Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenLake

I had a hope he might miss their last penalty then run off celebrating with the Hibs team.

---

Then be invited to lift the cup?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Then be invited to lift the cup?!

---

You read my mind.:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

As far as I understand it, if RFC were to apply for a licence for next season, it would initially be refused. It's nothing to with FFP;it's to do with the Audit Report on their latest accounts.

There are various ways they might get round that, which i'm still trying to understand.... :greengrin

) If the auditor’s report has, in respect of going concern, either an emphasis of
matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion, the licence must be refused, unless
either:
i) a subsequent audit opinion without going concern emphasis of matter or
qualification is provided, in relation to the same financial year; or
ii) additional documentary evidence demonstrating the licence applicant’s
ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence
season has been provided to, and assessed by, the licensor to his
satisfaction. The additional documentary evidence includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, the information described in Article 52 (Future
financial information).

---

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

---

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin

---

'Bomber' Brown would disagree with you on that point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

---

On the first. Their latest audit report DOES have an "emphasis of matter" paragraph that relates to Going Concern. That can't be changed.

On the second, I think (would hope) UEFA would want an independent opinion rather than RFC's own submission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin

---

If the current club/company has unpaid taxes, then absolutely.

I can't see how UEFA would deny them a licence because the previous company didn't pay.... otherwise that would be a permanent ban. :greengrin (indeed, that would apply to Hearts as well....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On the first. Their latest audit report DOES have an "emphasis of matter" paragraph that relates to Going Concern. That can't be changed.

On the second, I think (would hope) UEFA would want an independent opinion rather than RFC's own submission.

---

You are a voice of substance on such matters CWG. I just have a little experience in attempting to simplify jargon such as the paragraphs you referred to. You are a wealth of knowledge on these matters Sir.

:flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

You are a voice of substance on such matters CWG. I just have a little experience in attempting to simplify jargon such as the paragraphs you referred to. You are a wealth of knowledge on these matters Sir.

:flag:

---

Cheers.

I went to school with a Hibby called Dodds(y). Did you grow up in Portobello in the 60's and 70's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Cheers.

I went to school with a Hibby called Dodds(y). Did you grow up in Portobello in the 60's and 70's?

---

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

If the current club/company has unpaid taxes, then absolutely.

I can't see how UEFA would deny them a licence because the previous company didn't pay.... otherwise that would be a permanent ban. :greengrin (indeed, that would apply to Hearts as well....)

---

My suggestion was tounge in cheek, but UEFA do have rules about unpaid tax and using a change in company structure to shed debt. Sevco fans have been claiming that UEFA recognise them as the same club as before - it would be nice that if they had to admit to being new in order to play in UEFA competition.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...TEAXZ3ihsfb.97

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Record

Rangers lose EBT side letters appeal as lawlords order £250,000 fine to be paid to SPFL

THE Ibrox side were ruled to have gained no sporting advantage by Lord Nimmo Smith but the oldco was fined - which the newco will now need to pay.

A TRIO of lawlords have ordered Rangers to fork out £250,000 after they lost their long running legal dispute with the SPFL. A senior SPFL source has revealed the Ibrox club have been told to pay the penalty originally handed down to oldco Rangers after an inquiry by Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2013.

Nimmo Smith’s commission, established by the SPL after the financial collapse of Rangers four years ago, found them guilty of a failure to declare EBT side letters during the reign of Sir David Murray.
However, Nimmo Smith also ruled Rangers gained no sporting advantage from the contentious tax avoidance scheme and he did not strip any titles won during the decade in question from 2000.

Rangers appealed the fine last year but an independent SFA tribunal, made up of three High Court judges, have now found in favour of Scottish league bosses. Rangers newco, under Charles Green, were asked to accept liability for the £250,000 fine as part of the controversial five way agreement that led to the award of a licence to play in the Third Division in the summer of 2012.

Rangers fans will be angered at being landed with another legacy bill and, in particular, the doggedness of the SPFL in demanding it be paid, even though it was originally handed to oldco. However, the SPFL insist newco Rangers gave the undertaking they would cover oldco’s costs and former chairman David Somers and chief executive Graham Wallace even engaged in talks to suggest ways of paying it.

All bets were off, however, when the disgraced former board were replaced by the new regime last year, led by Dave King, and he carried out a thorough review of all the club’s outstanding legal cases. The SPFL insider revealed there is still an appeal route open to Rangers via the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but it would be a lengthy and expensive process and Hampden bosses are confident a line will be drawn under the matter.

Gers chairman King could now sanction a cheque for the payment or, more likely, the SPFL will take the £250,000 from the £474,750 prize money Rangers are due to receive if, as expected, they win the Championship in the coming weeks.

Rangers last night declined to comment, but it’s understood they are furious over alleged breaches of confidentiality on the news they have lost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...TEAXZ3ihsfb.97

---

Interesting to see that The Rangers felt they were entitled to confidentiality over the loss of this case. Very much in the public interest that it be known but it still looks very like the propoganda machine tried to censor the information. From the comment in the article it looks like the corrupt elements in the SPFL agreed to a confidentiality clause?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.

---

Wow, an upper-class Hibee!




:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keekaboo

Wow, an upper-class Hibee!




:greengrin

---

Pleasing to be referred to as 'upper-class'. However I don't think Broughton High School ranks as being up there with the George Watson's or Edinburgh Academy.

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...TEAXZ3ihsfb.97

---

I think what irks Dave King and fellow rangers people is that they are by paying this fine contradicting their wrongful submissions that they are still exactly the same club pre-liquidation of oldco. They are publicly being seen to be having to deal with the fall-out of the disastrous financial earthquake they endured entirely by their own greed and folly.

This is exactly why they were so keen to maintain a shroud of silence on the issue however it was clearly not worthy of being kept from the public.

Used to be a working class school, albeit a "senior secondary" when it was in McDonald Rd. Dunno about it when it was hijacked to Comely Bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

Used to be a working class school, albeit a "senior secondary" when it was in McDonald Rd. Dunno about it when it was hijacked to Comely Bank.

---

You are correct Brunswickbill as it was on the site of the Primary School prior to Comely Bank. It went to full Comprehensive status at Comely Bank. Not a particularly academic one when I was there. But others may have different opinions of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.

---

I see in last night's news Porty School are having an open day on 4th June for all past pupils.

I started my 4th year when the tower block was opened , so I'd better look in before the wrecking ball gets started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I see in last night's news Porty School are having an open day on 4th June for all past pupils.

I started my 4th year when the tower block was opened , so I'd better look in before the wrecking ball gets started.

---

Yes of course they're building the new school on the piece of land that was designated for public good/use only on Milton Road. Be you're last chance to have a look around greenginger. Nostalgia eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Yes of course they're building the new school on the piece of land that was designated for public good/use only on Milton Road. Be you're last chance to have a look around greenginger. Nostalgia eh.

---

Yep, never crossed the door since I left in 1967.

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin

---

The fine wasn't on behalf of Oldco. It was part of the 5 way agreement that the Newco would accept the findings of the EBT tribunal, and that Newco would be liable. Hence it's Newco's debt.

No creditor of Oldco can sue anyone for their debt.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin

---

It's the ageement that clubs have to pay debts owed after admin / insolvency to other clubs/players to allow the offending club to continue to play. Other debtors can gtf. The gunts had to do this as well. RIPFC had the gall to claim that they didn't have to pay the fine. Good to see that they have been held to account. £125,000 costs in addition IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

It's the ageement that clubs have to pay debts owed after admin / insolvency to other clubs/players to allow the offending club to continue to play. Other debtors can gtf. The gunts had to do this as well. RIPFC had the gall to claim that they didn't have to pay the fine. Good to see that they have been held to account. £125,000 costs in addition IIRC.

---

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

---

Other clubs have paid their "football debt" eg Dunfermline and Dundee. Questionable morality- you can stiff other creditors but you have to stump up to the football community. The difference with RIPFC is that they also wanted to stiff the SFA/SPFL. Leopard spots etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

---

Doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

Other clubs have paid their "football debt" eg Dunfermline and Dundee. Questionable morality- you can stiff other creditors but you have to stump up to the football community. The difference with RIPFC is that they also wanted to stiff the SFA/SPFL. Leopard spots etc.

---

How was a fine issued for prior to liquidation for usage of a shadowy EBT tax scheme a 'football debt'?

It's a fair question Brunswickbill.:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

How was a fine issued for prior to liquidation for usage of a shadowy EBT tax scheme a 'football debt'?

It's a fair question Brunswickbill.:aok:

---

I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Doesn't work that way.

---

Why not? It's a very fair argument.