Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

This is worth a read, especially the bit about Sevco.
http://www.sportslawscotland.co.uk/?m=1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It'll be interesting to see what happens at the end of the season if and when Sevco qualify for Europe. This bit suggests that they might be alright -

UEFA may choose (and possibly likely they will) to offer a settlement agreement, under Article 15, in a bid to allow the club to financially rehabilitate themselves and set out a 'roadmap' to reach break even, in the foreseeable future. This will allow the club to compete in competitions.

Also, in theory, Sevco have the Lying King's £30m (:faf:) warchest in reserve which might mitigate any bother they find themselves in.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

It'll be interesting to see what happens at the end of the season if and when Sevco qualify for Europe. This bit suggests that they might be alright -

UEFA may choose (and possibly likely they will) to offer a settlement agreement, under Article 15, in a bid to allow the club to financially rehabilitate themselves and set out a 'roadmap' to reach break even, in the foreseeable future. This will allow the club to compete in competitions.

Also, in theory, Sevco have the Lying King's £30m (:faf:) warchest in reserve which might mitigate any bother they find themselves in.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

[/QUOTE]

" Rehabilitate themselves " ? to what, they've only got 4 years of accounts and they show nothing but accumulating losses.

They are not going to flag up old Co. with their massive tax debts.

Red bull hibees sounds fine to me why not buy hibs

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

It'll be interesting to see what happens at the end of the season if and when Sevco qualify for Europe. This bit suggests that they might be alright -

UEFA may choose (and possibly likely they will) to offer a settlement agreement, under Article 15, in a bid to allow the club to financially rehabilitate themselves and set out a 'roadmap' to reach break even, in the foreseeable future. This will allow the club to compete in competitions.

Also, in theory, Sevco have the Lying King's £30m (:faf:) warchest in reserve which might mitigate any bother they find themselves in.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

[/QUOTE]

In theory that could work but I can't see them being able to stick with any plan that sees them break even. To do that with their high cost base means a squad budget about the same size as us, Aberdeen and Hearts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

www.philmacgiollabhain.ie

His thinking appears to be the new huns are very possibly planning for an administration event to take place due to cash flow problems and would rid them off MA's contracts. It would make some sense but it could also be a very risky business.

Could they overcome a 25 point penalty to avoid relegation? Possibly but I would hope not.

Of course they could claim to be a new club and if accepted it would be reduced to a 15 point penalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

www.philmacgiollabhain.ie

His thinking appears to be the new huns are very possibly planning for an administration event to take place due to cash flow problems and would rid them off MA's contracts. It would make some sense but it could also be a very risky business.

Could they overcome a 25 point penalty to avoid relegation? Possibly but I would hope not.

Of course they could claim to be a new club and if accepted it would be reduced to a 15 point penalty?

---

I'm sure it has been mentioned before, possibly CWG, but administration wouldn't work to get rid of MA, it would need to be the full fat liquidation. I might be imagining it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

www.philmacgiollabhain.ie

His thinking appears to be the new huns are very possibly planning for an administration event to take place due to cash flow problems and would rid them off MA's contracts. It would make some sense but it could also be a very risky business.

Could they overcome a 25 point penalty to avoid relegation? Possibly but I would hope not.

Of course they could claim to be a new club and if accepted it would be reduced to a 15 point penalty?

---

Does the 25 pt penalty for re-administration not end in Feb...or does the rule apply from when you come out of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

Does the 25 pt penalty for re-administration not end in Feb...or does the rule apply from when you come out of it?

---

Here's the rule:-

Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different person and
whether such person or persons is or was a Member, has taken, suffered or been
subject to an Insolvency Event which resulted in a deduction of points in terms of
these Rules, whether a Deductible Insolvency Event or not, or in terms of the SFL
Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event which resulted in a
deduction of points takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event the
15 and 5 points deductions applicable in terms of Rules E2 or E3, in respect of such
a Deductible Insolvency Event shall instead be 25 and 15 points respectively.

The emphasis is mine.

Reading that, I would think that the relevant date is February 2012, which is when they went into the Administration that cost them 10 points. It could be argued that they then suffered a further Insolvency Event, in that they went into liquidation. However, they weren't deducted points for that.

It looks like, if they can make it past February, the deduction will be 15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Here's the rule:-

Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different person and
whether such person or persons is or was a Member, has taken, suffered or been
subject to an Insolvency Event which resulted in a deduction of points in terms of
these Rules, whether a Deductible Insolvency Event or not, or in terms of the SFL
Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event which resulted in a
deduction of points takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event the
15 and 5 points deductions applicable in terms of Rules E2 or E3, in respect of such
a Deductible Insolvency Event shall instead be 25 and 15 points respectively.

The emphasis is mine.

Reading that, I would think that the relevant date is February 2012, which is when they went into the Administration that cost them 10 points. It could be argued that they then suffered a further Insolvency Event, in that they went into liquidation. However, they weren't deducted points for that.

It looks like, if they can make it past February, the deduction will be 15.

---

Of course, it could be argued that the insolvency event of Rangers 1872 is still ongoing at the liquidation scrapyard and the 5 year period should not start until it is finally laid to rest.

But only if they are the same Club ! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Here's the rule:-

Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different person and
whether such person or persons is or was a Member, has taken, suffered or been
subject to an Insolvency Event which resulted in a deduction of points in terms of
these Rules, whether a Deductible Insolvency Event or not, or in terms of the SFL
Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event which resulted in a
deduction of points takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event the
15 and 5 points deductions applicable in terms of Rules E2 or E3, in respect of such
a Deductible Insolvency Event shall instead be 25 and 15 points respectively.

The emphasis is mine.

Reading that, I would think that the relevant date is February 2012, which is when they went into the Administration that cost them 10 points. It could be argued that they then suffered a further Insolvency Event, in that they went into liquidation. However, they weren't deducted points for that.

It looks like, if they can make it past February, the deduction will be 15.

---

I think we can take it as given that they will 'do a hertz' and ensure a favourable outcome for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Of course, it could be argued that the insolvency event of Rangers 1872 is still ongoing at the liquidation scrapyard and the 5 year period should not start until it is finally laid to rest.

But only if they are the same Club ! :greengrin

---

I think the reality is they don't have to wait until February as a new club they would only be subject to the 15 point penalty. Maybe they will try to pull our legs again

:rolleyes:

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

I think the reality is they don't have to wait until February as a new club they would only be subject to the 15 point penalty. Maybe they will try to pull our legs again

:rolleyes:

:greengrin

---

The rules are quite clear. Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different person

The new club/old club argument is irrelevant on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The rules are quite clear. Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different person

The new club/old club argument is irrelevant on this point.

---

A good lawyer could ride a coach and horses through that wooly wording. How can you hold a new club liable for a previous clubs insolvency event?

Just my personal viewpoint and not looking for an argument.

:aok:

They will make it to February.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

A good lawyer could ride a coach and horses through that wooly wording. How can you hold a new club liable for a previous clubs insolvency event?

Just my personal viewpoint and not looking for an argument.

:aok:

---

That's based on your view that it's a new club, though. :greengrin

I might be missing something but I didn't see anything in Phil's article that was not already known and made me think it's any more likely than I thought it was before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

They will make it to February.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yep, that's my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's based on your view that it's a new club, though. :greengrin

---

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I might be missing something but I didn't see anything in Phil's article that was not already known and made me think it's any more likely than I thought it was before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I'm with you on that, too. It's basically just rehashing the audit report from the accounts, which was discussed everywhere at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

A good lawyer could ride a coach and horses through that wooly wording. How can you hold a new club liable for a previous clubs insolvency event?

Just my personal viewpoint and not looking for an argument.

:aok:

---

Because the new club has the old club's football license and the previous misdemeanors travel with the license.

At least , that is how I think it was explained in some SFA blurb a while back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Because the new club has the old club's football license and the previous misdemeanors travel with the license.

At least , that is how I think it was explained in some SFA blurb a while back.

---

Maybe similar to a criminal record or points on a driving licence?

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northstandhibby

Maybe similar to a criminal record or points on a driving licence?

:aok:

---

Or a bad smell. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Or a bad smell. :greengrin

---

:top marks

Just brilliant. First laugh out loud of the day for me.

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

It'll be interesting to see what happens at the end of the season if and when Sevco qualify for Europe. This bit suggests that they might be alright -

UEFA may choose (and possibly likely they will) to offer a settlement agreement, under Article 15, in a bid to allow the club to financially rehabilitate themselves and set out a 'roadmap' to reach break even, in the foreseeable future. This will allow the club to compete in competitions.

Also, in theory, Sevco have the Lying King's £30m (:faf:) warchest in reserve which might mitigate any bother they find themselves in.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

[/QUOTE]

Let's not forget our "authorities" will bend over (literally) to help them in any way they can too!

I recall Stirling wanting to change their name to the Stirling Albion Meerkats as part of a sponsorship deal, and the SFA said no.

Not that that would stop them reaching a different conclusion if Rangers wanted to do something similar.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the...ox-roof-issue/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the...ox-roof-issue/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Does he really think those in charge at Ibrox will respond to his inquiries?


He claims this has nothing to do with petty rivalry and he's only concerned about safety..... Aye, right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keekaboo

Does he really think those in charge at Ibrox will respond to his inquiries?


He claims this has nothing to do with petty rivalry and he's only concerned about safety..... Aye, right!

---

Agreed! If his real concern was about safety he would have made the same enquiry re PBS years ago!

Regardless of his angle, and i agree he is using the rusted roof brackets to highlight the lack of funds at Ibrox, there does appear to be a serious issue regarding the safety of those attending sectarian singing lessons in Govan. Maybe its not a bad thing that we're in Div 1, if it fell down while we were there we'd all get lifted for aggravated assault to rusted bolts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keekaboo

Does he really think those in charge at Ibrox will respond to his inquiries?


He claims this has nothing to do with petty rivalry and he's only concerned about safety..... Aye, right!

---

So he has an agenda - who cares? Personally I enjoy reading Phil's blogs. Like everyone else he gets some stuff correct and some wrong but he is a damn sight more insightful than the morons who represent our national newspapers.