hibs.net Messageboard

Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    @hibs.net private member Spike Mandela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alloa
    Age
    58
    Posts
    10,794
    Blog Entries
    1

    Administration, phoenix club and the easy way out.

    The easy option future for Hearts and Rangers.

    http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottis...oenix-company/


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #2
    Am I reading that right? It seems odd that we need an 11-1 majority for things like TV rights, yet only 6 SPL board members (and only 4 of those are club representatives) approve the transfer of the 1/12th SPL shareholding to the phoenix company... and they don't even need a majority since a split 3-3 vote is decided by the SPL Chairman, Ralph Topping! Basically if 3 of the 4 club reps vote one way their voices wouldn't matter it wouldn't matter as Topping has the final say.

    It stinks IMO.

    On another note, I actually think the Huns turmoil is very good for Hearts. If it was just Hearts doing this would they get permission? It's not a conspiracy but surely nobody on the board likes them given how the club and its owner conduct their affairs. Obviously the SPL will bend over backwards for the boys in blue, and they couldn't very well let them away with it and stick the finger up to the war heroes... could they?

  4. #3
    Testimonial Due Darth Hibbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lanarkshire
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,872
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: CENNYDD
    UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any “phoenix” club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe.
    That bit is quite interesting. That would be a disaster for Rangers.

  5. #4
    There's an important difference between the Huns and the Yams here. In the Huns case the money they will potentially owe is due to HMRC (they won't enter administration if they win their appeal) so they can't exit administration without the agreement of a third party. If the exit is blocked that's the point to raise a phoenx company. There's rather more to it than that article suggests and they would be seriously damaged, but I supect they would recover quite quickly because of their size within the context of Scottish football.

    In the Yams case, the vast majority of their money is owed to 'Mr Romanov' so if they were in administration he would call the shots on whether or when they exit - a phoenix comany would be pointless in these circumstances. I said a while back that administration would benefit the Yams rather than harming them and I stand by that, but in truth it's unlikely to happen now because in the current circumstances 'Mr Romanov' (as opposed to HoMFC) would be much better off simply flushing them down the bog.

  6. #5
    @hibs.net private member easty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    40
    Posts
    14,187
    Gamer IDs

    PSN ID: hibee_easty
    Quote Originally Posted by makaveli_619 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Am I reading that right? It seems odd that we need an 11-1 majority for things like TV rights, yet only 6 SPL board members (and only 4 of those are club representatives) approve the transfer of the 1/12th SPL shareholding to the phoenix company... and they don't even need a majority since a split 3-3 vote is decided by the SPL Chairman, Ralph Topping! Basically if 3 of the 4 club reps vote one way their voices wouldn't matter it wouldn't matter as Topping has the final say.

    It stinks IMO.

    On another note, I actually think the Huns turmoil is very good for Hearts. If it was just Hearts doing this would they get permission? It's not a conspiracy but surely nobody on the board likes them given how the club and its owner conduct their affairs. Obviously the SPL will bend over backwards for the boys in blue, and they couldn't very well let them away with it and stick the finger up to the war heroes... could they?


    I really don't like that theres no set penalty in place. It shouldnt be done on case by case basis, it should written down in the rules that going into administration carries a 15, 25, X amount of points penalty.

  7. #6
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,588
    That's their get out of jail free card then.

    Cardownie must have some inside knowledge about the tramps going belly up with roamingoff just about to walk out the door. Tynecastle will be levelled for ubigikio, or whatever his company's called, to get some money back for the debt. And cardownie knows that the tramps will retain their spl place, but will need somewhere to play ... as the Holy Ground isn't good enough for him & his fellow tramps, he's driving this "expectation" that the council should provide.

  8. #7
    Professional thread starter Diclonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Fife
    Age
    32
    Posts
    23,259
    I ****ing hate the Old Firm.

  9. #8
    @hibs.net private member Part/Time Supporter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cornwall
    Age
    41
    Posts
    14,570
    http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottis...dministration/

    Another option available to the SFA is to exclude a club [in administration] from the Scottish Cup. This is a new provision which first appeared in the organisation’s articles of association in the 2011/12 season.
    Another fine chapter in their "special relationship" with the big cup?


  10. #9
    @hibs.net private member WeAreHibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Facebook
    Posts
    814
    I was discussing this with a Celtic mate of mine and we both though (not surprisingly) that it could actually be a very good thing for the SPL if Rangers weren't given their place back. THere will obviously be member clubs who will still want the gate revenue, but what about the increased competition and european places that will become available for a few years till they make their way back up.

    It's probably just wishful thinking but surely a few on the voting committee will feel cheated and see it this way

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Sodje's Tongue View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was discussing this with a Celtic mate of mine and we both though (not surprisingly) that it could actually be a very good thing for the SPL if Rangers weren't given their place back. THere will obviously be member clubs who will still want the gate revenue, but what about the increased competition and european places that will become available for a few years till they make their way back up.

    It's probably just wishful thinking but surely a few on the voting committee will feel cheated and see it this way
    Sounds good, but in the real world Celtic will probably vote Rangers back in! For all the fan rivalry, the guys running the OF know they're nothing without each other. And as stated before it wouldn't matter how anyone else voted. Celtic + 2 SPL votes = 3/3, Topping casts the decisive vote for the Huns.

  12. #11
    Prediction League Supremo - 05/06 MB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Warriston
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,582
    Quote Originally Posted by clerriehibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's their get out of jail free card then.

    Cardownie must have some inside knowledge about the tramps going belly up with roamingoff just about to walk out the door. Tynecastle will be levelled for ubigikio, or whatever his company's called, to get some money back for the debt. And cardownie knows that the tramps will retain their spl place, but will need somewhere to play ... as the Holy Ground isn't good enough for him & his fellow tramps, he's driving this "expectation" that the council should provide.
    I think therein lies the problem for the Yams. Whilst they seem happy that their debt is owed to themselves via Romanov, it is not directly his money but UKIO BANKAS that they owe their debt to. I would doubt very much that any bank would happily write of a debt of such magnitude as a good will gesture to keep a foreign company in existance.

    This is of course only my opinion.

  13. #12
    First Team Regular EuanH78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    45
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's an important difference between the Huns and the Yams here. In the Huns case the money they will potentially owe is due to HMRC (they won't enter administration if they win their appeal) so they can't exit administration without the agreement of a third party. If the exit is blocked that's the point to raise a phoenx company. There's rather more to it than that article suggests and they would be seriously damaged, but I supect they would recover quite quickly because of their size within the context of Scottish football.

    In the Yams case, the vast majority of their money is owed to 'Mr Romanov' so if they were in administration he would call the shots on whether or when they exit - a phoenix comany would be pointless in these circumstances. I said a while back that administration would benefit the Yams rather than harming them and I stand by that, but in truth it's unlikely to happen now because in the current circumstances 'Mr Romanov' (as opposed to HoMFC) would be much better off simply flushing them down the bog.
    Re: The bold above. Would this mean Rangers (old company) would be liquidated and does this mean that say, Ibrox would be sold to the highest bidder to recoup (some of) monies owed?

    Also, from this article I take it that Airdrieonians were blocked by someone from rejoining as Airdrie United? If so, why and shouldnt the same rules be applied?

  14. #13
    Can I borrow some ambition? degenerated's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    At a post punk postcard fair
    Posts
    12,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike Mandela View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The easy option future for Hearts and Rangers.

    http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottis...oenix-company/
    sure you don't mean this sort of phoenix club easy option for hearts - the similarities are uncanny


    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/p...es-2/episode-1

  15. #14
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    3,002
    Quote Originally Posted by EuanH78 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Re: The bold above. Would this mean Rangers (old company) would be liquidated and does this mean that say, Ibrox would be sold to the highest bidder to recoup (some of) monies owed?

    Also, from this article I take it that Airdrieonians were blocked by someone from rejoining as Airdrie United? If so, why and shouldnt the same rules be applied?
    Ibrox has probably, or will probably be transferred to another company so if they do go into administration it wont be sold as they will no longer own it.

  16. #15
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Back in the town
    Age
    60
    Posts
    11,873
    My understanding is that as the only secured creditor Whyte would have preferential claim on all of Rangers assets. Only if the assets exceeded Whyte's claim would other creditors have any claim. As there are unlikely to be enough assets to cover anything other than Whyte's debts the stadium would pass to him. He could then rent the stadium back to the new Rangers club

  17. #16
    First Team Regular EuanH78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    45
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by hibs13681 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ibrox has probably, or will probably be transferred to another company so if they do go into administration it wont be sold as they will no longer own it.
    Though not an indesputible source, wikipedia has Ibrox owned by Rangers Football Club Ltd. If this is indeed, still the case, surely it would not be legit to transfer this 'asset' to another company at this point in time?

  18. #17
    First Team Regular EuanH78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    45
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by PatHead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My understanding is that as the only secured creditor Whyte would have preferential claim on all of Rangers assets. Only if the assets exceeded Whyte's claim would other creditors have any claim. As there are unlikely to be enough assets to cover anything other than Whyte's debts the stadium would pass to him. He could then rent the stadium back to the new Rangers club
    Preferential over HMRC?

    Genuinely interested in how this all might fall out.

  19. #18
    Coaching Staff IWasThere2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Monifieth & Bolton
    Age
    56
    Posts
    35,323
    Ralph Toppping is a Hibby is he no?

  20. #19
    @hibs.net private member Part/Time Supporter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cornwall
    Age
    41
    Posts
    14,570
    Quote Originally Posted by degenerated View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    sure you don't mean this sort of phoenix club easy option for hearts - the similarities are uncanny


    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/p...es-2/episode-1
    The finest moment of the Phoenix Club

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU64cDx69f8

  21. #20
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Back in the town
    Age
    60
    Posts
    11,873
    Quote Originally Posted by EuanH78 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Preferential over HMRC?

    Genuinely interested in how this all might fall out.
    HMRC are no longer preferred creditors and take their place in the queue with every other creditor.

  22. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by EuanH78 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Re: The bold above. Would this mean Rangers (old company) would be liquidated and does this mean that say, Ibrox would be sold to the highest bidder to recoup (some of) monies owed?

    Also, from this article I take it that Airdrieonians were blocked by someone from rejoining as Airdrie United? If so, why and shouldnt the same rules be applied?
    Ibrox and other assets would be sold to Newhun Ltd by the administrator of Oldhun Ltd and the proceeds would go towards paying off the creditors. It would have to be at an acceptable price, and that's where the problems might arise, because the property is recorded in the accounts at over £100m. Whyte could either get his £18m back from the administrator as a secured creditor or carry the liability over to Newhun Ltd if he's still involved. Newhun then has to find a way of obtaining membership of the various bodies - possibly by buying another club that's skint and trying to move out of its old stadium. One that's already in the SPL and has a strong loyalist following would be ideal if such a club exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by hibs13681 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ibrox has probably, or will probably be transferred to another company so if they do go into administration it wont be sold as they will no longer own it.
    The problem is that under current circumstances Ibrox would have to be transferred at market value, otherwise it looks like (and probably is) fraud and, as I say, that value is somewhere north of £100m.

  23. #22
    First Team Regular EuanH78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    45
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by PatHead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    HMRC are no longer preferred creditors and take their place in the queue with every other creditor.
    I'm not sure I completely understand this. I understand that Whyte is a preffered creditor but I dont really understand how tax can be behind that, after all tax isn't a debt is it? it's a tax that should of been paid as a result of monies in or out or to put it another way, normal trading.. Is this not correct? and if not, how can a creditor possibly be before the taxman, especially one who has invested after the tax investigations had started?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caversham Green View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ibrox and other assets would be sold to Newhun Ltd by the administrator of Oldhun Ltd and the proceeds would go towards paying off the creditors. It would have to be at an acceptable price, and that's where the problems might arise, because the property is recorded in the accounts at over £100m. Whyte could either get his £18m back from the administrator as a secured creditor or carry the liability over to Newhun Ltd if he's still involved. Newhun then has to find a way of obtaining membership of the various bodies - possibly by buying another club that's skint and trying to move out of its old stadium. One that's already in the SPL and has a strong loyalist following would be ideal if such a club exists.



    The problem is that under current circumstances Ibrox would have to be transferred at market value, otherwise it looks like (and probably is) fraud and, as I say, that value is somewhere north of £100m.
    That at least brings a smile to my face as that seem like quite a predicament for either old or new HunCo

    Thanks both for replies and patience with my stupid questions

  24. #23
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    28,932
    Quote Originally Posted by EuanH78 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure I completely understand this. I understand that Whyte is a preffered creditor but I dont really understand how tax can be behind that, after all tax isn't a debt is it? it's a tax that should of been paid as a result of monies in or out or to put it another way, normal trading.. Is this not correct? and if not, how can a creditor possibly be before the taxman, especially one who has invested after the tax investigations had started?



    That at least brings a smile to my face as that seem like quite a predicament for either old or new HunCo

    Thanks both for replies and patience with my stupid questions
    HMRC are a creditor, in that they are owed money. Whether that's VAT or PAYE that has been collected and not paid over, or the disputed tax on the players' salaries, it is still a debt. A debt like any other, like the Council, the stewards, the police.

    As for your question about Whyte coming before HMRC, that's the law I am afraid. It's like you taking out a mortgage. The lender takes security over the house, so that they maximise the chances of the debt being repaid.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2020 All Rights Reserved
- Mobile Leaderboard (320x50) - Leaderboard (728x90)