clearly nothing but a vehicle for someone else to get something for next to nothing.

What gets me is the value of the players...this seems to have been excluded from any pot. Surely if they were liquidated
now the players transfer value and the value of the stadium etc would be realised and the monies gained split between all creditors. Why is the club still being run "as normal" and why has the value of the playing squad not been realised? It's clear that there is no real value in the club as a going concern so surely anyone acting on behalf of the creditors should now be setting out to realise the value of ALL assets.

Sure I must have missed something but for D & P to state that the total avail for realising all assets now is only £5.5m must be total balls when you consider possible transfer income alongside the real estate value....

[The Green Goblin]

Scottish fitbaw is dying in the dirt, and this tawdry affair is burying it. Get them the hell out, re-jig the leagues to 18 top teams, get prices down, or it's over.. kids already watch Match of the Day, and avoid the Crappenfest that is Sportscene. Re-invent it FAST men in suits, or watch the Rangers turn it to dust

Great post. Spot on!

[joe breezy]

If the sanction against rangers is being refused entry to the scottish cup then d&p will have played a blinder.
Far better to be out the cup and challenging for a european place.

Seems to be a straight fight to the death. Rangers versus Scottish fitba

I doubt that will happen, Scottish fitba (SFA) have FIFA breathing down their necks with a sledgehammer saying if you don't batter that horrible wee hun right now we're gonna knock you out.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-game-changing-gaffe/

[joe breezy]

Yorkston on why a Scottish Cup ban would be a joke...and completely incorrect

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/dunfermline-chief-john-yorkston-rangers-can-t-be-given-same-punishment-we-got-for-admin-error-86908-23882815/

[Mon Dieu4]

[QUOTE=joe breezy;3252514]Yorkston on why a Scottish Cup ban would be a joke...and completely incorrect

[url]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/dunfermline-chief-john-yorkston-rangers-can-t-be-given-same-p


i think he is spot on, the Scottish cup is nothing to Rangers they have won it about 4000 times and being out of it for a season or few is not really a punishment, we do that every year

[Springbank]

If Rangers carry on it will be the death-knell for sporting integrity (most are agreed on that) and Rangers would do themselves a favour by "doing a Juve" and going down the leagues to wipe the slate clean. Otherwise any victories in future will have a cloud hanging over them, clean or not, because y'know it's Rangers, nudge nudge wink wink.

I'll personally be sickened to see their support pitch up at ER next season. I couldn't watch. Couldn't.
But I don't want to harm my club (who have run the financial affairs in a clean manner).

So here's my plan.

I'll be paying my way in, to give Hibs my money.

I'll go to my seat half an hour before kick off.

I'll lay out a banner saying "NO CHEATS IN OUR GAME"

Then I'll leave before the sectarian singing gets going in the away end.

If all of Scottish football did this you'd have Rangers cancer made plain for all to see.

Playing in 75% empty stadiums, no-one wants to watch them (except the uber-bigots who follow follow)

That would kill their soul, once and for all.

It's all I've got, but it's my plan.


:flag:

[CropleyWasGod]

To me Green is not a real buyer...at best it's a loan based on the assets of a newco or a post admin rangers. If I was a creditor I would be asking why should I bother with the CVA as it's clearly nothing but a vehicle for someone else to get something for next to nothing.

What gets me is the value of the players...this seems to have been excluded from any pot. Surely if they were liquidated
now the players transfer value and the value of the stadium etc would be realised and the monies gained split between all creditors. Why is the club still being run "as normal" and why has the value of the playing squad not been realised? It's clear that there is no real value in the club as a going concern so surely anyone acting on behalf of the creditors should now be setting out to realise the value of ALL assets.

Sure I must have missed something but for D & P to state that the total avail for realising all assets now is only £5.5m must be total balls when you consider possible transfer income alongside the real estate value....In a liquidation there is no value for the players . Their contracts are cancelled.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Yorkston on why a Scottish Cup ban would be a joke...and completely incorrect

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/dunfermline-chief-john-yorkston-rangers-can-t-be-given-same-punishment-we-got-for-admin-error-86908-23882815/

Slightly off topic but what that fails to say was that Dunfermline won the appeal on their expulsion and had to replay that game against Stenhousemuir, which they won.

[BarneyK]

If Rangers carry on it will be the death-knell for sporting integrity (most are agreed on that) and Rangers would do themselves a favour by "doing a Juve" and going down the leagues to wipe the slate clean. Otherwise any victories in future will have a cloud hanging over them, clean or not, because y'know it's Rangers, nudge nudge wink wink.

I'll personally be sickened to see their support pitch up at ER next season. I couldn't watch. Couldn't.
But I don't want to harm my club (who have run the financial affairs in a clean manner).

So here's my plan.

I'll be paying my way in, to give Hibs my money.

I'll go to my seat half an hour before kick off.

I'll lay out a banner saying "NO CHEATS IN OUR GAME"

Then I'll leave before the sectarian singing gets going in the away end.

If all of Scottish football did this you'd have Rangers cancer made plain for all to see.

Playing in 75% empty stadiums, no-one wants to watch them (except the uber-bigots who follow follow)

That would kill their soul, once and for all.

It's all I've got, but it's my plan.


:flag:

As you say, the effectiveness of this depends on many others doing the same thing. Apart from anything else, somebody's likely to be sitting on your banner. I agree that protest must be made, though, should they survive, and indeed prosper next year,

[BarneyK]

In a liquidation there is no value for the players . Their contracts are cancelled.

Indeed, but it would also seem that their value in a CVA bypasses the creditors as well. Just doesn't seem right. Then again, what does in this whole drama.

[grunt]

If I was a creditor reading this, I would not be pleased...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/320185

[WindyMiller]

In a liquidation there is no value for the players . Their contracts are cancelled.

I thought their regstrations were held by the SFA.
Could they not benefit from them?

Duff and Duffer have played a dangerous game here if the players can just walk.

[lapsedhibee]

Yorkston on why a Scottish Cup ban would be a joke...and completely incorrect

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/dunfermline-chief-john-yorkston-rangers-can-t-be-given-same-punishment-we-got-for-admin-error-86908-23882815/

Good to be reading stuff like that, particularly after the appalling guff spouted by the Killiemarnock boy a few weeks ago.

[snooky]

If I was a creditor reading this, I would not be pleased...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/320185

Could be true ...
OR it could be a money carrot to sway the SFA into letting RFC off lightly
OR it could be total BS to keep the Bears' chins up

Don't know what or who to believe anymore
Maybe that's part of their masterplan - cause confusion / smoke screens and mirrors / keep the 'enemy' guessing

Wake me up when it's over. :yawn:
BTW, if they get off, there'll be no need to wake me up.

[WindyMiller]

If I was a creditor reading this, I would not be pleased...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/320185


I don't even believe the date they print at the top of the page.

[BarneyK]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

[lapsedhibee]

Duff and Duffer have played a dangerous game here if the players can just walk.

They've lied/spun about other things. Perhaps they also lied when they claimed that they had no idea that going to the CoS would have catastrophic repercussions. Perhaps they want HunFC booted out of Scottish fitba. I wonder if they have a lawyer who believes he can argue that the English leagues would then be obliged to accept them.

[blackpoolhibs]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

More arrogance from the huns, they are keen to reach a compromise.:rolleyes: No **** sherlock, but you are in no position to bargain now. Kill the tossers please, and finish this bloody mess for good.

[Bostonhibby]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

Vile creatures, nae morals, gie it a couple of Weeks and the voice of Govan will be leading a campaign to compensate them for the inconvenience.

[Steve-O]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

6 month transfer embargo and ban from the Scottish Cup - what do we think of this?

I'd be more in favour of at least a 6 month suspension :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

One thing the Huns are good at is displaying boundless thickness.

[green glory]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

Stewart Regan won't be making the decision anyway, it'll be the panel. By all accounts when Greene attended the SPL meeting this week his attitude towards the other club's chairmen didn't impress. In other words what Charles Greene wants Charles Greene gets. Didn't make many friends that's for sure. He'll attempt to browbeat Regan, then hopefully take the huff and walk away leaving the Huns to die.

[BarneyK]

More arrogance from the huns, they are keen to reach a compromise.:rolleyes: No ****
sherlock, but you are in no position to bargain now. Kill the tossers please, and finish this bloody mess for good.

Shamelessly pinched from a poster on pieandbovril, but it does succintly summarise the situation :greengrin

Does that mean that Rangers are requesting a punishment that isn't in the rulebook, a week after taking the SFA to court (and getting them into trouble with FIFA) for giving them a punishment that wasn't in the rulebook?

Yeah, good luck with that

[Onion]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

How magnanimous of the Huns. They're going to offer to take a 6 month transfer ban, yet the COS deemed a transfer ban beyond the powers available to the SFA ? What a load of crock. The more I read about the Huns and their approach to this whole sorry tale the less sympathy I have for them. They really are the pits and SF would be well shot of them.

[Onion]

6 month transfer embargo and ban from the Scottish Cup - what do we think of this?

I'd be more in favour of at least a 6 month suspension :agree:

.. by the neck from a short rope :greengrin

[Twiglet]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/

I wonder if FIFA are aware of Greene's meeting with the sfa and the rumoured reasons why. Surely another wee word would be had in the ear of the sfa to let them know that a club can't try and tell their FA what punishment they should receive.

[blackpoolhibs]

Shamelessly pinched from a poster on pieandbovril, but it does succintly summarise the situation :greengrin

Does that mean that Rangers are requesting a punishment that isn't in the rulebook, a week after taking the SFA to court (and getting them into trouble with FIFA) for giving them a punishment that wasn't in the rulebook?

Yeah, good luck with that

:agree: Hunbelievable.

[Steve-O]

Shamelessly pinched from a poster on pieandbovril, but it does succintly summarise the situation :greengrin

Does that mean that Rangers are requesting a punishment that isn't in the rulebook, a week after taking the SFA to court (and getting them into trouble with FIFA) for giving them a punishment that wasn't in the rulebook?

Yeah, good luck with that

True :greengrin

[BEEJ]

The Huns now proposing they decide their own punishment. Surprising? :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-club-set-to-cut-deal-with-sfa-to-stop-scottish-football-from-sliding-into-abyss-86908-23882820/
The Huns just don't know when to shut-up, do they?

Talk about digging an ever deepening hole for themselves. :greengrin

[snooky]

Imagine playing in a serious card school for 20 years.
One day you find out the guy who has been winning on a regular basis has been cheating all along.
He says, "Tell you what boys, I'll not play for a couple of weeks then we can pick up where we left off, okay?"
School's response? "Aye, that's great pal, as long as you're okay with that."
:hmmm: I don't think so.

[WindyMiller]

At least when the Huns are gone there's a good chance the fitba' weegia will go too.

[joe breezy]

The good news is that the Huns won't be negotiating with anyone as it's an independent trio including a senior judge that will be deciding their fate and that will be based in rules, not the sycophantic opinions of certain pro Rangers SFA types.

[steviehibsleith]

See Dunfermline chairman made a very valid statement about kicking huns out of Scottish cup next season is a leniant and inappropriate punishment for the crime considering His team was put out for fielding an inelligible player as was Spartans . You then hear that the Huns are going to boycott them as well as Hibs Dundee united Inverness St Johnstone .... etc just about every club whose chairmen has said something about the Rangers saga. My point is how dumb are the Huns for saying they wont go to away games - primary reason RP and other chairmen tolerates them is for the money they bring when the visit easter rd or respective grounds.

If they are going to boycott us next year may as well vote against them seems they are shooting themselves in the foot again.
PS i know tv revenue is huge and dependent on huns but clubs udget for 3000 travelling huns money too.

[Andy74]

If I was a creditor reading this, I would not be pleased...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/320185

Or a taxpayer.

[TheEastTerrace]

If I was a creditor reading this, I would not be pleased...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/320185

I recall a similar claim made by a shady wee character from Lanarkshire not so long ago :wink:

Total fantasy land.

[Jack]

See Dunfermline chairman made a very valid statement about kicking huns out of Scottish cup next season is a leniant and inappropriate punishment for the crime considering His team was put out for fielding an inelligible player as was Spartans . You then hear that the Huns are going to boycott them as well as Hibs Dundee united Inverness St Johnstone .... etc just about every club whose chairmen has said something about the Rangers saga. My point is how dumb are the Huns for saying they wont go to away games - primary reason RP and other chairmen tolerates them is for the money they bring when the visit easter rd or respective grounds.

If they are going to boycott us next year may as well vote against them seems they are shooting themselves in the foot again.
PS i know tv revenue is huge and dependent on huns but clubs udget for 3000 travelling huns money too.

You've reminded me of something that 'someone had a go at me' on the McPake thread earlier.

My point was that its not just kicking them out the league and their mantra around youz need ra peepil.

The point is that if they do stay a huge number of supporters are threatening not to return; the peepil have threatened to boycott other clubs.

There's probably a fair number already who have lost confidence in 'the product' and won't return.

Whatever the financial future of Scottish football its never been so unclear.

[RyeSloan]

In a liquidation there is no value for the players . Their contracts are cancelled.

Ah I see. For my benefit do you know why this happens automatically?

If there is no value in the playing staff for liquidation why then are D&P not selling the majority of the squad to raise funds for the CVA? The price Green is 'paying' cannot and does not reflect the market value of the 1st team so why is that value not being realised to pay the creditors? Also it seems the wage 'cuts' allowed certain players to imsert very low sell on clauses into their comtracts....how does that action square with D&P maximising monies for the creditors?

[VickMackie]

6 month transfer embargo and ban from the Scottish Cup - what do we think of this?

I'd be more in favour of at least a 6 month suspension :agree:

6 months isn't nearly enough for what they'd get away with. If that was imposed by the end of the month they'd be able to sign players in the jan transfer window.

[grunt]

If there is no value in the playing staff for liquidation why then are D&P not selling the majority of the squad to raise funds for the CVA? The price Green is 'paying' cannot and does not reflect the market value of the 1st team so why is that value not being realised to pay the creditors? Also it seems the wage 'cuts' allowed certain players to imsert very low sell on clauses into their comtracts....how does that action square with D&P maximising monies for the creditors?Three very good questions. Sadly our useless press will never be able to provide answers.

[VickMackie]

How they could turn down 2 million for Naismith whilst in administration is a joke as well.

[ancient hibee]

Isn't there some confusion about the value of players contracts.Rangers won't go into liquidation until a Newco is formed.The players will be asked to transfer to the Newco-some won't agree.Those that don't will be sold by old Rangers those that do will be transferred-old Rangers will then be liquidated-there will be no players on the books when that happens.

[Jim44]

How they could turn down 2 million for Naismith whilst in administration is a joke as well.

Is there really any incentive to sell their better players? Firstly they would obviously lose the sevices of the players and the proceeds would be paid out to creditors in their CVA which according to Doncaster will be accepted as it stands. Why increase the pence in the pound?

[Haymaker]

I thought a club in admin can't refuse bids for players that are reasonable? £2m for naismith is, imo, fair enough.

[Col2]

Is there really any incentive to sell their better players? Firstly they would obviously lose the sevices of the players and the proceeds would be paid out to creditors in their CVA which according to Doncaster will be accepted as it stands. Why increase the pence in the pound?

Because its the admins responsibility to maximise return for creditors.

[Brando7]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-freddy-shepherd-ready-to-plough-cash-into-ibrox-club-if-tax-debt-is-wiped-out-86908-23882975/

Says here Green’s group of willing financial backers has dwindled from 20 to around five or six..can only be good news hopefully the rest will get scared off soon :devil:

[Jim44]

Because its the admins responsibility to maximise return for creditors.

True but I'm also led to believe that maintaining the quality and viability of the team/company in administration is also one of the responsibilities of the administrators.

[The Green Goblin]

If they are talking about boycotting away games next year, why not expel them? The end result will be the same, PLUS....we don't have to put up with their team on our home turfs either. Win win

[ehf]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-freddy-shepherd-ready-to-plough-cash-into-ibrox-club-if-tax-debt-is-wiped-out-86908-23882975/

Says here Green’s group of willing financial backers has dwindled from 20 to around five or six..can only be good news hopefully the rest will get scared off soon :devil:


Green is fronting this for someone who is as shady a ****: really hope he pulls it off, because it is the most cynical asset-strip ever.

[joe breezy]

Sunday 3 June 2012
Show us the money
Richard Wilson

Since holding his first press conference 21 days ago, Charles Green has only become a more elusive figure. His plans for Rangers remain vague, he has yet to provide any funds, and he cannot declare with any certainty which backers, if any, are committed to his loose consortium.
Only Duff & Phelps, the administrators, appear to have any faith that Green will be able to complete his £8.5 million deal to buy the club.
In 11 days a creditors' meeting will be held at Ibrox to determine if Rangers exit administration through a Company Voluntary Arrangement. Should that vote fail, Duff & Phelps claim they already have a binding agreement in place for Green's consortium to buy the assets for £5.5m in a newco scenario.
Yet it is not even clear if they have received the authority from the creditors to sell those assets without allowing bids from an open market.
The Sunday Herald also understands that Green's consortium has not committed any funds beyond the £200,000 exclusivity fee, despite the fact that the CVA proposal being sent out was due to trigger a seven-figure payment.
Green has contradicted himself throughout the past three weeks, talking of 20 investors, then five or six; talking about playing a long-term game then admitting he will try to turn around a share issue in the short-term; talking about having £20m in place but seeking significant investment from local Rangers-supporting businessmen; and talking about the club never being in debt again, then trying to buy it with a loan that carries 8% interest.
The only certainty is that Green has seen an opportunity to exploit the club's circumstances.
"He is playing an immaculate hand as an acquirer from distress," an insolvency expert told The Sunday Herald. "He came in late; he came in apparently high; he came in at the point where the leverage had switched in favour of the acquirer from the administrators.
"He has not, of course, backed his words with cash. Weeding out tyre-kickers is an essential skill of insolvency practice: finding the buyer with the passion and the willingness to complete often outweighs the top-dollar hold-out; failure to go with the most willing buyer at best prolongs the deal and at worst creates a Dutch auction."
Rangers fans were initially cautious about Green. As the buyer Duff & Phelps had chosen, he represented the club's best hope of finding a way out of adminis-tration. Yet that tacit acceptance is beginning to erode; Green has so far failed to convince.
The CVA proposal published last Wednesday was the final proof for many supporters that it was time to make a stand for their club.
The proposal is worth demonstrably less to creditors than other offers Duff & Phelps received. All four bidders were told they must provide funding from June 1 &ndash; last Friday &ndash; yet Green has not.
Instead, £3.6m is being deducted from the creditors' pool to cover the Administration Trading Shortfall. Rangers are also due £3.7m in transfer fees, but this has been written down in the proposal to £2m.
Duff & Phelps claim that funds are in place to pay running costs until mid-July, when Green would be expected to finally pay some money, so where has that come from?
A number of players can leave for set fees when the transfer window opens, yet at least a percentage of any transfer income should have been offered to creditors as part of a more viable CVA proposal.
Supporters have also grown alarmed that season ticket money would be used to cover running costs and are now demanding that Green meets them to provide credible proof of funds, or they will not back the season ticket campaign, which is due to begin before the CVA vote.
Sales would normally bring in £16m &ndash; with 75% of the income normally received by now &ndash; but fans do not want their money to be used to buy the club, which was effectively what Craig Whyte did.
"If he can prove that the wherewithal is in place to see us through then take us forward, we'll be encouraging people to buy season tickets," says Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly.
"If people are being asked for the season ticket money based on the circumstances we have right now, I would imagine that the vast majority would say, 'you ain't getting a penny until I know that you are holding up your part of the bargain'.
"That might make us appear dogmatic and challenging, but it's our club and we're the biggest investors in it. I read the CVA proposal and it just seems as though we will be paying for it. But if this guy drops the ball, there is somebody waiting to pick it up."
The administrators know two other bidders are ready and able to step in right away should Green's deal collapse. A third is also prepared to move.
All three believe Green does not have the funds and want to save the club, with at least one confident the CVA proposal can be picked up and altered to make it more attractive to creditors without delaying the process.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/show-us-the-money.17769614

[down-the-slope]

well done the Herald....they have taken the best points about Greene from this thread :wink: and put them together in a good article...

So they are going to launch ST's before CVA outcome...well we will see just how stupid their fans really are.......they have now spotted they are being asked by an asset stripper to buy heir own club out of Admin...for him to make a fortune out of re-selling at a future date....

If this was a honest deal then every ST holder would at least be being offered shares to the value of this years ST cost to at least show what the reality is about who is putting the money in...He will make Murray and Whyte look like amatures if he gets away with this

[down-the-slope]

At last we get some press comment to counter the SPL can't survive without Rangers propaganda


By ANDREW SMITH
Published on Sunday 3 June 2012 00:00


While some say the SPL would collapse without the Ibrox club, our analysis suggests the financial implications might not be so dire
THE cost of Rangers being lost from the Scottish Premier League could average out at only £375,000 to the non-Old Firm clubs next season. Detailed analysis conducted by Scotland on Sunday demonstrates that top-flight sides need not be facing catastrophe if five of them were to vote against admitting a newco Rangers into the set-up – the sporting integrity dilemma that will be faced if prospective Ibrox owner Charles Green cannot obtain a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
Under our calculations, a total of £5.76 million would be wiped from revenues if the Rangers brand and their support were removed from the SPL financial equation. Celtic, though, would take the hit for almost half of this loss. That is because it is inconceivable the other clubs would not take the opportunity to change the voting structure if Rangers were out of the picture. Currently, the big two effectively have a veto. If that disappeared, so too could the present distribution model. In our projections, the top two SPL places would claim just over 20 per cent of centralised broadcast and sponsorship deals. At present that figure is 32 per cent.
It is possible that revenue reductions for clubs in an SPL without Rangers may be even be lower than our projections. Essentially, we have presented worst-case scenarios for the squeezes on television deals and attendances.
The SPL claim that the Old Firm account for 85 per cent of their earnings. We have therefore hacked 42 per cent off all centralised revenues in calculating what the loss of Rangers might mean to other clubs. Yet, no one knows if Sky and ESPN, or indeed other sponsors, would, or could, demand such heftily renegotiated terms. Especially since a Deloitte report last week put the worth of the Old Firm to Scottish football at 67 per cent. Moreover, we have arrived at our attendance totals by replacing clubs’ gates for Rangers games with their lowest crowd of last season. We have not factored in the fact that increases would follow greater competition among clubs for higher league placings and European slots. Indeed, aside from Celtic, some followers of SPL clubs might be more likely to buy season tickets because they weren’t going to be treated to visits by Rangers.

The picture that forms from this research is of a Scottish top flight that need not be entirely dependent on Rangers, or Celtic for that matter. Certainly, the loss of any revenue would bring serious challenges for clubs whose lack of liquidity has some commentators claiming any downturn in revenue could send them over the edge. However, the same thing was said when Setanta went bust four years ago. Then the doom-mongers said three clubs would be driven into administration as a result of £250,000 holes in their budgets. Only one club has since suffered an insolvency event... and in 2009 Rangers weren’t one of the sides being tipped for financial Armageddon.
It is insulting to maintain, as the more melodramatic do, that the SPL would be turned into the League of Ireland without the Old Firm brand. The sell-out, vibrant occasion the all-Edinburgh Scottish Cup final delivered surely obliterated that notion.
Of course, SPL club owners and chairmen are going to be nervous about how the Rangers saga could resolve itself. With our projections suggesting Motherwell would lose more than £700,000, Dundee United almost £600,00 and Hearts £500,000, serious cuts would be required at these clubs. But that reflects the fact these clubs were the big winners in terms of centralised prize money earned by their high league placings this season. Individual factors come into play. United would wipe out any reductions in gate receipts at a stroke were Dundee to replace Rangers, for instance. St Johnstone, too, would also benefit from a visit from the Dark Blues.
The flip side is that some clubs would suffer little financial impact were they to reject a newco Rangers in the SPL. Hibernian chairman Rod Petrie said recently that sporting integrity cannot be obtained for any price. Easy for him to take such a principled stand, perhaps, when the cost to his club would be little over £100,000. Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston has voiced the opposing view, yet, with Rangers’ value to the Ayrshire club being around £200,000, it must come within the club’s budget parameters.
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson has spoken of his anguish over a “lose-lose” situation if the SPL clubs are forced to decide on how to treat a newco Rangers. No wonder. United fans, as with those of Celtic, Aberdeen and Motherwell principally, have threatened to turn their backs on the game if a new Rangers takes up where the old one left off. They will not countenance the Ibrox club being allowed simply to walk away from a debt to the public purse of up to £70m and walk into the SPL as opposed to applying to the Scottish Football League and working their way back up. Strong factions within the fan bases of every club feel the same.
As a result, any projected losses for top-flight clubs without a newco Rangers may not be a whole heap different from possible losses with a newco Rangers in the SPL. Instead of reduced television revenue, clubs could suffer reduced season ticket sales. And instead of being denied bumper gates from hosting Rangers, disgruntled Celtic supporterscould deny them bumper gates by not attending when they entertain their club. The Scottish game could be torn apart by the Rangers newco issue on levels far beyond the financial.
It has to be hoped that is avoided and Rangers exit administration through a CVA.
If they don’t, though, then the SPL clubs might want to heed the warning issued by former president John McBeth this week. “If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you’ll kill the sport,” he said. When it comes to the SPL, our analysis would appear to bear him out.

[joe breezy]

At last we get some press comment to counter the SPL can survive without Rangers propaganda


By ANDREW SMITH
Published on Sunday 3 June 2012 00:00


While some say the SPL would collapse without the Ibrox club, our analysis suggests the financial implications might not be so dire
THE cost of Rangers being lost from the Scottish Premier League could average out at only £375,000 to the non-Old Firm clubs next season. Detailed analysis conducted by Scotland on Sunday demonstrates that top-flight sides need not be facing catastrophe if five of them were to vote against admitting a newco Rangers into the set-up – the sporting integrity dilemma that will be faced if prospective Ibrox owner Charles Green cannot obtain a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
Under our calculations, a total of £5.76 million would be wiped from revenues if the Rangers brand and their support were removed from the SPL financial equation. Celtic, though, would take the hit for almost half of this loss. That is because it is inconceivable the other clubs would not take the opportunity to change the voting structure if Rangers were out of the picture. Currently, the big two effectively have a veto. If that disappeared, so too could the present distribution model. In our projections, the top two SPL places would claim just over 20 per cent of centralised broadcast and sponsorship deals. At present that figure is 32 per cent.
It is possible that revenue reductions for clubs in an SPL without Rangers may be even be lower than our projections. Essentially, we have presented worst-case scenarios for the squeezes on television deals and attendances.
The SPL claim that the Old Firm account for 85 per cent of their earnings. We have therefore hacked 42 per cent off all centralised revenues in calculating what the loss of Rangers might mean to other clubs. Yet, no one knows if Sky and ESPN, or indeed other sponsors, would, or could, demand such heftily renegotiated terms. Especially since a Deloitte report last week put the worth of the Old Firm to Scottish football at 67 per cent. Moreover, we have arrived at our attendance totals by replacing clubs’ gates for Rangers games with their lowest crowd of last season. We have not factored in the fact that increases would follow greater competition among clubs for higher league placings and European slots. Indeed, aside from Celtic, some followers of SPL clubs might be more likely to buy season tickets because they weren’t going to be treated to visits by Rangers.

The picture that forms from this research is of a Scottish top flight that need not be entirely dependent on Rangers, or Celtic for that matter. Certainly, the loss of any revenue would bring serious challenges for clubs whose lack of liquidity has some commentators claiming any downturn in revenue could send them over the edge. However, the same thing was said when Setanta went bust four years ago. Then the doom-mongers said three clubs would be driven into administration as a result of £250,000 holes in their budgets. Only one club has since suffered an insolvency event... and in 2009 Rangers weren’t one of the sides being tipped for financial Armageddon.
It is insulting to maintain, as the more melodramatic do, that the SPL would be turned into the League of Ireland without the Old Firm brand. The sell-out, vibrant occasion the all-Edinburgh Scottish Cup final delivered surely obliterated that notion.
Of course, SPL club owners and chairmen are going to be nervous about how the Rangers saga could resolve itself. With our projections suggesting Motherwell would lose more than £700,000, Dundee United almost £600,00 and Hearts £500,000, serious cuts would be required at these clubs. But that reflects the fact these clubs were the big winners in terms of centralised prize money earned by their high league placings this season. Individual factors come into play. United would wipe out any reductions in gate receipts at a stroke were Dundee to replace Rangers, for instance. St Johnstone, too, would also benefit from a visit from the Dark Blues.
The flip side is that some clubs would suffer little financial impact were they to reject a newco Rangers in the SPL. Hibernian chairman Rod Petrie said recently that sporting integrity cannot be obtained for any price. Easy for him to take such a principled stand, perhaps, when the cost to his club would be little over £100,000. Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston has voiced the opposing view, yet, with Rangers’ value to the Ayrshire club being around £200,000, it must come within the club’s budget parameters.
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson has spoken of his anguish over a “lose-lose” situation if the SPL clubs are forced to decide on how to treat a newco Rangers. No wonder. United fans, as with those of Celtic, Aberdeen and Motherwell principally, have threatened to turn their backs on the game if a new Rangers takes up where the old one left off. They will not countenance the Ibrox club being allowed simply to walk away from a debt to the public purse of up to £70m and walk into the SPL as opposed to applying to the Scottish Football League and working their way back up. Strong factions within the fan bases of every club feel the same.
As a result, any projected losses for top-flight clubs without a newco Rangers may not be a whole heap different from possible losses with a newco Rangers in the SPL. Instead of reduced television revenue, clubs could suffer reduced season ticket sales. And instead of being denied bumper gates from hosting Rangers, disgruntled Celtic supporterscould deny them bumper gates by not attending when they entertain their club. The Scottish game could be torn apart by the Rangers newco issue on levels far beyond the financial.
It has to be hoped that is avoided and Rangers exit administration through a CVA.
If they don’t, though, then the SPL clubs might want to heed the warning issued by former president John McBeth this week. “If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you’ll kill the sport,” he said. When it comes to the SPL, our analysis would appear to bear him out.

:aok:good article...hope some SPL chairmen read it

[VickMackie]

True but I'm also led to believe that maintaining the quality and viability of the team/company in administration is also one of the responsibilities of the administrators.

He's on of their best players but was he nout out injured for about 3 months at the time!

There's retaining value in the squad and business and they're taking the piss. They said they were running at a loss of one million per month.

Selling him wouldn't have been that detrimental to the club and could have plugged a big gap.

[grunt]

At last we get some press comment to counter the SPL can survive without Rangers propaganda

By ANDREW SMITH
Published on Sunday 3 June 2012 00:00


Cheap shot at Petrie IMO. At least he had the balls to come out and say what his position was. Otherwise an OK article which could have benefited from a stronger editor.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Thanks Andrew - what took you so long?
I suppose the analysis needed the season to conclude and nice to be able to cite the All-Edinburgh final.

Anyway hopefully a tipping point...

[Jim44]

[QUOTE=down-the-slope;3253190]At last we get some press comment to counter the SPL can survive without Rangers propaganda


By ANDREW SMITH
Published on Sunday 3 June 2012 00:00


While some say the SPL would collapse without the Ibrox club, our analysis suggests the financial implications might not be so dire
THE cost of Rangers being lost from the Scottish Premier League could average out at only £375,000 to the non-Old Firm clubs next season. Detailed analysis conducted by Scotland on Sunday demonstrates that top-flight sides need not be facing catastrophe if five of them were to vote against admitting a newco Rangers into the set-up – the sporting integrity dilemma that will be faced if prospective Ibrox owner Charles Green cannot obtain a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
Under our calculations, a total of £5.76 million would be wiped from revenues if the Rangers brand and their support were removed from the SPL financial equation. Celtic, though, would take the hit for almost half of this loss. That is because it is inconceivable the other clubs would not take the opportunity to change the voting structure if Rangers were out of the picture. Currently, the big two effectively have a veto. If that disappeared, so too could the present distribution model. In our projections, the top two SPL places would claim just over 20 per cent of centralised broadcast and sponsorship deals. At present that figure is 32 per cent.
It is possible that revenue reductions for clubs in an SPL without Rangers may be even be lower than our projections. Essentially, we have presented worst-case scenarios for the squeezes on television deals and attendances.
The SPL claim that the Old Firm account for 85 per cent of their earnings. We have therefore hacked 42 per cent off all centralised revenues in calculating what the loss of Rangers might mean to other clubs. Yet, no one knows if Sky and ESPN, or indeed other sponsors, would, or could, demand such heftily renegotiated terms. Especially since a Deloitte report last week put the worth of the Old Firm to Scottish football at 67 per cent. Moreover, we have arrived at our attendance totals by replacing clubs’ gates for Rangers games with their lowest crowd of last season. We have not factored in the fact that increases would follow greater competition among clubs for higher league placings and European slots. Indeed, aside from Celtic, some followers of SPL clubs might be more likely to buy season tickets because they weren’t going to be treated to visits by Rangers.

The picture that forms from this research is of a Scottish top flight that need not be entirely dependent on Rangers, or Celtic for that matter. Certainly, the loss of any revenue would bring serious challenges for clubs whose lack of liquidity has some commentators claiming any downturn in revenue could send them over the edge. However, the same thing was said when Setanta went bust four years ago. Then the doom-mongers said three clubs would be driven into administration as a result of £250,000 holes in their budgets. Only one club has since suffered an insolvency event... and in 2009 Rangers weren’t one of the sides being tipped for financial Armageddon.
It is insulting to maintain, as the more melodramatic do, that the SPL would be turned into the League of Ireland without the Old Firm brand. The sell-out, vibrant occasion the all-Edinburgh Scottish Cup final delivered surely obliterated that notion.
Of course, SPL club owners and chairmen are going to be nervous about how the Rangers saga could resolve itself. With our projections suggesting Motherwell would lose more than £700,000, Dundee United almost £600,00 and Hearts £500,000, serious cuts would be required at these clubs. But that reflects the fact these clubs were the big winners in terms of centralised prize money earned by their high league placings this season. Individual factors come into play. United would wipe out any reductions in gate receipts at a stroke were Dundee to replace Rangers, for instance. St Johnstone, too, would also benefit from a visit from the Dark Blues.
The flip side is that some clubs would suffer little financial impact were they to reject a newco Rangers in the SPL. Hibernian chairman Rod Petrie said recently that sporting integrity cannot be obtained for any price. Easy for him to take such a principled stand, perhaps, when the cost to his club would be little over £100,000. Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston has voiced the opposing view, yet, with Rangers’ value to the Ayrshire club being around £200,000, it must come within the club’s budget parameters.
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson has spoken of his anguish over a “lose-lose” situation if the SPL clubs are forced to decide on how to treat a newco Rangers. No wonder. United fans, as with those of Celtic, Aberdeen and Motherwell principally, have threatened to turn their backs on the game if a new Rangers takes up where the old one left off. They will not countenance the Ibrox club being allowed simply to walk away from a debt to the public purse of up to £70m and walk into the SPL as opposed to applying to the Scottish Football League and working their way back up. Strong factions within the fan bases of every club feel the same.
As a result, any projected losses for top-flight clubs without a newco Rangers may not be a whole heap different from possible losses with a newco Rangers in the SPL. Instead of reduced television revenue, clubs could suffer reduced season ticket sales. And instead of being denied bumper gates from hosting Rangers, disgruntled Celtic supporterscould deny them bumper gates by not attending when they entertain their club. The Scottish game could be torn apart by the Rangers newco issue on levels far beyond the financial.
It has to be hoped that is avoided and Rangers exit administration through a CVA.
If they don’t, though, then the SPL clubs might want to heed the warning issued by former president John McBeth this week. “If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you’ll kill the sport,” he said. When it comes to the SPL, our analysis would appear to bear him out.[/QUO

I'm not nit picking but should the title here not read 'can not'. As it stands it gives the impression that the article supports the theory that the SPL can't survive without Rangers
.

[grunt]

I'm not nit picking but should the title here not read 'can not'. As it stands it gives the impression that the article supports the theory that the SPL can't survive without Rangers.

In the online edition the title is better, "Will the SPL survive without Rangers?" :agree:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/will-the-spl-survive-without-rangers-1-2335890

[VickMackie]

The Herald article is a good one. Every one of those points has been covered on this thread.

Pity Doncaster and the other monkeys don't care about the fans, with the exception of rangers of course.

[Colr]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/06/02/rangers-in-crisis-freddy-shepherd-ready-to-plough-cash-into-ibrox-club-if-tax-debt-is-wiped-out-86908-23882975/

Says here Green’s group of willing financial backers has dwindled from 20 to around five or six..can only be good news hopefully the rest will get scared off soon :devil:

More here;-

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/show-us-the-money.17769614

[Colr]

well done the Herald....they have taken the best points about Greene from this thread :wink: and put them together in a good article...

So they are going to launch ST's before CVA outcome...well we will see just how stupid their fans really are.......they have now spotted they are being asked by an asset stripper to buy heir own club out of Admin...for him to make a fortune out of re-selling at a future date....

If this was a honest deal then every ST holder would at least be being offered shares to the value of this years ST cost to at least show what the reality is about who is putting the money in...He will make Murray and Whyte look like amatures if he gets away with this

What are you buying a season ticket for? This Rangers another new Rangers. SPL or Third Division? Who would buy a season ticket for Rangers? It could utrn out to be worthless

[alfie]

Yeah, nice to see some of the media coming round to the fact that there are 10 other clubs in the SPL outside of the Old Firm and that without Rangers that there would be increased competition for the league, and hopefully increased attendances for those other clubs.

Also nice to see them questioning the financial backing and integrity of anyone willing to try and save the basket case that is RFC. I don't understand why anyone would want to buy such a toxic company from a purely financial standpoint. If I wanted to make money out of the situation, I'd let them liquidate, buy Ibrox and start again from scratch. We all know the knuckle draggers would still be daft enough to pay to watch a team in blue and white playing there, even if it was a proper new company and team. Money for old rope!

[joe breezy]

You've reminded me of something that 'someone had a go at me' on the McPake thread earlier.

My point was that its not just kicking them out the league and their mantra around youz need ra peepil.

The point is that if they do stay a huge number of supporters are threatening not to return; the peepil have threatened to boycott other clubs.

There's probably a fair number already who have lost confidence in 'the product' and won't return.

Whatever the financial future of Scottish football its never been so unclear.

If Rangers aren't in the SPL next season I'd make more of an effort to go to as many games as possible, unfortunately that still won't be many but still i'd be looking to support Scottish football for ridding the league of this poisonous institution

[down-the-slope]

What are you buying a season ticket for? This Rangers another new Rangers. SPL or Third Division? Who would buy a season ticket for Rangers? It could utrn out to be worthless

:agree: indeed ...Gives us your money, you can trust us :aok:

[Brando7]

Stating in the Daily Star on Sunday Hearts are only looking at getting only £63k for Lee Wallace....laywers on the case

[tamig]

Cheap shot at Petrie IMO. At least he had the balls to come out and say what his position was. Otherwise an OK article which could have benefited from a stronger editor.

I didn't read it that way. It was just a way of reinforcing the writer's view that clubs don't have to be taking as big a hit as the harbingers of doom are making out. Excellent article.

[Hibs Class]

Stating in the Daily Star on Sunday Hearts are only looking at getting only £63k for Lee Wallace....laywers on the case

Presumably that £63k is best case scenario. Could end up being closer to zero.

[jdships]

Have become an " avid reader" of this thread , but have refrained from contributing to the debate as my knowledge of accountancy etc is minimal.
I would however ask two questions of the " netters" .
1. In your opinions is Green for real or is he just a mouthpiece for a bigger player ?
2. Is it legal for the administrators to sell off Ibrox , in the event of liquidation , for a knock down price of around £5m ?

:confused:

[grunt]

I didn't read it that way. It was just a way of reinforcing the writer's view that clubs don't have to be taking as big a hit as the harbingers of doom are making out. Excellent article.Maybe you're right, I don't know. It IS good to see the media tide possibly turning, but oh so late in the day.

[Caversham Green]

Presumably that £63k is best case scenario. Could end up being closer to zero.

:agree: In two ways. If the running costs between now and the pay-out exceed the estimate in the CVA - and I'd be surprised if they don't tbh - or if HMRC get a judgement on the BTC, which would increase their slice of the pie and reduce enveryone else's.

[VickMackie]

Sort of in relation to jdships question re bigger player involved.

Where have these suggestions come from? It seems to me that this type of speculation has arisen from some Tic whose watched too many films with drug lords pulling the strings.

Whilst Green has a consortium, of sorts, what would someone in the background achieve? Make a few million, if they're lucky, by using a patsy to do the talking.

This bigger player in the background seems a bit fantasy like to me.

[VickMackie]

Presumably that £63k is best case scenario. Could end up being closer to zero.

Whilst its funny cos it's Hearts the whole thing is a joke. Wallace has probably earned about 3 times that amount since they've been I'm admin.

If this had happened with Thomson or Whittaker we'd be going nuts.

Anyone know the yam feeling on this? Are they. 'sympathetic'' given their off field similarities? Financial and other.

[Caversham Green]

Have become an " avid reader" of this thread , but have refrained from contributing to the debate as my knowledge of accountancy etc is minimal.
I would however ask two questions of the " netters" .
1. In your opinions is Green for real or is he just a mouthpiece for a bigger player ?
2. Is it legal for the administrators to sell off Ibrox , in the event of liquidation , for a knock down price of around £5m ?

:confused:

Green is the front of a consortium of 20, or 10, or 7 or 6 investors. He stands to make a serious amount of money from his own remuneration though. Included in that indefinite number of investors is Freddy Shepherd. The same Freddy Shepherd that was chairman at Newcastle when their then manager Graeme Souness bought Jean-Alain Boumsong from Rangers for £8m. Nothing dodgy there, I'm sure.

Regarding the sale of Ibrox (and all the other assets belonging to Rangers) the administrators must get the best price possible for them. The idea that Ibrox, Murray Park, all the office and training equipment, vehicles etc are only worht £5.5m in total is absurd IMO.

[Colr]

:aok:good article...hope some SPL chairmen read it

so, if 50000 hibees put in £2 each it would have no impact at all. now That is good value.

[s.a.m]

so, if 55000 hibees put in £2 each it would have no impact at all. now That is good value.

There's an idea! They could put a voluntary £2 donation on ticket prices / £20 on seasons.......a sort of 'doing away with the Huns fighting fund' :thumbsup:

[Sylar]

Anyone know the yam feeling on this? Are they. 'sympathetic'' given their off field similarities? Financial and other.


Its a no brainer for me... Chase those cheating ****bags for every penny they have.


It's a ballsy move, but we should get back every penny owed by those cheating ********s.


Vlad go for it "release the hounds!!", tell them to ram their CVA


They bought (arguably) our best player and had the benefit of him all season, including in matches against us. This, despite them knowing perfectly well that they couldn't afford him. And it's our fault?

They can go **** themselves. Chase them for every penny Hearts.


If we end up being responsible for the death of Rangers I would be keen for it to be listed alongside league titles, Scottish cups and league cups on our roll of honour.

F---- them.

And f--- every single one of their mutant fans


Chase the orcs for everything they owe... cheating ****bags!

Despise that club.

There's an entire thread which shares the same sentiment on Kickback and it's quite clear that most level-headed Hearts fans feel the same way about Rangers as the rest of us!

[WindyMiller]

There's an idea! They could put a voluntary £2 donation on ticket prices / £20 on seasons.......a sort of 'doing away with the Huns fighting fund' :thumbsup:


I'm in for that!

Best bargain ever.

[MrSmith]

It would appear to me that Green and co have set this CVA up to fail. There is noway on earth that Hearts will accept £63k and I would have to assume most other creditors will tell them to shove it! Hence the tiny pence in the pound offer and the ambiguity over recompense, which would, therefore, fail at the outset and allude to the notion that this is nothing more than asset stripping!

HMRC must be sitting in the background awaiting this, give em enough rope scenario, so they can clear the decks of D&P and Green and; then get best return for public purse/creditors. Ibrox and Murray Park have got to be worth way more than £5.5million.

[Brando7]

Whilst its funny cos it's Hearts the whole thing is a joke. Wallace has probably earned about 3 times that amount since they've been I'm admin.

If this had happened with Thomson or Whittaker we'd be going nuts.

Anyone know the yam feeling on this? Are they. 'sympathetic'' given their off field similarities? Financial and other.

Now you brough that up what happens if Petrie added a % sell on clause for Whittaker when he signed for Rangers would Hibs get anything if they still in Admin if he left this summer????

[VickMackie]

There's an entire thread which shares the same sentiment on Kickback and it's quite clear that most level-headed Hearts fans feel the same way about Rangers as the rest of us!

Good to hear that fans of all support are looking forward to them dying.

I do think VR will vote to keep them though as they'll have a better financial position to bring their wages under control and more saleable.

[Mon Dieu4]

Hearts fans forget quickly they tried to screw Arbroath out of money they were due for Webster

[Brando7]

so, if 50000 hibees put in £2 each it would have no impact at all. now That is good value.

That a cracking idea this must be passed onto every fans site :thumbsup:

[VickMackie]

Now you brough that up what happens if Petrie added a % sell on clause for Whittaker when he signed for Rangers would Hibs get anything if they still in Admin????

Good point and one I hadn't considered.

Surely if they get out via a CVA it's back to business as usual so we should get it. I think he's one of the ones with a knockdown price in his new contract so we'd get less than we might have expected.

However, with the knockdown price it could benefit us though as I reckon they'd have kept him for the remainder of his career or at least til the late stages when they'd get little or nothing.

If theyre liquidated we'd get nout.

[VickMackie]

so, if 50000 hibees put in £2 each it would have no impact at all. now That is good value.

I've always wondered if clubs should offer a voluntary contribution option ring fenced for transfer funds. I don't think clubs do it because they'd get a negative reaction due to the amount supporters already put in.

Something like the membership scheme with the key selling point that the funds are to be used for transfers only.

Digressing from your point slightly but same principle.

[Seveno]

Good point and one I hadn't considered.

Surely if they get out via a CVA it's back to business as usual so we should get it. I think he's one of the ones with a knockdown price in his new contract so we'd get less than we might have expected.

However, with the knockdown price it could benefit us though as I reckon they'd have kept him for the remainder of his career or at least til the late stages when they'd get little or nothing.

If theyre liquidated we'd get nout.

I think that these 'sell on' clauses are usually on the basis that we get a percentage of the difference in the event of the player being sold for more than we originally received.

In Whittaker's case, Rangers may well have to sell him for less than they paid us so their would be no 'profit' for us to share in.

[Big Ed]

IIRC selling Whittaker for £2M was seen as a great piece of business at the time: I doubt there will be any sell on clause.

[The Green Goblin]

I didn't read it that way. It was just a way of reinforcing the writer's view that clubs don't have to be taking as big a hit as the harbingers of doom are making out. Excellent article.

I thought it was a pop at him too tbh, but I see your interpretation of it now and you may be right. The sentence should/could have also been written as: "easy for him to say, as he has managed his club within its means"

[The Green Goblin]

Good point and one I hadn't considered.

Surely if they get out via a CVA it's back to business as usual so we should get it. I think he's one of the ones with a knockdown price in his new contract so we'd get less than we might have expected.

However, with the knockdown price it could benefit us though as I reckon they'd have kept him for the remainder of his career or at least til the late stages when they'd get little or nothing.

If theyre liquidated we'd get nout.

We'd be rid of them for good! ;-)

[banchoryhibs]

Regarding the sale of Ibrox (and all the other assets belonging to Rangers) the administrators must get the best price possible for them. The idea that Ibrox, Murray Park, all the office and training equipment, vehicles etc are only worht £5.5m in total is absurd IMO.

Unless, of course that someone holds some charge over the assets that needs to be satisfied first, £5m may be all that would be left.

This whole issue is so messy, with so little transparency, that I would not be surprised if either Murray or Whyte still hold some securities. As for the players if liquidation occurs they belong to the SPL /SFA (can't remember which).

However the possibility that this is a right royal stitch up does not go away.

[Caversham Green]

Unless, of course that someone holds some charge over the assets that needs to be satisfied first, £5m may be all that would be left.

This whole issue is so messy, with so little transparency, that I would not be surprised if either Murray or Whyte still hold some securities. As for the players if liquidation occurs they belong to the SPL /SFA (can't remember which).

However the possibility that this is a right royal stitch up does not go away.

There's a fixed charge over the catering equipment and a disputed floating charge over all the assets, but according to the CVA there's no money due to the holder of the floating charge, so it doesn't reduce the value in any way. Preferred creditors are limited to holiday pay in the CVA and Newco options.

I've just noticed though, that the Newco option specifically excludes freehold property from the £5.5m sale proceeds - it's made up of the £200k deposit thingy and £5.3m for 'Intellectual Property Rights (:tee hee:) / Goodwill and Player Contracts. I wonder what happens to Ibrox/Murray Park in that case, or is it just another gaffe? Other fixed assets are just ignored throughout.

[Seveno]

There's a fixed charge over the catering equipment and a disputed floating charge over all the assets, but according to the CVA there's no money due to the holder of the floating charge, so it doesn't reduce the value in any way. Preferred creditors are limited to holiday pay in the CVA and Newco options.

I've just noticed though, that the Newco option specifically excludes freehold property from the £5.5m sale proceeds - it's made up of the £200k deposit thingy and £5.3m for 'Intellectual Property Rights (:tee hee:) / Goodwill and Player Contracts. I wonder what happens to Ibrox/Murray Park in that case, or is it just another gaffe? Other fixed assets are just ignored throughout.

I think we have to give credence to the 'cock-up theory'.

Could it be that this is just for the "Club' and that Whyte does in fact retain the property to rent out to them ? I just can't believe that wee Craigy has given it all away for just £2.

[H18sry]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/glennie%20report.pdf

[jgl07]

I think we have to give credence to the 'cock-up theory'.

Could it be that this is just for the "Club' and that Whyte does in fact retain the property to rent out to them ? I just can't believe that wee Craigy has given it all away for just £2.

I am not sure that the share transfer will have any effect on any claim that Whyte has on Rangers' fixed assets.

[WindyMiller]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/glennie report.pdf

It seems to me that the SFA has no option left but to expel the Huns from the Association.

Thier own lawyer states that all the other options were too lenient and expelling them from the Cup (which is possibly 1 game) must also be considered to be too lenient.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am not sure that the share transfer will have any effect on any claim that Whyte has on Rangers' fixed assets.

You're right that the share transfer is irrelevant. However, the CVA document does say that no claim has been received in respect of CW's charge. That suggests to me that he will not be pursuing that charge.

[EuanH78]

It seems to me that the SFA has no option left but to expel the Huns from the Association.

Thier own lawyer states that all the other options were too lenient and expelling them from the Cup (which is possibly 1 game) must also be considered to be too lenient.

:agree: Having just read that report I agree with Lord Glennie, the SFA interpreted the rules incorrectly - I understand why they chose to do that though.

Clearly there was not a desire to 'kill' Rangers, which if I'm honest is a perfectly reasonable course for the SFA to take. All of which makes the appeal even more baffling to the outsider, surely D & P's lawyer must have been aware of this potential outcome?

As for the remaining sanctions 'available' to the SFA - given that they have imposed the maximum fine it stands to reason that further penalties must be at the maximum end of the scale with suspension being most likely I would have thought. I think how long for, is maybe irrelevant tbh, this ( if not something else sooner) will kill them off IMO.

In a way Rangers have actually done us all a favour with this. You can bet that the rule book will be getting tightened up so much it's watertight in the future which can only be a good thing + pushing the self destruct button - A good days work by the huns I would say.

[Caversham Green]

I think we have to give credence to the 'cock-up theory'.

Could it be that this is just for the "Club' and that Whyte does in fact retain the property to rent out to them ? I just can't believe that wee Craigy has given it all away for just £2.

It's a strange one. The properties belong to Rangers FC, there's no real doubt about that. The CVA proposal clearly states that the £5.3m is for IPR, goodwill and contracts only, which would suggest that the properties stay with the oldco. Maybe the intention is that the oldco will rent the properties out, but that means it can't liquidate and will continue to owe all that money to HMRC, Ticketus et al, and the question of the SPL share and SFA licence arises again. If someone else is going to buy it that should be stated in the proposal because it changes the picture fundamentally.

If it's a gaffe then it's a whopping great one, given that D&P were prepared to invoke the letter of the law regarding the signing embargo you would expect them to be ultra careful with the wording of their own documents, particularly one as important and contentious as this.

I did spot a typo somewhere in the proposal that gave the opposite meaning of what was intended, but it was very obvious that it was a typo. I can't find it again now but I'll have another look when I get a chance.

[VickMackie]

Whats the minimum suspension period?

Could suspension be a suspended sentence?

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=Caversham Green;3253486
I did spot a typo somewhere in the proposal that gave the opposite meaning of what was intended, but it was very obvious that it was a typo. I can't find it again now but I'll have another look when I get a chance.[/QUOTE]

Was that Rangers FOOTBALL Club? :confused:

[Caversham Green]

Whats the minimum suspension period?

Could suspension be a suspended sentence?

I think if they were going to suspend them for part of a season it would have to be the first 11 or 22 games so that no other clubs gained an advantage - i.e. they'd all either get 3-0 wins or the games would be void.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

They're not taking this lying down.... :)

http://m.scotsman.com/news/odd/glaswegians-sent-to-charm-school-for-commonwealth-games-in-2014-1-2335362

[Caversham Green]

Was that Rangers FOOTBALL Club? :confused:

:greengrin Found it - para 5.32 says 'The joint administrators believe that there are any circumstances giving rise....' should read 'The joint administrators do not believe....'.

[Seveno]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/glennie report.pdf

An interesting read which seems to me that their QC has issued a plea to suspend them. And so say all of us........

[D7 Bohs]

They're not taking this lying down.... :)

http://m.scotsman.com/news/odd/glaswegians-sent-to-charm-school-for-commonwealth-games-in-2014-1-2335362



Disney principles include treating every business “like showbusiness”, knowing how to create your “own show” and treating customers like “guests” rather than “customers”.

Once upon a time there was no business like show business, now there's no business NOT like show business.

[Paisley Hibby]

There's a fixed charge over the catering equipment and a disputed floating charge over all the assets, but according to the CVA there's no money due to the holder of the floating charge, so it doesn't reduce the value in any way. Preferred creditors are limited to holiday pay in the CVA and Newco options.

I've just noticed though, that the Newco option specifically excludes freehold property from the £5.5m sale proceeds - it's made up of the £200k deposit thingy and £5.3m for 'Intellectual Property Rights (:tee hee:) / Goodwill and Player Contracts. I wonder what happens to Ibrox/Murray Park in that case, or is it just another gaffe? Other fixed assets are just ignored throughout.

I can't believe that property is not be specified in the Newco deal! It's so valuable that this surely must be deliberate. So all Green gets for his £5.5m on liquidation is the football club and it's players. That would make sense if it meant the creditors got money from the sale of the property assets on top of the £5.5m. But if, as you say, the creditors get close to hee haw whichever way it goes then who gets the value from Rangers' property assets? :cb

[muirhousehibby]

Once upon a time there was no business like show business, now there's no business NOT like show business.

I have studied the actions of the SFA/SPL for some time and taken note of what has taken place with Rangers over the last few months .
My prediction of the new punishment is that the club will be forbidden from watering the pitch for more than eight hours per day , they will be forbidden from selling pies at home games for the whole of July , they willl be forced to accept all honest mistakes made in their favour from referees for all games .
Rangers will complain publicy but will accept the punishment . Ally McCoist will deny he ever asked for the identity of the panel who issued the new punishment .
Then we can move on .

One rule for Rangers another rule for the rest off us.

[Hibrandenburg]

I just can't shake off the feeling that Murray, Whyte, D&P and Green are all in cahoots with one another and that they and RFC will be laughing all the way to the bank after all this is over, leaving the tax payer and Scottish football to foot the bill.

[down-the-slope]

An interesting read which seems to me that their QC has issued a plea to suspend them. And so say all of us........

Fascinating read - either their toast...or the SFA is ...can't see a middle ground now :greengrin

[tamig]

I thought it was a pop at him too tbh, but I see your interpretation of it now and you may be right. The sentence should/could have also been written as: "easy for him to say, as he has managed his club within its means"

Absolutely GG. I think the guy hit the spot nicely though :aok:

[Brando7]

I can't believe that property is not be specified in the Newco deal! It's so valuable that this surely must be deliberate. So all Green gets for his £5.5m on liquidation is the football club and it's players. That would make sense if it meant the creditors got money from the sale of the property assets on top of the £5.5m. But if, as you say, the creditors get close to hee haw whichever way it goes then who gets the value from Rangers' property assets? :cb

I believe it CW who will still own the club then maybe rent it to the Newco until such time they buy it from him, as stated his shares will not be transfered if a CVA fails to go through

No man is going to risk getting sued £25 million on a deal he sells the club for £2 without some security

[Spike Mandela]

Charles Green is now officially panicking.......

http://www.tv.rangers.co.uk/articles/20120603/charles-green-statement_2254024_2796603

[semaj64]

Charles Green is now officially panicking.......

http://www.tv.rangers.co.uk/articles/20120603/charles-green-statement_2254024_2796603



In everyone elses view it would be a disaster for Scottish Football if Rangers are allowed to get away with it Scot free. About time they just shut up shop.

[Spike Mandela]

In everyone elses view it would be a disaster for Scottish Football if Rangers are allowed to get away with it Scot free. About time they just shut up shop.

It sounds like another delaying tactic and they are going to appeal the decision themselves.

Rangers want a punishment that isn't a punishment but looks like a punishment. SFA need to nail this now and prove to Rangers that they don't dictate Scottish football. Man is here 5 minutes and telling everybody what should happen.

[Squealing pig]

there is a meeting on 14 th june at 1 pm for the cva proposals. meeting with creditors same day 10 am , thats what the letter my girlfriend got from duff n phelps duno wit it means but there you go.

[CropleyWasGod]

I believe it CW who will still own the club then maybe rent it to the Newco until such time they buy it from him, as stated his shares will not be transfered if a CVA fails to go through

No man is going to risk getting sued £25 million on a deal he sells the club for £2 without some security

If the CVA doesn't go through, and the property is left in the OldCo, with all the debts... that company will have to be liquidated to go toward the debt.

Taking that further, the property will then be on the open market. CG would have to take his chances in that, but you could see a situation whereby he then owns the lot.

[stokesmessiah]

It sounds like another delaying tactic and they are going to appeal the decision themselves.

Rangers want a punishment that isn't a punishment but looks like a punishment. SFA need to nail this now and prove to Rangers that they don't dictate Scottish football. Man is here 5 minutes and telling everybody what should happen.

This.

Why is it that they seem to think they can pick a punishment for themselves??

[cabbageandribs1875]

This.

Why is it that they seem to think they can pick a punishment for themselves??


coz they arra peepul

[Spike Mandela]

Scots law blog response to Charles Green's ridiculous statement tonight..........

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/charles-greens-statement-tonight-regarding-rangers-appeal-words-fail-me-not-really/#more-1236

[Minder]

Charles Green is now officially panicking.......

http://www.tv.rangers.co.uk/articles/20120603/charles-green-statement_2254024_2796603

Offering to take ban from Cup, shocking cheek.

5 year ban from cup and 11 game SPL suspension is minimum penalty...provided life support aint removed.

[Ryan91]

Offering to take ban from Cup, shocking cheek.

5 year ban from cup and 11 game SPL suspension is minimum penalty...provided life support aint removed.

As mentioned in the Scots Law Blog, the Appealate Tribunal cannot impose a suspension or ban on Rangers competing in the cup, only ejection and one can only be ejected whilst currently participating (which of course they aren't) - besides if they did, there would likely be a massive backlash by the majority of Scottish Football supporters. The only way forward really is either termination of membership or suspension of membership for a minimum of one season. Either will most likely result in the liquidation of the club currently known as Glasgow Rangers.

:violin:



















:faf:

:lolrangers:

:bye:

[WindyMiller]

As mentioned in the Scots Law Blog, the Appealate Tribunal cannot impose a suspension or ban on Rangers competing in the cup, only ejection and one can only be ejected whilst currently participating (which of course they aren't) - besides if they did, there would likely be a massive backlash by the majority of Scottish Football supporters. The only way forward really is either termination of membership or suspension of membership for a minimum of one season. Either will most likely result in the liquidation of the club currently known as Glasgow Rangers.

:violin:



















:faf:

:lolrangers:

:bye:

That sentence just rolls off the tongue.

[MB62]

Offering to take ban from Cup, shocking cheek.

5 year ban from cup and 11 game SPL suspension is minimum penalty...provided life support aint removed.

An 11 game ban will only anger those clubs who put money before integrity. Derhun will play say 5 home games and six away so half the SPHELL will miss out on a home gate against that lot whilst the half won't, unfair screams coming from the lot that miss out. It would therefore mean, in fairness to ALL clubs that any suspension would have to be for 22 games.

[blackpoolhibs]

An 11 game ban will only anger those clubs who put money before integrity. Derhun will play say 5 home games and six away so half the SPHELL will miss out on a home gate against that lot whilst the half won't, unfair screams coming from the lot that miss out. It would therefore mean, in fairness to ALL clubs that any suspension would have to be for 22 games.

Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?

It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.

[easty]

Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?

It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.

I agree with you Blackpool, but I do still fear that the punishment will be minimal and Rangers will be the ones smiling in the end.

[Sergio sledge]

Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?

It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.

I agree. But if they are going to go down the route of a part season suspension, the only ways it would work would be either a 22 game suspension, or an 11 home game suspension. The 11 home game suspension would reduce their income whilst not damaging the other clubs in the SPL.

[MB62]

Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?

It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.

Totally agree with you BH. Personally, I would kick them out of the league and never let them back in.

As for this, we couldn't survive without them, as has been said many times now by other, it has now become a case of, if we don't throw them out, we might not survive WITH them.
I was talking to an Aberdeen supporter at the weekend and asked if she had re-newed her season ticket yet. He answer was, no danger, not until I find out what is happening with rangers, if they are allowed back in the SPL she will not be going back.
Many other fans seem to be taking exactly the same stance.
Scottish football is at a crossroads here.

[Smidge]

I agree with you Blackpool, but I do still fear that the punishment will be minimal and Rangers will be the ones smiling in the end.


In this instance, they might JUST get away with what seems like a lenient punishment. However, the big bomb of the dual-contracts investigation is still pending and that is the one which could easily see them kicked out of football.

[blackpoolhibs]

I agree. But if they are going to go down the route of a part season suspension, the only ways it would work would be either a 22 game suspension, or an 11 home game suspension. The 11 home game suspension would reduce their income whilst not damaging the other clubs in the SPL.

Thats the point, we shouldnt be going down any route that has part suspension in it, is this actually in the rules?

They went to court on the basis that the years suspension of signing players was not written in the rules, well i'd bet my last penny part suspension is not there either.

1 year minimum is i think, we wouldn't want to give them a suspension thats not in the rules.

[Caversham Green]

In this instance, they might JUST get away with what seems like a lenient punishment. However, the big bomb of the dual-contracts investigation is still pending and that is the one which could easily see them kicked out of football.

:agree: To be fair to the SFA we're still discussing the crimes for which they thought a year's signing embargo was sufficient - and I tend to agree with them when I set aside the point that it's the despicable huns we're talking about. In the absence of a signing embargo a part season's suspension doesn't seem unreasonable. As MB points out though it would only be fair to the other clubs if it was for 22 games because of the home/away discrepancy and fairness to the other clubs should be the first concern.

If they're found guilty of the dual contracts scam though there should be no way back for them because that is prolonged wilful cheating and has no place in any sport.

[Barney McGrew]

Would any potential suspension stop them from playing any games or just league games?

If it's just league games, then what's the chances of them lining up a series of lucrative home friendlies for every Saturday afternoon through the period of league suspension? They'd end up with even more money coming in!