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

[Hugh Hillshaveyes]

Derogation is the new furlough...10 years ago no c**t had heard of these words

[mcjameos]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

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. 

I seem to remember some on here claiming when Ferguson was appointed that he was being paid by someone (possibly a director) other than the club. Not sure how these things work but, if true, would his contract not be paid out in full by that individual.

edit: ..... but then suppose that doesn't fit with him working for free, so guess the claim (on here) was likely untrue negating my question.

Edited 2 hours ago by mcjameos

[forkboy]

1 hour ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Even Ross Tokely instantly sussed that Gardiner was a knob

 

Game recognises game.

[craigkillie]

5 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm no fan of Rangers, but that's not quite true is it? Their demise meant there was a vacant spot in the SPL, which SPL clubs voted against Rangers filling. This then afforded Dundee the opportunity to fill it, leaving a vacant spot within the SFL, which any club, however old, was welcome to apply to fill.

From those that did, the SFL member clubs chose Rangers.

There wasn't any formal application and voting process in the way that there was in previous cases where there was a vacancy. However, given that 29 out of the 30 clubs voted for Rangers to be admitted to the SFL, that would have been a pointless waste of time anyway since only one club would ever have won the vote.

 

5 hours 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.

The SFA/SPFL aren't forcing anything. The actual process of the CVA is completely the same as that for any other company that goes into administration and wants to come back out. However, once that is completed, if they want to continue to take part in SFA/SPFL competitions, then they have to commit to repaying those debts. They are welcome not to pay them back, but that would lead to them no longer having a league to play in.

[welshbairn]

33 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA/SPFL aren't forcing anything....... They are welcome not to pay them back, but that would lead to them no longer having a league to play in.

?

[Connor Macleod]

1 hour ago, mcjameos said:

I seem to remember some on here claiming when Ferguson was appointed that he was being paid by someone (possibly a director) other than the club. Not sure how these things work but, if true, would his contract not be paid out in full by that individual.

edit: ..... but then suppose that doesn't fit with him working for free, so guess the claim (on here) was likely untrue negating my question.

Pretty sure that came about cause Gardiner said it at a press conference could be wrong. Ross Morrison then revealed in his interview with the podcast that the club itself was in fact paying Fergusons wage.