Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The FA and SFA do take a different view but in this instance it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

The FA are willing to accept a newco in the same division if the creditors of the oldco are satisfied, as Portsmouth's were (this is what Trevor Birch was alluding to when he said things are different up here, ie. Hearts need to transfer shares, not just agree a CVA):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...th/8746162.stm

However, if creditors are unsatisfied, the FA treats the newco quite differently, as per Darlington:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_1883

Sevco are a newco following a refused CVA, so wouldn't have been allowed to "stay" in the SPL even under FA rules.

Cheers for that.

Reading the Wikipedia page on Darlington, then, had RFC been an English club (yeah, I know ), it would follow that they would have had their history removed by the FA?

[lord bunberry]

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

I don't know much about the Rotherham story, but there's little difference between Portsmouth and Rangers. Both clubs had their business taken over by Newco's. The major difference, though, is that Portsmouth were allowed to remain in the same League. That's because the SFA and FA view such events differently.

I thought Portsmouth's newco came after their second administration

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm still very sceptical about the claim that TRFC will go into administration this week, for a number of reasons:-

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent?

3. why would the club do it now, and risk a 25 point penalty, when they have a 24 point lead? Surely better to do a Hearts and wait for the close season, or (better still) when they can't be caught before the end of the season.

4. the claim about getting out of expensive contracts, which seems to be the main justification that is being touted. I am no employment law expert, and would welcome the view of any on here who are; my amateur reading of TUPE regulations tells me that the new owners of the club would find it very difficult to justify not taking on the TRFC playing staff, let alone trying to cut their wages. So, again, why do it at all?

It's notable that Dave King agrees with me, though I am not sure that's something to be proud of.

Willing to be shot down.....indeed, hoping.

[Ozyhibby]

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

I'm still very sceptical about the claim that TRFC will go into administration this week, for a number of reasons:-

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent?

3. why would the club do it now, and risk a 25 point penalty, when they have a 24 point lead? Surely better to do a Hearts and wait for the close season, or (better still) when they can't be caught before the end of the season.

4. the claim about getting out of expensive contracts, which seems to be the main justification that is being touted. I am no employment law expert, and would welcome the view of any on here who are; my amateur reading of TUPE regulations tells me that the new owners of the club would find it very difficult to justify not taking on the TRFC playing staff, let alone trying to cut their wages. So, again, why do it at all?

It's notable that Dave King agrees with me, though I am not sure that's something to be proud of.

Willing to be shot down.....indeed, hoping.

With Number 2. They have taken security over some assets so won't lose either way.
Also the contracts they may want out of could be more commercial in nature? Maybe catering or merchandising?
Not sure but it will be fun if it happens.

[HoboHarry]

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

I'm still very sceptical about the claim that TRFC will go into administration this week, for a number of reasons:-

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent?

3. why would the club do it now, and risk a 25 point penalty, when they have a 24 point lead? Surely better to do a Hearts and wait for the close season, or (better still) when they can't be caught before the end of the season.

4. the claim about getting out of expensive contracts, which seems to be the main justification that is being touted. I am no employment law expert, and would welcome the view of any on here who are; my amateur reading of TUPE regulations tells me that the new owners of the club would find it very difficult to justify not taking on the TRFC playing staff, let alone trying to cut their wages. So, again, why do it at all?

It's notable that Dave King agrees with me, though I am not sure that's something to be proud of.

Willing to be shot down.....indeed, hoping.

I am no finance expert but here is my tuppence worth.

1) The amount they borrowed is small change in the big scheme of things and there have been suggestions that the amount is to help finance the administration. If they struggled to find that amount they really are in trouble.
2) The financiers now have security on Edminston House and the Albion car park I believe. They can't lose at this point.
3) Isn't the penalty better now if they believe they can still win the league? Personally I think they will struggle particularly if they shed the top players
4) Will it not be the call of the admins as to who is bulleted? Swally may be in danger too if that is the case. It seems clear to me their needs to be some serious cost cutting and I can't see another way other than admin if they are struggling to find any decent level of financial help.

Again - I am not a finance guy like you but it seems to me that they are in a world of financial poo......

[PatHead]

Not feeling too good today and came on here to rest the grey matter but how about?

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

I'm still very sceptical about the claim that TRFC will go into administration this week, for a number of reasons:-

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance? Are the loans not secured thus making them secured creditors?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent? To take pole position in the new (post admin) club?

3. why would the club do it now, and risk a 25 point penalty, when they have a 24 point lead? Surely better to do a Hearts and wait for the close season, or (better still) when they can't be caught before the end of the season. When did reason ever come in to this? Maybe arrogance which they have in abundance.

4. the claim about getting out of expensive contracts, which seems to be the main justification that is being touted. I am no employment law expert, and would welcome the view of any on here who are; my amateur reading of TUPE regulations tells me that the new owners of the club would find it very difficult to justify not taking on the TRFC playing staff, let alone trying to cut their wages. So, again, why do it at all? You win why ?

It's notable that Dave King agrees with me, though I am not sure that's something to be proud of.

Willing to be shot down.....indeed, hoping.

[jonty]

tsk tsk tsk. Its a newco, so only 15pts (or it might be 1/3 of last years points which would make it 28 pts)

[grunt]

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

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent?

Has the new investment been paid over to Rangers, or was it just agreed to be paid? If the latter, I'd expect there would be get out clauses in the event of a significant change in the company, such as administration.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

tsk tsk tsk. Its a newco, so only 15pts (or it might be 1/3 of last years points which would make it 28 pts)

The 1/3 rule doesn't apply any more, since the SPFL took over.

However:-

E5
Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event
which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers
or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the points deduction applicable in terms of Rules E1 in respect of that second or further Insolvency Event, shall be 25 points with the 15
points in Rules E2 and E3 being 25 Points.

[Caversham Green]

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

I'm still very sceptical about the claim that TRFC will go into administration this week, for a number of reasons:-

1. why would they do it when they have just arranged a deal for finance?

2. why would the financiers, who presumably have more of an insight into TRFC's situation than we have, agree to a deal if administration was obvious and imminent?

3. why would the club do it now, and risk a 25 point penalty, when they have a 24 point lead? Surely better to do a Hearts and wait for the close season, or (better still) when they can't be caught before the end of the season.

4. the claim about getting out of expensive contracts, which seems to be the main justification that is being touted. I am no employment law expert, and would welcome the view of any on here who are; my amateur reading of TUPE regulations tells me that the new owners of the club would find it very difficult to justify not taking on the TRFC playing staff, let alone trying to cut their wages. So, again, why do it at all?

It's notable that Dave King agrees with me, though I am not sure that's something to be proud of.

Willing to be shot down.....indeed, hoping.

On the TUPE point, that only applies when it's a new company taking over the operations of an old one - as happened when Sevco took over the Rangers franchise. In this case Sevco (who now call themselves Rangers) would presumably emerge as the same company so the employees would simply be made redundant.

[jonty]

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

The 1/3 rule doesn't apply any more, since the SPFL took over.

However:-

E5
Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event
which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers
or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the points deduction applicable in terms of Rules E1 in respect of that second or further Insolvency Event, shall be 25 points with the 15
points in Rules E2 and E3 being 25 Points.

You missed

E5.2
Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event
which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers
or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the club shall also be referred to as 'The The' clubname and the dirty thieving cheating ****bag ******** ****ers will be demoted to the amateur leagues as they clearly haven't got a ****ing clue.

Its true, I read it on the internet.


I wonder what they have planned for a 3rd insolvency event.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

On the TUPE point, that only applies when it's a new company taking over the operations of an old one - as happened when Sevco took over the Rangers franchise. In this case Sevco (who now call themselves Rangers) would presumably emerge as the same company so the employees would simply be made redundant.

Fair point, but what about redundancy costs? Or do fixed-term contracts not have them? If they don't, would the remainder of the players' contracts be payable?

[Caversham Green]

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

Fair point, but what about redundancy costs? Or do fixed-term contracts not have them? If they don't, would the remainder of the players' contracts be payable?

They'd become creditors - and you know what happens to creditors in an administration.

[jonty]

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

They'd become creditors - and you know what happens to creditors in an administration.

It doesn't count as a football debt, and the easy bucks that the players thought they would be making suddenly doesn't look like complete bull****?

Have they been paying their players and PAYE or been doing a 'whytie' and withholding? I'm sure they're not that stupid.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

They'd become creditors - and you know what happens to creditors in an administration.

This is where I'm struggling.

AFAIK, there aren't any significant creditors, not like in the previous situation or the Hearts one. So there is a greater spread of smaller creditors, including the usual suspects, like HMRC, Council, tradesmen etc., but also including a hefty chunk of pissed-off players.

How sure would they be that a CVA would get the 75%? HMRC would vote against, as would all those players who had just been dumped, presumably.

[Caversham Green]

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

This is where I'm struggling.

AFAIK, there aren't any significant creditors, not like in the previous situation or the Hearts one. So there is a greater spread of smaller creditors, including the usual suspects, like HMRC, Council, tradesmen etc., but also including a hefty chunk of pissed-off players.

How sure would they be that a CVA would get the 75%? HMRC would vote against, as would all those players who had just been dumped, presumably.

Hard to say, but as with any administration the creditors would be given the choice of keechpence in the pound or nothing.

BTW, I'm not convinced it's going to happen, just examining the possibility. Anyway didn't Fill Ma Gullible tell us it was happening today?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

With Number 2. They have taken security over some assets so won't lose either way.
Also the contracts they may want out of could be more commercial in nature? Maybe catering or merchandising?
Not sure but it will be fun if it happens.

That did cross my mind, actually. Maybe we're all missing the point by talking about players' contracts. If that's the case, though, they must be pretty horrendous contracts if they have to go to the lengths of admin to get out of them.

On the security, which is fair comment of course... I thought I read (and it may have been Phil McGubbin, so I'm not sure how credible it is) that part of the funding deal was.... if the company goes into admin, the lenders get additional shares in the restructured company.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Hard to say, but as with any administration the creditors would be given the choice of keechpence in the pound or nothing.

BTW, I'm not convinced it's going to happen, just examining the possibility. Anyway didn't Fill Ma Gullible tell us it was happening today?

Think he said there was a Board meeting today, and it would happen on Wednesday.

It's worth pointing out that, as you'll know, talk of insolvency often hastens it. Suppliers get nervous and demand earlier payment than normal.... etc etc. This may be Phil's ploy.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

You missed

Its true, I read it on the internet.


I wonder what they have planned for a 3rd insolvency event.

They get to keep....eh.......... something.

[PatHead]

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

That did cross my mind, actually. Maybe we're all missing the point by talking about players' contracts. If that's the case, though, they must be pretty horrendous contracts if they have to go to the lengths of admin to get out of them.

On the security, which is fair comment of course... I thought I read (and it may have been Phil McGubbin, so I'm not sure how credible it is) that part of the funding deal was.... if the company goes into admin, the lenders get additional shares in the restructured company.

Bonuses for winning the league based on SPL figures perhaps? If the Finance Director got a fortune last year wonder what players get? Could be a few million saved.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Bonuses for winning the league based on SPL figures perhaps? If the Finance Director got a fortune last year wonder what players get? Could be a few million saved.

Interesting model.

Go into admin.... take 25 point hit....league not won, so bonuses (Boni?) not payable....get promotion through the play offs... keep players on... institute same bonus scheme for the Championship... build up massive lead... go into admin again.... etc etc.

It's a long shot, but it might just work....

http://chewits.co.uk/chews/the-muncher-menace-part-5/

[PatHead]

Maybe we should follow it, cunning as a fox with 2 tails to quote Blackadder

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

Interesting model.

Go into admin.... take 25 point hit....league not won, so bonuses (Boni?) not payable....get promotion through the play offs... keep players on... institute same bonus scheme for the Championship... build up massive lead... go into admin again.... etc etc.

It's a long shot, but it might just work....

http://chewits.co.uk/chews/the-muncher-menace-part-5/

[Sergio sledge]

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

This is where I'm struggling.

AFAIK, there aren't any significant creditors, not like in the previous situation or the Hearts one. So there is a greater spread of smaller creditors, including the usual suspects, like HMRC, Council, tradesmen etc., but also including a hefty chunk of pissed-off players.

How sure would they be that a CVA would get the 75%? HMRC would vote against, as would all those players who had just been dumped, presumably.

could the loans be an effort to get the 75% of "friendly" creditors by running up a quick £3m debt just prior to admin?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

could the loans be an effort to get the 75% of "friendly" creditors by running up a quick £3m debt just prior to admin?

They're secured so they wouldn't get a vote in the CVA.

[AndyM_1875]

Have a feeling this 2nd Administration is nothing more than the fantasy wet dream dribblings of a certain hysterical, axe grinding Irish based blogger who for some reason is still indulged by Alex Thomson.

Rangers board have invited Dave King in for talks btw regarding his recent comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26420403

[HoboHarry]

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

Have a feeling this 2nd Administration is nothing more than the fantasy wet dream dribblings of a certain hysterical, axe grinding Irish based blogger who for some reason is still indulged by Alex Thomson.

Rangers board have invited Dave King in for talks btw regarding his recent comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26420403

Perhaps they are - but i would suggest that any organisation taking loans under the conditions they have are likely to be in financial bother

[jacomo]

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

Have a feeling this 2nd Administration is nothing more than the fantasy wet dream dribblings of a certain hysterical, axe grinding Irish based blogger who for some reason is still indulged by Alex Thomson.

Rangers board have invited Dave King in for talks btw regarding his recent comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26420403

As you and CWG have said, Rangers are clearly in a spot of difficulty but the loans will surely see them through until the season ticket money starts rolling in again... Whoah! No wonder they've invited Mr K for a meeting! If his campaign gains traction with the supporters then the club really will be in the brown stuff

[greenginger]

There accounts were due to be with Companies House on 28th February.

What's the hold up ?

[SteveHFC]

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

Terry Butcher is a clown

Take back what i said

[CropleyWasGod]

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

There accounts were due to be with Companies House on 28th February.

What's the hold up ?

Sometimes it takes a few days or so to get them displayed.