The easy option future for Hearts and Rangers.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottis...oenix-company/
Results 1 to 23 of 23
-
02-11-2011 10:38 AM #1
Administration, phoenix club and the easy way out.
-
02-11-2011 11:05 AM #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?
-
02-11-2011 11:17 AM #3UEFA 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.
-
02-11-2011 11:54 AM #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.
-
02-11-2011 11:56 AM #5This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
02-11-2011 12:04 PM #6
- 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.
-
-
02-11-2011 12:30 PM #8
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.
-
02-11-2011 01:16 PM #9
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
-
02-11-2011 01:21 PM #10This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-11-2011 01:35 PM #11This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This is of course only my opinion.
-
02-11-2011 03:24 PM #12This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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?
-
02-11-2011 03:30 PM #13This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/p...es-2/episode-1
-
02-11-2011 03:38 PM #14
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Edinburgh
- Posts
- 3,002
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-11-2011 03:58 PM #15
- 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
-
02-11-2011 04:06 PM #16This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-11-2011 04:07 PM #17This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Genuinely interested in how this all might fall out.
-
-
02-11-2011 05:02 PM #19This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU64cDx69f8
-
02-11-2011 05:22 PM #20
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
- Back in the town
- Age
- 60
- Posts
- 11,873
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-11-2011 07:05 PM #21This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-11-2011 08:19 PM #22This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Thanks both for replies and patience with my stupid questions
-
02-11-2011 08:41 PM #23This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks