Pull My Strings

No.

That's better than the right one. If I've got a greenie left it's yours.

Pfft, the internet doesn't trouble itself with such trifling manners.

Hands up who spotted the deliberate mistake.

I'm an expert in this field although I can't comment on whether I'm a better lawyer than that other chap*. * I probably am since he's a Dundee fan.

Absolute nonsense. Anti discrimination legislation has now been consolidated in the Equality Act 2010. Perhaps you'd like to identify the provisions which would prevent the SFA from imposing this sanction. You'll need to identify a particular individual who has been discriminated against, the person acting in a discriminatory manner and the discriminatory act. If the act complained of is only indirectly discriminatory (ie. not the intended consequence) then you'll also need to show that the act was not in pursuit of a legitimate aim or disproportionate. I shan't hold my breath.

Yeah, there's definitely more fun to be had as that deal unravels.

Here you go. Enjoy. Ticketus Judgement The judgement was widely reported by media dimwits as a victory for Ticketus but that entirely missed the point. The key to the case was that Ticketus claimed that they had purchased a real right in future season ticket sales for matches played at Ibrox in the future and had placed this right in a trust. That might be possible under English law (Ticketus certainly thought so) but it's frankly nonsense under Scots law. The contract which Ticketus signed with Whyte/Rangers was prorogated to the English law but that only covers contract disputes. It doesn't cover property law and it doesn't include insolvency law. As a result of the judgement Ticketus stopped claiming to own the future season ticket revenues and accepted their position as bog standard, unsecured creditors.

I'd say he's the only guy to come out this mess with any credit. Did you see those lovely gnashers? Oooft!

I don't think so. It would be unnecessary to buy the shares at this stage and would introduce unnecessary complications. In any event, Rangers are in administration so, even if he bought the shares, they wouldn't give him any power. He was at the meeting in his capacity as representative of the prospective owners.

No, he's contracted with D&P to buy at a pre-agreed price but the contract is conditional on certain things happening. If the conditions are met then both parties are contractually obliged to go ahead with the deal. If the conditions are not met (for example, Rangers get punted out the league) then the deal is off and D&P have to look for another buyer. It's like me agreeing to buy your house on condition that you have good title to sell etc. If you do then I have to complete the purchase, if not I can walk away.

The Ticketus deal unravelled in the Court of Session a while ago. They thought they had bought property under English law (and English law is sufficiently different to give them a real right in future season ticket sales which isn't possible under Scots law). Otherwise it would be inconceivable that an apparently savvy company would leave itself so hopelessly exposed. Unfortunately for them they just took really shit legal advice prior to the deal.

Green doesn't own the club. His offer to buy the club is conditional on the CVA being agreed. Otherwise he keeps his (two) quid in his pocket and instead buys the assets. There's no point buying the company without a CVA because of the mahoosive debts. Bear in mind that he can't just buy the company and then transfer the assets to himself (or another company). That would be hugely illegal.

Not really. Any creditor can challenge the actions of the administrators at any point ( Section 74, Schedule 16 to the Enterprise Act 2002 ). That's not really an appeal but, yes, it can be challenged. There's no question that Rangers own Ibrox, Murray Park, the carpark etc but previously those assets were secured by a floating charge held by the bank as security against the £18m debt. That debt has now been repaid and the security assigned to one of Whyte's companies. However, as we all know, securities are merely ancillary real rights and exist only to the extent of the underlying debt. There is no underlying debt and therefore no effective security. This is all in the public domain, chief. Do try to keep up.

He's buying the company for two quid from Craig Whyte on condition that a CVA is agreed failing which he isn't buying the company and will instead purchase the assets. If a CVA is agreed then he will loan money to the company to pay for it. It's all strictly kosher (within those narrow parameters - whether Rangers fans agree when he starts to take his money back out again is another matter). As far as D&P borrowing money goes they can't increase the indebtedness of the club but I don't think there's anything to stop them refinancing existing debts (essentially turning a bazillion pounds of debt into an £8.5m debt). In any event this is the best offer on the table and therefore the best chance of creditors getting a return (in the opinion of D&P and any one of those creditors is entitled to challenge that in court) and therefore falls within the scope of the administrators' powers. In short, the only people who should be worrying about the proposed new debt are Rangers fans.

Your understanding is wrong, I'm afraid. The Court of Session have found that the SFA's decision is ultra vires and therefore of no effect. If the SFA try to ignore it (which they won't, not least because they would be in contempt of court) then further court action will follow which the SFA will lose. The SFA's only option here is to accept the judgement or appeal against it, they can't just ignore it.

Come on then, Matlock. Blind me with your science.

Yes, it was.

That's surely not right. Have you got a source for that. My understanding (and this comes from media coverage so may be flawed) is that the rules specify particular sanctions but don't state whether the list of sanctions available is exhaustive. The original tribunal and appeal tribunal decided that the list wasn't exhaustive but the Court of Session took a different view. There's certainly nothing in common law generally which would preclude unlimited powers of punishment. Likewise, the law does expressly recognise the right of parties to a contract to prorogate the jurisdiction of any disputes. So, a contract formed in Scotland can be prorogated to the English Courts (which is what Ticketus thought they'd done) and two parties can decide on binding arbitration etc. Done properly the Courts won't touch it. I suspect in this case that the SFA know fine well that the FIFA diktats wouldn't stand up as a legitimate prorogation.

I have my doubts as to whether these figures are entirely accurate.

Pardon? Surely the scenario here is CVA or liquidation, it won't be both (not unless a CVA is agreed and then defaulted upon).

No, indeed. You would expect there to be a hangover from the oldco in terms of sporting sanctions but legally the two are completely unrelated.

The liquidation process won't be complete until all the liabilities have been addressed. In practice the money from the sale of the assets would go into the bank until the liquidators were satisfied that there would be no more claims - then it gets divied. There is absolutely no chance of the club being formally wound up prior to the tax case being decided.

No, he's acquiring the club by purchasing it for two quid from Whyte. Thereafter he's offering a loan to repay the existing creditors of the club. There's nothing particularly unusual or dubious about that aspect of the transaction.

Meh, it only cost him two quid.