Do You Back The Financial Fair Play Proposals?

[Mikey]

A simple poll, yes or no.

The new proposals are detailed here.........


On 30 April 2012 the SPL Clubs will consider a range of proposals to amend the Articles and Rules of the SPL. A brief description of the effect of adopting the Resolutions is provided below.

Resolution 1 proposes an increase in the sporting sanction (points deduction) on any Club which suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event from 10 points to the greater of 15 points and 1/3 of the Club’s SPL points in the preceding season.

Resolution 2A proposes further sporting sanctions in the event that any Club undergoes an Insolvency Transfer Event (i.e. transfers its share in the SPL to a new company where this occurs because of the insolvency of the transferor) of 10 points in each of two consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.

Resolution 2B proposes revisions to the fee payment arrangements i.e. SPL fees to any Club which has undergone an Insolvency Transfer Event will be reduced by 75% in each of three consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.

Resolution 3 proposes extending sporting sanctions where an Insolvency Event is suffered by a Group Undertaking of a Member Club of the SPL (Group Undertaking is defined in Section 1161(5) of the Companies Act 2006).

Resolution 4 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Rules.

Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.

Resolution 6 proposes a specific requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs must pay their Players in terms of their Contracts of Service on due dates and places a duty on any Club to report any failure to pay its Players in a timely manner to the SPL. Failure to pay Players and / or to notify such failure to the SPL would be a breach of SPL Rules.

Resolution 7 proposes a requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs report to the SPL any failure to make payments to HMRC in respect of PAYE and NIC (a Default Event). Any Club suffering such a Default Event will be subject to a Player Registration Embargo. Any failure to report a Default Event shall be a breach of the SPL Rules.

Resolutions 2B and 5 require the support of a minimum of 11 Clubs to be adopted; all other Resolutions require the support of a minimum of 8 Clubs to be adopted.

If adopted the amendments to the Articles and Rules will have effect from and including 14 May 2012 (the day after the last day of Season 2011/2012).

No further comment will be made in respect of these proposals until after the General Meeting on 30 April at which they will be considered by the Clubs.

[Mikey]

Hibs.net will make sure that the club is aware of this poll so they can guage the support's feeling.

[edinburghhibee]

Its a no from me simply because I read it as an easy way for NewCo Gers to get back into the SPL with minimum sanctions, I've bought my ST for next year already but if Gers get liquidated and are allowed back into the top division straight away I'll be handing it back in and hoping to god that the SPL and SFA see what they have done to our club and our game before it dies:boo hoo:.

[Onion]

Hibs.net will make sure that the club is aware of this poll so they can guage the support's feeling.

You can already guess which way this is going to go. Important that the club understands and acknowledges the strength of feeling behind the vote as much as the stats. I fear Hibs will be the ones who will be held responsible (along with all the other clubs) if 2a is accepted. Under no circumstances should ANY NewClub - whoever they are or whatever the circumstances, go straight into the SPL - they should start where every other club has had to start - at the bottom.

[Part/Time Supporter]

In principle, yes, but the problem is the context which this is being done.

The inconsistency between the punishment for a newco and an insolvent "oldco" is bizarre. It actually creates an incentive to fold companies and set up a newco. eg if Rangers stayed in administration for the next three months they would start 2012/13 on at least -21 points (depending on how many points they get this season), but if they set up a newco Rangers they will only be on -10.

[Hibby-Nessie]

General question, but would definitely like an answer to this one...

If I was winning prize money for X, and it was found that I was cheating, would I then be allowed to keep my money I got via cheating? Put simply, if Rangers have made millions in prize money from cups, league position etc and it was found it was via cheating, then surely they MUST give the money back, otherwise if you knew that you could rob a bank, steal millions, but the worst case punishment you might receive (and only if you get caught) is a couple of years in jail, but at the end of your time, you get to keep the millions...I dare say that quite a few would...so how is this any different to Rangers "stealing from the bank, supporters, sfa, uefa etc"?

I voted no for this reason.

[ScottB]

They don't go far enough and you can pretty much guarantee Rangers, Hearts and Dunfermline voting no...

Also, there's too much 'that will break SPL rules' without actually stating what that would incur as a punishment, a slap on the wrist? A fine? Relegation?

Theres a lot of good stuff in there, more than I'd have expected really, but more could and should be done.

[ScottB]

In principle, yes, but the problem is the context which this is being done.

The inconsistency between the punishment for a newco and an insolvent "oldco" is bizarre. It actually creates an incentive to fold companies and set up a newco. eg if Rangers stayed in administration for the next three months they would start 2012/13 on at least -21 points (depending on how many points they get this season), but if they set up a newco Rangers they will only be on -10.

Seems to be stay as an old co, lose more points, start again as a new co, lose a big chunk of revenue?

Still bizarre, if anything the point penalty should be at least as harsh for a new co, not that any new co should be getting straight back into the league anyway...

[mim]

I'm in favour.
This looks like a pretty robust strengthening of the current rules, which is badly needed.
Voting 'no' would leave us with the 'status quo', which is what exactly? - a 10 point deduction, which Rangers have handled this season without any problem.

OK it also looks like a free pass for a newco back into the SPL, but I've never doubted that this was a possibility and losing the next two championships (via 10 point deductions) and 75% of league fees seems lile a pretty draconian sanction to me = probably the same as spending two seasons in the lower leagues.

[DaveF]

I'm in favour.
This looks like a pretty robust strengthening of the current rules, which is badly needed.
Voting 'no' would leave us with the 'status quo', which is what exactly? - a 10 point deduction, which Rangers have handled this season without any problem.

OK it also looks like a free pass for a newco back into the SPL, but I've never doubted that this was a possibility and losing the next two championships (via 10 point deductions) and 75% of league fees seems lile a pretty draconian sanction to me = probably the same as spending two seasons in the lower leagues.

Whereas if they liquidate and come back as a debt free newco......? That seems like a passport to good times for very little pain and none of the shame attached to starting from the bottom rung. Where they belong.

[yeezus.]

Its a no from me simply because I read it as an easy way for NewCo Gers to get back into the SPL with minimum sanctions, I've bought my ST for next year already but if Gers get liquidated and are allowed back into the top division straight away I'll be handing it back in and hoping to god that the SPL and SFA see what they have done to our club and our game before it dies:boo hoo:.

:top marks

[greenlex]

Whereas if they liquidate and come back as a debt free newco......? That seems like a passport to good times for very little pain and none of the shame attached to starting from the bottom rung. Where they belong.
:agree: 100%. Raging with yet another opportunity to sort Scottish football is being missed by the clubs. Bottom of the pile is where any new club should start.

[bingo70]

On the plus side am I reading it right that if a club is paying players late they need to notify the SPL so no longer is the pressure on players to report the club them.

That should hopefully cause some problems to our pink neighbours

[JeMeSouviens]

If we vote this through we are also waving goodbye to our only hope of getting rid of the 11-1 SPL voting structure.

[snooky]

Not only should injustice be done, it should be seen to be done. :wink:
And it will be soon I fear.:grr:

[bighairyfaeleith]

2a is unacceptable. Nowt else for me to say on it.

[StevieC]

It's a no from me because it certainly looks like it's making the way for a NewCo to come straight into the SPL (otherwise why would the even mention transfer of SPL Share?).

Points deductions only punish the smaller clubs that might struggle anyway, it's not a punishment/deterent for bigger clubs.

[Weir7]

Hibs.net will make sure that the club is aware of this poll so they can guage the support's feeling.

Should demand a public shareholders meeting to grill the board over this. Unity. Actions speak louder than words. Over to you Rod.

[matty_f]

I voted no. IMHO the sanctions are nowhere near tough enough. Financial responsibility is something that clubs should take seriously for the greater good of the game.

Already, from Rangers' financial mis-management we've seen Dunfermline put in a position where they couldn't pay their players in full. Under the new measures, would they then be punished for that? How's that fair?

Dundee United and potentially Hearts will also suffer as a consequence of Rangers actions, and therefore not only have they suffered in a sporting sense from Rangers playing players who should be outwith their financial capabilities, but they're then hit with a double whammy of having to shoulder the financial burden from Rangers doing that.

The sanctions for a liquidated company should be expulsion from the league and any newco having to come through the divisions before being re-admitted into the SPL.

The proposals as they stand just pave the way for Rangers to give us all the shafting of a lifetime.

[jonty]

I voted no. IMHO the sanctions are nowhere near tough enough. Financial responsibility is something that clubs should take seriously for the greater good of the game.

Already, from Rangers' financial mis-management we've seen Dunfermline put in a position where they couldn't pay their players in full. Under the new measures, would they then be punished for that? How's that fair?

Dundee United and potentially Hearts will also suffer as a consequence of Rangers actions, and therefore not only have they suffered in a sporting sense from Rangers playing players who should be outwith their financial capabilities, but they're then hit with a double whammy of having to shoulder the financial burden from Rangers doing that.

The sanctions for a liquidated company should be expulsion from the league and any newco having to come through the divisions before being re-admitted into the SPL.

The proposals as they stand just pave the way for Rangers to give us all the shafting of a lifetime.
:agree:
And for these reason (and others posted above), I'm out.

[Winston Ingram]

:agree: 100%. Raging with yet another opportunity to sort Scottish football is being missed by the clubs. Bottom of the pile is where any new club should start.

Couldn't agree more. If they get back in that's it for me. The SPL seems to become a bigger joke every year and the short term feckwits that run it seem to be more determined than ever to grind it in to the dirt:agree:

[SunshineOnLeith]

If a NewCo Rangers (or any other club, for that matter) are allowed to remain in the SPL I'm done with Scottish football.

[Bristolhibby]

Voted no. Newco and the SPL should have to face up to the situation.

It should be if you liquidate, you cease to be come a legal entity as part of the SPL and as such have to apply to the bottom of the SFL.

Simple.

Plenty of other teams ready to take their place.

So Hibs or the Pars get relegated, but financial cheating doping Newco walk into the SPL debt free with a paltry points and prize money reduction.

Sorry but that's bollox!

J

[Geo_1875]

No, no, no. If they manage to trade out of their current difficulties then good luck to them. If not then we should never have to put up with their shut again. I've not renewed my season ticket yet and if they are allowed to play in the SPL without major long-term sanctions I won't be doing so.

[Ozyhibby]

It's a no from me. If that is all the penalty a newco rangers are going to face while becoming debt free then I'm finished with Scottish football. I won't be back. It's that simple. Hope Rod's reading this.

[Bostonhibby]

:agree: 100%. Raging with yet another opportunity to sort Scottish football is being missed by the clubs. Bottom of the pile is where any new club should start.

:agree: And I think all's gone relatively quiet down Gorgie way whilst the mad one awaits the outcome - if the Hun gets away with it I can see the Yams piggy backing through after their big brothers have blazed the trail......

[Winston Ingram]

For those interested

http://notonewco.wordpress.com/ a website has been set up and also it may be worth following on twitter. https://twitter.com/#!/NoToNewco

[matty_f]

Bump - if you haven't voted, please do so!

[PatHead]

Notice there have been 18 in favour. Any chance they can enlighten us as to why? Personally I can't think of one reason but am always open to persuation.

[hibbytam]

As per my post in the other thread, yes to some, though they would need to be further clarified and punishments strengthened. But overall, no because it is a blatant attempt to allow rangers to survive unpunished, atleast from the footballing authorities.

[kaimendhibs]

Voted No. 2a is just a vehicle to allow newco straight into SPL.:grr:

[sparky]

Voted yes, reading the first post I saw these stricter regulations and sanctions for clubs who fail to manage their finances as a positive move.
I assumed no meant that I was happy with the current situation which seems to be nothing.

However having read the thread, I agree that they are not harsh enough. Particularly 2A. Clubs should be discouraged from the liquidation/newco route. The timing is also suspect in the context of the current situation. It does seem as though certain rules have been set up to sweeten the bitter pill RFC will have to swallow. Although the govan loyal seem to be dead against liquidation despite it being the best way out of their current predicament.

Number 6 also should state that a club who cannot pay player wages should not be allowed to field those players, maybe play their u19s or forfeit the matches until they are paid.

[Lucius Apuleius]

was tempted to vote yes because the status quo must be changed. However this reads as a pandering to der hun (where is Blue is the colour these days?) and looks like they are paving the way for them to stay in the SPL. Wrong wrong wrong.

[IWasThere2016]

This thicko voted YES - when he meant to vote NO!! Eejit! Can this be changed?

[marinello59]

This thicko voted YES - when he meant to vote NO!! Eejit! Can this be changed?

No. Unfortunately if you are born a thicko that's you for life.

[Barney McGrew]

Also, there's too much 'that will break SPL rules' without actually stating what that would incur as a punishment, a slap on the wrist? A fine? Relegation?

:agree:

All in all, it's pretty clear this is all going to be rushed through so that the SPL can say 'well, you wanted us to take stronger action so we did' and at the same time lining up Newco Wrongers path straight back into the SPL for next season to protect their precious TV deal.

They're not going to challenge Celtic for the next few years anyway, so a ten point reduction effectively means they still cruise second place and the only real sanction is a 75% cut to their money from the SPL which amounts to around £1.7m.

I'd say that's a very, very small price for them to pay and nothing but lip service from those at the top of our game. They've got a one off chance to sort Scottish football out and they're bottling it. Cowards.

[greenlex]

No. Unfortunately if you are born a thicko that's you for life.
:not worth:top marks:greengrin

[steakbake]

Nothing more than a total fix to enable Rangers to stay in the league. Its an outrage. If accepted, sorry Hibs, but SPL football can ram it.

[NAE NOOKIE]

No

They should be relegated.

If thats to an SPL2 then fine.

But relegated or its a massive cop out by the SPL.

[Matt92]

No No No No and NO!!

If this NewCo Rangers is allowed to reform, protected by the authorities to such an extent, meaning their debt has been excused and their ******ed actions are dismissed, I won't be back.
They took Whittaker and Thomson off us by offering silly wages which we couldn't compete with even though they couldn't afford them. Good riddance and if they come back then one things for sure, I won't be.

Over to you Petrie.

[Finbar]

The consequences for administration or liquidation are not severe enough. What needs to be remembered is that clubs don't get themselves into a financial mess overnight, it takes years of calculated overspending. The culture that has developed where clubs spend money that they believe they are going to earn in future years has to change, because too often that money never appears.

So if a team goes into administration they should be relegated and if they go into liquidation they should be thrown out of the league. Keeps it simple.

[MB62]

I voted NO, although there are some good points in there, but if we are being asked to vote for the whole then it's a NO and this proposal needs revisted.

This is merely a slap on the pinky for derhun in particular, but anyone else who ends up in a similar situation to them, rather than a kick in the gonads, which they deserve.

It is all down to self interest from the other SPL clubs who want to be seen to be punishing derhun, but realise it may cost them a few quid in lost gate revenue if they are relegated to the lower leagues.
There is also the prospect of others following suit, Yams, Killie to name but two, so there is that other degree of self interest there too.

[marinello59]

Financial fair play and sporting integrity should go hand in hand. These proposals break that connection. They should not be formulating rules regarding what happens when a club in liquidation transfers its SPL share. They should be making rules to stop that happening in the first place.

[Killiehibbie]

was tempted to vote yes because the status quo must be changed. However this reads as a pandering to der hun (where is Blue is the colour these days?) and looks like they are paving the way for them to stay in the SPL. Wrong wrong wrong.Looks like another 20 odd of his mates are still here.

[Beefster]

Looks like another 20 odd of his mates are still here.

I voted no but if these had been suggested a year or two ago, the vast majority would have voted for them IMHO. Folk, including myself, are voting no because it's only being done now to allow the Orcs back into the SPL as easily as possible.

Hibs, and the other non-OF clubs, ignore the opinions of the supporters on this at their peril.

[SneakersO'Toole]

So der hun get £150m wiped in exchange for starting in the SPL again with a 10pt reduction and £2m lost revenue. Punishment hardly fits the crime there does it?

Like many others, if Rangers are liquidated and start the following season in the SPL then all credibility, integrity and sporting fairness will be lost from Scottish Football at which point I won't attend another game EVER.

If the board of Hibernian FC are reading this, it is imperative that they listen to the fans on this one or the consequences will be irrepairable.

These sanctions do not go far enough. Period. Rangers have CHEATED not only the game of football but every tax payer in this country. You have asked the fans to stand up and be counted in past, time you for you, the custodians of this club to do the same and represent the views of not only the Hibs support, but many non old-firm fans in this country. Don't let us down!!!

[Andy74]

I'm not sure many of us know enough about what the current rules would be and so it's difficult just to say no to this. Rangers fans are very unhappy so the suggestion is that it's harsher than the current rules?

75% cut in SPL revenue is massive.

Looks like pretty decent rules being lloked at for not paying players or taxes.

Are people just voting no because they seriously expected Rangers just to be thgrown out the SPL? As I said above the context surely has to be the comparison to what the current rules are on all these things.

For that reason I'm not voting either way as i don't know enough.

[IWasThere2016]

No. Unfortunately if you are born a thicko that's you for life.

I was edumacated in a Glenrothes skool .. I have a excuse eh! :wink: :greengrin

[MSK]

I was edumacated in a Glenrothes skool .. I have a excuse eh! :wink: :greengrinCaskieberran rulz ok .. :not worth

[PeeJay]

Are people just voting no because they seriously expected Rangers just to be thrown out the SPL?

Well, I voted no- and I seriously expect Rangers to be demoted (in Germany this is what would happen!) - but I didn't vote no, JUST because I want it to happen or because the rules are too complicated anyway, but because it seems to me to be the only way to make sure that any club in the SPL knows it has to play by the rules, and that if it cheats, lies, circumvents regulations, evades tax payments and so on - as Rangers have done so blatantly - then they will be punished for their midemeanours. Not JUST because that's the way I or some fans want it, not just because we don't like Rangers FC, but actually just because they broke the laws/rules/regulations/moral codes - and, as a club, they have seriously brought the game of football in Scotland into disrepute on an unprecedented scale.

IMHO they should be ever so grateful to us if we decide to let them play in SFL3 ... or is there a "West Of Scotland" league we could dump them on?

BTW - Rangers fans are not unhappy enough if you ask me...

[Ozyhibby]

75% cut in SPL revenue is massive.



no it's not, it about £2m. Hardly covers £135m of overspending.

[soul_driver]

Voted no. Simply far too lenient.

[Hibrandenburg]

No. Unfortunately if you are born a thicko that's you for life.

Brilliant reply, coffee, mobile and cleaning agent time.

Just glad he didn't get to vote twice....oh wait a minute.

[Hibrandenburg]

No way. It may sound childish but I don't want to play with cheats.

[Andy74]

Well, I voted no- and I seriously expect Rangers to be demoted (in Germany this is what would happen!) - but I didn't vote no, JUST because I want it to happen or because the rules are too complicated anyway, but because it seems to me to be the only way to make sure that any club in the SPL knows it has to play by the rules, and that if it cheats, lies, circumvents regulations, evades tax payments and so on - as Rangers have done so blatantly - then they will be punished for their midemeanours. Not JUST because that's the way I or some fans want it, not just because we don't like Rangers FC, but actually just because they broke the laws/rules/regulations/moral codes - and, as a club, they have seriously brought the game of football in Scotland into disrepute on an unprecedented scale.

IMHO they should be ever so grateful to us if we decide to let them play in SFL3 ... or is there a "West Of Scotland" league we could dump them on?

BTW - Rangers fans are not unhappy enough if you ask me...

Germany is different. The SPL is a different league from the SFL and so the only option would be to chuck them out for overspending. What I am asking though, is this in the current rules?

Forget the allegation of double contracts etc as that is another matter, these rules are for being in financial difficulty.

The question we need to ask is whether these rules are more sever and more appropriate than the ones we currently have.

I'd guess most have no idea what we currently have.

In pressuring Hibs to say no do we know what we are asking, what the alternative is? Voting no could then just let Rangers to be voted right back in with no punishment at all.

[s.a.m]

I was about to vote yes, because I believe that 'financial fair play' is an important principle, and should be pursued. Then I looked at it again, and saw the Trojan Horse, powering its way back into the SPL, with Newco Rangers on board. Dirty trick, that.

[PeeJay]

Germany is different. The SPL is a different league from the SFL and so the only option would be to chuck them out for overspending. What I am asking though, is this in the current rules?

Forget the allegation of double contracts etc as that is another matter, these rules are for being in financial difficulty.

The question we need to ask is whether these rules are more sever and more appropriate than the ones we currently have.

I'd guess most have no idea what we currently have.

In pressuring Hibs to say no do we know what we are asking, what the alternative is? Voting no could then just let Rangers to be voted right back in with no punishment at all.

Fair points, I guess, although I feel we should keep the big picture clearly in view. Seems to me however - as has been posted elsewhere - that this is an attempt to sort of 'pretend punish' RFC, but keep them in the SPL (2a) - this alone is reason to say no in my book. :wink:

Anyway as to the real rules - the whole SPL setup is an utter fiasco anyway - if Scottish football does not use this opportunity to get its house in order then it doesn't matter what "rules" are in place. The previous rules did not work: these ones won't work - it's just painting over cracks: they're not fooling me ...

If anyone in the SPL had any gumption they'd look to Germany for some clues on how to organise this game of football thing properly ... Germany may be different, but fair play is fair play is fair play and the SPL is anything but...
:greengrin
[/FONT]

[blackpoolhibs]

Germany is different. The SPL is a different league from the SFL and so the only option would be to chuck them out for overspending. What I am asking though, is this in the current rules?

Forget the allegation of double contracts etc as that is another matter, these rules are for being in financial difficulty.

The question we need to ask is whether these rules are more sever and more appropriate than the ones we currently have.

I'd guess most have no idea what we currently have.

In pressuring Hibs to say no do we know what we are asking, what the alternative is? Voting no could then just let Rangers to be voted right back in with no punishment at all.

Fair points, I guess, although I feel we should keep the big picture clearly in view. Seems to me however - as has been posted elsewhere - that this is an attempt to sort of 'pretend punish' RFC, but keep them in the SPL (2a) - this alone is reason to say no in my book. :wink:

Anyway as to the real rules - the whole SPL setup is an utter fiasco anyway - if Scottish football does not use this opportunity to get its house in order then it doesn't matter what "rules" are in place. The previous rules did not work: these ones won't work - it's just painting over cracks: they're not fooling me ...

If anyone in the SPL had any gumption they'd look to Germany for some clues on how to organise this game of football thing properly ... Germany may be different, but fair play is fair play is fair play and the SPL is anything but...
:greengrin
[/FONT]

:agree: We all knew who was running Scottish football, this confirms it. If this is brought in the games over imo. Fair play and proper punishment should anyone break the rules is all we ask, but thats certainly not the case here.:rolleyes:

[Andy74]

Germany is different. The SPL is a different league from the SFL and so the only option would be to chuck them out for overspending. What I am asking though, is this in the current rules?

Forget the allegation of double contracts etc as that is another matter, these rules are for being in financial difficulty.

The question we need to ask is whether these rules are more sever and more appropriate than the ones we currently have.

I'd guess most have no idea what we currently have.

In pressuring Hibs to say no do we know what we are asking, what the alternative is? Voting no could then just let Rangers to be voted right back in with no punishment at all.

Fair points, I guess, although I feel we should keep the big picture clearly in view. Seems to me however - as has been posted elsewhere - that this is an attempt to sort of 'pretend punish' RFC, but keep them in the SPL (2a) - this alone is reason to say no in my book. :wink:

Anyway as to the real rules - the whole SPL setup is an utter fiasco anyway - if Scottish football does not use this opportunity to get its house in order then it doesn't matter what "rules" are in place. The previous rules did not work: these ones won't work - it's just painting over cracks: they're not fooling me ...

If anyone in the SPL had any gumption they'd look to Germany for some clues on how to organise this game of football thing properly ... Germany may be different, but fair play is fair play is fair play and the SPL is anything but...
:greengrin
[/FONT]

Okay, so instead of no to proposals we should be looking at amended proposals as I'm pretty sure there is virtually nothing right now to stop Rangers just being voted in with little or no sanction after transferring their share.

There's also nothing to stop the likes of Hearts not paying players or taxes.

[Stevo1875]

i smell $#!{£

[JeMeSouviens]

What I am asking though, is this in the current rules?


The current rules (SPL rules and SPL articles of assocation) contain 2 relevant parts.

The SPL Rules deal with a club going bust:


Club ceasing to play and be a member of the League
H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may be expunged and the number of relegation places from the League shall be reduced accordingly.

So, clearly whoever drew up the rules expected that if a club went bust there would be no relegation that season.

The SPL articles of association deal with the mechanism for how the SPL share belonging to the club that went bust should be transferred to another club.



14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an
8
effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.

So, an 11-1 vote is required from all clubs to instruct the SPL board who to transfer the share to and the SPL board should direct the liquidator to complete the transfer.


It's not explicitly stated but it can surely be inferred from the above that what was intended was that the share should go to the promoted club from the SFL (Ross County). Otherwise why would they cancel relegation at all?

[Andy74]

The current rules (SPL rules and SPL articles of assocation) contain 2 relevant parts.

The SPL Rules deal with a club going bust:



So, clearly whoever drew up the rules expected that if a club went bust there would be no relegation that season.

The SPL articles of association deal with the mechanism for how the SPL share belonging to the club that went bust should be transferred to another club.



So, an 11-1 vote is required from all clubs to instruct the SPL board who to transfer the share to and the SPL board should direct the liquidator to complete the transfer.


It's not explicitly stated but it can surely be inferred from the above that what was intended was that the share should go to the promoted club from the SFL (Ross County). Otherwise why would they cancel relegation at all?

The problem is that's quite open and allows for transfer to anyone, including a reincarantion of the same team. In addition there are no arrangements in place to provide additional sanctions.

So the new proposals look far more stringetn than the current regulations.

Perhaps instead of a no movememnt there should be an option of an ameded proposal, although I'm not too clear on what people actually want other than Rangers not to be allowed back in any form.

[Bristolhibby]

Mentioned this on the TAMB.

We already have rules to deal with Rangers, something that is being glossed over by the powers that be.

Rangers, if they liquidate, cease to become a member of the SPL. For that moment in time there will only be 11 SPL members.

No relegation and welcome Ross County.

SPL should then consist of:

Celtic
Motherwell
Hearts
Aberdeen
Dundee Utd
St. Johnstone
St. Mirren
Kilmarnock
Hibernian
Dunfermline
Inverness CT
Ross County

This nonsense is just ensuring newco will be welcomed into the fold.

[JeMeSouviens]

The problem is that's quite open and allows for transfer to anyone, including a reincarantion of the same team. In addition there are no arrangements in place to provide additional sanctions.

So the new proposals look far more stringetn than the current regulations.

Perhaps instead of a no movememnt there should be an option of an ameded proposal, although I'm not too clear on what people actually want other than Rangers not to be allowed back in any form.

In my view, additional sanctions are not needed. The whole concept of an "insolvency transfer" is a newly invented, wholly corrupt concept designed solely to get NewHuns in to the SPL. By all means tighten the wording to explicitly state there shall be no relegation and the candidate club from the SFL should be promoted as normal. That's all that needs to happen.

[JeMeSouviens]

Mentioned this on the TAMB.

We already have rules to deal with Rangers, something that is being glossed over by the powers that be.

Rangers, if they liquidate, cease to become a member of the SPL. For that moment in time there will only be 11 SPL members.

No relegation and welcome Ross County.

SPL should then consist of:

Celtic
Motherwell
Hearts
Aberdeen
Dundee Utd
St. Johnstone
St. Mirren
Kilmarnock
Hibernian
Dunfermline
Inverness CT
Ross County

This nonsense is just ensuring newco will be welcomed into the fold.

Absolutely spot on. :agree:

[GreenCastle]

Mentioned this on the TAMB.

We already have rules to deal with Rangers, something that is being glossed over by the powers that be.

Rangers, if they liquidate, cease to become a member of the SPL. For that moment in time there will only be 11 SPL members.

No relegation and welcome Ross County.

SPL should then consist of:

Celtic
Motherwell
Hearts
Aberdeen
Dundee Utd
St. Johnstone
St. Mirren
Kilmarnock
Hibernian
Dunfermline
Inverness CT
Ross County

This nonsense is just ensuring newco will be welcomed into the fold.

:top marks

[Caversham Green]

There's also nothing to stop the likes of Hearts not paying players or taxes.

One point that's getting missed generally - the proposals consist of eight separate resolutions, so they could accept some while rejecting others - the SPL could let a newco in and the yams could still get done for not paying their players on time. I'm sure they'd accept that with their usual good grace.

[s.a.m]

One point that's getting missed generally - the proposals consist of eight separate resolutions, so they could accept some while rejecting others - the SPL could let a newco in and the yams could still get done for not paying their players on time. I'm sure they'd accept that with their usual good grace.

That wisnae the question, though :greengrin It was yes or no!, and we're doing what we were telt!

[Caversham Green]

That wisnae the question, though :greengrin It was yes or no!, and we're doing what we were telt!

I tried to work out what the poll would look like with a yes or no for each separate resolution :dizzy:. No will do me fine.

[ScottB]

One point that's getting missed generally - the proposals consist of eight separate resolutions, so they could accept some while rejecting others - the SPL could let a newco in and the yams could still get done for not paying their players on time. I'm sure they'd accept that with their usual good grace.

I'd imagine Hearts, Rangers, Dunfermline and potentially a couple other clubs would vote down anything to do with the payment of players. Not that any actual punishment is suggested, other than it breaking the rules, which it presumably already does given what Hearts have been through this season, and we can all see what fitting punishments they got...

Things like paying players, tax etc on time should be in the rules and enforced, no voting required as far as I'm concerned.

[calmac12000]

I actually voted yes, but by mistake!

[WarringtonHibee]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?233073-SPL-Fans-Survey&p=3176277#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team. :aok:

Please check the thread and get it out there!

[Onion]

Media reaction tells its own story. The Daily Mail (in Scotland) stating that the resolutions have all but been agreed by the chairmen and WILL BE PASSED on 30 April ensuring NewCo get's straight into the SPL - while DAFC or Hibs will be relegated. I expect the rest of the media will take a similar line, acknowledging that non-RFC fans will be outraged but this will mean little.

I've been following Hibs for 40 years as a shareholder and ST holder - and this will be the end for me. I've had enough. Hibs can go to Hell if they agree to 2A and take the rest of the 10 with them, while they watch the OF swan off to England or some other league in the not too distant future. Forget about ST sales being calamitous next season, if the way I feel about this is anywhere near typical, there will be few walk up fans and even less when NewCo Huns come to town. The SPL will have finally proved once and for all that the league & fair competition is sold to the highest bidder and nothing will get in the way of that. Fuming doesn't come close to describing how I feel about this.

[Andy74]

Media reaction tells its own story. The Daily Mail (in Scotland) stating that the resolutions have all but been agreed by the chairmen and WILL BE PASSED on 30 April ensuring NewCo get's straight into the SPL - while DAFC or Hibs will be relegated. I expect the rest of the media will take a similar line, acknowledging that non-RFC fans will be outraged but this will mean little.

I've been following Hibs for 40 years as a shareholder and ST holder - and this will be the end for me. I've had enough. Hibs can go to Hell if they agree to 2A and take the rest of the 10 with them, while they watch the OF swan off to England or some other league in the not too distant future. Forget about ST sales being calamitous next season, if the way I feel about this is anywhere near typical, there will be few walk up fans and even less when NewCo Huns come to town. The SPL will have finally proved once and for all that the league & fair competition is sold to the highest bidder and nothing will get in the way of that. Fuming doesn't come close to describing how I feel about this.

2A is imposing further sporting sanctions if the transfer is as a result of an insolvency event.

Why should hibs go to hell for agreeing increased sanctions?

Press reaction matters little to me as I'm not sure they understand this any more than the fans reacting here.

I've yet to have anyone point out the resolution which makes it easier for Rangers to be voted in.

[Bad Martini]

2A is imposing further sporting sanctions if the transfer is as a result of an insolvency event.

Why should hibs go to hell for agreeing increased sanctions?

Press reaction matters little to me as I'm not sure they understand this any more than the fans reacting here.

I've yet to have anyone point out the resolution which makes it easier for Rangers to be voted in.

Partly correct. But you miss the point...

Rather than this nonsensical **** about needing to vote them in it shouldve been to state that anyone going bust is automatically hoofed out. Thereafter, they dont exist. If they form a new club, thats a new club. Nothing to do with old club and therefore they should apply to the lowest division to join. Simple really.

SPL being guttless tossers ensured this isnt needed. What is good about this ?? Remind me why ANY newco shouldnt be subject to what I note above???

Spl cheating *******s

ENDOF

[JeMeSouviens]

Partly correct. But you miss the point...

Rather than this nonsensical **** about needing to vote them in it shouldve been to state that anyone going bust is automatically hoofed out. Thereafter, they dont exist. If they form a new club, thats a new club. Nothing to do with old club and therefore they should apply to the lowest division to join. Simple really.

SPL being guttless tossers ensured this isnt needed. What is good about this ?? Remind me why ANY newco shouldnt be subject to what I note above???

Spl cheating *******s

ENDOF

:top marks The very idea of an "insolvency transfer event" is a farce. A newco is a new club. This could only be brought to you by the league that invented the split after 3 rounds of fixtures just to get a guaranteed extra visit from the OF. :rolleyes:

[Cheshire Hibee]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?233073-SPL-Fans-Survey&p=3176277#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team. :aok:

Please check the thread and get it out there!

Make sure you guys spread the word about this survey over a 1000 responses already and BBC picking up on it. :wink:

[Andy74]

Partly correct. But you miss the point...

Rather than this nonsensical **** about needing to vote them in it shouldve been to state that anyone going bust is automatically hoofed out. Thereafter, they dont exist. If they form a new club, thats a new club. Nothing to do with old club and therefore they should apply to the lowest division to join. Simple really.

SPL being guttless tossers ensured this isnt needed. What is good about this ?? Remind me why ANY newco shouldnt be subject to what I note above???

Spl cheating *******s

ENDOF

The problem is that if they form a new club then as it stands they could be voted back in and they would be scot free as it were. This ensures that they do not escape the link with the old club and they have some punishments that last a few years.

Now, I actually agree that they should just be hoofed and that's it and that's what the clubs can decide by not accepting the transfer.

Currently though they can still accept the transfer and it's all forgiven and forgotten.

The main issue is that the SPL is a stand alone league and there's no way you can write in that they get punted to the SFL.

[Andy74]

:top marks The very idea of an "insolvency transfer event" is a farce. A newco is a new club. This could only be brought to you by the league that invented the split after 3 rounds of fixtures just to get a guaranteed extra visit from the OF. :rolleyes:

So you'd be happy with the loophole open and that new club could be voted back in with no sanctions?

It's a membership based league, there would be all sorts of ways of getting a newco back in and it being all inents and purposes Rangers, without sanctions, unless this sort of link is recognised.

[IWasThere2016]

I actually voted yes, but by mistake!

Thicko! :agree:












:wink: :greengrin

[Thecat23]

It's disgusting the whole situation, the 10 teams should just pack it in and start fresh. With football men in charge. Rangers should be booted, punishing them with -10 and whatever else is nothing short of bottling it. My neighbour is laughing his head off saying how no matter what Gers won't die and the rest will suck up. He's actually right. Any other league would do the right thing. If they get back in as new or old I'm done with Hibs and Scottish football. Anyone wanting to pump there cash into a league of cheaters bash on. Same 2 winning as always. So for me, GO **** YOURSELF GERS and the rest if you vote them in.

[Cheshire Hibee]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?233073-SPL-Fans-Survey&p=3176277#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team. :aok:

Please check the thread and get it out there!

Sorry to keep jumping in on this thread but just trying to keep as many people in the loop as possible.

So far over 1600 + responses in just under 4 hours!!! BBC Scotland have been in touch we have provided them with some samples of fans views and they may run it at 18.45 tonight on BBC Scotland.

Capital FM have also been in touch asking for reactions and are keen to put it out on air probably tomorrow.

[truehibernian]

Imagine the boost for the wee clubs in Scotland if the mighty Rangers had to start in Div 3.....imagine the cash boosts for your Stenny's, Berwicks, Airdrie Utd's, your Stirling Albions, as they (Rangers) rise through the leagues.....surely they are all embraced in the ' Scottish football family' too and it's not all about the SPL......or what better promo for an SPL2 by allowing them entry there instead of straight back into the SPL ?

And cat, what chance of Kenny finishing his career at Hibs as planned.....tell him to come home for next season bud ;-)

[Thecat23]

Imagine the boost for the wee clubs in Scotland if the mighty Rangers had to start in Div 3.....imagine the cash boosts for your Stenny's, Berwicks, Airdrie Utd's, your Stirling Albions, as they (Rangers) rise through the leagues.....surely they are all embraced in the ' Scottish football family' too and it's not all about the SPL......or what better promo for an SPL2 by allowing them entry there instead of straight back into the SPL ?

And cat, what chance of Kenny finishing his career at Hibs as planned.....tell him to come home for next season bud ;-)

Haha been on at him already mate.. He's still keen and says that's defo were he wants to finish his days. But won't be next season sadly.

[Eyrie]

No delays for the survey confirmation email here.

[1875 NO 1]

A simple poll, yes or no.

The new proposals are detailed here.........

Bottom line you should be expelled form the league. *This won't happen. There is too much self interest and I include our Club in this.

I would deduct them the point difference, between what they achieved and what the relegated team achieved eg If the Current Buns get 70 points and Dunfy got 20 points. The current buns should start with minus 51 (take a further point off them to highlight they should be in the league). This should be replicated for the next two seasons too.

If they enter into a CVA arrangement the points deduction should continue until the CVA is paid off.

All, Football debts should be honoured. And they can't play a player if they default on the payment terms eg Lee Wallace

They should also only get the same income level that the relegated team will receive from the SPL. Which is minimal in comparison to what you get in the SPL. This should continue until CVA paid off.

Also, a financial fair play check should be made before every new season to make sure clubs are solvent. This should be carried out by independent auditors.

[WhileTheChief..]

I voted yes as to me most of it should have been in place already. If this was being proposed a year ago before all the Rangers issues then I reckon most people would be saying it's all just common sense stuff really. We would also love the fact that it would appear to be aimed squarely at Hearts.
I understand everybody's reaction to Rangers but I don't see why it will stop folk going to watch Hibs :confused:. Bottom line is that they will be in the SPL next season and come Aug / Sept we will have a game against them. Will everyone be at Ikea etc and just ignore the game??? I very much doubt it. Rangers will be a far weaker team for many years and be starting off from a weaker position. This should give Hibs and others an opportunity to challenge further up the league no?

[CropleyWasGod]

Also, a financial fair play check should be made before every new season to make sure clubs are solvent. This should be carried out by independent auditors.

This is already part of the SFA Licence requirements.

[matty_f]

So you'd be happy with the loophole open and that new club could be voted back in with no sanctions?

It's a membership based league, there would be all sorts of ways of getting a newco back in and it being all inents and purposes Rangers, without sanctions, unless this sort of link is recognised.


I can actually see the point you're making Andy, and I agree with you. I think the initial reaction was that it looks for all the world that the rest of Scottish football are being lubed up in preparation for the shafting of all shaftings from Rangers.

I take your point though, that these sanctions are being put in place to stop the possibility that Rangers could get voted in Scot-free. It's like a lesser of two evils, I suppose. To that end, I'd probably be behind the proposals.

What I am wholeheartedly against, is a newco Rangers being voted back in, and the problem with these proposals is that it paves the way for that to happen, albeit with a penalty rather than without one.

I would much rather the penalty for an insolvency event was expulsion from the league.

[Saorsa]

I can actually see the point you're making Andy, and I agree with you. I think the initial reaction was that it looks for all the world that the rest of Scottish football are being lubed up in preparation for the shafting of all shaftings from Rangers.

I take your point though, that these sanctions are being put in place to stop the possibility that Rangers could get voted in Scot-free. It's like a lesser of two evils, I suppose. To that end, I'd probably be behind the proposals.

What I am wholeheartedly against, is a newco Rangers being voted back in, and the problem with these proposals is that it paves the way for that to happen, albeit with a penalty rather than without one.

I would much rather the penalty for an insolvency event was expulsion from the league.Penalty? what sort of penalty is a 10 point deduction for a team that usually finishes 20 or 30 points in front of the best of the rest? Points deductions will only harm smaller teams that usually finish nearer the wrong end of the table. They'll lose some of their SPL money, big deal, in return they'll be debt free with gates 5 times the size of a club like ours and 10 times the size of the smaller clubs. The whole thing stinks of OF stooges within the SPL trying tae shaft everybody else as usual. Would they be having discussions about rule changes if it was any team out with the OF, would the ****. The penalty for cheating should be expulsion and nothing else.

[Andy74]

I can actually see the point you're making Andy, and I agree with you. I think the initial reaction was that it looks for all the world that the rest of Scottish football are being lubed up in preparation for the shafting of all shaftings from Rangers.

I take your point though, that these sanctions are being put in place to stop the possibility that Rangers could get voted in Scot-free. It's like a lesser of two evils, I suppose. To that end, I'd probably be behind the proposals.

What I am wholeheartedly against, is a newco Rangers being voted back in, and the problem with these proposals is that it paves the way for that to happen, albeit with a penalty rather than without one.

I would much rather the penalty for an insolvency event was expulsion from the league.

The SPL clubs would still have the option of refusing the transfer.

[WarringtonHibee]

SPL Fan Surveys, the results for this so far are...

Do you back the Financial Fair Play Proposals? - YES: 45.90% -- NO: 54.10%

[matty_f]

Penalty? what sort of penalty is a 10 point deduction for a team that usually finishes 20 or 30 points in front of the best of the rest? Points deductions will only harm smaller teams that usually finish nearer the wrong end of the table. They'll lose some of their SPL money, big deal, in return they'll be debt free with gates 5 times the size of a club like ours and 10 times the size of the smaller clubs. The whole thing stinks of OF stooges within the SPL trying tae shaft everybody else as usual. Would they be having discussions about rule changes if it was any team out with the OF, would the ****. The penalty for cheating should be expulsion and nothing else.

I agree, and I said so in my post.:agree:




The SPL clubs would still have the option of refusing the transfer.

I know, but I think that leaves a grey area - would Rangers get treated differently to Dunfermline, for instance. At least if the sanctions were down in black and white clubs would know exactly what the position is should they be liquidated.

[Andy74]

I agree, and I said so in my post.:agree:





I know, but I think that leaves a grey area - would Rangers get treated differently to Dunfermline, for instance. At least if the sanctions were down in black and white clubs would know exactly what the position is should they be liquidated.

And this is eaxctly what is being attempted and that everyone seems so angry about. :confused:

[matty_f]

And this is eaxctly what is being attempted and that everyone seems so angry about. :confused:

I think people are angry not because there are sanctions being proposed, but because they don't go far enough- they should state categorically that a liquidated club should be expelled and any newco would have to apply for entry at the lowest level.

These proposals (on the face of it) look lime they are paving the way for a newco to be admitted with what looks like relatively lenient punishments.

The only team that will benefit from these measures so far as i can see, is Celtc.