Geefoxer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why does everyone keep repeating this. Stv and Bbc articles both say it as well as Chick. Here is the relevant article from the spl articles 14. If:- (i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or (ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an 9 effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation; then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. So if a member goes into administration etc the share shall be transferred to a new member as directed by the board but only after a resolution passed by the Company in General meeting. So while it is the board that carries out the formalities they will only be doing what the company instructs them after a general meeting.So it is the clubs that decide not the board. Who decides? As per article 11 of the SPL's Articles of Association, the SPL board must give its consent for a member share to be transferred. Despite other Articles suggesting otherwise, the other members of the league would not be given a say. Article 11 states: "Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered." The SPL board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision. Providing final approval is granted, the share will be sold to the newco for £1. The old club will immediately cease to be a member of the SPL, and the newco would become a member in its place. Not as clear cut as it looks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Regardless of what it says, there will be some clause or other that allows the OF to circumvent the rules that would apply to anyone else 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makepeace Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Regardless of what it says, there will be some clause or other that allows the OF to circumvent the rules that would apply to anyone else 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) A lot seems to rest on the result of the big tax case. Does anybody have the faintest idea when the result of that is to be known? IIRC it was February & yet nothing. Will it even take place? From the Rangers Tax Case blog, I`ll answer my own question: When will the Big Tax Case result be released? There is no set schedule. It could be days. It could be months. My guess is that we will not have to wait too much longer as the judges will have had the opportunity to write-up much of their findings of fact long before the final sitting of the tribunal. So eh f**k knows then? Edited March 9, 2012 by Desert Nomad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Who decides? As per article 11 of the SPL's Articles of Association, the SPL board must give its consent for a member share to be transferred. Despite other Articles suggesting otherwise, the other members of the league would not be given a say. Article 11 states: "Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered." The SPL board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision. Providing final approval is granted, the share will be sold to the newco for £1. The old club will immediately cease to be a member of the SPL, and the newco would become a member in its place. Not as clear cut as it looks. That only says that their consent is needed, not that they'll be making the decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 @STVGrant: See all of you who keep setting up these sham 'Rangers 2012' companies? Gonna stop it? Costing us a fortune at Companies House. Just saw this.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Liquidate the fcukers now! Why delay the inevitable? My link I'm not convinced that's true. When Gretna were in administration, it was made fairly clear that if they went bust there would be no relegation. Killie were one of the clubs at risk that season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailHail1888 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why over 5 years? That would mean nothing, especially if its a points deduction, other than hand you the title for 5 years running. Any penalty should be applied in one go no matter how severe. Not that you can call a wrap over the knuckles and a timid 'please don't do it again' severe. You're probaly right a 50 point deduction start of next season. It wouldn't be effective 10 points over 5 seasons as they would still come 2nd but wouldn't be able to challenge our dominance that will be around for the next 20/30 years under the guidance of Neil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 There's also this article: 38. A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:- (i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL); (ii) any reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Premier League (other than as a result of a Member ceasing to be a Member of the Scottish Premier League in accordance with the Rules and/or these Articles or as a consequence of the expulsion of a Member); and, (iii) the allotment and the issue of a Share. I hope there are SPL chairmen questioning the word as laid down by Lords Chick and Doncaster on this.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) If its not up here already this is the story of STV over the backroom staff at Ibrox will not be made redundant - Rangers backroom staff told they will not be made redundant Staff at Ibrox Stadium told STV on Friday afternoon that they had been told they will not be made redundant. 09 March 2012 17:08 GMT Rangers: Redundancies among non-playing staff appear to have been avoided. Backroom staff at Rangers have been told they will not be made redundant. Administrators Duff and Phelps continued wage cut negotiations with the Ibrox club's players on Friday, after they began last week. As it emerged that several players signed deals to take significantly reduced pay cuts until the end of the month, non-playing staff at Rangers have been informed their jobs are safe. Backroom staff at Ibrox Stadium told STV on Friday afternoon that they had been told they will not be made redundant. However, the length of time that the guarantee of job safety is valid for is not yet known. The administrators are expected to make an announcement on the situation later on Friday. Edited March 9, 2012 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Inverness have been partially paid for ticket money from the recent game at the Caledonian Stadium, £25k of the £40k that is due. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm not convinced that's true. When Gretna were in administration, it was made fairly clear that if they went bust there would be no relegation. Killie were one of the clubs at risk that season. Me neither, the Beeb seem to be falling hook line and sinker for anything coming out of Chick Young or Doncaster's gob at the moment. Be nice if it was true though,, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 lol. Oh yes it does. If ticketus failed to carry out a due-dilligence test on the sale or (as is much more feasable) CW and his lawyers, Collyer Bristow, managed to speed-hustle these idiots into parting with large sums of cash on 'futures' (the POTENTIALITY of season ticket sales) then there is a distinct possibility that they unwittingly over exposed their position. Many companies have imploded in this manner in the past. Who is to say it isn't happening to them ? Honestly never thought Business Law could be so interesting............... and filthy dirty. It would be interesting to know if someone at Ibrox gave Whyte some dodgy "genuine Rangers' paperwork" so he could go ahead with the Ticketus deal. I can't believe they would just hand over £24M on the basis of someone telling them "I am going to buy Rangers". If they do have any papers signed by someone inside the club then the club may be liable for the debt even though it has never seen the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JogaBonito Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Just out of curiosity, how big of a company is ticketus? Would 24 million be detrimental to them in as much as potential redundancies and possible down-sizing may be required etc? Also, is anyone quite suprised that this whole tax dodging issue hasn't been brought to light in uk tv programmes such as Question Time? So much fury when it comes to the banks and ceo's of the big companies but nothing much for such a disgusting institution as Rangers. Is this issue tiny in the grand scheme of things? Anyway, I'm quite glad I took annual leave today. My boss is the dirtiest shite peddling *** I have ever met. Thank f**k i'll only be there for another few months.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 There is of course a simpler explanation for Ticketus/Octopus' involvement. As things stand, Rangers look to have gotten away with nicking £24 million of their money via Whyte and getting nothing in return. The simple answer would be to fold the Ticketus company that loaned the money out to Whyte (each Ticketus deal with each individual organisation is registered as a separate limited company) and put it down to experience. However, as Ticketus know this sets a precedent and the risk of other sports clubs worldwide trying the same trick on them (and a big part of their business is loan deals to desperate sports clubs like Plymouth Argyle and Watford with crappy terms and conditions such as "all your season ticket money for the next four years, suckers!"). So what better way to show they can't be f**ked with than buying out Rangers from the administrators as part of the Barren Knights on the condition they chose the new chairman and dominate the new board. Once in place, they flog off everything in sight and then liquidate (they wouldn't want to keep Rangers, not with THAT tax case still looming), gaining back some of their money and sending a clear message out to the larger world of football they are not to be messed with, leaving thousands of greetin' Rangers fans after both Murrays, Whyte's and Haudit & Daudit's blood for handing The Big Hoose on a plate to their executioners. All of which would be far less costly than several years going through the courts to get their money back from someone that hadn't got two beans anyway, and less of a PR nightmare than hiring a triad gang to do unspeakable things to Whyte and nailing the remains to Dalmarnock Bridge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Be interesting if the Non Celtic SPL members who are apparently meeting next week sell their soul for some silver when it comes to letting Rangers back into the SPL(with penalties) I can appreciate they think they have Celtic by the balls and not that unhappy about "sharing the wealth" but is it not a moral decision too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Imo the Celtic talk is all posturing and they'll vote rangers in. With sanctions, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Be interesting if the Non Celtic SPL members who are apparently meeting next week sell their soul for some silver when it comes to letting Rangers back into the SPL(with penalties) I can appreciate they think they have Celtic by the balls and not that unhappy about "sharing the wealth" but is it not a moral decision too? Not fair, they won't let us play with them.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Imo the Celtic talk is all posturing and they'll vote rangers in. With sanctions, of course. Pretty poor if Celtic don't get an invite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Not fair, they won't let us play with them.. Back at you until this season 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.