Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

They've gone to civil court - dead

Double contracts – double dead

Already found guilty of a whole host of stuff - dead dead dead

EBTs not looking good - dead x52

£55m in debt with about £90m more to come - dead

More whispers going on than you get in the Whispering Gallery on a school holiday about stuff that the SOCA 6s and international arrest warrants are made of - really seriously dead dead dead dead dead dead.

Inciting criminal damage, violence and death threats - dead

Just be****ingcause - dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

They've gone to civil court - dead

Double contracts – double dead

Already found guilty of a whole host of stuff - dead dead dead

EBTs not looking good - dead x52

£55m in debt with about £90m more to come - dead

More whispers going on than you get in the Whispering Gallery on a school holiday about stuff that the SOCA 6s and international arrest warrants are made of - really seriously dead dead dead dead dead dead.

Inciting criminal damage, violence and death threats - dead

Just be****ingcause - dead

---

They should have had you on Newsnight last night. Much better than the two numpties.

:not worth

Any rangers fans I know on Facebook were last night giving it the GIRUY to the SFA and saying that the over rule is their "1st step to recovery". Are they really that blinkered? Do they really think that is the punishment quashed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoobs99

If FIFA's rules state that the Scottish courts hold no sway with how the SFA can punish their clubs, then I don't see how the SFA could then change from their original decision, to make the transfer ban into a suspension or some such.

If the SFA do change their original decision, then regardless of what they change it to, they will still be seen to have changed in the face of what the Scottish Court decided. This would result in the SFA, and by extension FIFA, being dictated to by a court, rather than an official FIFA sanctioned panel. Even if they change the decision to a harsher punishment, they will still seem weaker.

They might be allowed to punish Rangers a second time for taking legal action in the courts though, so they could now end up with a transfer embargo plus whatever punishment is in the rules for taking legal action against the SFA.

Any idea what these could be? I don't know if it counts as bringing the game into disrepute, or if there are a different set of options in a FIFA rule book somewhere, most likely being a fine I imagine.

PS I imagine that the SFA will be looking to clarify their rule book in time for next season!

---

First of all, I'm not convinced that Lord Glennie has got it right. From what I can see there is no prohibition of a signing embargo in the rules but they do allow the panel to levy whatever sanction they deem appropriate - I can't see how the judge reached his conclusion on that basis. The normal remedy would be for the SFA to appeal against the judgement, but I doubt whether UEFA's rules allow that. On the other hand, if they do just go ahead with the embargo they could now be open to a lawsuit from Rangers for going against the direction of the court. I wonder if they could go to CAS.

The legal action by Rangers shows a member club dissenting from its association so the charge would be bringing the game into disrepute. In some ways the answer is becoming ever clearer - expulsion or a year's suspension would override the need for a signing embargo and punish RFC appropriately for their continuing misdemeanours and it's within the rules that RFC signed up to, so no possibility of a lawsuit. We just need someone with guts to carry it out.

I can't see that the SFA have done too much wrong TBH, but as my old ma said when I wallpapered her front room -


What a f*****g mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

Allegedly, there were a lot of payments over a number of years to a former employee. Can't possibly name him on a public forum.

---

Can we play a hangman game on this one? You know the one where you start with a lot of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and then get to guess letters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrinityHibs

Can we play a hangman game on this one? You know the one where you start with a lot of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and then get to guess letters.

---

I'm first with the letter S.... and there are three of them :greengrin

I don't have anywhere near a clue as to how any of this CVA, BTC, HMRC etc etc stuff works but I did get the jist that the Huns are saying if the CVA goes through there will be a pot of circa 8.5mil for creditors but less 5.5mil for D & P admin fee, leaving less than 4mil for creditors..

My question is, why arent they being made to sell Ibrox, Murray Park, Players etc etc to pay off as much of what they owe as possible?

Surely the previous mentioned "assests" are worth far more than 4mil?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...r-ban.17734308

Quote:

---

The SFA, which has been left to foot the bill for Rangers' legal costs, will be required to impose another punishment. Only suspension, a further fine or expulsion remain.

Fifa, world football's governing body, last night warned action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge the embargo.

The exact punishment is yet to be decided, but could involve the club being ejected from next year's Scottish Cup, or further fines.

It could even mean the doomsday scenario of Rangers being thrown out of football, although this remains an unlikely prospect, given the club's economic value to the Scottish game.

The SFA is angry that Rangers deliberately set themselves on a direct collision course with the game's lawmakers, with one source saying: "We could be looking at expulsion now. Rangers should be careful what they wish for."

SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

I don't have anywhere near a clue as to how any of this CVA, BTC, HMRC etc etc stuff works but I did get the jist that the Huns are saying if the CVA goes through there will be a pot of circa 8.5mil for creditors but less 5.5mil for D & P admin fee, leaving less than 4mil for creditors..

My question is, why arent they being made to sell Ibrox, Murray Park, Players etc etc to pay off as much of what they owe as possible?

Surely the previous mentioned "assests" are worth far more than 4mil?

---

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

---

.....which is 1.5 million more than is currently on offer to the creditors, after costs?


Edit: Obviously, I forgot that the administrators would have to be paid in this scenario also........

Apologies if it has been said already, but Lord Glennie is, effectively, calling a senior QC and a Supreme Court judge a pair of morons for failing to see the apparent lack of regulation covering a transfer embargo. I can't see either of these gentlemen being impressed by this line of reasoning so I can see this case being bounced back to the Court of Session by Lord Carloway in particular. I suspect words may have already been exchanged on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

D&P would still have to get their fees out of the proceeds, the players would have no value as they would not be registered to any club and according to D&P Ibrox, Murray Park etc are only worth £4.5m.

---

Is that not only if they become a newco?

So D & P get more money than any of the creditors who are actually entitled to it?!

What a farce!!!

Wasnt MP, IP & other assests valued at over 100mil not so recently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...r-ban.17734308

---

"SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment."

:agree: Half-season suspension is not enough. Suspend them for 35 of the 38 games, allowing them 3 televised bigotfests to keep The Donkey happy, then relegate them for having no more than than 9 points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm first with the letter S.... and there are three of them :greengrin

---

Hmmm... I think that you might guess the soonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

Hmmm... I think that you might guess the soonest.

---

Dunno, my brain's gone all Gray...mmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Is that not only if they become a newco?

So D & P get more money than any of the creditors who are actually entitled to it?!

What a farce!!!

Wasnt MP, IP & other assests valued at over 100mil not so recently?

---

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.

---

I only skim read the document, but Close Finance have a secured claim, presumably over the catering equipment. This will be the infamous "pie mortgage".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

... as my old ma said when I wallpapered her front room -
What a f*****g mess.

---

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Sorry, I thought you were meaning selling them all as part of a liquidation/newco. There's certainly a strong argument for selling at least some of the assets, but D&P's argument would be that they wouldn't be able to get the £8.5m from Green if the assets were depleted.

As far as their fees are concerned D&P have done the work (I won't comment on how well they've done it) so they're entitled to be paid - if the creditors feel the fees are excessive they can contest them.

And yes, the properties were valued at £112m and they also have fixtures and fittings valued at £3.5m that haven't had a mention anywhere.

It is indeed a farce.

---

Indeed it is.

But are'nt Duff & Duffer being investigated by their own regulatory body, regarding the BBC TV programme conflict of interest stuff?

Yet to hear about this outcome.



:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Milne

Apologies if it has been said already, but Lord Glennie is, effectively, calling a senior QC and a Supreme Court judge a pair of morons for failing to see the apparent lack of regulation covering a transfer embargo. I can't see either of these gentlemen being impressed by this line of reasoning so I can see this case being bounced back to the Court of Session by Lord Carloway in particular. I suspect words may have already been exchanged on this topic.

---

But if the SFA appeal this then it shows they are being influenced by a civil court and that does not sit well with FIFA, best thing is SFA stick with original punishment and hand out further punishment to Rangers for taking this to court in the first place (as they are obliged to do under FIFA rules)

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/...onal-disgrace/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/...onal-disgrace/

---

I am intrigued by his hinting at HMRC's conditions for accepting a CVA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoobs99

If FIFA's rules state that the Scottish courts hold no sway with how the SFA can punish their clubs, then I don't see how the SFA could then change from their original decision, to make the transfer ban into a suspension or some such.

If the SFA do change their original decision, then regardless of what they change it to, they will still be seen to have changed in the face of what the Scottish Court decided. This would result in the SFA, and by extension FIFA, being dictated to by a court, rather than an official FIFA sanctioned panel. Even if they change the decision to a harsher punishment, they will still seem weaker.

They might be allowed to punish Rangers a second time for taking legal action in the courts though, so they could now end up with a transfer embargo plus whatever punishment is in the rules for taking legal action against the SFA.

Any idea what these could be? I don't know if it counts as bringing the game into disrepute, or if there are a different set of options in a FIFA rule book somewhere, most likely being a fine I imagine.

PS I imagine that the SFA will be looking to clarify their rule book in time for next season!

---

Taking Sion as an example they were never allowed (I don't think) to play the players they had signed under the transfer embargo and were ejected from the Europa league. In response to their continued resort to the courts they were deducted a further 36 points and were only saved from relegation because another team were ejected from league totally. They then had to play off against a team from the lower division and won it to stay up. This was all under pressure from FIFA , so RFC and the SFA lookout , big brother is watching and Celtic are involved because it was in the match against them that Sion played illegally signed players and drew FIFA's attention to the whole matter so they will be watching closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnrebus

Indeed it is.

But are'nt Duff & Duffer being investigated by their own regulatory body, regarding the BBC TV programme conflict of interest stuff?

Yet to hear about this outcome.


:cb

---

Indeed this whole fiasco, from the start of administration has been nothing short of a total farce. None of the parties involved can take credit from their conduct. Its long overdue for the blame to be laid at the door of the guilty party i.e. Rangers and their apologists. I am frankly sick to fed up listening to how Scottish football needs Rangers a club who have stolen money from everyone in this country and are doing their best to trash what little is left of the reputation of Scottish football. If the SFA don't throw the book at them now, I simply despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I am intrigued by his hinting at HMRC's conditions for accepting a CVA.

---

Isn't this the guidance about HMRC's view on CVAs being affected if they believe that PAYE/NI has been purposefully withheld? I can't remember where I saw this, there has been so much to take in. I liked the RTC conclusion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTC

There comes a time when Scottish football must act to prevent further damage. In doing so, it has a chance of making the stain of embarrassment less permanent. Of the options available, a one year ban from all competitions would seem to be a starting point for considering apt punishment. The next penalty down the list of official sanctions- exclusion from the Scottish Cup- would be far too lenient for a club that appears to have completed the entire 2011/12 season without paying any PAYE or NIC. Other clubs had to cut costs and make tough decisions to get through the year. Other clubs had to take roughly half of their staff budget and hand it over to HMRC. Even in administration, Rangers got to avoid cutting their playing squad by screwing the British taxpayer over yet again. Allow them off with a wrist-slap and many fans will just see Scottish football as a form of professional wrestling with Rangers FC as the scripted winner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

"SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment."

:agree: Half-season suspension is not enough. Suspend them for 35 of the 38 games, allowing them 3 televised bigotfests to keep The Donkey happy, then relegate them for having no more than than 9 points.

---

Is that Andy Kerr from the supporters group for real? He doesn't seem to realise that the SFA are there to PUNISH them? :confused: Apparently the SFA should be doing everything to ensure they keep playing? The attitude from the lot of them is truly beyond belief!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Isn't this the guidance about HMRC's view on CVAs being affected if they believe that PAYE/NI has been purposefully withheld? I can't remember where I saw this, there has been so much to take in. I liked the RTC conclusion:

---

Yeah, there is an HMRC web-page that sets out their attitude. I haven't time to look for it just now, but from memory there was something about keeping PAYE and VAT payments going. However, my reaction to reading that at the time was that it was almost irrelevant, in light of HMRC's normal policy on CVA's for football clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

More good stuff from the award winning blog:

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/...onal-disgrace/

---

A very good article again that reflects the growing anger that everyone outside Rangers Football Club must be feeling.

I wonder if it's time to start up a petition demanding their removal/suspension from the game (as opposed to the survey that Doncaster apparently managed to creep out of its findings).

I got a friend request a few weeks ago from a guy on Facebook, a Hun I've met before and had a pint with, but ultimately a Hun.

Yesterday he had 'get it up yis, IRA child molesters' and he's got some silly stat about their 'march to hampden' as his profile pic

I know another couple of alright Rangers fans but the majority of them are like the above - I want them to die completely. Do I hate Rangers more than I love Hibs? I don't think so but maybe...

The analogy would be do you hate Hitler more than you love Britain during the Second World War? They are the football equivalent of the nazis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

What, you don't think that Archie MacPherson, some hun apologist accountant, and some hun sitting on an STV sofa for fifteen minutes blethering pish constitutes investigative journalism at its finest? :dunno:

---

Haha that amused me. Just on the subject of Archie MacPherson, he nearly made me smash my TV last night. To come out with the "Scottish football needs Rangers" line after all that's happened defies belief. He seems to have not listened to anything that's been said since 14 Feb.