Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Smidge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't the administrator doing anything that hasn't been OKed or suggested by Whyte though. One big easy ride coming up for RFC and one big shafting for the rest of us.

That may will be the case, but they will need to be very very very careful not to do anything that is challengeable by HMRC and other unsecured creditors.

[NOLA]

feels like a huge anti-climax, so the hunns bring in duff/phelps, stinks.

[jonty]

And they have to pay HMRCs expenses. big deal.

[iwasthere1972]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's quite exciting, almost like transfer deadline day thread.

Anything of value transferred from the HUNS to HMRC.

When are the Hearts wages due to be paid? Is it the 16th?#

Would be convenient if the Big Huns and the Mini Huns could appear in the same court on the same day. The same allocation to each of them and home and away ends. I would buy a ticket to see that match.

[Exiled Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it is!

While I'm sure they'll eventually emerge from this smelling of roses, and we - as taxpayers - are possibly going to get fleeced, it's like watching a playground bully getting their come-uppance. In front of assembly.

Let's just keep enjoying their pain - who knows, we may still get the best possible ending.

[Spike Mandela]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So they have now gone into administration and will automatically be deducted 10 points.

What a weak and ineffectual sanction. Teams should be put 10 points behind bottom club but SPL is hamstrung by the 11-1 voting system.

[Smidge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pre-packs are invariably attempts to defraud unsecured creditors and they have been given the seal of approval of the courts, even though seeming to fly in the face of the insolvency legislation, which obliges administrators to have regard to the interests of all creditors.

You may have a point re the SPL membership but sure Whyte and his advisers will have thought of a way round this.

I've been involved (mainly as an observer) on a couple of pre-packs, so I am aware that they are normally waved through by the courts. However, the extent of the unsecured creditors was a fraction of the secured creditors' rights. Given the scale of the unsecured creditors here, it is highly likely that the court would want to have a very close look at any proposals. If HMRC get a sniff of something that will do them out of a decent settlement, then I am sure that we would be running to the court to get an interim interdict to prevent anything being executed.

[YehButNoBut]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What a weak and ineffectual sanction. Teams should be put 10 points behind bottom club but SPL is hamstrung by the 11-1 voting system.

So what was different about Dundee's situation (they were deducted 25 points) or Livingston who had to start in Div 3.

[HibbyAndy]

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what was different about Dundee's situation (they were deducted 25 points) or Livingston who had to start in Div 3.

They were governed by Scottsh League and not SPL rules.

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what was different about Dundee's situation (they were deducted 25 points) or Livingston who had to start in Div 3.

That was SFL rules.

[SteveHFC]

We're having a party when the Huns die!

[Spike Mandela]

Get your hankies ready for the media stories of the 'plucky' players struggling on through difficult times.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

SPL is hamstrung by the 11-1 voting system.

That 11-1 voting system might see Rangers (or whatever the resurrected team are called) refused entry to the SPL.
Whilst most clubs will want them back in, due to gates and TV money, all it takes is 2 teams to vote against it and they will be left floundering in the lower divisions.
The bottom team would retain SPL status so it's in their benefit to do so. Mad Vlad might well vote them out after getting shafted for the Lee Wallace money (and the huns being part of the "mafia"). No love lost between Rangers and Aberdeen. Even Celtic might be against them for fear of a fans backlash (or just for SPL domination).

[iwasthere1972]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

One with Ally McCoist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJG...=youtube_gdata

[ehf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've been involved (mainly as an observer) on a couple of pre-packs, so I am aware that they are normally waved through by the courts. However, the extent of the unsecured creditors was a fraction of the secured creditors' rights. Given the scale of the unsecured creditors here, it is highly likely that the court would want to have a very close look at any proposals. If HMRC get a sniff of something that will do them out of a decent settlement, then I am sure that we would be running to the court to get an interim interdict to prevent anything being executed.

Let's hope so: it would be great if, as well scuppering Whyte's scheme, this resulted in a test-case that will prevent the widespread abuse of the administration system that has been allowed to develop by the sanctioning of pre-packs.

In the meantime, here's hoping Celtic take their foot off the gas on Sunday!

[Golden Bear]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Get your hankies ready for the media stories of the 'plucky' players struggling on through difficult times.

If the mighty hawrts lose out on the Lee Wallace saga then good - the chickens have come home to roost in their case.

However I do feel sorry for Dundee Utd if they are left floundering for the £100,000 in gate money which they're still due for the Cup Tie at Ibrox. That seems grossly unfair and I would hope that the SFA have some sort of emergency contingency fund to cover scenarios like this one.

[GloryGlory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the mighty hawrts lose out on the Lee Wallace saga then good - the chickens have come home to roost in their case.

However I do feel sorry for Dundee Utd if they are left floundering for the £100,000 in gate money which they're still due for the Cup Tie at Ibrox. That seems grossly unfair and I would hope that the SFA have some sort of emergency contingency fund to cover scenarios like this one.

Deduct Rangers' sponsorship money?

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That 11-1 voting system might see Rangers (or whatever the resurrected team are called) refused entry to the SPL.
Whilst most clubs will want them back in, due to gates and TV money, all it takes is 2 teams to vote against it and they will be left floundering in the lower divisions.
The bottom team would retain SPL status so it's in their benefit to do so. Mad Vlad might well vote them out after getting shafted for the Lee Wallace money (and the huns being part of the "mafia"). No love lost between Rangers and Aberdeen. Even Celtic might be against them for fear of a fans backlash (or just for SPL domination).

Any club voting to readmit RFC would have to answer to their own fans.

I am not sure if the 11-1 voting rule will apply to this sort of issue. That is restricted to financial matters as far as I understand things.

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In the meantime, here's hoping Celtic take their foot off the gas on Sunday!

Lets hope they send out their reserves

[CRAZYHIBBY]

Gazza gazza wheres yer rod...

[NOLA]

strathclyde polis saying that they need guarentee they get paid or they wont police anymore gers games

[GloryGlory]

Strathclyde Polis saying they will not police Rangers game unless they are assured they will be paid!

Wonder what money will be required to police the next OF game at Ibrox? You can't see the Celtc fans avoiding the chance to extract the urine.

PS If games are cancelled because the police refuse to turn up, would Rangers forfeit the points?

[PeeKay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

strathclyde polis saying that they need guarentee they get paid or they wont police anymore gers games

Surely this means that they cannot fulfill their fixtures, in which case may they not face further sanctions beyond the 10 points?

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am not sure if the 11-1 voting rule will apply to this sort of issue. That is restricted to financial matters as far as I understand things.

You're right, 11-1 is for financial issues. For league issues it requires 10-2. For all other (minor) issues it requires an 8-4 majority.

"Any change to the size in the top flight, whether an expansion or reduction, requires a 10-2 majority, ie 83 per cent. Any change to the distribution of income needs an 11-1 vote (92 per cent). Most other resolutions, such as an earlier start to the season, play-offs and winter shut-down, can be passed with 67 per cent backing, an 8-4 majority."

I'm guessing that Rangers getting into the SPL would need 10 teams to back it (or 2 teams to block it, assuming that Rangers wont be allowed to vote).

If it's still us and Dunfermline fighting it out for relegation when the vote comes around then that could be 2 teams right there.
I'm also tempted to think Mad Vlad would vote against them (unless he gets a "back-hander").
Hard to say what way Celtic would vote.
It's quite possible that their SPL status would not be a "given".

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any club voting to readmit RFC would have to answer to their own fans.

I am not sure if the 11-1 voting rule will apply to this sort of issue. That is restricted to financial matters as far as I understand things.

Only 6 Clubs are required to change the conditions of entry to the SPL.

Rangers will frig the Admin, not pay HMRC, pre-pack liquidation and re-emerge as Glasgow Rangers FC where it will only need 6 Clubs to allow them straight back in.

This will be done for the good of the game in Scotland i.e to satisfy Murdoch/Sky.

Hearts will then do exactly the same.

[GloryGlory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

strathclyde polis saying that they need guarentee they get paid or they wont police anymore gers games

Ouch! Beat me to it!

[HibbyAndy]

[Paisley Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

feels like a huge anti-climax, so the hunns bring in duff/phelps, stinks.

Sorrybut I'm trying to catch up with this. Can someone explain why appointment of Duff Phelps is an issue? I'm guessing too close to Whyte but in what way?

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're right, 11-1 is for financial issues. For league issues it requires 10-2. For all other (minor) issues it requires an 8-4 majority.

"Any change to the size in the top flight, whether an expansion or reduction, requires a 10-2 majority, ie 83 per cent. Any change to the distribution of income needs an 11-1 vote (92 per cent). Most other resolutions, such as an earlier start to the season, play-offs and winter shut-down, can be passed with 67 per cent backing, an 8-4 majority."

I'm guessing that Rangers getting into the SPL would need 10 teams to back it (or 3 teams to block it).

If it's still us and Dunfermline fighting it out for relegation when the vote comes around then that could be 2 of the 3 teams voting against them to ensure SPL survival.
I'm tempted to think Mad Vlad would vote against them (unless he gets a "back-hander").
Hard to say what way Celtic would vote.
It's quite possible that their SPL status would not be a "given".

But admitting |"Glasgow Rangers" would be neither an expansion nor a reduction, rather a continuation of the status quo.