huckleberry Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So does this CVA cover the tax owed in the BTC or just what Whyte trousered? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 legally they are only dealing with one aspect at the moment. challenging the punishment chosen is still open to them. glennie gave no opinion on whether suspension or expulsion could be challenged legally. quoting the appellate tribunal was to tell the sfa qc that he was contradicting his own evidence. glennie says 'does not neccesarily' which means they might not get a more lenient punishment but also that they might. i think that people who are hoping to see a 12 month temporary punishment replaced with a terminal punishment are going to be disapointed. Will be neither disappointed, nor disapointed Will you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 This thread is tragic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So does this CVA cover the tax owed in the BTC or just what Whyte trousered? Everything - except any BTC liability is, of course, undefined - but it is only one in a huge list of 'To Be Confirmed's which is one of the things that makes the CVA proposal so Mickey Mouse! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huckleberry Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Everything - except any BTC liability is, of course, undefined - but it is only one in a huge list of 'To Be Confirmed's which is one of the things that makes the CVA proposal so Mickey Mouse! It totally pointless then. Liquidators in by Thursday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Video interview with Chas talking aboots Dave! http://rangerstv.tv/viewfree.php?it=10358&c=News&r=236678734985 (Health warning - it is Rangers TV propoganda!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 This has sprung up on Rangers Media, claiming that Green's loan as laid out in the CVA is not a loan after all. What puzzles me is he says that one tabloid went as far as saying it to be repaid in full by 2020, which is actually the wording in the CVA. So - bullshit or truth? There has been a lot of mostly negative talk, with regards to how Charles Green has funded his offer for the club and his offer to creditors. The common notion is that Charles Green is loaning his investment, a loan which is repayable through certain criteria, and with interest. Many in the mainstream media have jumped on it and incorrectly tried to declare that Green isn't really making an investment at all, just lending us money until we can pay it back some way down the line - one tabloid even went as far to say that the loan had to repaid in full by 2020. Let me clear this up right now. In order to achieve a CVA, Green has had to pump the cash in to fund the club from June 1st - when the club's money essentially ran out - as well as fund his offer to creditors. Although it is not certain yet if the CVA will be achieved, it is looking good, although we have nothing concrete that can be relied upon at this stage. What funding options were available to Charles Green? 1. A loan is made from Green to the club - which is what he has done. If the CVA is achieved, then that loan turns into capital, via shares, and the club exits administration. This loan will not be repaid if the creditors accept their offer. I can absolutely say that for certain. If the creditors do not accept their offer, the loan then becomes repayable to Green. This is the quickest and best way of getting the money in and getting the deal done. He is not allowed to officially say that this will happen, as that would constitute an offer and would be the same as option 2, which you can see below. 2. Money is invested as capital. Under the rules as they have been explained to me, an offer would then have to be made for all remaining shares, such as those owned by Dave King. This is very time consuming and costly. Obviously, all the ins and outs of this process are very complicated and well over the heads of most of us. What is also not helping, is that some people who actually know the ins and outs, are deliberately stoking up the fire to create mischief, and to follow their own petty agendas. We are having enough trouble with our existing enemies, without some of our own support being obstructive and divisive. We have already seen a barrage of negative stories trying to derail this process, and some of these stories have come from so-called Rangers fans, who now seem to want us to be liquidated, so that their favoured party can gain control. Firstly we were told that Green has no money, despite the fact that he has proven that he has. Then we were told that Green's consortium were deserting him, even though nobody who has been declared as being involved, have done so. Remember when Brian Kennedy said that if his and The Blue Knight's offer was not accepted by 12pm the next day, a CVA would be impossible? That's funny, because Green came in later than that and still managed to get an offer out to creditors. We have had accusations of David Low is involved, when he is not. We heard rumours that Dave King was suing the club a couple of weeks ago, but he has yet to file any papers? He has yet to provide Duff and Phelps with any evidence whatsoever and his statement yesterday was just another attempt to derail this process, to benefit himself, or another. There is much, much more that I simply cannot tell you that has been done to try to disrupt this process, by so-called Rangers fans. They really should now give it up and let the club get on with it. I am not saying that we should not keep asking Charles Green the important questions and the RFFF are doing a great job (statements apart!) at pushing Green in every direction, to ensure that this is getting done properly and with the best intentions. There are still a lot of valid questions that need answered, but the more time we spend trying to get answers to ridiculous accusations, the more valuable time is taken away from the vitally important issues. The most important thing right now is that the creditors accept their offer, next Thursday at 10am. Sounds like T_S_A_R has finally gone home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Again logical fallacies all over the shop. Read this . Please did you actually read it? Having regard to its view on the undoubted gravity of the breaches, the Tribunalconsidered whether it should terminate Rangers FC membership of the Scottish FAand concluded that punishment was too severe. It considered whether suspensionof membership was a less serious but an appropriately severe punishment, butconcluded that too was too severe. Having regard to the circumstances which led tothe breaches by Rangers FC and the role of Mr Craig Whyte in their plight as theirChairman and director, it was concluded that a temporary prohibition on registeringnew players was appropriate. Twelve months was considered an appropriate period The Tribunal was of the view that whilst the sanction was severe it was not excessiveand that the period covered only two signing windows. It was, of course, unknownwhat capacity Rangers FC may have during that twelve month period for signing andregistering new players in any event. The registration prohibition struck a balancewhich was relevant to the mischief and proportionate to the breach they concluded that expulsion/suspension was too severe for the crime also no mention of what they thought about a cup ban. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 they concluded that expulsion/suspension was too severe for the crime Too severe when they thought there was another option of the transfer embargo. Remove that and it's arguable that it is no longer too severe. also no mention of what they thought about a cup ban. Which suggests it was not even worth considering as surely if the panel felt it was close to being suitable they would have mentioned so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 @BBCAlLamont: Asked whether he'd had any indication from HMRC as to how they'll vote on CVA: "They've had document for over a week. Each day that passes.. @BBCAlLamont: ..we have to assume HMRC are on board. It would be awful for them to turn it down on the day. If that's their decision tell us now." <chico rubs hands> Boom! Sounds like Charlie boy might be in for a nasty surprise. I can see him trotting out the sort of excuse dodgy firms have when they're caught by Watchdog: "The vast majority of our creditors were happy with the deal. A small minority were not happy and have decided to reject it, which is what you're focussing on." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Too severe when they thought there was another option of the transfer embargo. Remove that and it's arguable that it is no longer too severe. Which suggests it was not even worth considering as surely if the panel felt it was close to being suitable they would have mentioned so. they said The registration prohibition struck a balancewhich was relevant to the mischief and proportionate to the breach if a 12 month transfer ban is proportionate then suspension or explusion (which is far harsher) is surely disproportionate. they didn't consider a cup ban because they thought a transfer ban fitted perfectly. going by that document no consideration at all was given to a cup ban so carloway will have to look at that himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) did you actually read it? they concluded that expulsion/suspension was too severe for the crime also no mention of what they thought about a cup ban. Yes, but the appellate stated that the punishment of suspension was not too harsh in the context of lesser sanctions being available. The whole point of an appellate is to review a previous decision. By Lord Glennie referring the matter back to the appellate they can reaffirm that since the context of lesser punishments has been negated through Rangers legal action that their previous consideration should now stand and suspension is the only way forward. Edited June 8, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Left Wing Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I keep reading on P&B ( i have read every post in this thread) that a CVA will not/cannot get pushed through and there seems to be various plausible theories for this. However, this is the ONLY place i find this point of view. Every paper or other media, every person i see interviewed, tells me the opposite. I know what i would like to happen but i'm starting to think it will be a CVA, not enough evidence of double contracts, practically debt free Rainjurs in the SPL. Sadly, nothing to see here, move along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Yes, but the appellate stated that the punishment of suspension was not too harsh in the context of lesser sanctions being available. The whole point of an appellate is to review a previous decision. By Lord Glennie referring the matter back to the appellate they can reaffirm that since the context of lesser punishments has been negated through Rangers legal action that their previous decision should now stand and suspension is the only way forward. it says suspension might have to be considered appropiate. or presumably it might not. the original panel verdict doesn't mention the discounting of suspension as being due to the availability of other sanctions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Right, Green has given them a loan of £8mil+ and season tickets are by their nature a loan from the fans (payment in advance). True? They are at last count a Gazzillion pounds in debt, and they still apply for credit? I would say get H+D to feck, but they are doing a grand (an hour) job! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/helping-the-police-with-their-inquiries/ -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Right, Green has given them a loan of £8mil+ and season tickets are by their nature a loan from the fans (payment in advance). True? paying for something up front isn't a loan. you can get money back if the games don't happen but that is because of consumer rights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I keep reading on P&B ( i have read every post in this thread) that a CVA will not/cannot get pushed through and there seems to be various plausible theories for this. However, this is the ONLY place i find this point of view. Every paper or other media, every person i see interviewed, tells me the opposite. I know what i would like to happen but i'm starting to think it will be a CVA, not enough evidence of double contracts, practically debt free Rainjurs in the SPL. Sadly, nothing to see here, move along. The wifey who appears on Newsnight seems to doubt it will go through. Most of the media types I've seen comment have said they don't know - but given the shocking ignorance shown on financial matters but most of them that's hardly surprising. But you can make your own mind up - there's the link to the factors HMRC consider in accepting/rejecting a CVA and Rangers fail (at least) two of them so until someone can convince me why they should make an exception, I'm expecting it to fail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 if a 12 month transfer ban is proportionate then suspension or explusion (which is far harsher) is surely disproportionate. You are indulging in utter whataboutery, at no point do they say that expulsion/suspension was disproportionate. They only chose the embargo because it was available to them, as Glennie has now forced them to choose one of the sanctions listed rather than doing a mix and match. they didn't consider a cup ban because they thought a transfer ban fitted perfectly. going by that document no consideration at all was given to a cup ban so carloway will have to look at that himself. Well he will need to look at all the options if he is to adhere to the ruling that Glennie made, but the fact of the matter is that a transfer embargo is considerably closer to expulsion/suspension than a ban/expulsion from the cup which is handed out for the simplest of misdemeanour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I would say get H+D to feck, but they are doing a grand (an hour) job! There only to get the best deal for the creditors... 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.