Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Jack]

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

Liquidation before the season end means all their fixtures are void and automatic relegation with no opportunity to plead for special treatment.

I think they still expect to be in the SPL next season.

Agreed.

If they went into liquidation now, or for any reason were unable to fulfil any fixtures, before the end of the season it would be curtains, no way back, they'd be toast, history – even for the 3^rd division. Deed!

Keeping them on a life support machine means they may come out of the coma but I think the common thought is they are already brain dead.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?

If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

[greenginger]

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

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

I think the SFA delegated the double contracts issue to the SPL so as the SFA can act as an appeal tribunal.

Of course Doncaster could have the double contracts in triplicate on his desk and still conclude nothing is proven.

[jgl07]

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

Liquidation before the season end means all their fixtures are void and automatic relegation with no opportunity to plead for special treatment.

I don't think all fixtures would be voided as the phase one fixtures are now complete. It would result in the top six becoming a top five and a 37-match series for them. The bottom six would not be affected.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I think the SFA delegated the double contracts issue to the SPL so as the SFA can act as an appeal tribunal.

Of course Doncaster could have the double contracts in triplicate on his desk and still conclude nothing is proven.

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

[PatHead]

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

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

Wish I had your faith. He wants to maximise income for the SPL and he sees Rangers being there as crucial.

[Caversham Green]

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

Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?

If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.

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

Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.

If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.

The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.

I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

[Caversham Green]

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

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

I have a feeling that the Broadcasting contracts were negotiated by Doncaster and he sees them as his baby. For that reason he is desperate to keep Rangers in the top flight otherwise his incompetence in allowing the inclusion of the four OF games clause with no apparent plan B will be exposed to an even greater extent.

I wonder if that was also why he was so keen on the 10-team SPL - there were already noises about Rangers financial problems and a distinct possibility that they would drop to the bottom six, thereby losing one of the derbies.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.



I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

Okay, so if I understand you, that would suggest that the SPL, although conducting their own investigation, will wait for the BTC verdict before they issue theirs?

[Caversham Green]

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

Okay, so if I understand you, that would suggest that the SPL, although conducting their own investigation, will wait for the BTC verdict before they issue theirs?

I would have thought so. The BTC findings ought to be a substantial part of their investigation even if it isn't as conclusive as I think it should be.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I would have thought so. The BTC findings ought to be a substantial part of their investigation even if it isn't as conclusive as I think it should be.

Okay.

What I am not clear about, and I mentioned it earlier, is the extent to which the Tribunal publishes the evidence. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but if all they do is publish the verdict.......

I will do some digging, unless you know the answer off the top of your heid?

Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.

[Caversham Green]

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

Okay.

What I am not clear about, and I mentioned it earlier, is the extent to which the Tribunal publishes the evidence. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but if all they do is publish the verdict.......

I will do some digging, unless you know the answer off the top of your heid?

No, I don't know that. I would think they would have to give fairly detailed reasons for their decision though, for the puroses of both explaining it to both sides and for future reference (although I believe the tribunal's decision would not set a specific legal precedence).

[CropleyWasGod]

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

No, I don't know that. I would think they would have to give fairly detailed reasons for their decision though, for the puroses of both explaining it to both sides and for future reference (although I believe the tribunal's decision would not set a specific legal precedence).

That's my understanding, as well.

It follows from that, that HMRC might not be able to rely on this case in dealing with other clubs. It would, however, give them a lot of ammunition.

In case you missed my previous edit:-

Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Ah, you're right.

And you're also a cynical get

Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.

Think Regan at the SFA is some hope (especially as he answers to Platini at UEFA). Doncaster on the other hand is already deliberately attempting to subvert the rules to get NewHuns in at any price (imo).

[Seveno]

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

Think Regan at the SFA is some hope (especially as he answers to Platini at UEFA). Doncaster on the other hand is already deliberately attempting to subvert the rules to get NewHuns in at any price (imo).

I think that you are right here. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to satisfy UEFA that SFA affairs are being conducted properly and with due reference to Financial Fair Play. The sale of Jelavic, whilst still owing money to Rapid Vienna wil be a big issue at UEFA. They have come down hard on other clubs that have broken the rules.

Ultimately, I guess that UEFA could ban all Scottish clubs from participation in Europe. Imagine the
reaction at Darkheid !

[EuanH78]

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

It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.

Maybe that's what you were getting at though.



I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.

This is exactly what I was getting at, this seems to be how Rangers new identity is being positioned- if this turns out to be the case, things become so farcical that it is difficult to see a recovery of Scottish football integrity within a generation.

The very fact that the governing bodies are doing their damndest to ease RFC's sufferings is already doing untold damage. Lack of leadership and the ability to make the 'hard, but righteous' decisions is damaging Scottish football daily IMO

[JeMeSouviens]

As mentioned above, Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston stated on RS last night that if they ever get to vote on the issue, the Pars will vote against the Hun newco.

Interview starts about 10 mins in to the latest podcast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot

Of course, you can hardly move for huge banner headlines splashing this extremely important but bad news for der Hun.

Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect.

C'mon Rod, do the decent thing and publically back Yorkston's view.

[Gingertosser]

JeMeSouviens Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect

My undersatnding from the rules posted on here (quite a few pages back) was that the members voted on this first, and needed all 11 to back a Newco, and the boards duty was to implement this decision.

Have I misread this previously, or are the board interpreting the rules to suit themselves ?

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Have I misread this previously, or are the board interpreting the rules to suit themselves ?

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).

Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).

Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea.

What are the rules on one club transferring its share to another, where neither is in administration or liquidation?

[jgl07]

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

I have a feeling that the Broadcasting contracts were negotiated by Doncaster and he sees them as his baby. For that reason he is desperate to keep Rangers in the top flight otherwise his incompetence in allowing the inclusion of the four OF games clause with no apparent plan B will be exposed to an even greater extent.

I wonder if that was also why he was so keen on the 10-team SPL - there were already noises about Rangers financial problems and a distinct possibility that they would drop to the bottom six, thereby losing one of the derbies.

I think that the new TV deal was introduced to kick any attempts to expand the SPL to 14 or 16 teams.

The other agenda was always to go back to 10 teams even though virtually no supporters want this to happen.

Doncaster lied continually to the press with a series of press statements to the effect that reconstruction had been agreed when there were clearly teams holding out against this.

I just get the impression that they are determined to foist a Newco Rangers on the SPL and then cut back to ten teams within the next couple of years, possibly via a complete league reconstruction and merger between the SPL and the SFL.

Scottish Football is entering its death throes.

It will be nice to go out on a Scottish Cup win though.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

What are the rules on one club transferring its share to another, where neither is in administration or liquidation?

TRANSFER OF SHARES
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
12 The instrument of transfer of a Share may be in any usual form or in any other form which the Board may approve and shall be executed by or on behalf of the transferor and, unless the Share is fully paid, by or on behalf of the transferee.

It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?

SFA ARTICLES
96. Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the SFA for so long as it remains a member of the SFA. Each Member shall (in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so) procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the SFA applicable to it.

[johnrebus]

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

No and Yes.

Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:

- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.

They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea.

Don't know if there is a phrase, 'legal corruption', but if there's not then there should be.

[Gingertosser]

Can a company in administration start up a new company ?

Can a company in administration transfer anything without the creditors consent ?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Can a company in administration start up a new company ?

Can a company in administration transfer anything without the creditors consent ?

It would be the shareholders of the new company (eg the BK's , or Billy the Ng) who would start up the NewCo. They would buy the assets of the old company as part of the purchase agreement.

[Gingertosser]

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

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

no it's the 6 apologists, most of whom have already backed a Newco being readmitted

[JeMeSouviens]

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

So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?

No it's the 6 stooges: Ralph "(not exactly a) Dream" Topping, Doncaster, plus club reps (currently Celtic, Well, St J, D Utd). In the event of a 3-3, Ralph "the worst living Hibby apart from Brian Kennedy" Topping has the casting vote.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?

According to the SFA website, the Licencing requirements for SPL clubs are the same as we have spoken about before.... ie the UEFA standard.

I am not sure how a completely new club would be able to satisfy those requirements, particularly the financial ones.

[Gingertosser]

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

It would be the shareholders of the new company (eg the BK's , or Billy the Ng) who would start up the NewCo. They would buy the assets of the old company as part of the purchase agreement.

so do newco1 (BK etc) just buy the assets they want and leave the rest behind ?

or do they have to buy everything and then start a newco2 again and then transfer the good stuff ?