keepitsafe Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 it could also be the only option if rangers have detailed minutes of the original meeting discounting explusion/suspension as punishment. the statement above implies that they were considered which means there is a good chance rangers already hold a document saying expulsion/suspension isn't a viable punishment. bear in mind that the appeal tribunal is only supposed to consider the offences committed by rangers ruled on by the nimmo panel, if they take the court action or fifa into account then it'll be bounced straight back to them again. A rubber ball then? Bouncing (no pun intended) back and forth. Start the season as if nowt happened and it will blow over? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toaster Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just read the bbc website about the players being for sale at set prices and I am really struggling to understand what is going on there. If Rangers sell any players the money goes to green instead of the creditors under the cva? Seriously are Duff and duffer mental how can a sale of assets in a club which is insolvent not be used to pay creditors. It makes sense in a normal sale as the value of the club is decreasing by the amount and turning to cash but in this case the company valuation is so low that the money made may well reach a value near the bid amount - of course running cost will be removed from the funds but personally i dont like the thought of money being available to rangers if it isnt available to the creditors. Hopefully tho rangers will have been kicked out before the cva is even decided upon. Rangers just seems to be a magnet for dodgy chancers and crooks atm and money getting put in Greens pocket would not surprise me one iota. I honestly think theres a lot more going on behind the scenes than anyone on here or in the media is privvy too and none of it will be good for Rangers or the scottish game. Wonder how much Desmond is paying Haudit and Daudit :) as they certainly are not acting in the interests of the creditors as they should be or even in the interest of Rangers . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Rankin1873 Stuart McCall Group:Loyal Bluenose Topics:11 Posts:246 Rep:3 Joined:11-August 08 Gender:Male Location:Glasgow Posted Today, 10:04 PM Lets all remember in the next few years who f**ked us over, not just for this season but many several to come! but let's not forget the clubs who will be for us, they shall prosper. Only boycott games of the clubs who try to hinder us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just read the bbc website about the players being for sale at set prices and I am really struggling to understand what is going on there. If Rangers sell any players the money goes to green instead of the creditors under the cva? Seriously are Duff and duffer mental how can a sale of assets in a club which is insolvent not be used to pay creditors. It makes sense in a normal sale as the value of the club is decreasing by the amount and turning to cash but in this case the company valuation is so low that the money made may well reach a value near the bid amount - of course running cost will be removed from the funds but personally i dont like the thought of money being available to rangers if it isnt available to the creditors. Hopefully tho rangers will have been kicked out before the cva is even decided upon. Bit like how, as part of the CVA, CG has the option of buying the clubs asstes for 5.5 million quid if the CVA is rejected. Surely if the CVA is rejected, that clause is also rejected and CG loses that option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 When the Blue Vermin are deid, your shower of Green Vermin cnuts will hopefully be next. We are the diddies, now f*ck off !! He forgot to add....And welcome to the World of P&B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Having watched the unedited Newsnight interview with Mr. Doncaster of the SPL, my objective view is that he handled it pretty well. He used the allusion to the rules available skillfully. He is right in saying that the SPL can only apply the rules available to them and not the rules they wished they had. In this respect, I find it difficult to view the SPL Board harshly. In terms of the process, it is far from finished and the SPL may well still come up smelling of roses should they indeed make decisions without fear or favour. It is this application of the rules that will service every club in the league equitably and that's all that can be asked of them. My one issue with Mr. Doncaster is the issue of C.V.A. versus Newco. In his own words he said that there is a very fine distinction between these two outcomes for Rangers. The perception, when he fist mooted this opinion, was that he was angling to smooth the process of bringing Rangers back into the SPL fold and I believed that was the case. In the Newsnight interview he repeated this contention that both outcomes are very similar but then went on to describe the consequences of each as being completely different. If the C.V.A. is successful, Rangers will leave the vast majority of their debt behind them and continue in the SPL without any further sanction. The meaningless 10 point penalty will be the only sanction. Should the Newco model be adopted, the SPL member clubs will convene to decide on sanctions that will be necessary to apply to the newly formed organisation. I fail to understand why, if both these proposals are only finely distinctive from one another, there should be further punishment for forming a Newco and leaving behind massive creditor debt whilst agreeing a C.V.A., leaving behind massive creditor debt, merits no further punishment at all. The question begs, if there is very little difference in the two models, and Mr. Doncaster is not trying to shoehorn Rangers back into the SPL, why is such a distinction being made? The SPL have no provision at the moment for appropriate sanctions to deal with a club who, through a C.V.A., run up millions of pounds of debts and then run away from these debts, other than a 10 point penalty. Even Rangers supporters would find it difficult to justify this situation. The changes that have increased the punishment for future events of administration to the greater of 10 points or a third of the previous points total of the club concerned are still totally inadequate. It allows the club involved to make a calculation of worth in relation to opting for administration. By that I mean that a club could consider the merits of writing off a season to rid themselves of all the debt they have. Is that seriously a step in the right direction ? Not in my book it isn't. On the brighter side, I am hopeful that the decisions to be made by the SFA, the SPL and HMRC in the near future will satisfy the thirst for justice sought by everyone concerned. For Rangers, the SPL clubs, the SFL clubs and everyone with a vested interest in scottish football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A rubber ball then? Bouncing (no pun intended) back and forth. Start the season as if nowt happened and it will blow over? there will still be newco punishment from the spl. and even if they somehow get a cva there is a chance, according to alex thomson of c4, that they might get a 3 year european ban under the new financial fair play rules - but i don't think that is yet in the uefa statute books. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm pleased to see that 5 days after adding it, my Duff and Phelps amendment to their Wiki page has stood the test of time and avoided the wrath of the editors! http://en.wikipedia....Duff_%26_Phelps one of the funniest things I've seen as a link so far mate, top marks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Bored with No 8's coat tail dragging, so thought reading an annual report would be more exciting. You must be a slow reader as i was watching The Matrix and now a programme about the Bloody Mary and Good Queen Bess and only looking in here to see if there was any news. You really must have it bad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humf Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Would publicising the fact that any gains from player sales are withheld from the cva not damage the chances of the cva being approved? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobardon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) it could also be the only option if rangers have detailed minutes of the original meeting discounting explusion/suspension as punishment. the statement above implies that they were considered which means there is a good chance rangers already hold a document saying expulsion/suspension isn't a viable punishment. bear in mind that the appeal tribunal is only supposed to consider the offences committed by rangers ruled on by the nimmo panel, if they take the court action or fifa into account then it'll be bounced straight back to them again. I thought that at first too, but the sounds coming out of the people in charge have changed in the last 48 hours. We've had ICT and St Mirren's head honchos publicly denounce Rangers while Doncaster has reverted from 'we need Rangers' soundbites to 'our game is still in good shape' ones (i.e. we can withstand their loss). He also directly criticised the admin team for not being cooperative with the SPL. Once you're even getting him slagging you, well... The tribunal decision doesn't have to -and certainly won't- mention any Court action by Rangers. It's entirely immaterial to the case. Why would it matter when you can, if you wish, chuck them out anyway for what they've already done? Besides, who would Rangers appeal to this time? The Court of Session made it clear that the punishment had to be one of the ones listed in the rules so they'll be satisfied if an expulsion/suspension is forthcoming, as they're in those rules. What's next the UK Supreme Court? On what grounds? (and with what timescale? (approx 8 weeks it appears) If Green has to appeal again and it takes into the new season - while Rangers would still be 'out' of course - his backers are unlikely to hang around... In any case, the body that you appeal through to the Supreme Court IS the Scottish Court of Session. If they're satisfied justice has been done, you're fecked. So good luck with that.) I think Rangers' survival chances have decreased dramatically this week. I'm not ruling out their survival in some form, but if I were a betting man... Edited May 31, 2012 by Cobardon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 You must be a slow reader as i was watching The Matrix and now a programme about the Bloody Mary and Good Queen Bess and only looking in here to see if there was any news. You really must have it bad Over -200 fame - I recall you being an ass when I first joined...................eff off or tell us some of those enthralling golf escapades. If you mention Thistle for 14th time I swear I'll spew after it being kicked-oot 13 times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) It allows the club involved to make a calculation of worth in relation to opting for administration. By that I mean that a club could consider the merits of writing off a season to rid themselves of all the debt they have. Is that seriously a step in the right direction ? let john boyle think about that one.... ...yes! Edited May 31, 2012 by T_S_A_R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The last time i looked on Follow Follow 95+% thought the SFL3 route was the way to go...Obviously that will have changed due to Greens CVA being reliant on being in the SPL but the Rangers support has been far from 'hysterical' over relegation Just to clear this one up for you chief, relegation is something that, although a stigma of sorts, at least is dubiously 'earned' by playing to the rules, so applying the principles of sport, that is in someway a little consolation for the fans who know it was just down to the resources their clubs had to work with. For you, no such luck......if you were a 'tarrier' the guilt would have torn you apart by now......enjoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Over -200 fame - I recall you being an ass when I first joined...................eff off or tell us some of those enthralling golf escapades. If you mention Thistle for 14th time I swear I'll spew after it being kicked-oot 13 times. Still not 1 post on 'your own club' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Besides, who would Rangers appeal to this time? they might appeal on the basis of any contradictions between the original verdict and the new verdict. as i said earlier it's all speculation but we'll find out soon enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotWeissEssen Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 http://twitter.com/#!/stewartregan Has this been posted ? Quite interesting and say that punishment can be increased. I sort of understand the SFA's position better now. They disagree with the verdict in the court but they cant use the court to appeal. In real courts criminals can get off on a technicality I don't think football should work like this. So all rangers had to do was find one minuscule wording/phrase anything wrong and they get off. There argument thats its not in the rule book is rubbish. I would imagine setting up an EBT then playing bonuses through it or bunging graham souness some cash is not in the rule book with explicit punishment. It falls under dual contracts. But the SFA/SPL cannot have pages upon pages of punishments listed explicitly forever. Rangers fans cannot grasp any of this. Its not hard to tell that D&P have pissed everyone right off with this. Well done D&P great work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just to clear this one up for you chief, relegation is something that, although a stigma of sorts, at least is dubiously 'earned' by playing to the rules, so applying the principles of sport, that is in someway a little consolation for the fans who know it was just down to the resources their clubs had to work with. For you, no such luck......if you were a 'tarrier' the guilt would have torn you apart by now......enjoy If i was a Tarrier Relegation would be the least of my troubles -9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsman411971 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 If Rangers transgressions were only limited to the Scottish Cup, then expulsion or suspension from that competition would be appropriate. But this is not the case, is it. Rangers have cheated in every competition that they have entered, so obviously the punishment should cover all possible competitions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tux78 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Bit like how, as part of the CVA, CG has the option of buying the clubs asstes for 5.5 million quid if the CVA is rejected. Surely if the CVA is rejected, that clause is also rejected and CG loses that option. Its a bizzare setup tbh. The acceptance of the £5.5 million as a bid for the assets means pretty much that dont think rangers have much asset value which is some change from the £134 million in the last years accounts. The scenario as I see it is you put something to auction then some guy says he will give you £5.50 for it and then you take it thinking its a good deal but the smart way is to use that offer as starting bid and try to get more money for the item. Why would you turn down more money? 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.