Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors
CVA £4,967,284
Newco £953,284
Liquidation £0
How they work that out? Freehold Property (murray park n ibrox bound to worth more than £4.5million?
Printable View
Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors
CVA £4,967,284
Newco £953,284
Liquidation £0
How they work that out? Freehold Property (murray park n ibrox bound to worth more than £4.5million?
And who are the secured creditors then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
They're definately at it. A blatant sting if ever there was one. I just can't see what they hope to achieve by this, it's as if they're begging to be liquidated. Where's the hook?
If the currants sell £10 million of players in the next two weeks the creditors will get hee haw. On that basis alone I'd tell them to get stuffed.
I think it's the opposite .. I think they're they're saying "accept this or we'll pull the plug on Rangers and you'll all get nowt".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
A clear case of "BLUFF" if ever I saw one. :rolleyes:
Can't believe we're still chatting about this 3 months after they went into Admin. What other club/league in the world would take this long? NONE!!! Disgusting what is going on. Forget trying to work out figures guys, it matters nothing. They CHEATED, kick them out or break away from the league. Approach the first division and create a bigger league without them. If they get back in I truly am done with this league. SFA= Bottlers.
Here's a bit that's confusing me slightly. Rangers are currently fighting the SFA ban on transfers for one year, citing the need for the company to trade it's way out of the predicament. In the CVA Proposal it has player transfer fee's listed as assets available to creditors.
As there is no condition I assume that 100% of the fee received by Rangers for any player sales will go to the creditors in the case they agree the CVA. Why are Rangers arguing for the overturn of the ban for trading reasons when they are not going to be able to benefit from sales of the current squad?? Unless they are only looking to reduce the wage budget, but I had assumed transfer fee's would be a large part of Green's bid.
However it's tremendous news that Green's bailout has came in the form of yet another loan, with interest, to be repaid by 2020. Just when they thought they were finished dancing to the Lloyds tune, along comes another loan!
I may be wrong but I'm sure there was a section counting player sales from 12th May 2012 as being available to creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
A few observations on a very quick read through of the proposal:
The consortium's offer is conditional on RFC playing in the SPL.
Amounts available for distribution:- £8.3; Transfer fees already due; anything arising from the Collyer Bristow case.
Amount not available:- ST income; new transfer fees (so the Motherwell scenario I described earlier isn't proposed here which means the consortium will effectively get the players for nothing and be able to sell them on for whatever they can get); SPL money (earned pre or during administration, but not available to the creditors).
Amounts due to:- Ticketus £26.7m (they could probably go after Craigie for any shortfall in the settlement)
HMRC £21.4m plus the BTC
Fitba' creditors £1.1m
Other creditors £5.5m.
Admin fees: £3m plus £500k if CVA accepted/£150k if not
Liquidation costs if CVA not accepted £1m
Legal fees & other costs in either scenario £2m
Expected funds available:- CVA £5m; Newco £1m; Liquidation nil.
The reason that liquidation is nil is because the freehold property is valued at £4.6m (recoverable value as reported in the last audited accounts £112m).
As I say, a very quick summary and I might well have missed some stuff, but that's the gist of what I've picked up.
If they get away with this then surely this is the blueprint for all clubs to follow. This could be Rangers most successful financial year ever.
3 months is no time at all for an administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecat23
Money from players previously sold? Jelovic?Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
If this was Hibs or even Hearts that had done all this cheating we would be booted out mate. Whole thing stinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As I read that the transfer fees are what was due before 12 May - paras 5.14 and 5.15. Transfers after that date are specifically excluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
What's the significance of 12 May?
The last game of their seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
CW's holding company has a security, but IMO there is no creditor. The proposal does say that there has been no claim made by them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Also, Close Leasing has a security. IIRC, that is over the catering equipment.
Edit:- Close Leasing's claim is £1.56m. Also the Sports Council have a secured claim for £505k
Ah, that'll be it. Can't see why it's particularly significant for the administration though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
Am I right in thinking that over these 3 months the administrators have earned more than any of the creditors are likely to get?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I note they haven't included SPL money in the Newco or Liquidation options - does anyone know if the SPL would give them their money even if they were to liquidate?
Does this mean thet HMRC could scupper the CVA all by themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Maybe they assume that the SPL would retain anything due to other clubs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
On that point, I notice that they show Football Creditors separately. Other than Anglo-centric normal practice, any idea why that is?
Yup, as could Ticketus.Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse
Ah I see now, if I'd read the next paragraph I would have seen that season tickets and future sales were excluded assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
One of the key things I've just dug out of that is Rangers have a provision, in Para 5.15, for future player sales and season ticket money to be used to fund CVA Trading Costs. If I was a Rangers fan my money would be going nowhere where it could be used to fund this speculative at best, derisory at worst, offer of a CVA.
As per 14th Feb 2012
FIXED CHARGE ASSETS
Freehold Property Including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park £109,613,870
Now 30th June 2012
Freehold Property Valuation £ 4,590,214.00
Just doest add up for me
It may be that they are valued separately in two scenarios. The first scenario is it's value with a functioning Rangers side using them. The second scenario may be it's value if not used by Rangers. For example if Rangers liquidate and you're left with Ibrox and Murray Park as standalone assets, they would need to be demolished at some cost before they would be valued at basic market value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
I can only think that in the event that a Newco applies to the SPL, there may be a condition that football creditors were paid off before the license could be transferred. Although this would appear to conflict with insolvency law at least as practices in Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
All parties to the Rangers saga including Collyer Bristow, Ticketus, and Duff & Phelps appear to be ignorant about Scots Law so maybe that is at the root of the issue?
For anyone who was worrying about a debt free Huns: even if this gets agreed, the £8.5M is, you guessed it, loaded on to RFC as a loan!
Day Greene sined exclusivity dealQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I reckon you'd find quite a few people that would be happy to demolish it for free. Infact you could probably make a fair bit of cash allowing people to swing a sledge hammer around the stadium for a few minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
With interest :greengrin. It's not even a gift loan, if it includes interest then it's geared to make money for the provider surely. If Green is pledging to have investors queueing up with cash, why is the loan made with interest repayable?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Wonder if he will "do a Craigie" and use the loan to pay off the creditors therefore not putting in anything himself? Surely this consorteum of arabs sheiks, singapore citizens, asian billionaires could have done better than that offerQuote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
By the way is there a fit and proper test to carry out or has no one learnt from previous mistakes and we are back to good guy, good guy, w##k, good guy, tests
As i suggested many pages ago, why have they not started a 'Buy a Brick' scheme for the schemies??Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
They would gain money while demolishing the place at the same time.
win/win for them :wink:
I think if I read this correctly - that they are planning on using future income (transfers/ST's to fund the current trading gap) and a LOAN repayable with interest from Greene..
So has anyone in the last 20+ years actually invested any of their own money in this shambles...or is it just serial cases of smoke mirrors and fleecing the club/fans of its own money while appearing to be the saviour :rolleyes:
I just wish there was a way the creditors could say bolt to CVA an be allowed to have assets signed over to them in lieu of debt...wouldnt take them long to make more out the situation that way...facilities rental income / flogging car park etc
The way I read this document is that, at around £4 million, the services of the Duffs is worth about the same as Ibrox and their training park.
Can someone explain to me how the stadium is worth less than £4 million when it enable income of around £30-50 million per annum?
I hear that the court of session has upheld the sfa transfer embargo
Poor lambs - they should take it up with the United Nations now.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
That's the whole point, it enables that income, it doesn't generate that income itself, and is valued as such. It's a means to an end, the end being Rangers. Without Rangers playing at Ibrox, Ibrox itself is pretty much worthless as it is. Unless another similar size team (possibly NewCo Rangers) would want to use it in it's current state.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
And without Ibrox the Rangers income stream immediately diminishes. Assuming that Ibrox will generate income for the next 20 years the stadium is worth only £200,000 per annum to the new owner as a revenue enabler. Total pish.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
Now I'm hearing something different. Sorry for posting rubbish. (Don't know why I said that, it's all I seem to do).Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
#rangers have won - the decision has been referred back to appeal tribunal.
And been awarded expenses
Judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to SFA disciplinary tribunal for bringing game into disrepute.
So, what now?
News seeping out from STV at the Court of Session
Rangers 'win'
https://twitter.com/#!/carasulieman
So the SFA need a new punishment then? Given the previous statements, expulsion?
Presumably the giant UEFA branded sword of Damocles is about to come crashing down on the lot of us in 3... 2...
FFS the SFA had a judge on the appeals panel and he couldn't provide the appropriate guidance?Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
The moment of me turning my back on the Scottish game is getting closer and closer.
In fairness to St.Mirren they sold their ground in order to clear their debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Laughing stock of world football in every way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
They get off with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Suppose that will mean the ultimate sanction then. Expulsion!!!!!!!!!!!
Go on SFA dare ye.
So the available punishments are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
- fine
- suspension
- expulsion from Scottish Cup
- termination of membership.
Have the SFA got the danglies for the battle?
Expulsion was an available sanction I think. What do you think the chances are of that happening though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
That is just unbeleivable judgement.....(as mentioned an eminemt judge was on appeals panel)
Football wants its own rules until they don't suit...then go to law....SFA better get a grip of this pronto....
STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?:dunno:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...a-signing-ban/
What would Celtic think if this gets Scotland kicked from Euro Comps......
SPL embargo still stands though.
Do the SFA have the balls to follow through their strong judicial panel statements? And could we be now entering Sion territory?
That's only cause they are still in admin, if they come out of it then they can sign players againQuote:
Originally Posted by Zondervan
Ban been lifted ffs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18248766
[QUOTE=hibs0666;3249016]So the available punishments are:
- fine
- suspension
- expulsion from Scottish Cup
- termination of membership.
Have the SFA got the danglies for the battle?[/QUOTE]
Is that a rhetorical question? :greengrin
They should now be kicked out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zondervan
The Court of Session have found in Rangers' favour in a hearing against the Scottish FA over an enforced registration embargo
The matter will now be referred back to the governing body's appeals tribunal for a new hearing.
The judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to the Scottish FA to punish a club for bringing the game into disrepute.
Despite the ruling, Rangers are still unable to sign players as they are under a separate registration embargo imposed by the Scottish Premier League for being in administration.
Hmmm...But if they get their CVA...No administration and so they are free from debt and no sanction...
Grow some and punt them......
Going to court in the first place was the FC Sion territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
Would be interested to see the full judgement, as I'm pretty sure the relevant SFA bye-laws were ambiguous enough to allow ANY punishment that the tribunal thought appropriate.
That's a Craig Thomson of a decision and no mistake!
SFA panel has to decide between looking weaker than the Hibs midfield or growing a pair and following through the logic of their decision: suspension of membership.
Will it be the same 3 man panel that heard the previous appeal or do they rotate to the next 3?
Presumably this means that under SPL sanctions they are still banned from signing players until they exit administration, but after that they are free to do so. As opposed to being completely banned for 12 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zondervan
Seems worth posting this about FC Sion from its wiki page:
Quote:
In 2008, controversy came to Sion when they signed Essam El-Hadary, leading to a two-year "registration period" ban for Sion from June 2009, and an international playing ban for El-Hadary for four months,[3][4] due to El-Hadary still being under contract at his former club Al Ahly.[5] FC Sion appealed this action, but the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland confirmed the FIFA, DRC and CAS decisions in 2009 and 2010 respectively.[6] However the lengthy legal battle (including the temporary reprieve), meant that the ban was only practically instituted first in the winter window of 2010–11 season.[7]
Although gaining a place in the qualifying round of the 2011-12 Europa League by winning the previous season's Swiss Cup, Sion were excluded from the Europa League byUEFA after fielding ineligible players in their play-off victory over Celtic.[8] On 2 September, the Swiss Football League rejected the registration of one more player, Brian Amofa.[9]
On 30 September 2011, the SFL decided to provisionally qualify the six new signings, namely Stefan Glarner, Billy Ketkeophomphone, Mario Mutsch, Pascal Feindouno, José Gonçalves and Gabri García, to comply with the ongoing legal process.[10] FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA respectively in the Tribunal Cantonal de Valais and the Tribunal inVaud, however both actions were dismissed.[11][12] The club's earlier appeal was dismissed by UEFA Appeals Body on 13 September.[13] FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA in CAS, but withdrew the former claim. The hearing of the latter claim was set on 24 November.[14]
On 25 October, the Discipline Commission (fr: Commission de discipline) of SFL suspended all six players for five games.[15] It was reported that each player filed their legal claim in civil court instead of using the Swiss FA and CAS "sports court" system, which the ban was requested by FIFA.[citation needed] On 27 October, as a "provisional and super-provisional measures",[16] UEFA invited FC Sion to a match schedule consultation once UEFA lost the legal battle.[17]
On 31 October 2011, Sion sent a complaint to the European Commission.[18] FIFA also won the legal battle in civil court in November. Previously the civil court of Martigny andSaint-Maurice (both city of Valais) ordered FIFA to confirm the signing of those six players on 3 August, a consequence of law suit brought out by the players. On 16 November, the FIFA and SFL appeal was upheld in the Valais canton court.[19]
On 15 December, CAS upheld the complaints by UEFA, affirming its right to discipline Sion according to previous agreements. CAS also lifted the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud (Cour civile) on 5 October 2011.[20] After the ruling, FIFA threatened to suspend Swiss national and club teams from international competition if FC Sion were not appropriately penalized for its ostensible rules violations.[21] In late December 2011, the Swiss Football Association complied with FIFA's demands and penalized Sion 36 standings points (based on how many matches ineligible players were involved), moving the club to last place in the league standings and putting the club at risk of relegation if the ruling stands.
If Ibrox is removed Rangers income stream may only diminish slightly, as they could in theory play temporarily at Hampden or Celtic Park. Without Rangers, what use is Ibrox?? That's why the value drops so much. There is no way Ibrox or Murray Park could be of value in their current state so literally become bits of land with expensive demolition costs before they become valuable once more.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
This is worth a read on the sports law implications of Duff and Duffer's decision to go to court:
http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...-disaster.html
Interesting, as well, that it suggests they had a good chance of success.
I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected
"The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion."
So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.
If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?
Stv journo on twitter -
FIFA eyes now on Scottish FA to uphold their rulebook and punish Rangers for taking this matter to court.
FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".
FIFA insist Scottish FA must stop Rangers using law courts. FIFA also insist Scottish FA provides means for arbitration, which they didn't.
In a nutshell, the Scottish FA will already be in bother from FIFA for not upholding their statutes. More so if they don't punish Rangers.
Wow, just wow. So now what? UEFA/ FIFA get involved?
Is this proof the SFA cant govern their own member clubs?
Interesting times ahead I feel. I was also musing earlier that maybe Mad Vlad aint so mad after all, seems he just applied Rangers business model to Hearts. Circular loans and EBT's. If it's good for the goose and all that - no wonder he's pissed off at the media monkeys...
Glasgow City Council are committed to Ibrox for the 2014 Commonwealth Games for starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
The point is, do they consider the offence, which stated that only match fixing would have been worse, to be closer to the rejected as too severe kicking them out option, or just upping their fine / kicking them from the cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajillions
As with Scion, FIFA / UEFA weighed in when the Swiss failed to punish them in line with their offences. By the end of this, when everything is out in the open, the hope is that the same happens with Rangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
They most certainly should, But they wont.
But they also said that the other sanctions were too weak. This could run and run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajillions
Which journo? So I can followQuote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyAndy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
100%:agree:
Given that the sanction was not available to the SFA within the rules, surely the fact that taking the SFA to court isn't allowed in the rules either means that the SFA are under no obligation to pay any attention to the court of session? What would stop them from saying "Thanks for the advice wiggy, but with all due respect, beat it!"
Seems to me applying a sanction that "wasn't available" is exactly the same as starting a court case not being available?
So either the SFA can ignore it and show they have some balls, both to the public and UEFA. Or UEFA steps in like the proverbial headmaster and threatens to punish everyone unless the club responsible is dealt with accordingly?
Sion won in the Swiss courts and look what happened there.
A 36-point deduction.
If the SFA take no action I can see UEFA/FIFA adopting a similar line.
...and I think this why the preferred way would have been to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajillions
In other news, FIFA have finally woken up to the Rangers threat:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18244958 :greengrin
@stvgrantQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Ive long suspected everything that's gone before was just the jockeying for positing buying time and that Rangers would pull a rabbit out the bag if not the football club separate from holding company (and bad man Whyte) or now as it appears - the incompetence of the scottish footballing authorities.
The game is a bogey and the authorities and regulators I've long criticised before all this mess have now shown themselves to be unfit to govern.
Give us our respect and game back. FIFA better step up to the plateon thisone - I'm not holding my breath.
Can't they see the link between the OF monopoly and the lack of talent pool for the Scottish national team. Bad enough k owing your team can only play for 3rd but allied to a national team team that is unlikely to qualify for a major tourney any time soon just where is it headed?
the huns think they have wrangled out of this one but i'm sure FIFA are keeping an eye on developments.
they simply CANNOT get away with this, they are not untouchable and i'm hoping they are punished severely by FIFA
FIFA Statement - well done Huns for getting the big boys involved at last
FIFA has warned the Scottish Football Association it must take action after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.
The Scottish Premier League side won a case at the Court of Session on Tuesday, with a judge ruling the Scottish FA had no power to impose a signing ban on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.
A statement from FIFA read: "At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.
"In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
"As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.
"FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."
Rangers' case will now be referred back to the original appeal tribunal, which has been ordered to operate within the framework which exists.
Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.
**More to follow...*
tp://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103811-fifa-warn-scottish-fa-they-must-punish-rangers-for-using-law-courts/
Is there not a template open letter on Kickback that we can use to send our views to Messrs Blatter and Plattini?Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
First warning shot from Switzerland:Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaPalmeiras
http://sport.stv.tv/football/103811-...ng-law-courts/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...n-Rangers.html
Winners lose: Court victory 'could finish' fallen Rangers
By JOHN GREECHAN
PUBLISHED: 23:37, 28 May 2012 | UPDATED: 23:37, 28 May 2012
Comments (21)
Share
Rangers have been warned that a successful court appeal against their one-year transfer embargo could end up with them being kicked out of football.
The Ibrox club, who expect to publish Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposals on Tuesday morning - after yet another delay - will be back in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday, seeking a judicial review of the 12-month signing ban imposed by an independent SFA panel.
On track: Administrator Paul Clark says CVA agreement is moving along
But leading sports lawyer Dan Chapman, of Full Contact Law, told Sportsmail: 'If the courts were to say that they wished to overturn the transfer ban, the SFA will have to say they don't recognise the decision of the court.
'And, if Rangers want to impose the decision upon them, the SFA will have no choice but to expel them. Otherwise, the game is in utter disarray and anarchy, with no one paying any attention to a decision by the governing body.
'If the Court of Session find in favour of Rangers, the SFA certainly don't have to accept.
'They will say: "If you want us to accept that, you are further breaching the rules - which means we'll expel you. In that case, your legal remedy is pretty pointless because you're no longer a club allowed to play in our leagues".
'It would be a futile victory. It seems to be that, for want of a better expression, it's been a bit of a cock-up.'
No-win situation: Win for Rangers would be a phyrric victory
While the case in Edinburgh resumeson Tuesday , Rangers have also promised to publish details of the pence-in-the-pound offer to creditors needed to deliver the club from administration.
Having initially scheduled to issue a CVA last week and again yesterday, Duff & Phelps last night blamed 'administrative alterations' for the delay - but insisted that Rangers could be out of administration by June 14.
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said last night: 'A formal notice of the CVA meetings will be sent to all creditors and shareholders of the club tomorrow, providing further details of the CVA process.
'The proposal will offer the best return for all stakeholders.
'If approved by creditors, the CVA proposal will rescue the company and finally enable it to exit administration.
'Details of the CVA proposal have been finalised today and there has been additional consultation with certain stakeholders.
'Rangers supporters should be reassured the CVA process is on track. The creditors' meeting to consider and, hopefully, approve the CVA will be held on Thursday, June 14.'
The CVA letter will trigger a £3m payment from would-be owner Charles Green, who has repeatedly refused to name all of the investors involved in his mystery consortium.
Rangers will now need major creditors, including HMRC and Ticketus, to agree to the terms in order to avoid taking the newco route out of administration - incurring further footballing penalties.
The SPL have confirmed, meanwhile, that Rangers have been granted a 'period of grace' over submission of accounts.
Officially without an SFA licence until they provide the documentation, the league have given them until June 15 to fulfil requirements.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1wHB6z300
I have nae idea about anything on that exists on keechboak.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
So, before Rangers went to the CoS their actions had taken them close to suspension/expulsion. They have now appealed at the CoS in direct contravention of the SFA and higher authorities rules, so they must have crossed the line. There is no alternative, they have to be expelled or suspended by the SFA if Scottish Football has any hope of survival.
The international authorities would jump at the chance to combine the British associations and the SFA would give them a great opportunity to do so by deferring to UEFA here. We've reached the crossroads and there's only one road we can take to survive. Rangers have succeeded in turning their own drama into everyone's crisis and it could end up realising their wish of Scottish clubs playing in English leagues. Ironically they won't be around to enjoy it because we can be sure that UEFA will not allow them to continue as a football club.
I find it really difficult to believe that the admins didn't know about the FIFA regulations. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I am wondering if they did this on purpose to set up the final battle between RFC and the SFA. RFC have, as we all know, long thought of themselves as bigger than the SFA. They are about to find out if that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Hopefully there will be lots of pressure on the SFA/SPL from UEFA/FIFA. One club :bye: or all clubs and the national side :bye:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Perhaps this sort of thing should help make up the minds of those who are thinking about supporting the huns.
Come in Agent Clark, your task is almost complete.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The irony is that Rangers thinking they are the Big fish in a wee pond that can do what they like...are about to find out that Scotland is a wee Fish in the Big pond that is world football...and Platinni has vowed to get tough.....nice easy wee fish target given to them to get their message across to the big boys (like EPL / Seria A) that things like this will Not be ignored...
I've been thinking the same thing, although I was wondering if they were just looking for someone else to pull the trigger. To raise this action without being aware of the regulations was an act of gross negligence, if they were aware of them they are challenging the authority of the SFA and UEFA. Totally destructive either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Even the Beeb reporter describing it as a 'pyrrhic victory'Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
Time to raise a glass gets closer!
This might be a daft question but how do the creditors benefit from today's transfer ruling? If Duff and Phelps are solely acting in their interests, I can't see how fighting the decision (running up further billable hours I assume) will make any difference to the return they receive? The only thing I can think of is it being a condition of the takeover. Unless I'm understanding the Duff and Phelps role wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not a daft question at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by millarco
If the Green bid were to fall apart tomorrow, then the admins might want to find another buyer. A club that "can" buy players is going to be more attractive than one that can't.
All pretty academic, of course, but I suppose they have to be seen to provide for all eventualities.
The above, of course, would be their justification. The cynic might say it's got F all to do with the creditors, and more to do with saving the club.
I know this is not Rangers....but with match fixing in Italy (allegedly :wink:)....It seems there is a whole washing line of dirty laundry in world football....and this seems the worst of all and right at the Herat of things
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18232533
Bad news for #Rangers:They wanted embargo thrown out with no further hearing- judge rejected that & proposed return to SFA appeal tribunal.
I think the same. D & P probably dont want there houses torched by rabid huns, much better let the SFA (muscled by UEFA) to take the 'fall' though personally, I would consider it an honour :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green