"The ICT Thread - From the Premiership to the Seaside"

[RedLichtie86]

41 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

At the time new entrants to the SFL required 3 years of audited accounts in order to be eligible to apply. New Rangers didn't have that and were voted in anyway. 

They didnt get a club license until a couple of days before playing Brechin in the first round of the Challenge cup.

[RH33]

2 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

I see Big Dunce is on STV whinging that the plan to move to Kelty didn't go through and that's what caused this. Good riddance.

Billy Mckay is set to be named assistant manager according to the P&J.

I'm north and was sat with my dad watching it and my mother didn't appreciate my language when he came out with that.

Might be a county fan but I'm not daft enough not to acknowledge we're only a Roy McGregor exit away from.tough times.

 

[welshbairn]

37 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its the SPFL, not the SFA, and you can be as miffed as you like. Its a members organisation and perfectly entitled to set the rules of its own membership.

The administrator is at liberty to ignore it if he so wishes but the club would be expelled from the league. Good luck in selling it as a going concern if they take that course of action.

After following the Rangers insolvency journey in some detail I'm aware that fairness and morality play little if any part in insolvency law. It was staggering to me that nobody went to jail. In this case directors seem to have colluded with an unsupervised CEO to sign an unproven and disastrously unsuccessful manager on a extortionate salary, whose 3(?) year contract must be paid in full, at the expense of non-football employees and local businesses who will likely have to pay for it with a smaller share (if any) in their settlement. 

Edited 2 hours ago by welshbairn

[Artemis]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I think ejection of any SPFL club for whatever reason would require a high threshold vote (70%?) from an all member vote. I very much doubt enough clubs are confident enough to set that precedent should they get into financial bother in the future. If a scary challenger from tier 5 had any kind of bother with the HMRC though, they'd be straight on the blacklist for 3 years.

If the SPFL Board didn’t grant a waiver re the bronze licence, a club would have to be voted out by a qualified resolution. That requires 90% of the Premiership 75% of the Premiership and Championship combined and 75% of all clubs to vote for it.
The SPFL Ltd Articles also provide that if a member suffers an insolvency event, the SPFL Board can direct that its share in the SPFL Ltd should be transferred to a company operating another club (Article 36). So, if the SPFL Board wanted to eject a club from the SPFL for suffering an insolvency event, it could do it without a vote and without having to rely on failing the Bronze Licence requirement.
I don’t think there is any way that the SPFL Board would eject a club that is in administration. But Article 36 looks like they could do that if they wanted. It is probably just there so that the Board decide what happens in any insolvency case rather than it being decided by the clubs.
I think Article 36 would only be used if there was some form of reconstruction of the member company, especially if it involved a liquidation. The SPFL Board would then decide whether the club can carry on in the league and, if so, what division they will play in. Or, they’ll decide that the club should be ejected with a different one taking their place, in the division chosen by the SPFL Board.
At least, that’s what Article 36 looks like to me but happy to be corrected. The stuff about membership and share transfers is in Articles 31 to 43.

SPFL Ltd Articles

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I'm dubious about the legality of the SFA forcing preference to football creditors over others. If I was an ordinary creditor I'd be well miffed anyway, or one of the sacked non-football employees.

That's the way the crumble has cookied up till now.

[PB1994]

8 minutes ago, Artemis said:

If the SPFL Board didn’t grant a waiver re the bronze licence, a club would have to be voted out by a qualified resolution. That requires 90% of the Premiership 75% of the Premiership and Championship combined and 75% of all clubs to vote for it.
The SPFL Ltd Articles also provide that if a member suffers an insolvency event, the SPFL Board can direct that its share in the SPFL Ltd should be transferred to a company operating another club (Article 36). So, if the SPFL Board wanted to eject a club from the SPFL for suffering an insolvency event, it could do it without a vote and without having to rely on failing the Bronze Licence requirement.
I don’t think there is any way that the SPFL Board would eject a club that is in administration. But Article 36 looks like they could do that if they wanted. It is probably just there so that the Board decide what happens in any insolvency case rather than it being decided by the clubs.
I think Article 36 would only be used if there was some form of reconstruction of the member company, especially if it involved a liquidation. The SPFL Board would then decide whether the club can carry on in the league and, if so, what division they will play in. Or, they’ll decide that the club should be ejected with a different one taking their place, in the division chosen by the SPFL Board.
At least, that’s what Article 36 looks like to me but happy to be corrected. The stuff about membership and share transfers is in Articles 31 to 43.

SPFL Ltd Articles

 

Sounds like they want to be able to stick Rangers/Celtic straight back in the Premiership if either one of them go bust like in 2012.

I can’t see any way the board would ever chuck a team out of the leagues for going into Admin, no matter what it does to the license, the people on the board are mostly chairpersons of the clubs and it could easily happen to any of them at some point in the future. The same could be said if it went to a vote from the clubs. Nobody would vote any team out of the league in case they ever went through the same situation. Then again Aberdeen rejected the vote on voting structure in the Premiership so anything could happen.

[blackislekillie]

It's almost as if there are no competent administrators in the game

[Stephen Malkmus]

We're too big to be chucked out of the league for not having the right license.

[Sir Tarmo]

1 minute ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

We're too big to be chucked out of the league for not having the right license.

“Cowdenbeath” joining the silly diddy alliance of football clubs desperate to stick their nose in The Caley’s affairs.

[Blue Oktober]

3 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

We're too big to be chucked out of the league for not having the right license.

A follower of the King Canute school of thought.

[Worktheshaft]

I think it's best if we just agree that Gardiner is a c**t. Whatever happens next is immaterial.

Edited 2 hours ago by Worktheshaft

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

At the time new entrants to the SFL required 3 years of audited accounts in order to be eligible to apply. New Rangers didn't have that and were voted in anyway. 

It was still the member clubs who chose to vote them in, however.

They could have voted for someone else and left them out in the cold with no league to play in.

[Stephen Malkmus]

1 hour ago, northstander said:

The man tasked with our recovery 

I imagine his teamtalks will be like Roman Roy's when he bought Hearts

[Blue Oktober]

10 minutes ago, Sir Tarmo said:

“Cowdenbeath” joining the silly diddy alliance of football clubs desperate to stick their nose in The Caley’s affairs.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here fully but at a personal level I really hope your club can rebuild and go forward from what is a horrible sittuation at present.

[DiegoDiego]

Hopefully ICT get liquidated, phoenix and are then admitted straight into the Premiership, just to wind up Sevco fans.

[Airdrie76]

25 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

It was still the member clubs who chose to vote them in, however.

They could have voted for someone else and left them out in the cold with no league to play in.

You make it sound that there was a process where other applicants were encouraged. There wasn’t. Rules were bent and clubs were offered a sweetener to allow them in. Obviously the majority were comfortable with this. 

[Passionate]

What happens to the players if they are released by the Administrator , because it is out the transfer window,  Do they have to wait till January to get a club or are they now free agents.....  An unusual situation..

[The Black Flag]

11 minutes ago, Airdrie76 said:

You make it sound that there was a process where other applicants were encouraged. There wasn’t. Rules were bent and clubs were offered a sweetener to allow them in. Obviously the majority were comfortable with this. 

There was no other club ready to replace them.

However this was the beginning of the banter years, what a time to be alive.

[The Black Flag]

3 minutes ago, Passionate said:

What happens to the players if they are released by the Administrator , because it is out the transfer window,  Do they have to wait till January to get a club or are they now free agents.....  An unusual situation..

They would be free agents as their contracts would be ended.

Also all but two in the squad would be out of contract at the end of the season.

[Cowden Cowboy]

45 minutes ago, Blue Oktober said:

I'm not sure I follow your logic here fully but at a personal level I really hope your club can rebuild and go forward from what is a horrible sittuation at present.

No don’t understand the logic - not having a pop at ICT but pointing out that if SPFL has a situation where an entry level club wins HL or LL the ICT situation as regards licence may become moot and a promotion applicant might expect that a derogation would be more readily available when the SPFL already has entry level clubs in it.  Last season all 42 were bronze or better