chico Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Contracts revert to type So starts the next chapter Interesting last few paragraphs Only money already owed to the club for previous transfers will go into the creditors' pot through the CVA. While any bids matching the players' clauses must automatically be accepted, it does not follow that the player will necessarily leave Rangers. It gives them the right to speak to a bidding club, but it remains possible the players involved could stay with the club. The clauses run for the remainder of the players' existing contracts, but with salaries again to be paid in full, the administrators and Green must deal with a disparity between income and outlay. The CVA proposal estimated a shortfall of around £3m, which it is expected will be met by Sevco through either transfer fees or season ticket revenue. If that revenue is insufficient to meet what are known as the CVA trading costs, the administrators will fund the shortfall from the £8.3m loan from Green's consortium and that figure will subsequently be deducted from the creditors' pot. So if the big wages players stay their wages can be funded out the pot for creditors :lol: You have to admire the ingenuity and sheer cheek of that. 'haw HMRC, you're no getting 6p in the pound after all, we're paying for shagger and big lee's full wages now' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobardon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) 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. No, not on which grounds would they appeal, but which court would Rangers appeal to? The Court of Session would be in agreement with the SFA - as they told them to pick any sanction from the list of those possible. They made no stipulation of 'any option except the ones you previously ruled out', did they? Edited May 31, 2012 by Cobardon 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 No, not on which grounds would they appeal, but which court would Rangers appeal to? The Court of Session would be in agreement with the SFA - as they told them to pick any sanction from the list of those possible. They made no stipulation of 'any option except the ones you previously ruled out', did they? we're getting far too far into speculation but if they came forward with a different argument and evidence then it might be considered at the court of session. then again it might not 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. 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. It wouldn't be missing out on playing in the tournament that would be the punishment but the financial loss the club would suffer from non participation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco 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. On the same token, suspension from the scottish cup was not deemed as an appropriate deterrent. If they must choose a punishment from the 4 open to them then they must at least suspend membership or it makes them look doubly incompetent, IIRC the charge was "bringing the game into disrepute", and for that there are 4 sanctions to choose from and AFAIK the sanctions can be increased on appeal. So i don't think the fact that leniency was shown in the first instance that it automatically precludes a tougher sanction due to rangers disputing the punishment they received. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Not worth repeating - they were from "Operation William" from Whyte suggesting how he + H&D could go in out Admin for £500,000. Historic crapola - Daly dropped the ball there and allowed H&D to take the pee IMHO Disagree. Shows the intent to go into administration. Also shows that D&P were chosen for role specificly by Whyte and his hoo-hah over the Revenue trying to get in there first and appoint neutral administrators 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It wouldn't be missing out on playing in the tournament that would be the punishment but the financial loss the club would suffer from non participation A prudent and well run club budgets for going out in the first round that they play in. Quantify the loss. Half the gate money from a match at Ibrox in the cup? 35,000 x £25 x half. Maybe about £400,000? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman65 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18288466 "Both halves of the Old Firm will be allowed to postpone their Scottish Premier League fixtures on the weekend of 11/12 August to play friendlies. Rangers and Celtic will both be scheduled to play at home that weekend. Celtic have announced plans to face Spanish champions Real Madrid in the United States on 11 August. "Any other club scheduled to play at home that weekend will also be offered the same flexibility," said a spokesperson for the league. "The SPL Board is mindful of the benefit to Scottish football as a whole of its clubs participating in glamorous and lucrative matches against some of the world's highest-profile clubs. "The SPL has therefore confirmed that, in line with an SPL Board decision taken in November 2011, Celtic FC and Rangers FC will be scheduled to play at home on the weekend of 11/12 August 2012. "Both clubs will be allowed to postpone their games that weekend in order to play in friendly matches." " So by 11th August rangers will be alive and will be in the SPL and playing glamour friendlies ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A prudent and well run club budgets for going out in the first round that they play in. Quantify the loss. Half the gate money from a match at Ibrox in the cup? 35,000 x £25 x half. Maybe about £400,000? I agree with your first point..SDM always claimed that was how Rangers were run You have TV revenue..Gate Money...Prize money. Rangers usually play 3 or 4 games in the Scottish cup on average...That is a guesstimate....take that over say 2 or 3 seasons and it is a massive financial loss to the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Disagree. Shows the intent to go into administration. Craig whyte himself admitted that they should've entered administration months before they did. Also shows that D&P were chosen for role specificly by Whyte and his hoo-hah over the Revenue trying to get in there first and appoint neutral administrators We already knew they were hand picked due to CW insistence when he had them appointed. It's hardly surprising that they were consulting in the days before the administration happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobardon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A prudent and well run club budgets for going out in the first round that they play in. Quantify the loss. Half the gate money from a match at Ibrox in the cup? 35,000 x £25 x half. Maybe about £400,000? Remember, Dundee United have already been penalised by getting no cash for one cup game this season, through no fault of their own: and Rangers got double the cash they were entitled to for that one. Would penalising Rangers by the cash they already stole from United be a fair return? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 You broke the first rule of dot club but I gave you green instead of the prescribed red dot punishment, I feel that I have acted proportionately in this case but if you'd like me to change my decision your appeal to Div shall be final with no recourse to ordinary court. It would be inappropriate for me to respond at this present time. I am taking legal advice and consulting with the relevant authorities as to the best way to resolve this situation in a quick and resolute manner that leaves neither party in the position where they or any affiliated members may sense the overwhelming aroma of faeces. Yours, Squarebob Spongepants 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 regan surely has no influence on the process? i think they will trade down, it's fairer to hand out a punishment that is too lenient than one too harsh imo. Bet you hate Christmas too....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I agree with your first point..SDM always claimed that was how Rangers were run You have TV revenue..Gate Money...Prize money. Rangers usually play 3 or 4 games in the Scottish cup on average...That is a guesstimate....take that over say 2 or 3 seasons and it is a massive financial loss to the club. Well seeing as you've stolen massive ammounts of money this season alone and are about to write off another astronomical sum, it's hardly a drop in the ocean compared to what you have gained. Edited May 31, 2012 by blanco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramer Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 You think they'll trade down after Rangers taking them to court - going against the rules again and costing them money - and with FIFA watching it like a hawk? Reading through the note of reasons you can see that the SFA were probably 80-90% of the way towards a suspension first time. Rangers appealed, and lost. They then went to the civil courts. There is simply no way this is ending up with a backing down by the SFA after all this - and that is exactly what a Scottish Cup ban is. I see your logic that they shouldn't give them a more lenient penalty, however I don't believe they considered suspending Rangers for a minute nevermind 80-90%. I think it was more a case of "consider yourself lucky you only got this penalty when we could have given you x,y and z...." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I agree with your first point..SDM always claimed that was how Rangers were run okay be obtuse. You have TV revenue..Gate Money...Prize money.Rangers usually play 3 or 4 games in the Scottish cup on average...That is a guesstimate....take that over say 2 or 3 seasons and it is a massive financial loss to the club. er no. If you get banned from one years edition of the Scottish cup, then your loss that can be proven, is as I stated a single match, as that is what a reasonable and prudent finance director of any club would assume in a budget going forward for the season. Even a home draw at Ibrox doesn't mean a full house as we've seen in past years. You can't assume TV interest on that one game, it could be a 5 minute slot in the sportscene highlights package. Not much prize money from sponsors going out that early either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Suck on this one, Iceland is, tec tonically, both in North America and in Europe. You go tell an Icelander they're American. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) okay be obtuse. er no. If you get banned from one years edition of the Scottish cup, then your loss that can be proven, is as I stated a single match, as that is what a reasonable and prudent finance director of any club would assume in a budget going forward for the season. Even a home draw at Ibrox doesn't mean a full house as we've seen in past years. You can't assume TV interest on that one game, it could be a 5 minute slot in the sportscene highlights package. Not much prize money from sponsors going out that early either. I wasn't being obtuse at all. I was agreeing with you. You think Rangers will only play 1 game in the Scottish Cup? I would think finding out what Rangers take in on average from the Scottish Cup then deciding how long they are banned for would be appropriate and more importantly legal. That punishment could run into Millions or will be at least a 7 figure sum Edited June 1, 2012 by No8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 No,technically we actually didn't start as a newco though.Clydebank were renamed to Airdrie Utd.The Clydebank fans wanted a new team,approached Airdrie for the redundant name,were given the rights to it and started a new junior side. Absolutely correct. And know what, the Clydebank fans rallied, got their team resurrected and went about things the right way. And it was an absolute joy to watch them winning a trophy earlier tonight when they beat Shotts 3 - 0 at Newlandsfield. Around 1000, yes 1000, Bankies fans in attendance. And 100% integrity. Too late for integrity at The Big Hoose of bigotry - the message is now loud and clear - Rangers, you are not wanted in Scottish Football - Just go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Craig whyte himself admitted that they should've entered administration months before they did. they didn't though, he played cat and mouse with HMRC between the big tax case and the. Nonpayment stiff in the wee tax case. Only when HMRC announced they were going to go do it, did Whyte set administration in motion. We already knew they were hand picked due to CW insistence when he had them appointed.It's hardly surprising that they were consulting in the days before the administration happened. So the administration was preplanned between owner of the club and eventual administrator? I'll guess that isn't best practice in the eyes of the insolvency practitioners association. Where does that leave the creditors in pursuing the money owed them? If both the pre administration owner and the appointed administrators have a game plan forcing administration and a preagreed fee? 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.