Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

---

This logic seems sound. Question next: How could it be in the interests of Craig Whyte, Duff & Duffer, or Green Charlie to have the Huns suspended? (I've listed three interested parties separately there, though as we know they may all turn out to be in cahoots.) The idea that suspension might trigger a desired liquidation without any of these three getting any blame won't wash now shirley, as it was Duff & Duffer's action which ensured that FIFA got involved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

---

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.

a poignant post from kerrydale street

"In athletics and horse-racing, hurdles races present a unique challenge. An indomitable will and unmatched athletic prowess are not enough to ensure victory; fail to negotiate one of those barriers, even the last one with the finish line in sight, and you are out.

Life is a hurdles race, with multiple obstructions blocking the direct path between you and your important goals. Sometimes you just have to accept things as they are and get on with it. Sometimes you can plot a judicious course that lets you achieve your objectives while easing or even avoiding some of those challenges, but most of us know that the Easier Path is usually anything but.

At the very least least, you try not to make things any more difficult than they already are, but all of us know people who are their own worst enemies. The routinely eschew straightforward solutions that are obvious to others, complicate matters, alienate their family and friends, and turn their lives into an endless series of obstacles. In extreme cases, they create insuperable problems for themselves and for those around them, with tragic consequences. Rarely do they do this deliberately, but all too often they choose the Easier Path when taking on a challenge would bring an infinitely greater reward.

Amongst that group, our prurient attention is frequently drawn to individuals who despite a gilded inheritance and the innumerable social and financial advantages that go with it turn to excess and dissipation, and ultimately squander everything in a riotous display of narcissism and self-indulgence.

Consider the curious case of Rangers Football Club (in administration). Fifteen short years ago it was the dominant force in Scottish football, virtually unchallenged in its own back yard and with realistic ambitions of building a solid reputation as a leading player in Europe. A once-enfeebled Celtic had made enough of a comeback to pip Rangers at the post in a league that at times both teams seemed eager to lose, and with that Rangers’ coveted 10-in-a-row was gone. However, with a well-Established advantage over its old rivals and a turnover close to double that of Celtic, a Generation of Domination for Rangers seemed virtually assured; a straightforward, disciplined execution of the existing business plan would more than likely have been enough to secure it.

Rangers’ owner was not satisfied with that; he wanted more and he wanted it now. His search for ever-greater success was never subjected to any analysis of whether money could or should be thrown at the club, for the simple reason that he never once reached into his own pocket; Rangers’ Easier Path to dissolution was financed first with injections of capital from external investors, then with the club’ own capital base, followed by huge amounts of borrowing and finally by the evasion of legitimate tax liabilities in ever-more flagrant style.

In 1998, Rangers had the option of a largely unimpeded route to a successful, stable, prosperous and trophy-laden future. Today, it faces the loss of every trophy and virtually every individual match victory it has secured over the intervening years, and must fight for its very existence.

Over the next few months, Rangers must face several daunting challenges; and it must do so whilst bereft of money, leadership or (increasingly) friends. Amongst these are:

1 The proven SFA disrepute charge now being referred back to the Appellate Panel.

2 A further SFA charge for going to the CoS. This is not yet certain, but Stewart Regan tweeted last night that the SFA is in discussion with FIFA on the issue and it seems unlikely that FIFA will want to fudge a high-profile example of what is for them a very important issue.

3 Its impending liquidation – CVA my bahookie – and the need for a NewClub to go cap in hand to a disaffected SPL membership and try to cobble together 8 votes for a parachute.

4 The enquiry on player registrations and its seemingly inevitable conclusion that rules have been breached for a decade or more, and on a scale that dwarfs the 2011/12 disrepute charge, for which suspension and expulsion were actively considered.

5 Potentially, the ‘nuclear’ allegations regarding bungs to ex-managers and others, which if substantiated would surely lead to a fraud investigation in addition to the severe sporting penalties that would apply.

Any one of these issues has the potential to wipe Rangers from the face of Scottish football, or at least sideline it for an extended period and reduce it to a humbled, vastly-reduced rump of what it once was. And then there are the ‘unknown unknowns’.

This is no mere hurdles race, but a monstrous obstacle course of Rangers’ own creation, which it must face virtually alone, as the good-time friends who once adhered to the club are drifting away as the long-overdue ending of its largesse becomes ever more apparent, even to the most sycophantic among them.

There is something terribly sad about this all, the damage that has been done to so many other parties, the jobs that will be lost and the lives blighted by Rangers’ demise. There is also – finally – a real sense of justice being done, a righting of wrongs. A mighty hubris has preceded an equally mighty fall.

Some will mourn the end of Rangers as we have known them. Many others will agree with Oscar Wilde’s comment on the maudlin fictional death of Little Nell: “you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh”."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.



I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

---

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

---

The embargo would break the deal that's on the table now, but another deal could be struck that would keep the big hoose open which is fast becoming the best that the huns can hope for. Expulsion would kill them stone dead, so it's agree and suffer or disagree and die. They got themselves into this mess and they must accept the consequences.

The Ibrox club, must either accept the original 12-month transfer ban or risk being banned form Scottish football. (The Daily Mail) :thumbsup:

The Court of Session has no power over the SFA, if they want they could stick to their guns and impose the ban, which would set up a Scion type situation of Rangers no doubt attempting to ignore it.

At this stage I think 2 options emerge; 1. The ban stands, Rangers ignore it and get themselves pumped out of the game at the end of FIFA's rath. Or 2. The SFA ditches the ban and kicks them out now, either for a year or permanently, don't think it matters which as it means death either why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.

---

Aye and they would still beat us in the final.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual merits.

They DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

---

Exactly the point I was making. This shows an illogical way of dealing with issues which Doncaster has already stated publically that he considers are basically the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

How about the suspension from the cup for 5 years.

---

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

---

That would not be acceptable to me.

Any deal that keeps Rangers in the SPL will finish Scottish Football for me.

I'm reading the threads, twitter updates etc every day but as far as I can see this SFA thing is just for recently bringing the game into disrepute.

just the Craig Whyte stuff, which is a tiny proportion of what they've actually done ie there's plenty other stuff they can still be found guilty of. Even if it was just a Scottish Cup ban it wouldn't mean they're going to be in the SPL next season.

Interesting comment from "Paulie Walnuts" on RTC, who is a lawyer I believe.

(to clarify, Richard Keen represented RFC, Aidan O'Neill the SFA)

Quote:

---

I think suspension is very much on the cards. Anyone with experience of Lord Carloway will know that he is a hard man when he feels he has to be. He will certainly not bottle the decision or be scared of doing it. As you say we will find out then if the CAS will entertain an appeal then because despite what the ill informed peepul think there is no route to judicially review a suspension.

We will have to see whether Glennie writes on this. But I am told by those who sat through the hearing that he made very clear that there was no question of him acceding to Rihard Keen’s submission that he might slice out the embargo leaving only the fine standing, to the extent that he cut off Aidan O’Neill’s response on that issue by saying AO’N didn’t need to address it because it wasn’t going to happen. His reasoning was that the tribunal had selected the embargo as a compromise because they thought a fine woefully insufficient and suspension or expulsion too severe, but if Rangers wanted to force the tribunal to make that choice it was absolutely entitled to do so and was absolutely entitled to select suspension or expulsion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

I'm reading the threads, twitter updates etc every day but as far as I can see this SFA thing is just for recently bringing the game into disrepute.

just the Craig Whyte stuff, which is a tiny proportion of what they've actually done ie there's plenty other stuff they can still be found guilty of. Even if it was just a Scottish Cup ban it wouldn't mean they're going to be in the SPL next season.

---

Correct. This is the outcome of the Nimmo-Smith enquiry which concerned events surrounding the takeover and Whyte's subsequent ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Exactly the point I was making. This shows an illogical way of dealing with issues which Doncaster has already stated publically that he considers are basically the same.

---

I think he made "those" statements before the latest meeting, though, didn't he? As others have said, his stance seems to be shifting. Indeed, it probably has to, given that the clubs have made those decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

You beat me to it. That would be a severe punishment without actually killing them off.

Not my preference, of course.

---

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

---

Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

---

I think the SPL and SFA are 2 very different beasts when it comes to this saga. SPL/Doncaster have so far followed a Hun at all costs mentality, SFA/Regan much less so. SFA judicial panels came up with the signing embargo and upheld it on appeal. No reason to think they will go easy 3rd time, especially with FIFA watching over their shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

Not disagreeing with what you say. However, SFA can't impose a transfer embargo unless Rangers agree to accept that. If the embargo is a deal breaker I don't see how Rangers can agree to it. So what to do then does become the SFA's problem too.

---

Its important to note that it is not a transfer embargo, but a ban on new registrations. That means, existing players can be re-signed or sold. This means Rangers can sell any players they wish (high earners) and keep any players they can agree salaries with. The only thing they can't do is sign new players over the age of 18. They have hardly made any signings for years and I'm sure under Walter Smith they went over a year without making a signing, so it won't kill them. It would mean they would have no chance of winning the league, but they'd still be able to put together a squad (from their existing players) that would be capable of holding their own in the SPL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Everybody knows they should go more punitive yet Everybody knows they will go more lenient.

This game of finding a punishment which really isn't a punishment for Rangers is getting tedious now.

---

I don't think they can go more lenient. They must still be punished for the original crime but they must now also be punished for dragging the game into the ordinary courts. Neil Donkeycaster and all his chums could come out of Hampden wearing full Rangers strip waving a union jack and shouting "We arra Peepul" it won't make a blind bit of difference to FIFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It might kill them off, though. One of Green's conditions is that they have to be in all domestic competitions next season. If he decides to back out because of a 5 year ban, then they are looking at liquidation.

---

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

---

How much of an impact will not getting Craig Whyte's shares have on Greens takeover? I posted a number of pages back that he stated that the deal to get Whytes shares is void if the CVA fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

Its important to note that it is not a transfer embargo, but a ban on new registrations. That means, existing players can be re-signed or sold. This means Rangers can sell any players they wish (high earners) and keep any players they can agree salaries with. The only thing they can't do is sign new players over the age of 18. They have hardly made any signings for years and I'm sure under Walter Smith they went over a year without making a signing, so it won't kill them. It would mean they would have no chance of winning the league, but they'd still be able to put together a squad (from their existing players) that would be capable of holding their own in the SPL.

---

I think a lot of it is to do with the season after next though....with a vastly depleted squad they might find it hard to qualify for Europe, which i believe if they dont go down the Newco route there is no reason for them not to get access. THey will expect to finish in the top 4 next season and get into Europe and the additional income that provides may be a vital part of Greens business plan. ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

How much of an impact will not getting Craig Whyte's shares have on Greens takeover? I posted a number of pages back that he stated that the deal to get Whytes shares is void if the CVA fails.

---

It wouldn't matter because he's starting a new company. The old Rangers FC plc (IA) would be selling all their assets to this newco which would then become the football operation. The oldco would then use the proceeds of the sale (£5.5m) to pay of the creditors in liquidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I think a lot of it is to do with the season after next though....with a vastly depleted squad they might find it hard to qualify for Europe, which i believe if they dont go down the Newco route there is no reason for them not to get access. THey will expect to finish in the top 4 next season and get into Europe and the additional income that provides may be a vital part of Greens business plan. ??

---

Are they not banned from Europe for 3 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

It's only the CVA that carries those conditions though, and that could fail anyway if Hector or Ticketus don't like it. If the CVA does fail Green is contractually bound to go down the newco route, so there would still be a Rangers FC of sorts.

---

That's not how I read it.... but feel free to slap me down :greengrin

I read it as 1. as you say, there is no CVA without SPL or SC football, but also

2. the WHOLE DEAL, ie "if the CVA fails, we buy the assets..." is also off if there is no SPL/SC.

So... it's (a) if there's SPL/SC next season, and the CVA works, then bingo. (b) if there's SPL/SC, and no CVA, we'll buy the assets. (c) if there's no SPL/SC, we are out.

Thoughts?


Edit.. I have just had another thought. If there is no CVA, they buy the assets, and then the SPL says "you're no getting in".... then does the deal have to be reversed?... or has CG just got the bargain of the year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

Are they not banned from Europe for 3 years?

---

As far as i know it is only 1 season, the 3 yr ban is IF they go down the Newco route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

As far as i know it is only 1 season, the 3 yr ban is IF they go down the Newco route.

---

Oh right, I see. :aok:

It's all getting a bit dull now. They're dead. The only things that need to be confirmed are the time and cause of death. Mind you, that in itself may end up being a 300+ page thread ...