Jim McLean's Ghost

Was it not the case that after Brown and Thomson signed long term contracts they found they had been duped by their agent and he had negotiated a poor deal for them and a good deal for him and Hibs. McKay saw an opportunity and stepped in, tried to negotiate with Hibs (who had promised to review their contracts after the summer) but no word came back leading to a very unhappy Scott Brown. Hibs made their own mess by signing them to long contracts paying little. They didn't have to sell either player but essentially shot themselves in the foot by screwing over their best players.

Guess we know who his big team is now.

There is no revenue that goes to clubs for games being televised outside of league prize money. This thread is just filled with inaccuracy, hyperbole and tears.

They can't and won't do anything. UEFA rules only say that debts must be settled between clubs, it doesn't say the full amount has to be paid but rather a club can't without a payment it is legally obliged to make. Since Rangers CVA, Newco or whatever else wipes their football debts too then they don't have to pay anything. When Cardiff refused to pay Motherwell money for Paul Quinn we didn't complain to UEFA we took Cardiff to court to seek a winding up order. Under a CVA Rangers are unable to pay back football creditors in full because HMRC will make it impossible but ironically a newco would be free to pay whatever football debts the new owners feel obligated to fulfill.

Airdrie United aren't a Newco. They just changed their name, colours, stadium and fans but as far as Companies House is concerned it is the same company as Clydebank.

Ricardo Vaz Te scores (probably) the winner for West Ham. I'm sure he is gutted he didn't secure a new deal at Hibs

Ian Black cock slobbering going on. Dumped for being a coke addict. FACT

Probablyy outside the box, definite second booking for Kujabi for the pull on the shirt. Well that was a good second half. 4-1 now. :lol: edit: mis-type

Danny Granger forgets he is a full back and just runs forward instead of pushing wide to get his man. Free cross and a tap in for McPake.

IMO if a snap judgement was to be made it would be in Rangers favour since if you read the judicial panel protocol a transfer embargo isn't in the available punishments for the rules they were found in breach of.

It is a 100+ page document to review. It is clear to me that the tribunal went outside of it's prescribed powers but it also has the right to do that. The question becomes about is the punishment fair and to get a reasonable assessment on that the 3 man panel needs to go through the case thoroughly. It is re-assuring that no snap judgements will be made.

I thought there was always a space reserved for the Title Holder and that Scotland would also retain it place for league champion so as long Motherwell only win the Champions League the league winner will still get a CL place. It is only the top 3 countries who run into problems because you can't have more than teams in the competition.

Friday 23rd May 2003

Another common misconception. You do not need to be fit and proper to own a football club you only need to pass that test to become chairman, director, secretary or any other official position. Celtic and previously Rangers shares are traded on a stock market so the owners could frequently change and be effectively anyone.

Claymores: I think my point was more that if HMRC felt the CVA was derisory they will act to ensure they get more money and the only way to do that is by pursuing Duff and Phelps in court. hellbhoy: Outstanding tax liabilities don't usually follow a company after changes of ownership. That was the reason why Whyte got his hands on the club because he was willing to take on the tax burden unlike the Blue Knights. Brian Kennedy made it clear in his press conference that he didn't see the BTC as a problem as it would be taken care of by a CVA.

In that regard if HMRC and other creditors reject the deal we may see court proceedings to either stop the sale of assets and remove Duff and Phelps as administrators. That could get really messy and a whole new set of unknowns open themselves up. Craig Whyte's floating charge is a key component to this too. Green's CVA might have Whyte forgo his floating charge or only take a small percentage of it. Green is going to put his money where his mouth is but there is still a good few questions and issues outstanding.

Not quite as straight forward as that. For 2. they would get the assets but then D&P (or Green since he owns 85% of the club) would need to go to the SPL and ask for the share transfer to the NewCo. Once that passes, a similar thing would happen at the SFA. Old Rangers would then be essentially worthless and in admin so D&P would then liquidate them leaving creditors with the same amount they would've gotten through a CVA. It isn't as much black mailing HMRC it is forcing them to deal with the reality of the situation and accepting a CVA is probably better for them in the long run. A properly run Rangers will be contributing a fair bit of tax as well. Rangers are not paying their debts, whether the creditors get less money to slightly inconvenience Green and co is neither here nor there.

I think they typed it up on a computer, sent it through to a lawyer to check it then forwarded it onto his agent. In these modern times who knows if it was even printed out.

It is within the powers of the administrators to sell assets. If any creditor feels they have been sold too cheaply I'm sure they can bring a case against Duff and Phelps.

A little bit of reading shows they MAY be correct. There are lists of specified punishments for breach of certain rules. However not all the rules are explicitly covered and the panel don't explicitly have to state which rules were breached, that is only guidance. There is a lovely piece of catch-all text in the judicial panel protocol. The document follows on to say So the tribunal can do what it wants as long as it seriously and irremediably prejudice Rangers. In light of the extensive documentation listing the shocking goings on at Rangers and the flirtation with expulsion the appeal panel may say the judgement is less harmful than other available punishments

Yes they should take note. Petrie never said he was actually going to vote against it. Everyone just assumes that Sporting Integrity means some form of relegation. No one has explained or reasoned why that is the case. Why can't sporting integrity be maintained with a points deduction, transfer embargo, fines and deduction of prize money.

Some desperate last gasp clutching at straws here. Green has bought Craig Whyte's shares (his floating charge is still lurking out there) He has a consortium which are funding a CVA backed by the administrators If the CVA fails his contract states he will buy assets for a fixed price (now what these assets are is subject to speculation) and begin the NewCo process. If the NewCo is needed and plan is backed by the SPL then it will be backed by the SFA, since it is pretty much the same group of people. As far as the difference between a newco and cva is concerned, I don't really care. Both are within the scope of the law and SFA/SPL rules. I don't see why people would accept a CVA without boycott but then boycott a newco, it just seems like twisted logic to me. Both are just ways to ditch debt without paying the full amount.

Scratching around for SFA votes. now where is that "phree money" gif...

I wouldn't count on Rod's thoughts truly being involved in sporting integrity. He is vice president of the SFA, with ambitions to become president after Campbell Ogilvie (whose term might come to an end rather soon) so to think Rod's stance isn't in anyway linked with getting votes in the next SFA election is kidding themselves

They can re-sign, I'm not sure what you think the problem would be?