Jim McLean's Ghost

IMO if a snap judgement was to be made it would be in Rangers favour since if you read the judicial panel protocol a transfer embargo isn't in the available punishments for the rules they were found in breach of.

It is a 100+ page document to review. It is clear to me that the tribunal went outside of it's prescribed powers but it also has the right to do that. The question becomes about is the punishment fair and to get a reasonable assessment on that the 3 man panel needs to go through the case thoroughly. It is re-assuring that no snap judgements will be made.

I thought there was always a space reserved for the Title Holder and that Scotland would also retain it place for league champion so as long Motherwell only win the Champions League the league winner will still get a CL place. It is only the top 3 countries who run into problems because you can't have more than teams in the competition.

Friday 23rd May 2003

Another common misconception. You do not need to be fit and proper to own a football club you only need to pass that test to become chairman, director, secretary or any other official position. Celtic and previously Rangers shares are traded on a stock market so the owners could frequently change and be effectively anyone.

Claymores: I think my point was more that if HMRC felt the CVA was derisory they will act to ensure they get more money and the only way to do that is by pursuing Duff and Phelps in court. hellbhoy: Outstanding tax liabilities don't usually follow a company after changes of ownership. That was the reason why Whyte got his hands on the club because he was willing to take on the tax burden unlike the Blue Knights. Brian Kennedy made it clear in his press conference that he didn't see the BTC as a problem as it would be taken care of by a CVA.

In that regard if HMRC and other creditors reject the deal we may see court proceedings to either stop the sale of assets and remove Duff and Phelps as administrators. That could get really messy and a whole new set of unknowns open themselves up. Craig Whyte's floating charge is a key component to this too. Green's CVA might have Whyte forgo his floating charge or only take a small percentage of it. Green is going to put his money where his mouth is but there is still a good few questions and issues outstanding.

Not quite as straight forward as that. For 2. they would get the assets but then D&P (or Green since he owns 85% of the club) would need to go to the SPL and ask for the share transfer to the NewCo. Once that passes, a similar thing would happen at the SFA. Old Rangers would then be essentially worthless and in admin so D&P would then liquidate them leaving creditors with the same amount they would've gotten through a CVA. It isn't as much black mailing HMRC it is forcing them to deal with the reality of the situation and accepting a CVA is probably better for them in the long run. A properly run Rangers will be contributing a fair bit of tax as well. Rangers are not paying their debts, whether the creditors get less money to slightly inconvenience Green and co is neither here nor there.

I think they typed it up on a computer, sent it through to a lawyer to check it then forwarded it onto his agent. In these modern times who knows if it was even printed out.

It is within the powers of the administrators to sell assets. If any creditor feels they have been sold too cheaply I'm sure they can bring a case against Duff and Phelps.

A little bit of reading shows they MAY be correct. There are lists of specified punishments for breach of certain rules. However not all the rules are explicitly covered and the panel don't explicitly have to state which rules were breached, that is only guidance. There is a lovely piece of catch-all text in the judicial panel protocol. The document follows on to say So the tribunal can do what it wants as long as it seriously and irremediably prejudice Rangers. In light of the extensive documentation listing the shocking goings on at Rangers and the flirtation with expulsion the appeal panel may say the judgement is less harmful than other available punishments

Yes they should take note. Petrie never said he was actually going to vote against it. Everyone just assumes that Sporting Integrity means some form of relegation. No one has explained or reasoned why that is the case. Why can't sporting integrity be maintained with a points deduction, transfer embargo, fines and deduction of prize money.

Some desperate last gasp clutching at straws here. Green has bought Craig Whyte's shares (his floating charge is still lurking out there) He has a consortium which are funding a CVA backed by the administrators If the CVA fails his contract states he will buy assets for a fixed price (now what these assets are is subject to speculation) and begin the NewCo process. If the NewCo is needed and plan is backed by the SPL then it will be backed by the SFA, since it is pretty much the same group of people. As far as the difference between a newco and cva is concerned, I don't really care. Both are within the scope of the law and SFA/SPL rules. I don't see why people would accept a CVA without boycott but then boycott a newco, it just seems like twisted logic to me. Both are just ways to ditch debt without paying the full amount.

Scratching around for SFA votes. now where is that "phree money" gif...

I wouldn't count on Rod's thoughts truly being involved in sporting integrity. He is vice president of the SFA, with ambitions to become president after Campbell Ogilvie (whose term might come to an end rather soon) so to think Rod's stance isn't in anyway linked with getting votes in the next SFA election is kidding themselves

They can re-sign, I'm not sure what you think the problem would be?

No. Rangers don't have assets to pay out that much money. With a debt on the order of £100M when everything is added up, you think there is scope to get £60M out of Rangers? The administrator are putting that figure closer to £4M according to some journalists AND Craig Whyte, the catering company and D&P get first dibs on any cash raised. So Green is right that HMRC and Ticketus will get nothing in a liquidation event. If Rangers are worth £60M why are offer in the region of £10M being accepted by administrators?

Disagree with that. Celtic should qualify for Champions League groups and should finish 3rd and get into Europa league knockouts and from there anything can happen depending on the draw. It doesn't look like Celtic will need to overextend themselves in the league next year so European progress will be the real litmus test for Lennon (that and the League Cup, obviously)

All the cool kids are using tumblr.com

"I'm not sure I can afford the full hour"

From the Matt Slater tweet. All big name players can go for £2M. If Rangers sell Davis, Whittaker, Naismith and McGregor for a combined £8m what will that money go towards, running the club or into a potential CVA pot. When Motherwell sold McFadden and Pearson that money went to pay creditors via a CVA although we had no HMRC problem (we had to pay them in full) and John Boyle having a good portion of the debt.

Knowing Clyde it was probably one of the panelists.

Would you like to laugh at Rangers plight and the media meltdown (BBC) or would you like to listen to tears and defiance of fans (Clyde 1)? It is a difficult choice.

The difference between what a stadium is worth and what the land is worth. Ibrox has no value to anyone but Rangers as a stadium. If Ibrox burned down it would probably take that amount of money to built an equivalent replacement. I think most managers are at the stage where they have been trying to get their squads in shape for next season and are running up against budget constraints and chairmen unwilling to spend. I'm sure Danny doesn't want a situation where Rangers go bust and he has to go and tell his mate that they no longer have jobs because of it.

What he is saying is that the size of debt is irrelevant to a CVA as long as the money in the pot for a CVA is greater than the money raised by liquidating the company. Even if Rangers win the BTC the CVA amount would remain unchanged. So as long as the taxman is pragmatic and not vindictive then the amount owed shouldn't matter.