Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[jwmski]

yes rangers signed up to the SFA rules and respective punishments that follow if the rules are broken, and nowhere in the rules does it say a transfer embargo can be imposed on a club

the problem the SFA now have is that they have been told by a higher power that their punishment was illegal by their rules and they have to review the punishment

But when the panel, and then the appeal panel both looked at the case they made up that punishment because they felt no other punishment suited the crime, so now the SFA are stuck because if they choose a different punishment (within their rules) then FIFA (and everyone else) will likely say "why didnt you choose that before instead of being dragged into court, also why did your appeal panel not spot this complete f**k up"

By making up their punishment for Rangers the SFA have effectively made a complete c**t of it

This, but by going to the court to say 'it's no fair' Rangers have overestimated their influence.

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

Feck it, we've opened the champagne. The phoney war is over, now the end (of the Buns) is near....

[ray_of_licht]

Apologies if it's been discussed already but could someone explain this bit of the CVA please

4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not

satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business

and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have

been agreed in advance and are confidential.

So lets say the CVA goes tits up because the club are no longer in the cup or the creditors all tick the "f**k Off" box. Does this mean Green gets the results of an approved CVA but without having to pay the creditors? Or what?

[St Sid]

Very odd that the dodgy judge should rule out the FIFA appeals process to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I think that will be very easily challenged. The only areas where that might be applied would be where there is a conflict in the legal area such as employment law and there were issues of jurisdiction. I can't see how there would be any jurisdiction issues in utilising the CAS in this instance. I couldn't believe it when I heard scumgers were even considering appealing this outside the FA process. One can only put it down to the professional service mob looking to breenj even more money out of the shambles that scumgers find themselves in. Watching the insolvency paractitioners and the lawyers is like a pack of hyenas tearing at the helpless carcass of a fatally wounded pig. All the funnier when the scumgers fans are waddling their fat bigot arses all the place on sponsored walks to fund the pointing and laugh court room drama.

[chrismcarab]

If you 'appoint' a panel then, by definition, it cannot be independent.

Much the same happens when you 'appoint' administrators......

[Ivo den Bieman]

yes rangers signed up to the SFA rules and respective punishments that follow if the rules are broken, and nowhere in the rules does it say a transfer embargo can be imposed on a club

the problem the SFA now have is that they have been told by a higher power that their punishment was illegal by their rules and they have to review the punishment

But when the panel, and then the appeal panel both looked at the case they made up that punishment because they felt no other punishment suited the crime, so now the SFA are stuck because if they choose a different punishment (within their rules) then FIFA (and everyone else) will likely say "why didnt you choose that before instead of being dragged into court, also why did your appeal panel not spot this complete f**k up"

By making up their punishment for Rangers the SFA have effectively made a complete c**t of it

FIFA may well look at the SFA with a raised eyebrow- but the punishment, whatever it is (including expulsion) will stand.

[HibeeJibee]

I couldn't believe it when I heard scumgers were even considering appealing this outside the FA process.

Tbf, part of the problem appears to have been that SFA rules disallowed them from appealling to anyone, including CAS. Someone posted the rule earlier.

EDIT: Yes, here it is:

10.11 Final and binding

10.11.1 A Tribunal's Determination may only be challenged by an appeal as set

out in this Protocol. Such appeals shall be conducted in accordance with

this Protocol. Subject thereto, the Determination shall be the full, final and

complete Determination of the Case(s) and will be final and binding on

the Parties and there shall be no further right of challenge in respect of

Determinations of Tribunals.

That is the paragraph that seems to say there is no recognised appeal to CAS.

Edited May 29, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[archie guevara]

Have I said this before or just thought it out loud in my head?

I don't think that the SFA messed up with their original sanction. What we have from Glennie is an interpretation of the Association rules that runs contrary to what that organisation believed to be correct. If this was a normal civil action then the SFA would be right back in there with an appeal. They will not do that because they are effectively barred from taking disputes to civil procedures (as are Rangers).

On balance it looks like a Pyrrhic victory for Rangers. In order to save the village they had to destroy it. Other clubs will be lining up to put the boot in at the first opportunity. There's lots more to come on this and all the other nonsense.

Rangers - the gift that keeps giving.

[Claymores]

Apologies if it's been discussed already but could someone explain this bit of the CVA please

So lets say the CVA goes tits up because the club are no longer in the cup or the creditors all tick the "f**k Off" box. Does this mean Green gets the results of an approved CVA but without having to pay the creditors? Or what?

It means he gets the whole shooting match that is Rangers (it's assets, goodwill, etc) for £5.5mill and walks them off into a newco.................unless someone offers a higher prepackage or else the creditors make a successful case that more could be realised through an asset sale liquidation. The purchase price of £5.5m goes towards winding the company up (including payments to creditors).

However, H&D argue that creditors get less from a newco or liquidation. The most salient part of the CVA proposal is Schedule 4 which summarises their case and contends:

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through CVA £4,967,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through Newco £953,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through liquidation £Nil

Edited May 29, 2012 by Claymores

[forzamorton]

Can't really be bothered reading through the last couple of pages but just want to make sure I'm up-to-date.

Rangers Football Club have had their transfer embargo lifted by the Court of Session. However, this now leaves the SFA with 3 options; Rangers are banned from the Scottish Cup next year. They are knocked out of the SPL and placed in the 3rd division next year or, the third option, ban them completely. Am I right or completely wrong. Feel free to correct.

[ray_of_licht]

It means he gets the whole shooting match that is Rangers (it's assets, goodwill, etc) for £5.5mill and walks them off into a newco.................unless someone offers a higher prepackage or else the creditors make a successful case that more could be realised through an asset sale liquidation. The purchase price of £5.5m goes towards winding the company up (including payments to creditors).

However, H&D argue that creditors get less from a newco or liquidation. The most salient part of the CVA proposal is Schedule 4 which summarises their case and contends:

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through CVA £4,967,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through Newco £953,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through liquidation £Nil

Thanks.

[Johnstoun]

So Rangers fell over the first hurdle, went to court to demand a restart.

The hurdle is still there, with the possible addition of another, much higher one having taken the association to court.

Then there is the CVA

Big tax case

EBT / double contracts

Nicking Doddsy's NI and/or tax

Paying Souness while he was paying top dollar for Rangers players

After that it's all plain sailing though.

[Drooper]

As has been said (including by myself earlier in the thread), the CoS ruling is nothing to get worked up into a lather about.

Indeed, this development only gives the Rangers supporters some false hope that they are turning a corner. I suppose they are turning a corner....and will duly stumble into the biggest, blackest, deepest hole filled with fetid filth that they could scarcely conjure up in their own foul, bile-riddled minds. They deserve this false dawn. It'll make witnessing their inevitable and excrutiating, lingering demise all the more pleasurable for the rest of us

The end is nigh.

[itzdrk]

Can't really be bothered reading through the last couple of pages but just want to make sure I'm up-to-date.

Rangers Football Club have had their transfer embargo lifted by the Court of Session. However, this now leaves the SFA with 3 options; Rangers are banned from the Scottish Cup next year. They are knocked out of the SPL and placed in the 3rd division next year or, the third option, ban them completely. Am I right or completely wrong. Feel free to correct.

no the COS judge hasn ruled thatn he doesnt think the SFA had the power to hand out the ban , but it is not overturned, the SFA CAN change it or ignore his findings as in football he is infact an irrelevance

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

Can't really be bothered reading through the last couple of pages but just want to make sure I'm up-to-date.

Rangers Football Club have had their transfer embargo lifted by the Court of Session. However, this now leaves the SFA with 3 options; Rangers are banned from the Scottish Cup next year. They are knocked out of the SPL and placed in the 3rd division next year or, the third option, ban them completely. Am I right or completely wrong. Feel free to correct.

I think this is right. However, could they not bottle it and reduce sanction to a fine? Obviously it would be suicide as FIFA would press the big red button and we'd all be oot on our erses. Then all the other clubs/sponsors etc would start litigation against the SFA and all would be chaos.

[~~~]

no the COS judge hasn ruled thatn he doesnt think the SFA had the power to hand out the ban , but it is not overturned, the SFA CAN change it or ignore his findings as in football he is infact an irrelevance

Just like Rangers are soon to be

[Claymores]

To be honest I think you asked the creditors (possibly they can write their losses off against tax) they'd say f*** em , liquidate them !!!

I'm sure the peed-off local newsagent would but it's out of their hands as Ticketus/HMRC effectively hold all the cards to approve or veto. I'm not sure it matters to Ticketus if they've resigned themselves to chasing Whyte for whatever they are out-of-pocket. HMRC is the big questionmark - do they accept a pittance in the pound or go for liquidation in light of deliberate non-payment of the taxes.

[forzamorton]

no the COS judge hasn ruled thatn he doesnt think the SFA had the power to hand out the ban , but it is not overturned, the SFA CAN change it or ignore his findings as in football he is infact an irrelevance

So you're saying that the Transfer embargo could be kept if the SFA decide to ignore what COS say?

I think this is right. However, could they not bottle it and reduce sanction to a fine? Obviously it would be suicide as FIFA would press the big red button and we'd all be oot on our erses. Then all the other clubs/sponsors etc would start litigation against the SFA and all would be chaos.

I don't think they can fine rangers any more that what they already have so that why that isn't a option. Regarding FIFA, would they do the same as what they did with Sion? Tell the SFA to sort it out or Scotland would suffer.

[Granny Danger]

I am disappointed but not surprised by the pessimism on this thread and in particular the criticism of the SFA.   I would make the following points:

Few of us thought the original sanction would be as severe as a 12 month signing embargo.  Remember this was only punishment for a part of Rangers' actions.

Many people on this thread were absolutely convinced that the SFA appellate tribunal would not uphold the embargo - they did.

I'm convinced that both the initial panel and the appellate tribunal acted in good faith; and they were chaired by highly qualified people.  If their interpretation of the SFA powers was flawed Christ help the rest of us trying to understand this.

The SFA imposed the sanction in the belief that they had the right to do so, from what has been reported thus far they now have the option of imposing a lesser OR greater sanction.  I'm pretty sure they will be considering their credibility in the event of imposing a lesser one, especially since their requirement to rethink this is as a result of Rangers going outwith SFA procedures.

[one m in Motherwell]

As far as I can tell, the overturning of the original verdict is in fact a huge problem now for Rangers. If they had accepted the embargo, then that would have been it as far as the SFA are concerned. The thing now is that if the SFA choose to accept the judgement, they're then forced to hit them harder - with FIFA and UEFA breathing down their necks (been a couple of tweets tonight to that effect), they can't afford to simply bow their knee to Rangers and issue them with a fine which, as a few posters have pointed out, is likely to be lost in the mire of other creditors and sums due.

I think given the Sion case, and the fact that FIFA etc. are clearly taking more of an interest in proceedings, there are only two options available to the SFA:

1. Disregard the CoS decision, and enforce the ban;

2. Throw the book at them - if a fine wasn't strong enough, then the only thing left is to expel them and remove their licence.

I think the SFA have (up until now) played a bit of a blinder. Just have to hope they continue to do so. Aside from anything else, I think the celebrations from Ra Peepul, D&P et al. are a little premature - got a sneaky feeling that today's decision could end up being far more significant than the transfer embargo ever was.