Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

so they could be playing with a youth setup and having to fork out more for the privilege.aye thatl pull the orcs in :lol:

well they did say that they are "the people" and that they "don't do walking away", so that theory may be put to the test soon but hopefully they don't get the option.

Edited by pansypotterthedirtyrotter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never claimed that he could raise 1 billion. The Sun misquoted him in a headline. I saw the original quote and it was more along the lines of if he could he would.

He would if he could, but he can't, so he won't. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green puting the begging bowl out for "Clean money", does infer a couple of things;

1 The type of people he has been associating himself with.

2 An obvious ' come on' for various shady far-eastern "organisations", who wish to "legalise" some cash.

So if a square go is on the cards, say between a tribe of orcs, and a delegation of Yakuza, what would be the odds you would get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking news:

'For every one billion Green spends, we will spend two billion.'

- Stewart Gilmour, chairman, St Mirren FC.

:)

Need a Dame Shirley Bassey gIf

'quantum of bollocks'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This quote is also in the Telegraph link above:

"If the creditors do not approve the Company Voluntary Arrangement, the agreement obliges Charles Green's purchasing vehicle to acquire the business and assets of the club on agreed terms, through a newco structure. It is Mr Green's strong preference to achieve a CVA."

Green will be crafty enough, and Duff & Duffer accommodating enough, to have clauses all over the place that would allow him to walk away. No way he would agree to anything totally binding until he knew either what he was buying, or that he could buy it without encumbrances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with more detailed knowledge than me have any comment on this from the RTC Blog:

May I draw the attention of those discussing the content of the SFA Judicial Panel judgement the following paragraph which I suggest is the single most significant so far as the forthcoming appeal is concenred.

“The Tribunal was aware that the Judicial Panel Protocol provides not only for fines but in relation specifically to Charge 4 (bringing the game into disrepute) also the imposition of additional sanctions up to and including termination of membership if the Scottish FA., suspension and a range of other supplementary penalties.”

What is most striking about this paragraph in an otherwise detailed and carefully considered judgement: is where does it so provide?

One might have expected some reference to be made to the particular provision relied upon to impose the 12 month registration moritorium. When the original short press release was issued the relied on provisions were stated as being SFA articles 94 & 95 but the latter of these has no relevance since RFC was not charged with breach of the SFA articles which is what article 95 is concerned with. Striking that no reference is now made to article 95 in the full judgement.

I predict that on Wednesday the appeal tribunal will uphold the part of the RFC appeal that relates to the 12 month registration moritorium and will quash that part of the sanction because the original panel had no power to impose that sanction for breach of Disciplinary Rule 66 (i.e. the disrepute charge); there being no provision in the Judicial Panel Protocol to impose sanctions for breach of Disciplinary Rule 66 other than those in the table (the table does not allow for registration moritoria for breach of Disciplinary Rule 66) and will otherwise adhere to the decison of the panel.

This would be consistent with how Lord Carlloway dealt with the Dundee FC SFL appeal aginst its sanctions for goiung into administration where he revoked the third part of the sanction i.e. the elemant relating to the SFL Board attempting to retian the right to impose further sanctions if Dundee FC remianed in adminisrttion on 31 March following its administration because the SFL Rules gave it no such power.

He will regard all other elements of the sanctions i.e. the fines, as being within the powers of the panel and will uphold them. Likewise he will not impose expulsion from memebrship because it was wiuthin the discretion of the panel to decide not to expel RFC so he will not seek to second guess the panel on that issue.

Bear in mind that the fines on RFC will likely be regarded as being part of the debts of RFC so the SFA may only get the same pence in the pound as other creditors. Wonder how the SFA will vote on the CVA resolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody been keeping count?

When the SPL vote on the Rangers newco, Celtic and Hibs definitely against it.

So 9-2 at the moment. Any more, and what does the vote have to be?

Assume Rangers can't vote, so 7-4 will boot them out, yes?

And when is all this going to happen? Fixtures to come out June 18, y'ken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPL integrity beyond purchase, says Hibernian chairman

_60193978_brian1.jpg By Brian McLauchlin BBC Scotland Hibs chairman Rod Petrie has told BBC Scotland that sporting integrity should come before any financial benefit to Scottish Premier League clubs.

Rangers face possible sanctions should they emerge as a new company, while the SPL is also investigating claims of undeclared payments to Ibrox players.

Several club officials have expressed commercial fears about a top flight without Rangers.

However, Petrie said: "Integrity is beyond purchase."

In the last few days, the managers of St Johnstone, St Mirren and Inverness have all said their clubs would suffer if the large support Rangers bring was lost.

Others are concerned that television and sponsorship deals for the league would be withdrawn or revised.

"It's important to us that the integrity of the competition that we take part is maintained to the highest standards," added Petrie.

"It's not a question of any sum of money in return for that integrity

"It's important that all clubs can have a place within football provided they have have earned it in a sporting sense and have abided by the rules."

Continue reading the main story

“Where we are failing a little bit at the moment is getting the balance between those who are willing to make a contribution, supporters and television”

Rod Petrie Many supporters are uneasy at the prospect of a "newco" Rangers entering the SPL.

Top-flight clubs have twice delayed voting on proposed new financial fair play and are due to discuss the matter further on 30 May.

Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said last week concerns of his club's fans would be taken into account when voting on Rangers' future.

And Petrie echoed those sentiments, saying: "Listening to supporters is a vital part of what we do.

"It's important that we understand what they are thinking and that we are able to explain the dynamics of the landscape that's in front of us.

"If we are called upon to make any decisions, we will try and do the right thing and uphold the integrity of the competition that we are engaged in.

"We need to find a future for football that people want to be part of.

"We're one of the leading clubs in the country and we have to play our part in making sure we have a successful and vibrant game. A game that's attractive to supporters.

"The game touches almost every household in the country.

"Where we are failing a little bit at the moment is getting the balance between those who are willing to make a contribution, supporters and television.

"Our supporters want games at three o' clock on a Saturday and we have to balance that against the needs of a television audience.

"Of course, TV viewers want to see games played out in front of big, enthusiastic, crowds."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...