Printable View
According to the SFA website, the Licencing requirements for SPL clubs are the same as we have spoken about before.... ie the UEFA standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I am not sure how a completely new club would be able to satisfy those requirements, particularly the financial ones.
so do newco1 (BK etc) just buy the assets they want and leave the rest behind ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
or do they have to buy everything and then start a newco2 again and then transfer the good stuff ?
The former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
They would probably want the properties, the players, the SFA licence and the SPL share. (oh, and the "history" :greengrin)
They can start a newco at any time. Indeed, they may have already for all we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
If OldHuns are liquidated they (NewHuns) make an offer for the assets they want (stadium, training ground, players' registrations) to the liquidator. The liquidator then uses that money to pay a dividend to creditors. Everything else dies with OldHuns
That would only work if NewHuns buy the assets of OldHuns whilst it's in administration, I think. In a liquidation, I think the players' contracts revert to the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Do the administrators have the power to sell off assets against the will of the existing shareholders including Craig Whyte and the creditors including HMRC and Ticketus (and HoMFC)?
That seems close to what happened with Leeds United.
Not without a CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
So that means that any NewHun will have to deal with Craig Whyte unless they go for the nuclear option of liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I can't see it will make a lot of difference. I don't think that there is a lot of value in Rangers' playing staff in the current economic climate. Most Championship sides are feeling the pinch and will not be paying silly wages and transfer fees. I can't think of many Rangers players who will fit into the Premiership easily.
Whittaker maybe? Davis has been there before and failed to make an impact. Wallace possibly assuming Alex McLeish keeps his job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Dont know if these particular SFA gems have been mentioned yet relating to a Uefa Club Licence which would seem to exclude Newhun FC;
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resource...icence (2).pdf
Have to a member of the SFA for three years before you can apply for one, a requirement to compete in the SPL.
AND Rule 3.3.1 "3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another."
See page 154 post 4620.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quite damning, by my reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Next question.... is it correct that an SPL member needs an SFA Licence? Please say yes.
As the governing body, it would seem self evident. Hence the reason to register accounts and contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What I hoped. Sorry, just trying to get all the silly questions sorted before Chick asks them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
And I'm still in my post-holiday fug, so the brain isn't properly working yet. :greengrin
Brian Kennedy made an improved offer for Rangers according to BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17683898
Just after more free publicity and more shots in the paper/online of him looking like a fud in his Ray-Bans. He's clearly a time-waster.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
A time-waster yes, but he's giving them hope when there is none. Sooooo cruel.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Hell awaits Huns!!!
This is worth a wee read too CWG. Vindicates what you have been saying all along about HMRC's aversion to CVA's.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/0...agreements-25/
I sincerely hope that the guy writing that blog is not a lawyer. He has immense difficulty in stringing two sentences together and making sense. Sorry, but that blog is a mess. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
It was the events that took place that I was interested in, rather than the syntax to be honest. HMRC appeared to fight very hard against the CVA and had their claim diluted by the administrators (tax on image rights:- HMRC claimed £11m, Administrators recognise:- £1 (one pound))Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
By disregarding the £11m the administrators pushed through the CVA much to the chagrin of HMRC.
...which can't happen at Ipox, regardless of the outcome of the BTC, due to the sums involved, and the portion therein owed to HMRC already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
CVA only possible with HMRC approval, which is unlikely to be conferred to say the least. Liquidation is inevitable, and then the fun really starts.
I still find it presumptious to assume that Rangers will be one of the top two in the SPL this time next year.
I'm not so sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
At the moment, the estimated debt is £134m, which contains an estimate of HMRC debt at £75m; £15m of that is uncontested, and presumably £60m is the BTC.
If the BTC goes Rangers way, total debt is reduced to £74m, of which £15m is due to HMRC. If the rest of the creditors vote for a CVA, and that's almost 80%, it will be passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That £74m - £15m includes the sum due to Ticketus who will fight tooth and nail not to lumped in with the other creditors by either joining with the successful bidding party or by going to the English Courts and eventually the Supreme Court to have the Scottish Courts decision on their status overturned.
Every time Duff and Duffer try loosen the Knots der Hun are tied up in another noose is tightened. :greengrin
Whether they like it or not, though, they ARE a creditor. That's the key here.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If they want to vote against the CVA, that's their prerogative. However, by any definition, RFC owe them money.
Just saw some rumours doing the rounds that Rangers have lodged liquidation papers with companies house. I'd imagine this is probably incorrect information but thought I'd put it out there to see if any one else has heard this. I've not been able to find the actual source of this but there's numerous mentions about it on twitter.
AFAIK, the company has to call a creditors' meeting before it can do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny
As I expected then... nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny
It is a false alarm , the new papers lodged at Companies House by Duff and Phelps relate to the Creditors Statement of a couple of weeks ago.
I wish the Tax Tribunal would publish so the Yams can get their very ugly letter from HMRC as well. :aok:
IIRC a few weeks back, the creditors meeting was scheduled for 20th April. Duff and Duffer have said they want a preferred bidder nailed down by tomorrow too. We'll maybe see some apocalyptic decisions being made in the next 24 hours.
Coincidentally tomorrow is Hitler's birthday.
Please don't use the words "apocalyptic" and "Hitler" in the same post :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The first creditors' meeting, AFAIK, has to be held within 10 weeks of the start of the administration. That 10 weeks is up next week, hence the scheduling.
Your numbers are slightly out there CWG.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The £134M is best case BTC verdict and max penalties putting total HMRC debt at £93M or 69%.
Worst case Huns win BTC and Ticketus included as £27M creditor: total debt is £55M with HMRC at £15M or 27%.