Jim McLean's Ghost

Once a CVA is agreed all debts accrued to that point are paid by the CVA. If Rangers lose their appeal then the BTC is paid from the CVA fund and Rangers are in the clear but it doesn't void the case or debt, it just means HMRC get more of the CVA pot.

What nonsense. you would have thought someone on accountancy age might be able to get their head around a balance sheet. If Rangers exit admin through a CVA the total admin costs are £5.5M If Rangers exit admin via a newco a liquidator is needed then total costs are £6.2M If Rangers liquidate and don't newco admin costs are still £6.2M These are 3 separate possibilities, not amounts to be added together. The administrators outlined 3 scenarios to show creditors that the CVA was the best deal and that selling assets to Green for £5.5M for a newco still gets creditors a better return than just liquidating.

A loan is standard in these cases. Green owns 85% of the club, they aren't allowed to issue new shares so there isn't really another way to invest capital that isn't a loan. Makes no difference anyway, Green's group are essentially loaning money to themselves, so it isn't really new debt, it is investment capital. I had a look at what it cost Motherwell for administration cost which lasted nearly 2 years. Total cost was £407,000 a mere fraction of Rangers admin costs. While Motherwell admin was not as complex we did have litigation with the Inland Revenue and had to deal with Failkirk trying to cheat their way into the SPL. Administration and legal costs at Rangers are so high that they get more than the creditors. (C&B lawsuit pending)

Sorry TV and Film forum readers and indeed readers of jambo-rockers excellent reviews I have some terrible news to bring you. jambo-rocker is a plageriser. He does write his reviews, but much like a student copying from a textbook he merely changes words, flips around some sentences but these are not his thoughts. It isn't really surprising though since the quality of the reviews are good and a standard that he doesn't maintain throughout his other posts. You see the occasional rough paragraph where he throws in his own thoughts but they are never as insightful as the rest. I dare anyone to read this review and compare it to jambo-rocker and come to any other conclusion. Direct lifts, the overall structure, even some of the witty comments are taken straight. I have had a quick look back through some other reviews and the same pattern arises. How long did you think you could get away with it? You are copying Alan Sepinwall, one of the most well known internet TV reviewers. For Shame

I don't disagree with that assessment. If Carloway is reviewing his decision he may be swayed by the court but he might not. Judges are stubborn. If the review panel come back with the same decision what do the SFA do. The panel is independent and they are bound by the decision, they are also bound by the court decision. The simplest and fairest answer would be for all parties to agree to bring the case in front of CAS and let them figure it out.

Pedant. But Carloway and Glennie were interpreting the exact same SFA rules. If a transfer embargo were explicitly stated as an available punishment for the tribunal then Rangers would not have won the court case.

While not acting as a judge he was interpreting a point of law. The appeal Rangers made today was the exact same appeal that Carloway rejected. Rangers appealed by saying the punishment was unjust and not within the rules of the SFA. Carloway pointed out that the tribunal could interpret its own rules and while the transfer embargo didn't appear on the prescribed punishments the original tribunal was empowered to choose a punishment it saw fit. Further noting that the sanction was commensurate to the rule breach. The judge has not found Rangers innocent or unjustly punished, all that he has said is that a transfer embargo is not an option for the SFA discipline panel, as he interprets their rules. A point that Carloway strenuously disagreed with. This isn't some landmark ruling about transfer embargos being illegal, Dundee already lost that case. This was about the interpretation of SFA rules and whether Rangers were treated unfairly by the SFA. Notably the judge did not issue any sanctions on the SFA (other than costs) but told them to review their already reviewed decision by sending it back to Carloway et al. Protocol is the Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol which can be obtained from the SFA website. No mention of CAS other than the panel can punish you for not adhering to a CAS ruling.

Like I said before, the Lord Glennie has essentially overturned Lord Carloway, a more senior judge, and returned the case to him to revise his verdict. I don't think he will be best pleased and I don't see him changing his opinion. Senior judges are notoriously stubborn on points of law. With the legal expertise put into this case by the SFA I find it hard to criticise the outcome of the two tribunals even if they have essentially been nullified in court. The appeals framework should have specified CAS as an appeal of last resort cut Rangers should've accepted their punishment. Now we have a farce.

The problem is that would legitimise the court proceedings which the SFA should have refused to partake in. Anyway I have a couple of other thoughts. While Rangers had no apparent right to appeal to the CAS it definitely had no right to appeal to the CoS. I wonder why they approached the court of session instead of CAS both were outside the rules. I would assume because they felt CoS would be more likely to rule in their favour. The judge didn't actually strike down the penalty , he just told the SFA to review it and change it. I would hope the SFA review upholds the view of the first two panels and offers the judge the option for the dispute to be resolved at CAS and that all parties would accept that as a final decision. That would be my plan if I was the SFA. Someone tweet this to Stewart Regan please.

There is a section about the powers of a tribunal and they essentially can make up their own rules. This was the view that was upheld by the review tribunal, the CoS disagreed.

That is the paragraph that seems to say there is no recognised appeal to CAS.

I wonder how Lord Carloway will take being essentially admonished by a less senior judge? If this is going to cause a stushie in the football world, there is going to be some tension in legal circles over this.

This is massively contentious issue and two senior judges disagree on the reading of SFA rules. Lord Carloway explicitly said that the punishment was available to the tribunal a CoS judge says otherwise. If CoS was the only option for an appeal then Rangers shouldn't face punishment. The SFA should expect scorn, CAS should always be the final arbiter of sporting rules and forcing Rangers to the law courts has been damaging to the game. If CAS told the SFA that a transfer embargo were illegal that would open a can of worms in many other leagues but it would be accepted since CAS is an impartial judge and specially created to resolve these situations.

Rangers have won but the embargo is still in place?

Any word on SFA rules about appeals to CAS?

The document is vague on how much secured creditors are owed and what rights they wish to enforce. It doesn't seems like a great amount of money but there is pressure to accept with Green having contracts for the assets at a value where unsecured creditors get nothing.

I edited my previous reply but in a nutshell he doesn't have to pay this money but if he doesn't he wouldn't be given a cushy arrangement by the administrators and they would be obliged to asset strip to cover running costs and give the creditors more money, devaluing the club. Legally you are right he doesn't have to but I'm sure any payments from Green to be made for running costs during CVA trading will be made before the CVA is concluded.

That shouldn't make the punishment invalid, it should mean that the CoS rules that Rangers can appeal to CAS. If it was the case that Rangers were barred from appealing to CAS then they were quite right to take the SFA to court.

Legally the CVA money has to cover the trading costs that enable Rangers to continue to trade. Green will have an account set up that will offset this amount so the creditors pot is unaffected. If Rangers don't raise the £3M costs from season tickets, player sales and SPL money then the shortfall will come from the CVA cash. Essentially this is just moving money around but Green gets any profit in the CVA trading period which means fans can buy season tickets, players can be sold and not sold at Green's discretion. £3M isn't going to be that hard to raise with player contracts having low get out clauses, tens of thousand season tickets to be renewed and SPL cash to be paid. If this arrangement wasn't in place the administrator would probably be obliged to sell all the valuable players as soon as the transfer window opens to get a maximum return for creditors, this diminishes Rangers value as a football club and that is something Green wants to avoid. Edited because I missed your point completely.

But then the Green Group own 85% of a loss making company and I don't think too many banks will be offering Rangers credit in the current climate so the money will have to come from directors.

Well this could get very interesting then. The discretionary clause was the lynch pin of the SFA's punishment. Transfer embargos aren't mentioned for the breaches committed by Rangers but the appeal tribunal held that the first tribunal had shown that this was an extraordinary case and extraordinary and discretionary powers were justified in providing sanctions that weren't explicitly applicable. That opinion was written by a very senior legal figure so I guess we will have to see. If the SFA lose I would hope they appeal to CAS.

Come on that is disingenuous. That is like saying Vladimir Romanov is making a lovely profit on Hearts because they owe him so much in loans. The Green group own 85% of Rangers. It doesn't matter if profits generated are paid out as a loan repayment or dividend. Green's group only make money if Rangers are profitable. Although you could argue once out of admin they would be worth more than the £8.5M paid, but that is a paper profit

While the administrators can't compel Green to pay this money it is likely structured this way so that season tickets and player sales can begin immediately rathrer than having to wait until the end of admin. It seems clear that the £3M running costs will be paid by Green although he is not legally responsible to pay them. This means their doesn't need to be a firesale by administrators since no money raised goes to creditors and they do not incur further costs which reduce the CVA pot.

You are mostly correct. Sevco give £8.5M plus Jelavic Money. The D&P take £5.5M for running the club until now leaving the creditors with around £5M plus whatever is gotten from Collyer Bristow. However the administrators have to run the club for a month before Rangers officially come out of admin and the reckon it will cost £3M. No income and back to paying full wages. That money isn't going to be deducted from the CVA pot but raised from player sales, SPL money and season tickets.