Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 1338285144[/url]' post='6282797']I honestly wasn't gettin at ye - I just think it's best to keep our feet on the ground and be clear!!! All indications are that they will be found liable on the BTC, ar at least be found liable for a large proportion of the bill! The unfortunate bit is that we'll get some yahoos who have not read or tried to understand the whole fiasco as much as P&Bers grab things out of context. These yahoos tend to discredit the wghole thing when they go too far ("youz lost the BTC already ya muppets" I've seen posted on Ranjurs Rumours for example). On the other bit, I'm 99% certain that the CVA will be using the lower creditor total previously cited in the first creditor meeting (excluding BTC and aboots £50-60m I think). Didn't think you were! True, the Chuckle Bros will be attempting to use the lowest figure possible but even if they were to get a CVA through, its a stupid tactic, when the BTC comes in, they'll be back in admin. Of course, we all know this is just another stalling method by these clowns. I hate to quote Traynor, but apparently Hughie Green hasn't lodged any funds with them yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuoAnLai Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Un funking believable. The BBC headline online is Rangers' administrators upbeat over CVA proposal The first line in the story is Rangers' administrators have told BBC Scotland they are still unable to reveal details of their company voluntary arrangement proposal. Do they even have editors to check this unrelenting shower of shite? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 If the big tax case is left out (don't know why it should be as it's being appealed but appears to be a standing debt) will HMRC still have veto powers over this sham of a CVA offer? It's after admin fees !!!!!! and secured creditors so the amount offered to HMRC after D&P are paid will be what, 2p in the pound? Clearly a derisory offer to get it rejected and then start the Newco with "well we tried". It could be great (as a secondary position to truly great and them being wiped from the earth) if a Newco does emerge as these guys who don't want to be named must be some right chancers. I suspect rangers 2012 will be playing SPL football next year with lee McCulloch and the kids. Huge amounts of other supporters will walk away from the cesspit that is our top league but the chaos will remain at Ibrox for years to come no matter what. They were never the people. No, not without the BTC. IIRC, no one party has the ability to veto a CVA, based on the figures D&P released some time ago. HMRC and Ticketus together could block it though. A lot will depend on what liabilities are actually included in the CVA when it comes out. Of course, given that theyre not committing to a p in the £ in the CVA, things might not actually be any clearer at all! Worst.Administration.Ever 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The typical knuckledragger reaction once some of the more 'sober' posters on RanjursMedia acknowleged that the SFA operates essentially a private club and and so can throw members of the club out for breaching it's club rules (in reference to taking the Court of Session action): "In that case F*CK THEM, take the nuclear option, if the SFA are in breach of a court order then expel us from the assocciation, then we will take further actions through the courts. If they are going to take us down we will take everyone down with us and shut the SFA down" And the currants really wonder why they are so widely hated within Scotland?!?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Call me cynical, oh, go on, I won't mind, but is the latest "deadline delay" on the actuality of the CVA p/£ designed just to get past today's CoS case on the transfer embargo? Paul Clark stated earlier that"we WILL (hope to?) receive £8.5m from Mr Green's consortium". If you've seen the latest "plan" in today's Daily Ranger, Captain Green plans to do a share issue to "guarantee" investors a double-your-money offer. Several points on that 1. SDM tried it and it didnae work. 2. It means he still doesn't have full funding (if any). 3. He hopes to walk away with £4m. (nobody makes a fortune from football these days, excepting The Bunnet) 4. If the CoS decision goes against them, will he walk away , as one of his main plans for double your money, the buy 'em cheap, sell 'em dear plan for players, falls on its erchie. 5. if the CoS decision refers the matter back to the SFA, they'll surely be caught between a rock and a hard place, and have to grow a pair of 'nads and have to expel them. This might be him putting on his poker face hoping the SFA will back down, but if they don't, he can then claim that the SFA have forced his hand and a CVA is no longer an option. If they back down, he's won, RFC fans go ballistic and assail Post Offices across the land with their giros, to turn them into Greenback RFC Shares 2012. Thoughts, pals? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 DhenBhoy - the point I was making last night is that you would have to pay the other teams money for showing their games. Your assertion "everyone has the rights to their own home games" isn't a fact - it's a baseless pronouncement in your own fabricated hypothetical scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The typical knuckledragger reaction once some of the more 'sober' posters on RanjursMedia acknowleged that the SFA operates essentially a private club and and so can throw members of the club out for breaching it's club rules (in reference to taking the Court of Session action): "In that case F*CK THEM, take the nuclear option, if the SFA are in breach of a court order then expel us from the assocciation, then we will take further actions through the courts. If they are going to take us down we will take everyone down with us and shut the SFA down" And the currants really wonder why they are so widely hated within Scotland?!?! :lol: :lol: Absolutely laughable, they owe tens, if not, hundrreds of millions of pounds. When they are thrown out they will be wound down so who will pursue any action? The RFFF? On what grounds? We cannae watch oor team an sing aboot King Billy ony mair ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Spot on ... The SFA must be 'praying' that the CoS uphold the decision. I'd expect the CoS will confirm that the sanctions were within their remit as they had considered expulsion as an appropriate punishment, then 'dished oot' a slap on the wrist. Surely, though, the SFA will need to act no matter what the verdict of the CoS is? Simply going to the courts should be enough for more charges to be brought by the SFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Call me cynical, oh, go on, I won't mind, but is the latest "deadline delay" on the actuality of the CVA p/£ designed just to get past today's CoS case on the transfer embargo? Paul Clark stated earlier that"we WILL (hope to?) receive £8.5m from Mr Green's consortium". If you've seen the latest "plan" in today's Daily Ranger, Captain Green plans to do a share issue to "guarantee" investors a double-your-money offer. Several points on that 1. SDM tried it and it didnae work. 2. It means he still doesn't have full funding (if any). 3. He hopes to walk away with £4m. (nobody makes a fortune from football these days, excepting The Bunnet) 4. If the CoS decision goes against them, will he walk away , as one of his main plans for double your money, the buy 'em cheap, sell 'em dear plan for players, falls on its erchie. 5. if the CoS decision refers the matter back to the SFA, they'll surely be caught between a rock and a hard place, and have to grow a pair of 'nads and have to expel them. This might be him putting on his poker face hoping the SFA will back down, but if they don't, he can then claim that the SFA have forced his hand and a CVA is no longer an option. If they back down, he's won, RFC fans go ballistic and assail Post Offices across the land with their giros, to turn them into Greenback RFC Shares 2012. Thoughts, pals? I firmly believe there are all sorts of routes through which Green can still walk away. Whether that is due to lack or REAL backers, sanctions & cases going against them or whatever. What could H&D do?! Threaten to sue him for beach or the mythical "irrevocable contract"?! Good luck with that as Ranjurs would be deid long before it came to court! The transfer ban seems a big impedement to the 'shady' backers. That guy McDonald admitted he was only interested if they were going into a player-owning ring. I.E. The ring bankroll the purchase of upcoming prospects, RETAIN 'OWNERSHIP' of those player assets then pocket the cash when sold-on with Ranjurs seeing no profits but bearing all the cost of these 'leased' players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 So does the cva involve each names party saying yeah or nae then the results are totalled up.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Surely, though, the SFA will need to act no matter what the verdict of the CoS is? Simply going to the courts should be enough for more charges to be brought by the SFA. Spot on, regardless of the outcome Rangers committed the crime they should be punished accordingly. The only way out which I could imagine is if Rangers withdraw action citing reasons of ignorance of the FIFA/UEFA statutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monrovianmonk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 So does the cva involve each names party saying yeah or nae then the results are totalled up.? Yes but your number of votes is commensurate with the amount you are owed. 75% carries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Spot on ... The SFA must be 'praying' that the CoS uphold the decision. Not how I read it. For me the SFA want the CoS to throw out the case, leaving things as they were before Rangers started the action, thus meaning no work needing done by them. I'd expect the CoS will confirm that the sanctions were within their remit as they had considered expulsion as an appropriate punishment, then 'dished oot' a slap on the wrist. Considering the SFA guidelines state that they have the authority to hand down just about any sanction they wish to a member club and that the sanction handed down was reviewed by a very prominent QC during an appeal process, I can't see how the CoS could rule in any other way. Edited May 29, 2012 by Ric 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 So does the cva involve each names party saying yeah or nae then the results are totalled up.? I believe so, but the best way to think of it is to liken it to a full SPL vote - the 'big two' really take the decision as they hold the power of veto! The rest are just diddys there to fill-up the meeting! Fun analogy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers argument will be that the embargo is a business restraint rather than a sporting punishment. Whether or not that will wash I don't particularly care. The SFA should be expelling regardless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Surely, though, the SFA will need to act no matter what the verdict of the CoS is? Simply going to the courts should be enough for more charges to be brought by the SFA. Absolutely, this is about more than just the current situation, I think. It's trying to show the SFA that RFC are still the bosses and that, when , they are back in the SPL on an even keel, they will still dictate policy. If the SFA kick 'em oot, will the Cockwomble start a breakaway movement to move the SPL to another jurisdiction, the Scottish football will end up in a situation like boxing with hunners (no pun intended) o' ruling bodies? I'd pay to be in Doncaster's office when the call comes through that RFC have been expelled from SFA membership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) If Rangers somehow get out of this then they should build a f**k off big statue of Craig Whyte. It was his professional skills as a fraudster were keen enough to get in there and appoint D&P ahead of the HMRC's choice and set this long stalling process in motion. On the early subject of baptism The Mormons apparently practice posthumous baptism so even if you think you're a Catholic or Presbyterian all your life you might turn out to have been Mormon all your life. Possibly the highest profile case was Dutch diarist and failed drummer Anne Frank who turns out not to have been Jewish after all. That leaves those Nazi's looking a bit silly doesn't it. The posthumous baptism crap is meant to be with the consent of a relative that's turned Mormon, but now some Mormon factions are just going through the history books and "baptising" anyone they like, rather like football fans claiming dead celebrities as having been fans of their team ("Elvis was a Hibee, so he was!") Anne Frank a failed drummer? Don't tell me, another one of those that was with the Beatles before they became famous... Didn't she want to be a paperback writer as well? Could be onto something here! Not how I read it. For me the SFA want the CoS to throw out the case, leaving things as they were before Rangers started the action, thus meaning no work needing done by them. I don't think the SFA cares a monkey's about the case, as any ruling cannot be legally enforced and well they know it. For all the huffing and puffing by Rangers, this is simply more time being wasted on grandstanding. Praise be for their infinite stupidity! Edited May 29, 2012 by WaffenThinMint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers argument will be that the embargo is a business restraint rather than a sporting punishment. The problem with that argument is that the administrators rather than reducing the wage bill at the start by making players redundant held onto them on the basis that at the end of May their contracts returned to normal and they were able to leave for a set fee. In that sense they have painted themselves into the corner. If they had made players redundant from the start then they may have had a case as clearly the squad would be threadbare at the moment. Currently they have a fairly large squad which in turn may or may not be depleted after the case is heard. Not only a stupid move by Rangers (or the admin, whoever it is who gave the OK to go ahead with this), but badly timed as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monrovianmonk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers should be punished no matter the outcome of the CoS case. We can't have a situation where participants can take each other / ruling bodies to court when there is a decision they don't like. Where would it stop? CoS case if someone is sent off? CoS case about whether a ball crossed the goal line or not? etc The "normal" laws just do not apply in a sporting context. It would be a farce if they did. For example, if you are slide tackled on a football pitch you get up and get on with the game. If you are slide tackled whilst walking down Buchannan Street your call plod. Get the **** booted in the sack and told not to come back! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Absolutely, this is about more than just the current situation, I think. It's trying to show the SFA that RFC are still the bosses and that, when , they are back in the SPL on an even keel, they will still dictate policy. If the SFA kick 'em oot, will the Cockwomble start a breakaway movement to move the SPL to another jurisdiction, the Scottish football will end up in a situation like boxing with hunners (no pun intended) o' ruling bodies? I'd pay to be in Doncaster's office when the call comes through that RFC have been expelled from SFA membership. They don't use phones - they just open the office door and shout across the corridor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.