Colin M
-
Posts
3,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Colin M
-
-
It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race.
Nice analogy!
0 -
I am reading it that he is leaving no recourse to return to the court. If he states that Rangers are to be punished for going to court, or the punishment will be harsher for going to court then the SFA may be vulnerable. He has made it clear that the avenue of going to the CAS is available, therefore further appeals by Rangers to CoS could be punished separately.
Given the verdict of the court, I don't think there is any cause or real justification for the SFA to punish Rangers merely for going to court.
However it still looks like a potential mistake on the part of Rangers for two reasons.
1) The detail of Lord Glennie's verdict indicates quite clearly based on the detail of the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal that a harsher penalty (namely suspension) should now be considered. The implications of a suspension are not entirely clear - it probably depends largely on how long they would be suspended for.
2) The reaction of some of the SPL chairmen, along with the clear involvement of FIFA, indicates that politically the decision to go to court could prove to have repercussions. As things stand, the SFA and the SPL chairmen may yet have an opportunity or indeed a requirement to punish Rangers further, or especially in the case of the SPL chairmen, to block their route via a newco. Those chairmen will perhaps remain pragmatic, but with a number of issues still to be resolved regarding both the current situation and Rangers' conduct over the EBT era, gambling on the goodwill of the rest of the game does not seem particularly prudent. Of course it could also be a gamble that pays off for Rangers if they can resolve their problems relatively quickly.
0 -
If they are suspended or expelled, will Green still have to front up the 5.5 mil or whatever it is for the assets or is there any way at all he can pull out?
The CVA is conditional on them playing in all the competitions they currently play in - I would guess that the newco option is too, the CVA document refers to conditions on the offer, so I would assume that the newco option is part of the overall offer and therefore conditional too.
But a more legal mind than mine might offer a different interpretation!
0 -
You missed the point over the 3 foreigners policy?
No, I discounted that as being an entirely different set of conditions and circumstances - Not least because a specific punishment that is recognized in football as legitimate is entirely different from wider employment conditions and regulations.
I understand what you are saying but in any case, it's totally irrelevant to what happened in the CoS.
0 -
The judge was not asked to rule whether he considered it discriminatory..Rangers would have gone to the European court for that ruling
They would have been hilariously embarassed for doing so - the punishment had no bearing on their ability to employ anyone.
0 -
The judge did not decide it was discriminatory, he decided that the punishment was "unlawful" because it was not available to administer in the SFA rules.
Rangers are currently under a transfer embargo as the result of being in administration. The legality of this is not under question.
0 -
Off topic, but I just called my boss a cockwomble
How's that job at the SPL working out for you?
0 -
Two in a row. A sea change?
Taking it to court was a massive political gamble. These chairmen want(ed) to keep Rangers in the SPL. Now they'll be set on fucking them up as best they can. But can they afford to do that without still keeping them in the SPL? And if they do keep them in, will they get the chance for retribution?
Rangers have staked everything on "Scottish Football needs us". These guys won't like being told that (even if they know they're better off agreeing).
0 -
So the man who doesn't own Rangers wants to talk to the man who won't be on an independent committee determining their sanction.... to ask what exactly?
"Go easy on us... I mean them"
"It's not up to me, it's up to an independent panel"
"Who are they?"
"I can't tell you that, it's a secret"
"We demand to know in the name of transparency"
"But the rules that you, I mean they, agreed to say they should be anonymous"
"Can you not ignore the rules, we're a special case"
"That's what we did before, and you took us to court"
"But WATP"
0 -
The reason Lawwell came over all as "The Fan's Friend" saying he would be happy with league expansion to 14, but it was the nasty rebel 10 who were blocking it, was that it would cost the Old Firm nothing. They would still split 32% of the TV money and still have their 4 days of wife beating. The dilution of the TV money by bringing 2 more teams into the SPL would be entirely borne by the non OF sides, so isn't going to happen till the 11-1 rule is scrapped, and a fair distribution of revenue established.
My opinion on that is actually not down to Lawwell's recent revelations - but down to comments directly from Stewart Gilmour a year or so ago. Although the Old Firm act in tandem (or have until now, at least), they don't really give a monkeys whether it's 10, 12, or 14 teams in the league, so long as the conditions suit them. I totally agree that voting reform would bring about a change in financial distribution of prize money but I don't think it automatically means we can then restructure the league to suit the rest... because the rest actually all have different views, and that's the problem.
My point here though is that none of the positives are worth selling the principles to allow a newco Rangers in relatively unharmed. Frankly, I don't give a monkeys either how many teams are in the league if it means we're still completely reliant on selling The Old Firm games to fund it. We need to break that dependence and I believe we need an end to the SPL era to try to ensure the sport is properly governed. I don't think there's a compromise to be had here - say yes to newco without severe sanction and that battle is already lost, IMO.
0 -
If we are about to get screwed over with a Rangers Newco waltzing straight back in to the SPL then having them severely weakened and the voting structure changed might be a reasonable fallback.
Personally I think the voting structure is a red herring. I don't believe it's the Old Firm who are/have been standing in the way of restructure, for example. Distribution of TV money, yes, but I don't think that a more even spread would make the league more competitive to actually win it. I would still welcome a more even spread though.
But, as such I don't think anything softens the blow for letting in a newco Rangers, perhaps short of ensuring they face an uphill struggle to even make 11th place.
0 -
Would be funny if quite a few clubs have changed there mind based on rangers
taking the SFA to court.
Yesterday was a massive political mistake from Rangers. It might mean the SFA have to give them a lesser punishment from "the list" for that crime (although they could of course expel them, if they want to throw their weight around) but Rangers are not out of the woods yet. They have now staked everything on the "Scottish Football needs us" argument. This will not have gone down well with the other clubs - even if they know that they are better off with them in the league, the will to damage them severely will be strong. There are still many hurdles for Rangers to cross, and there will now be no sympathy - they stand alone.
I still wouldn't bet against there being a Rangers in the SPL next season.... but it's no longer the racing certainty it has seemed at times since this began to unfold. The will to keep them there is being severely tested, and there must be a tipping point. Where exactly that is, we are still to see.
0 -
That said, expulsion would obviously mean Rangers going through the appeals process (again).
There would, by their own admission, be no further appeal process. The decision has been referred back to the Appeal Tribunal - they presumably could not take it to court again, as the court has judged that 1) they did bring the game into disrepute and 2) the punishment should be one chosen from the list.
I'm in the "banned from the cup for a year" camp.
0 -
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.
Gotcha. I think though that section 5.9 suggests the £3M trading costs will come out of the £8.3 etc?
Edit: From your response to Mr X, it's just structured that way so that they can get on with selling tickets etc? I guess that makes sense.
0 -
Yes but essentially the money goes to the creditors because they don't have to deduct money for the running of the club during the summer before the CVA process is finished. The only thing that doesn't stack up for me is that I didn't see any future payments to creditors, I would've thought that some payments over a number of years would be used to boost the pot. If run prudently in the future Rangers could clear millions in profits, if I was a creditor and gracefully accepting this offer to allow Rangers to survive I would be looking for long term payments on top of the money offered.
Not sure I follow - the bit I highlighted seems to say that (along with season ticket sales, outstanding transfer fees due to them, and any prize money), the deal means that the creditors will NOT get the proceeds of any subsequent transfer fees as they are excluded assets. The only money going to the CVA is the 8.5 million from Sevco (minus 3 million running costs and D&P's costs) plus the proceeds if they get anything off of Collyer Bristow in court.
0 -
No. Creditors will get more money if/when Rangers sell a player.
My reading of the document is that proceeds from transfer fees will be excluded from the CVA pot for creditors, and may only be used for the running costs:
5.14 During this period from 6 June 2012, a number of receipts may be received by the Company, in respect of:5.14.1 Outstanding Player Transfer Fees;
5.14.2 The sales of season tickets for Ibrox Stadium, in respect of the 2012/13 season;
5.14.3 player transfer fees with respect to players sold after 12 May 2012; and
5.14.4 the proceeds of sums due from the SPL together with any broadcasting monies payable to the Company.
5.15 In accordance with the Offer Letter, any monies received in respect of paragraphs 5.14.2 and 5.14.3 will be paid into a bank account (―the Account‖) held by the Joint Administrators‘ solicitors and it is intended that the monies in the Account will be an Excluded Asset as provided in paragraph 5.11 above. However, in the event that the Company‘s trading revenue is insufficient to meet the CVA Trading Costs, and subject to the appointment of Charles Green being made in accordance with paragraph 4.21, the Joint Administrators may request Sevco to consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld) to the use of monies in the Account to meet the CVA Trading Costs, as is anticipated.
0 -
I'm afraid this hardens my attitude to the whole affair quite massively.
What Rangers are doing is affront to decency. They'd not even exhausted all the sporting avenues.
They should be opposed most vigorously, mercilessly, and without quarter.
Welcome on board my good man. Tax evasion and undisclosed payments is one thing, but not following due process? It makes the blood boil
0 -
Post your favourites
Mine so far is "por cierto" :-
"Your right Paul, exactly, the most important thing to come out of the programme tonight is the Playing of illegible players in Competitions that Celtic took part in."
Celtic fans are utter utter morons
I do like
"They can’t even cheat with any dignity. "
0 -
Well I have yet to hear a Celtic fans say they were wanting their 'tainted' titles, people are wanting them to have their titles null and void but Ive yet to hear one say we want them to be credited to us.
Celtic Quick News are already backslapping over "12 in a row"
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9246
With a hilarious footnote on Juninho's EBT. Usual CQN gold.
0 -
-
I appreciate where you are coming from - I'm not sure that SDM or any of the Rangers board will have increased their transfer/wage budgets by use of EBT.
Surely they would have increased it by the exact amount of tax that should have been paid that was not? It is speculative to suggest that the players who were there would have simply been on lower take home pay. If so, surely they'd just have paid them less anyway.
0 -
I hear Rangers are big on UK football.
There is still a large part of me that feels that no matter what happens, Rangers will be playing either in the SPL or SFL next season whether we like it or not. I'm not sure despite all the debts and liabilities that Rangers will actualy die - sorry to sound pessimistic - I am really enjoying this thread.
At this stage I will be astonished if there is not a Rangers in the SPL next season, Doncaster and the various chairmen have made it clear there is a strong will to ensure it happens, and all it needs is someone willing to pay enough to facilitate the newco switch. It is possible that the EBT/undicsclosed payments issue will blow that process apart, but from what Doncaster has said I think there will just be some more "sporting penalties". Of course those penalties could be fairly severe, which would make a further mockery of the whole SPL system.
0 -
Rangers really aren't handling the realisation that they aren't Real Madrid or Manchester United very well, are they. They enjoyed the trappings - the marquee Souness era signings, the European adventures, being mentioned with Celtic as being candidates for any Euro 'Super League', and generally acted the Johnny big baws. When it comes crumbling down, it must be hard to take - especially when you know that it was all done in a manner that would embarrass Quick Quid or Pounds to Pocket.
Hard to take when you need to accept you aren't Real Madrid from the Bernabeau, but a bunch of cheating cnuts from Govan.
Fortunately, I will never face such a fall from grace, and talk of retribution or getting it right up the rest of Scottish football in a fit of pique. The team I support are generally a bit on the pish side anyway, so I'm pretty happy with a cup win every 25 years and the odd rogering of Morton. Easy the Mirren.
Green dot purely for the use of the phrase "Johnny big baws"
0 -
I have absolutely no doubt that there are more than a few people out there with a bigger fortune than Hughie Green. Just a few minor questions though. Firstly, where were they when Minty was selling the pup for a quid? Secondly, where were they when Rangers entered administration on Feb 14? Thirdly, where were they when the Barron Knights were kicked into touch, and Soccerball Bill did a runner? Fourthly, if Green follows Soccerball Bill and legs it, why would they even consider coming in at such a late stage, when the life support machine is just about to be switched off and there's the EBT investigation and BTC result hanging over the whole shooting match?
I tell you, Rangers WILL be in administration forever. This time next year, Haudit & Daudit will have beards and grey hair, and they'll be announcing another period of exclusivity for the new consortium of off-the-scale rich zillionaires from the planet Krypton.
I look forward to the new owner of Rangers appearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, demanding that they.... "Kneel Before Zod!"
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
I guess today is just a regular board meeting. They do need to go through the formalities of the process anyway - can't have them deviating from the rulebook, after all.