Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Yet I am struggling to see what they have achieved on that front....with the club seemingly making further losses and as yet no confirmed bid.

I'm confused as to just how they are being kept alive, if as they seemed to state the club is still running at a loss who is covering that loss and looking at their list of creidtors I also struggle to understading just how the club is functioning in any sensible manner at all.

Had to laugh at McCoist getting a but uppity about the delay the other day saying they needed to organise pre season friendlies and a tour....urmmm you might need the club to still be in existance first Ally!!

---

The question of whether or not they are running at a "loss" is, IMO, almost irrelevant. At this stage, it's all about cash. They were able to negotiate the reduction in salaries, which gave them the cash-flow to trade until the end of the season, and to give them time to find a buyer. That cash is still there, and that is how they are still operating.

The problem now, though, is that the end of the season is approaching fast. Income will all but disappear... although they will probably have SPL prize-money to come.... and the question of the players' salaries will re-emerge. Some salaries will go back to what they were, some players may walk. The cash flow will become critical at that point. If there is no clear buying process in place, I can see the admins circling the wagons and winding things up.

Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?

If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Liquidation before the season end means all their fixtures are void and automatic relegation with no opportunity to plead for special treatment.

I think they still expect to be in the SPL next season.

---

Agreed.

If they went into liquidation now, or for any reason were unable to fulfil any fixtures, before the end of the season it would be curtains, no way back, they'd be toast, history – even for the 3^rd division. Deed!

Keeping them on a life support machine means they may come out of the coma but I think the common thought is they are already brain dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?

If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.

---

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

---

I think the SFA delegated the double contracts issue to the SPL so as the SFA can act as an appeal tribunal.

Of course Doncaster could have the double contracts in triplicate on his desk and still conclude nothing is proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Liquidation before the season end means all their fixtures are void and automatic relegation with no opportunity to plead for special treatment.

---

I don't think all fixtures would be voided as the phase one fixtures are now complete. It would result in the top six becoming a top five and a 37-match series for them. The bottom six would not be affected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I think the SFA delegated the double contracts issue to the SPL so as the SFA can act as an appeal tribunal.

Of course Doncaster could have the double contracts in triplicate on his desk and still conclude nothing is proven.

---

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get :greengrin

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get :greengrin

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

---

Wish I had your faith. He wants to maximise income for the SPL and he sees Rangers being there as crucial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?

If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.

---

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

---

I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get :greengrin

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

---

I have a feeling that the Broadcasting contracts were negotiated by Doncaster and he sees them as his baby. For that reason he is desperate to keep Rangers in the top flight otherwise his incompetence in allowing the inclusion of the four OF games clause with no apparent plan B will be exposed to an even greater extent.

I wonder if that was also why he was so keen on the 10-team SPL - there were already noises about Rangers financial problems and a distinct possibility that they would drop to the bottom six, thereby losing one of the derbies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.



I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

---

Okay, so if I understand you, that would suggest that the SPL, although conducting their own investigation, will wait for the BTC verdict before they issue theirs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Okay, so if I understand you, that would suggest that the SPL, although conducting their own investigation, will wait for the BTC verdict before they issue theirs?

---

I would have thought so. The BTC findings ought to be a substantial part of their investigation even if it isn't as conclusive as I think it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I would have thought so. The BTC findings ought to be a substantial part of their investigation even if it isn't as conclusive as I think it should be.

---

Okay.

What I am not clear about, and I mentioned it earlier, is the extent to which the Tribunal publishes the evidence. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but if all they do is publish the verdict.......

I will do some digging, unless you know the answer off the top of your heid?

Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Okay.

What I am not clear about, and I mentioned it earlier, is the extent to which the Tribunal publishes the evidence. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but if all they do is publish the verdict.......

I will do some digging, unless you know the answer off the top of your heid?

---

No, I don't know that. I would think they would have to give fairly detailed reasons for their decision though, for the puroses of both explaining it to both sides and for future reference (although I believe the tribunal's decision would not set a specific legal precedence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

No, I don't know that. I would think they would have to give fairly detailed reasons for their decision though, for the puroses of both explaining it to both sides and for future reference (although I believe the tribunal's decision would not set a specific legal precedence).

---

That's my understanding, as well.

It follows from that, that HMRC might not be able to rely on this case in dealing with other clubs. It would, however, give them a lot of ammunition.

In case you missed my previous edit:-

Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get :greengrin

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

---

Think Regan at the SFA is some hope (especially as he answers to Platini at UEFA). Doncaster on the other hand is already deliberately attempting to subvert the rules to get NewHuns in at any price (imo).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Think Regan at the SFA is some hope (especially as he answers to Platini at UEFA). Doncaster on the other hand is already deliberately attempting to subvert the rules to get NewHuns in at any price (imo).

---

I think that you are right here. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to satisfy UEFA that SFA affairs are being conducted properly and with due reference to Financial Fair Play. The sale of Jelavic, whilst still owing money to Rapid Vienna wil be a big issue at UEFA. They have come down hard on other clubs that have broken the rules.

Ultimately, I guess that UEFA could ban all Scottish clubs from participation in Europe. Imagine the
reaction at Darkheid !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.



I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

---

This is exactly what I was getting at, this seems to be how Rangers new identity is being positioned- if this turns out to be the case, things become so farcical that it is difficult to see a recovery of Scottish football integrity within a generation.

The very fact that the governing bodies are doing their damndest to ease RFC's sufferings is already doing untold damage. Lack of leadership and the ability to make the 'hard, but righteous' decisions is damaging Scottish football daily IMO

As mentioned above, Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston stated on RS last night that if they ever get to vote on the issue, the Pars will vote against the Hun newco.

Interview starts about 10 mins in to the latest podcast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot

Of course, you can hardly move for huge banner headlines splashing this extremely important but bad news for der Hun. :rolleyes:

Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect. :rolleyes:

C'mon Rod, do the decent thing and publically back Yorkston's view. :agree:

JeMeSouviens Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect

My undersatnding from the rules posted on here (quite a few pages back) was that the members voted on this first, and needed all 11 to back a Newco, and the boards duty was to implement this decision.

Have I misread this previously, or are the board interpreting the rules to suit themselves ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingertosser

Have I misread this previously, or are the board interpreting the rules to suit themselves ?

---

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).

Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).

Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea. :confused:

---

What are the rules on one club transferring its share to another, where neither is in administration or liquidation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I have a feeling that the Broadcasting contracts were negotiated by Doncaster and he sees them as his baby. For that reason he is desperate to keep Rangers in the top flight otherwise his incompetence in allowing the inclusion of the four OF games clause with no apparent plan B will be exposed to an even greater extent.

I wonder if that was also why he was so keen on the 10-team SPL - there were already noises about Rangers financial problems and a distinct possibility that they would drop to the bottom six, thereby losing one of the derbies.

---

I think that the new TV deal was introduced to kick any attempts to expand the SPL to 14 or 16 teams.

The other agenda was always to go back to 10 teams even though virtually no supporters want this to happen.

Doncaster lied continually to the press with a series of press statements to the effect that reconstruction had been agreed when there were clearly teams holding out against this.

I just get the impression that they are determined to foist a Newco Rangers on the SPL and then cut back to ten teams within the next couple of years, possibly via a complete league reconstruction and merger between the SPL and the SFL.

Scottish Football is entering its death throes.

It will be nice to go out on a Scottish Cup win though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

What are the rules on one club transferring its share to another, where neither is in administration or liquidation?

---

Quote:

---

TRANSFER OF SHARES
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
12 The instrument of transfer of a Share may be in any usual form or in any other form which the Board may approve and shall be executed by or on behalf of the transferor and, unless the Share is fully paid, by or on behalf of the transferee.

---

It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?

Quote:

---

SFA ARTICLES
96. Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the SFA for so long as it remains a member of the SFA. Each Member shall (in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so) procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the SFA applicable to it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea. :confused:

---

Don't know if there is a phrase, 'legal corruption', but if there's not then there should be.


:confused:

Can a company in administration start up a new company ?

Can a company in administration transfer anything without the creditors consent ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?

---

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingertosser

Can a company in administration start up a new company ?

Can a company in administration transfer anything without the creditors consent ?

---

It would be the shareholders of the new company (eg the BK's , or Billy the Ng) who would start up the NewCo. They would buy the assets of the old company as part of the purchase agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

---

no it's the 6 apologists, most of whom have already backed a Newco being readmitted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

---

No it's the 6 stooges: Ralph "(not exactly a) Dream" Topping, Doncaster, plus club reps (currently Celtic, Well, St J, D Utd). In the event of a 3-3, Ralph "the worst living Hibby apart from Brian Kennedy" Topping has the casting vote.