Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Donkastrian pish.

---

Dont know if the guy who wrote the article had any agenda .. as I recall he made no comment about the ability of Scottish football clubs to get through without a TV deal. As far as I know he was only giving his informed opinion regarding SKY's attitude to the current situation and what he thought they were likely to do based on his experience.

IMO ... As long as stuff is put in place to ensure as much as possible that no innocent club goes to the wall SKY can stick their TV deal. The loss of clubs who had nothing to do ( as individual clubs ) with the current crisis is the only worry I would have about it and is the only possible reason I would talerate THEM in SFL1. ....... I am well aware that for most this isnt a consideration and so be it.

As it is it looks more and more likely that the Zombie Huns will be in Div 3 next season and if thats the case nobody will be more pleased than me. One things for sure, this should be a decision for the SFL and them alone, without any pressure or if you like 'blackmail' from the SPL or SFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainboy19

STV reporting Brechin will vote yes to Rangers in SFL 1 tomorrow.

---

The reason for a "yes" vote for Brechin is they will get Newco in Ramsdens Cup if Newco in SFL1 and if Dundee promoted - as per information passed forward from Div 2 director - sneaky horrible barstwewards. :fuming:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely disagree. Why should a football club get cash ahead of the taxpayer, or the wee corner shop?

---

I agree on a moral level it should be split evenly but for some warped reason I can't explain I think SPL prize money should stay with clubs.

Wouldn't have complaints either way and it would be funny just cos it's hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YehButNo But

Rangers released this statement today re season tickets.


"The Club is disappointed it has been unable to provide season ticket holders with clarity on the arrangements for season ticket renewals.

As you are aware, there is a meeting tomorrow with the SFL board and member clubs to discuss which division Rangers will play in next season.

Following that meeting we hope to be in a position to provide greater clarity on season ticket renewals, pricing and payment processes - which will be communicated directly with season ticket holders.

The Club would like to thank season ticket holders once again for their patience during this difficult period."

---

How did they release the statement? Should they be saying Rangers as they are technically no longer a football club neither are Sevco Scotland. How can you sell season tickets when you don't know what league you are going to play in...if any? Trading standards please!

It was released on the official Rangers website as per the link I posted a couple or so pages back. I agree with what you are saying. But to answer one of your questions, Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland bought the rights to the name and badge as part of the £5.5m that Green & friends paid. So yes they can say 'Rangers' as they own that brand now and as for Trading Standards the only people who should really be complaining are the Hun fans and most of them think Trading Standards are the big flags the Shankill Road shop keepers hold up on big poles when they are marching on an Orange walk :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Kay-Yay

How did they release the statement? Should they be saying Rangers as they are technically no longer a football club neither are Sevco Scotland. How can you sell season tickets when you don't know what league you are going to play in...if any? Trading standards please!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lungo--Drom

It was released on the official Rangers website as per the link I posted a couple or so pages back. I agree with what you are saying. But to answer one of your questions, Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland bought the rights to the name and badge as part of the £5.5m that Green & friends paid. So yes they can say 'Rangers' as they own that brand now
Cheers
and as for Trading Standards the only people who should really be complaining are the Hun fans and most of them think Trading Standards are the big flags the Shankill Road shop keepers hold up on big poles when they are marching on an Orange walk :devil:

---

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YehButNo But

Rangers released this statement today re season tickets.


"The Club is disappointed it has been unable to provide season ticket holders with clarity on the arrangements for season ticket renewals.

As you are aware, there is a meeting tomorrow with the SFL board and member clubs to discuss which division Rangers will play in next season.

Following that meeting we hope to be in a position to provide greater clarity on season ticket renewals, pricing and payment processes - which will be communicated directly with season ticket holders.

The Club would like to thank season ticket holders once again for their patience during this difficult period."

---

'difficult period' with no money coming in I assume. I've been wondering how sevco are paying the wages of all the staff at the moment. Or are oldco still doing that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

Nice to see the huns have still got other interests outside of football :aok: Keep them cheerful in these tough economic times.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/...at=top-stories

---

Coming to a Third Division ground near you from August:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

I'm pretty sure it was a couple of weeks ago and someone had checked with Registers of Scotland.

---

Ocht, I hate it when reality scunners my conspiracy theories.

Still, it does mean that BDO will be all over that particular transaction..... :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Future17

I disagree. The creditors are only entitled to money to which the OldCo was entitled. The OldCo aren't entitled to the prize money due to unpaid and overdue debts to member clubs.

---

This is why lawyers are so rich :greengrin

We'll need to agree to disagree. :aok:

CWG, think of it as the SPL creditors having a security over the SPL prize money. The unsecured creditors only get what's left.

alex thomson ‏@alextomo
New blog sent on leaked email from S Regan - if lawyers likes might be up tonight/ tomorrow.

Exciting stuff. My guess is that the SFA and SPL are going to finally do the right thing and make Sevco rejoin the bottom tier of Scottish football, before quickly introducing a new proposition for a 40 team SPL. Each team plays each other once (at Ibrox) and all gate receipts go to Chuckie Green for the Rangers Fighting Fund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee

Actually spoke to a reasonable Hun in the pub tonight who wants the SFL 3 because of the cheating Murray years. Nothing about getting back at other teams. Quite impressed. :confused:

---

One of my dad's old friends, also a 'reasonable hun', was saying that anything other than SFL 3 as a minimum, would be wrong. He'd prefer that Rangers started again at the bottom of the pile and worked their way back up to the SPL in a dignified manner - no hand outs, no bending the rules.....

I too was quite impressed - though the person I speak of is a good, intelligent guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

CWG, think of it as the SPL creditors having a security over the SPL prize money. The unsecured creditors only get what's left.

---

I'm trying not to say anymore, cos I'm obviously in a minority of one....




Ach, sod it. I see your point, but can't agree. There is no security, just a rule that isn't supported by law. (IMO!!!) I would, however, like to hear two lawyers argue it in Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dinkydoo

One of my dad's old friends, also a 'reasonable hun', was saying that anything other than SFL 3 as a minimum, would be wrong. He'd prefer that Rangers started again at the bottom of the pile and worked their way back up to the SPL in a dignified manner - no hand outs, no bending the rules.....

I too was quite impressed - though the person I speak of is a good, intelligent guy.

---

They're going for this option in the belief it will be sanction free and they'll walk every league

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm trying not to say anymore, cos I'm obviously in a minority of one....




Ach, sod it. I see your point, but can't agree. There is no security, just a rule that isn't supported by law. (IMO!!!) I would, however, like to hear two lawyers argue it in Court.

---

I agree with you.

Any money, prize money or otherwise, owed to the oldco should be split amongst the creditors pro rata.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

I agree with you.

Any money, prize money or otherwise, owed to the oldco should be split amongst the creditors pro rata.

---

:party:

You and me, kid, you and me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm trying not to say anymore, cos I'm obviously in a minority of one....




Ach, sod it. I see your point, but can't agree. There is no security, just a rule that isn't supported by law. (IMO!!!) I would, however, like to hear two lawyers argue it in Court.

---

Right, to put it another way, the money due to Rangers FC (RIP) had conditions attached to it. Those conditions are that RFC pay off any debts due to other SPL members - it's written into the rules that RFC signed up to, so it forms a contract. Rangers haven't delivered on that condition, so the SPL are entitled to withhold payment. No-one can be forced to pay where a contract hasn't been satisfied, regrdless of the sovency or otherwise of the 'creditor'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Right, to put it another way, the money due to Rangers FC (RIP) had conditions attached to it. Those conditions are that RFC pay off any debts due to other SPL members - it's written into the rules that RFC signed up to, so it forms a contract. Rangers haven't delivered on that condition, so the SPL are entitled to withhold payment. No-one can be forced to pay where a contract hasn't been satisfied, regrdless of the sovency or otherwise of the 'creditor'.

---

... but no him :greengrin

Okay, it's the bit in bold that I'm going to nitpick about. It isn't in the rules that RFC have to pay off other clubs first. It is, though, in the rules that the SPL can withhold monies due to other clubs. In my mind, there is a subtle difference there. (although I'm thinking that difference might blow my argument completely:rolleyes:)

In any event, the contract which exists .. couldn't that be challenged in Court as being at odds with the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... but no him :greengrin

Okay, it's the bit in bold that I'm going to nitpick about. It isn't in the rules that RFC have to pay off other clubs first. It is, though, in the rules that the SPL can withhold monies due to other clubs. In my mind, there is a subtle difference there. (although I'm thinking that difference might blow my argument completely:rolleyes:)

In any event, the contract which exists .. couldn't that be challenged in Court as being at odds with the law?

---

No, because the fact that RFC willingly signed up to the rules makes it a legally binding contract. The rules haven't been followed regardless of the subtle difference you refer to so the contract hasn't been satisfied by RFC, and the contract itself makes provision for such an event. It's not much different from a builder that goes bust halfway through a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

No, because the fact that RFC willingly signed up to the rules makes it a legally binding contract. The rules haven't been followed regardless of the subtle difference you refer to so the contract hasn't been satisfied by RFC, and the contract itself makes provision for such an event. It's not much different from a builder that goes bust halfway through a contract.

---

I'm beginning to waver here. I have, however, another straw to clutch at.....

What about the fact that RFC (IA) are no longer a member of the SPL? So Hearts are not owed anything by another member. The SPL would withhold RFC's money and....adjust Hearts' share unilaterally? Is that allowed?

Or they could just say "sorry, Hearts, you're getting nothing more. We're keeping it."

A state of the art UEFA licensed 55k capcity football stadium
An ajoining car par where away fans can get parked up and stoned (both ways)
A state of the art training facility in the leafy burbs of Glasgow


FFS!!!
Get this sorted!!
Rotten fish give off less odour.


Surely the FSA ha to scrutinise this "deal" and rag the lot of them off.

Grrrrrrr!!
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

I'm not. It's all about what's due and when. If the SPL rules are that you get the prize money but before you do we can take off anything due to another member then that's your final total that becomes due.

---

It's a strange ons indeed. If the money is being paid to HMFC because RFC owed them then the SPL must reckon it was money due to RFC which means their must be a legal claim by non-football creditors of RFC. Do SPL rules trump the rule of law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeesLittleHel

A state of the art UEFA licensed 55k capcity football stadium
An ajoining car par where away fans can get parked up and stoned (both ways)
A state of the art training facility in the leafy burbs of Glasgow


FFS!!!
Get this sorted!!
Rotten fish give off less odour.


Surely the FSA ha to scrutinise this "deal" and rag the lot of them off.

Grrrrrrr!!
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

---

It won't be the FSA that challenge it, but it will be BDO.

Huh? The British Darts Organisation?!!:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeesLittleHel

Huh? The British Darts Organisation?!!:wink:

---

They have more chance of hitting the bullseye than the FSA do :agree:

Yeah true but despite my pathetic attempt at humour I am outraged that this obvious cronyism and manipulation of the rules can even be contemplated never mindcompleted.
Ibrox alone is prime real estate even with the listed building order on it. You only need look at what Arsenal did to Highbury to realise the potential value of the land and fixtures. What guarantees have Sevco given that'll stop them doing the dirty deed and moving th New Team to Milngavie or Easterhouse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeesLittleHel

Yeah true but despite my pathetic attempt at humour I am outraged that this obvious cronyism and manipulation of the rules can even be contemplated never mindcompleted.
Ibrox alone is prime real estate even with the listed building order on it. You only need look at what Arsenal did to Highbury to realise the potential value of the land and fixtures. What guarantees have Sevco given that'll stop them doing the dirty deed and moving th New Team to Milngavie or Easterhouse?

---

The defence will be "this was the only offer". However, that will be difficult to defend.

Rest assured that the liquidators will be looking closely at this when they are appointed. As I understand the rules, even if Sevco do as you say and move the team, whilst selling off the properties, the liquidators will be able to sue them for any profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

They're going for this option in the belief it will be sanction free and they'll walk every league

---

Many probably do Joe although some seem genuinely ashamed the tax dodging etc has gone on and feel rightly or wrongly that by starting at the bottom they can remove some of the tarnish. With such a big support base I would think there is the full spectrum from neo nazi filth and loyalist nut jobs through to guys who have been brought up as supporters but who hate all that crap. It does tend to be the former who come through to ER unfortunately.

down the line. I'm more worried about the here and now. £1-5m for these assets is derisory and no reflection of the market value IMHO.
For the realisation of the assests to be denied to the creditors of Rangers Plc is wrong and all creditors includingus as taxpayers willl lose out.
Grrrrrrr!