Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

This is a comment from Barcabhoy on the Rangers Tax Case blog - this is the guy who says he has the 'nuclear stuff' re bungs, Souness etc


Barcabhoy says:
30/05/2012 at 11:14 am
8 0 Rate This
Spartans were thrown out of the Scottish Cup because they only put one date on a players contract, rather than the required 2 signatures. They were also fined £4,000 , which is approximately 5% of their total annual income.

Thrown out, as in banned from playing in the competition for an entire season.

Compare that with the possibility of the SFA applying the same sanction to Rangers, and fining them 0.2% of their annual income.

For a list of proven offences which are growing by the day, and already are unmatched in the history of Scottish Football.

Rangers and their apologists are looking for a less severe punishment than that meted out to a club who missed out one date on a contract !!

We all know what they are guilty of , they have already been found guilty. We know there is more and worse to come, much worse. The SPL enquiry has to find them guilty of illegal registration. The evidence in the public domain isn’t anecdotal, it’s Prima Facie level proof of guilt. Billy Dodds helpful intervention merely confirmed the direct involvement of the owner and chairman .

The fact that Rangers paid Souness at a time he was not employed by Rangers, not once but multiple times, and at a time he was employed by a competitor European club, is beyond anything Redknapp and Allardyce were even accused of.

And Souness isn’t the only one with something to fear. There were others who were not named in the BBC documentary who received payments.

However that’s for later. The fundamental point here is that Rangers are demanding a punishment less severe than Spartans. That cannot even be a consideration for the SFA.

A year long suspension from football is the very least the SFA can now hand down to them

Hun post on facebook, glad there's an unsubscribe button

"If the CVA is accepted and voted through, it will be approved on June 14th, then given the period of grace, exactly 4 weeks later the Bears are out of administration.

Which coincidentally falls on the same day we celebrate King William III defeating King James at the Battle of the Boyne!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Hun post on facebook, glad there's an unsubscribe button

"If the CVA is accepted and voted through, it will be approved on June 14th, then given the period of grace, exactly 4 weeks later the Bears are out of administration.

Which coincidentally falls on the same day we celebrate King William III defeating King James at the Battle of the Boyne!"

---

There are no words... all you can do is laugh :dunno:

On BBC

Rangers "got away lightly" with recent sanctions for bringing them game into disrepute, according to the former Scottish FA president John McBeth.
The Ibrox club had a 12-month transfer embargo imposed by the SFA overturned by the Court of Session on Tuesday.
Speaking to BBC Scotland, John MacBeth said: ''Rangers got away lightly with their transfer embargo.''
And MacBeth said the SFA could impose stricter punishment on the club.
''The SFA should go away and look at their books to determine what their next step should be," he continued. "They could throw them out of the league.''
McBeth, who was a vocal critic of FIFA president Sepp Blatter while in office, also claimed that SPL clubs could survive in a league without Rangers.
''Football would survive without Rangers, maybe not at the same level, and the game would may be lose some fans - but so be it,'' he said.
"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

The first "administrator" to have spoken any sense in this entire matter.

Does anyone have a link to the D&P CVA proposal document?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

---

Nailed. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Does anyone have a link to the D&P CVA proposal document?

---

Originally posted by Green Glory earlier in the thread....

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles...~177097,00.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

I trust this thread is a .net record?!? Credit must go to Fudd and Flaps for this :agree:

---

I think that's an incredibly harsh way to describe Caversham Green and CropleyWasGod. I think they've been exemplary in keeping us informed.
:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

I think that's an incredibly harsh way to describe Caversham Green and CropleyWasGod. I think they've been exemplary in keeping us informed.
:greengrin

---

:top marks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Originally posted by Green Glory earlier in the thread....

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles...~177097,00.pdf

---

Thanks CG and GG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser_Sauzee

My girlfriend (a new Hibby) lives in South Lanarkshire near Larkhall. Her Facebook 'friends' are all blue bigots. Some of the stuff they post would make your eyes bleed.

I hope their club dies.

---

Had a girlfriend who's dad was full on neo Nazi, swastika painted on his shed, skinhead.

What team did he support again....:hmmm:

Here's an odd story - which I don't quite think is correct. I've emailed the author asking where she gets her figures from - will post if and when I hear back...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...medium=twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Accountancy Age

According to details contained within proposals to place Rangers into a company volutary arrangement (CVA), the administrative team has run-up about £5.5m in fees for their work in compiling an exit from administration.However, as a supervisor of the CVA they are likely to add a further £6.2m, and another £6.2m as liquidators, to their tab. A CVA and liquidation process can run for several years, but no details have been provided within the proposals as to the estimated timescale for Rangers' CVA.

---

Apparently the meeting of SPL clubs has now finished ?

And votes were taken but nobody is speaking to the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

Apparently the meeting of SPL clubs has now finished ?

---

Neil Doncaster about to speak to the media.

Neil Doncaster about to give news conference on today's SPL meeting on FFP. Follow @mcclymontscott for updates

Quote:

---

#SPL clubs will now face penalties for not paying players on time and for not paying HMRC obligations on time

---

Quote:

---

#SPL say no application for Rangers newco on the table, but in future such proposals will be considered by SPL member clubs not SPL board

---

@gordonchree
(whoever he is)

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

If there are future proposals for newco, any sanctions will be considered on individual basis

12:56 PM - 30 May 12via Twitter for iPhone · Details

4m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

New rules over paying players and taxman on time introduced

4m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

Penalty of greater of ten point/one third of previous season's total for going into admin is passed


5m Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

SPL clubs approve new fair play rules. Decision on newco to be taken by all clubs. No fixed pens for newco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Neil Doncaster about to give news conference on today's SPL meeting on FFP. Follow @mcclymontscott for updates

---

Seems all was passed at the meeting (Radio)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee

Seems all was passed at the meeting (Radio)

---

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

---

Was supposed to be this one.

I asked Al Lamont - his reply Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontRe vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

Did that include the change in voting from the current 11:1, or is that set for a different meeting?

---

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

Re vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

Was supposed to be this one.

---

That will be first item on the agenda after Rangers go tits up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I asked Al Lamont - his reply Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontRe vote on voting structure: adjourned to SPL agm

---

Ta - any idea when AGM is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And votes were taken but nobody is speaking to the media.

---

Sneaking out the side door. :agree:

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamontAn SPL board meeting taking place now regarding Rangers dual contracts allegations. Hopefully an update later

DUFF & PHELPS administrators are likely to rack up about £17.9m in fees for their work at collapsed Scottish football club Rangers.

Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were appointed joint administrators to the club on 14 February.

According to details contained within proposals to place Rangers into a company volutary arrangement (CVA), the administrative team has run-up about £5.5m in fees for their work in compiling an exit from administration.
However, as a supervisor of the CVA they are likely to add a further £6.2m, and another £6.2m as liquidators, to their tab. A CVA and liquidation process can run for several years, but no details have been provided within the proposals as to the estimated timescale for Rangers' CVA.
The £5.5m fee for the administrators' work so far includes time costs and legal fees for several legal actions, including forcing ex-owner Craig Whyte's lawyers, Collyer Bristow, to hand over £3.9m, and a separate legal action against them which is due to finish later this year.

The administrators also managed to convince bidder Sevco to transfer £200,000 for running costs in exchange for exclusivity rights to the club.
Sevco, a consortium of investors fronted by Charles Green, are willing to advance Rangers £8.3m following CVA approval.
The club hopes to exit administration through a CVA which needs 75% or more of creditors, by value of debt, to approve the deal.
However, after administrator fees and other costs such as player transfer fees and trading costs it is likely unsecured creditors will receive between 3p - 9p for every pound owed.
HM Revenue & Customs are the second largest unsecured creditor with debts of £21.5m and Ticketus is the largest with £26.7m.


Read more: http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...#ixzz1wM3DMtph
Accountancy Age - Finance, business and accountancy news, features and resources. Claim your free subscription today.

Charles Green voting at an SPL meeting????!!!



CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch
WTF! How can Charles Green vote in an SPL meeting? Astonishing.

so as I read it these are the proposals that have been approved:

SPL PROPOSALS
•Minimum of 15 points deducted from any club entering administration
•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

But that does nothing to clarify the position on a newco admittance to the SPL - or did I miss that discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Charles Green voting at an SPL meeting????!!!

CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch
WTF! How can Charles Green vote in an SPL meeting? Astonishing.

---

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

These were passed:

•Greater of 10 points or 1/3 of previous season's total deducted from any club entering administration
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

These werent:

•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons

Additionally, all clubs to vote on transfer of share to any Newco and any sanctions applied to the Newco to be decided on an individual basis.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=...medium=twitter

Doncaster Newco proposal doesn’t get the votes

Posted on 30 May, 2012 by Paul67

An SPL general meeting today passed several less-significant Financial Fair Play rules (pay your taxes and players) but did not approve a proposal from chief executive, Neil Doncaster, that a mechanism should be introduced to parachute a Newco into the top division in Scottish football for the first time in history.

It would have taken 8 votes to see this controversial proposal pass, which it clearly didn’t get. The SPL reserves the right to vote a Newco in at any point in the future, but those hoping to buy the assets of Rangers were not issued a ticket to the SPL today.

Surprised?

Perhaps connected to the above matter…. The SPL board will this afternoon consider issues relating to allegations Rangers rigged the system for over a decade with dual contracts.

There are too many permutations for me to digest these developments with any accuracy. At first pass, the news appears to be on the upside of what I was expecting earlier in the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

---

He might even be the owner if he's paid his two quid to Craigie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

These were passed:

•Greater of 10 points or 1/3 of previous season's total deducted from any club entering administration
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC

These werent:

•10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
•75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons

Additionally, all clubs to vote on transfer of share to any Newco and any sanctions applied to the Newco to be decided on an individual basis.

---

Sounds good, the two rejected proposals were the ones that would have given a legitimate path back into the league for any newco.

Should result in a vote of no confidence in Doncaster...is what some are saying on the twittersphere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Sounds good, the two rejected proposals were the ones that would have given a legitimate path back into the league for any newco.

---

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

I'll take all this under advisement, particularly as I doubt we're anywhere near having all the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

He is the preferred bidder and presumably is acting on behalf of the administrators?

---

He's thinking about buying a football club with a group of shady characters...being able to vote on behalf of Rangers already is bizarre

Surely it should be ascertained if these people are fit to be Directors of a football club first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

---

I don't see how you can say it's made it easier when a Doncaster penned motion to allow newcos into the SPL was rejected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

---

Yep. What I said the last time! They can be voted back scot free.

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.

More walking away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

I don't see how you can say it's made it easier when a Doncaster penned motion to allow newcos into the SPL was rejected?

---

They are allowed now with a vote. This proposal would have made a link to the old co and introduced sanctions.

There seems to be huge misunderstanding on this point generally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

---

The confirmation that all clubs (presumably in 8-4 vote) are required to approve the transfer rather than just the SPL board makes the New Club's entry harder. I think you'll find if they get over that hurdle the sanctions on a Hun New Club will be at least as tough as those not voted in. The barrier to getting them passed today is probably the much more severe effect they would have on a smaller New Club being written into the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.

More walking away?

---

I cant believe the whole thing is not stopped now, and dealt with when all the facts are out in the open?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18265663

McBeth, who was a vocal critic of FIFA president Sepp Blatter while in office, also claimed that SPL clubs could survive in a league without Rangers.

Quote:

---

''Football would survive without Rangers, maybe not at the same level, and the game would may be lose some fans - but so be it,'' he said.

"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

---

Quite right. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Admins saying a 'delay' in the selling process.

---

Where did you hear this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

Yep. What I said the last time! They can be voted back scot free.

---

.. and they can also be refused entry. The way I read the rejected proposals is that a Newco WOULD get back in, but with those sanctions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

The confirmation that all clubs (presumably in 8-4 vote) are required to approve the transfer rather than just the SPL board makes the New Club's entry harder. I think you'll find if they get over that hurdle the sanctions on a Hun New Club will be at least as tough as those not voted in. The barrier to getting them passed today is probably the much more severe effect they would have on a smaller New Club being written into the rules.

---

What sanctions would that be? There are none currently allowed for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Where did you hear this?

---

https://twitter.com/tonymckelvie/sta...14881146191875

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

.. and they can also be refused entry. The way I read the rejected proposals is that a Newco WOULD get back in, but with those sanctions.

---

No, it didn't make it any more automatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

[url]

If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

Quite right. :agree:

---

Yep.. that is a superb sound-bite. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

https://twitter.com/tonymckelvie/sta...14881146191875

---

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

What sanctions would that be? There are none currently allowed for?

---

From SPL press release:

Quote:

---

It was agreed that, in future, any decision on the transfer of a share to a newco from any club will be considered by all member clubs, rather than the SPL Board, with flexibility to impose sanctions appropriate to each individual circumstance. The resolutions proposing fixed penalties on a newco were therefore withdrawn as being obsolete.

---

http://www.scotprem.com/content/defa...2&newsid=11407

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

No, it didn't make it any more automatic.

---

You must concede that an 8-4 vote will be harder for the New Huns to get than a simple majority of the SPL board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

You must concede that an 8-4 vote will be harder for the New Huns to get than a simple majority of the SPL board?

---

So that's 5 no votes needed ....

Celtc and Sheep - because their fans would demand it even if they wanted RFC in the league
Hibs - Petrie's integrity speech (+ fans ...)
I would hope Motherwell and Dundee U would see it as a chance to do better in the league.

Others ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

From SPL press release:



http://www.scotprem.com/content/defa...2&newsid=11407

---

Thanks.

Know its 8-4 required but why should oldco get a vote in this at all? Surely they should step aside.

What Doncaster wanted was for the green light to be given to allowing newco's to rejoin the spl in place of the club that is liquidated with a fixed set of penalties, in this case a 10 point deduction and financial restrictions for two years. This would mean that it was pre-approved for the Huns to get back into the spl straight away without a vote. By rejecting those two proposals the rest of the spl have knocked that on the head and it means that any attempt to get a newco into the spl will be dealt with case by case and it's approval and any sanctions imposed with re-entry will be decided by a majority vote of the spl member clubs and not the spl board.

As it stands if rangers are liquidated they need the majority of the clubs in the spl to agree to allow them back in, not the sfa, not the spl board, and certainly not Doncaster, and if they don't get the majority vote then it's applying to the sfl and division 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyJo

What Doncaster wanted was for the green light to be given to allowing newco's to rejoin the spl in place of the club that is liquidated with a fixed set of penalties, in this case a 10 point deduction and financial restrictions for two years. This would mean that it was pre-approved for the Huns to get back into the spl straight away without a vote. By rejecting those two proposals the rest of the spl have knocked that on the head and it means that any attempt to get a newco into the spl will be dealt with case by case and it's approval and any sanctions imposed with re-entry will be decided by a majority vote of the spl member clubs and not the spl board.

As it stands if rangers are liquidated they need the majority of the clubs in the spl to agree to allow them back in, not the sfa, not the spl board, and certainly not Doncaster, and if they don't get the majority vote then it's applying to the sfl and division 3.

---

Good summary, also how I interpret the events today. Could scupper Greene's masterplan.

An oldie but goodie

Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die, die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die, die die die die ya Huns.

Repeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Good summary, also how I interpret the events today. Could scupper Greene's masterplan.

---

Greene's offer is conditional on an SPL place. That much is explicit in the CVA document, even if little else is.

If there is a delay or uncertainty in that SPL place being granted, then it is little wonder that there is now the reported delay in the sale process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Greene's offer is conditional on an SPL place. That much is explicit in the CVA document, even if little else is.

If there is a delay or uncertainty in that SPL place being granted, then it is little wonder that there is now the reported delay in the sale process.

---

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

---

The creditors will vote to accept/reject the CVA on 14th June.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

---

It may not even get to that. This is one of the conditions of Green's offer:-


4.22.6 all consents or other requirements of the SPL and SFA having been obtained or complied with so that Rangers Football Club can continue to participate in such domestic leagues and competitions as it currently participates in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

The creditors will vote to accept/reject the CVA on 14th June.

---

Who will pay the wages in the meantime?

That will be half a months' wages at full whack.

The creditors' pot will be negative at this rate!

Sorry if already posted


Besiktas suspended from European competition for one year by Uefa
Uefa have suspended Besiktas from all European competition for one year, and fined them €200,000, due to financial problems at the Istanbul club, according to Turkish media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-by-Uefa.html#

The move comes after Uefa scrutinised Besiktas' accounts in the second and third quarters of 2011 and ruled that they breached articles of the ruling body's financial fair play regulations.
Shares in Besiktas tumbled more than 9 per cent following the news.
Besiktas chairman, Fikret Orman, and the club's lawyers attended a meeting with Uefa's disciplinary committee for a second time on Wednesday after the club was earlier warned about its financial status and high debt.
Orman said Besiktas would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding the ban, but added he was not very optimistic about a ruling in favour of the 13-time Turkish champions.
"We will defend the club's rights until the end, and will appeal to CAS as the first step," Levent Erdogan, a lawyer and club board member told Turkey's Dogan news agency.
"I think it's a dramatic decision, and it will hit us pretty badly, but there's nothing we can do."

Looking forward to news coming from this afternoon's SPL meeting regarding the dual contracts. Exciting!

Graham Fraser‏@STVGrahamFor those interested in SPL board meeting into alleged use of dual contracts at Rangers - no announcement expected today. Possibly tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H18SVG

Follow, followed by a 28 day cooling off period which is how we get the 12th July date.

---

This gets more farcical by the hour.

So everything has to wait for six weeks before HMRC bomb out the CVA and it is too late to expel them.

meanwhile the debt will be mounting and D&P will continue to bleed the CVA pot dry with their fees.

FIFA and UEFA will have to act soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Looking forward to news coming from this afternoon's SPL meeting regarding the dual contracts. Exciting!

---

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont
No SPL update on dual contracts investigation/allegations today after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

This gets more farcical by the hour.

So everything has to wait for six weeks before HMRC bomb out the CVA and it is too late to expel them.

meanwhile the debt will be mounting and D&P will continue to bleed the CVA pot dry with their fees.

FIFA and UEFA will have to act soon.

---

The SFA can expel them at any time. In that event, the CVA process falls.

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Sorry if already posted


Besiktas suspended from European competition for one year by Uefa
Uefa have suspended Besiktas from all European competition for one year, and fined them €200,000, due to financial problems at the Istanbul club, according to Turkish media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-by-Uefa.html#

The move comes after Uefa scrutinised Besiktas' accounts in the second and third quarters of 2011 and ruled that they breached articles of the ruling body's financial fair play regulations.
Shares in Besiktas tumbled more than 9 per cent following the news.
Besiktas chairman, Fikret Orman, and the club's lawyers attended a meeting with Uefa's disciplinary committee for a second time on Wednesday after the club was earlier warned about its financial status and high debt.
Orman said Besiktas would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding the ban, but added he was not very optimistic about a ruling in favour of the 13-time Turkish champions.
"We will defend the club's rights until the end, and will appeal to CAS as the first step," Levent Erdogan, a lawyer and club board member told Turkey's Dogan news agency.
"I think it's a dramatic decision, and it will hit us pretty badly, but there's nothing we can do."

---

I take it this literally means CL and EL competitions and not domestic Turkish league and cup competitions, which is where Rangers are at presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Here's an odd story - which I don't quite think is correct. I've emailed the author asking where she gets her figures from - will post if and when I hear back...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...medium=twitter

---

This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

---

I reckon Green won't complete the sale until he is certain that the SPL and SFA places are assured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

---

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont
No contact between FIFA and SFA re rangers going to Court of Session since yesterday's verdict

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

---

She has a future in the accountancy game, possibly a future financial controller of a Newco Rangers, or even a senior administrator at Duff and Phelps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

---

Now that's what you call creative accounting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Now that's what you call someone who failed basic accounting and went off to write about it instead.

---

Fixed. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

She has a future in the accountancy game, possibly a future financial controller of a Newco Rangers, or even a senior administrator at Duff and Phelps.

---

Hear Vlad is interviewing her as we speak.

I wonder when the film of this will come oot ,going by this thread it could be worth millions .

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...s-7804028.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...s-7804028.html

---

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

---

The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

---

And let's hope his successor can do basic English.

Ive no really posted on here as a dinnae ken what am talking aboot, But ill tell you one hing for certain.....



Glasgow Rangers will walk away scot-free. FACT!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibbyAndy

Ive no really posted on here as a dinnae ken what am talking aboot, But ill tell you one hing for certain.....



Glasgow Rangers will walk away scot-free. FACT!!!!

---

You're not wrong........




you don't know what you're talking about. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...s-7804028.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

---

How does he get away with this? He has spent the last three months putting his own spin on every bit of information he gives. It is outrageous of him to tell creditors what to do and not to do. Surely it's about time some of the blazers, and I include Petrie among them, told him to put a sock in it. If, at the end of this Hun carry on, justice is seen to be done, I think he should be sacked forthwith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

Hmm, so around 50% more wind and pish. Anyone else like to have 50% more wind and pish.

---

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

---

Well, he should if he were fulfilling his role properly, diligently and in good faith rather than being part of the great Hun conspiracy.

Can someone answer this question please.

Are people able to bid now on the event of liquidation?

Everyone seems to e taking it on the basis that this new guy is trying to save the club via a CVA but if that fails then surely liquadation would mean they'd have to open up the assets to new bidders.

Someone might be interested in the assets without wanting to save the club so why would they come forward now?

Is there not a time period by law that after liquadation the assets need to be made available on the market before a final price can be agreed and give companies or people the chance to assess the assets.

****ing joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

Can someone answer this question please.

Are people able to bid now on the event of liquidation?

Everyone seems to e taking it on the basis that this new guy is trying to save the club via a CVA but if that fails then surely liquadation would mean they'd have to open up the assets to new bidders.

Someone might be interested in the assets without wanting to save the club so why would they come forward now?

Is there not a time period by law that after liquadation the assets need to be made available on the market before a final price can be agreed and give companies or people the chance to assess the assets.

****ing joke.

---

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

---

Agree. Those with something to offer, such as large away gates, will get waved back in. The small clubs will be punted into oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

---

Will the liquidator be someone like KPMG or would Phelps still want to do it?

Also, interesting it's supposed to be interests of creditors but that's what Administrators are supposed to do and D&P only talk about the interests of Rangers.

Will liquidation change things in the favour of common sense from a legal point of view anyway?

I suppose it's easy to dodge the bullets when the posse's guns are aiming to miss you.

Not sure if it has been posted but apparently the St. Mirren chairman spoke to the press and was fairly fuming about Rangers winning in court...

That is another on side hopefully! :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

---

On that basis, how can Greene issue a proposal document with D&P saying the outcome of liquidation and using that as an influential factor in the decision making process?

Surely that section shouldn't exist intact document or a note to say that in that event assets will go to the open market. Maybe it already says that.

If D&P main game is saving Rangers, which is clear, is there anything that stops them accepting the Green offer for the assets 1 minute after liquidation?

This is where my time limit query comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

Agree. Those with something to offer, such as large away gates, will get waved back in. The small clubs will be punted into oblivion.

---

Alternatively, those that have been guilty of financial mismanagement will suffer less severe sanctions than those that have been found guilty of cheating, fraud, bringing the game into disrepute and serial rule breaking.

Isn't that a better outcome ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

Will the liquidator be someone like KPMG or would Phelps still want to do it?

Also, interesting it's supposed to be interests of creditors but that's what Administrators are supposed to do and D&P only talk about the interests of Rangers.

Will liquidation change things in the favour of common sense from a legal point of view anyway?

---

The liquidator is normally voted in on the basis of relative debt. In other words, it would probably be HMRC's choice.

As for the "common sense" question, it should make things easier to understand from an outsider's point of view. There will be no question of the company continuing to trade; it's all about maximising the sale of the assets.