GirondistNYC

On a more relevant note, the bit about the Croatian FA suspending Hajduk is pretty interesting. Dinamo and Hajduk are roughly comparable to the Old Firm in their dominance of post independence Croatian football and the relative size and spread of their support. So it's a big step to supend a big club. On the other hand, it should be noted that the Croatian football world is by most accounts corrupt enough (and historically biased towards Dinamo enough) to justify even the most rabid Vanguard Bears style conspiracy theory.

I really hate to wade in here, but as WaffenThinMint pointed out the phrase had general currency referencing to parties going a while back. And the party referenced was in 2003. More to the point, "having a party when Thatcher dies" predates its current usage, I'm pretty sure that predates the 2003 party referenced by the article and 99% sure it was in use outwith a Celtic or Irish connection. Tasteless, but lots of people dislike the lady who loathe the IRA. I suspect if the chant had involved putting the champers on ice for he party, the band warming up for the party or putting on their best suit or the party somebody would have googled it after it started and found a connection to the IRA somewhere. The alternative interpretation is somebody with enough charisma to start the chant was either at the party itself or has encyclopaedic knowledge of Guardian articles from almost a decade ago. Unlikely. Like I said orry to wade in here but some impeccably non OF supporters here might feel compelled to change thir signatures if this nonsense was accepted.

Well, I can say after today that my days of not having any respect for No.8 and not taking anything he says seriously have certainly come to a beginning

You missed the point as to why a league wide restriction is different than a sanction on the club? The point about Juniors, under 19s and under 23s? People are making valid arguments which you refuse to attempt to refute or address while reiterating your original point in quick posts. I hate to call people pointless waste of a life trolls, but you're bing one.

Do you really not understand that from an employees perspective age restrictions that apply to one or more leagues as a whole are different than a sanction applying to one club? Do you really not understand the implication of your argument for under 19 and under 23 teams? Did you see my post about the Bundesliga? Have you developed a third "thick as shit" persona?

The Bundesliga doesn't have Reserve teams. Instead, it has Under 23 teams. In other words, once they turn 24 Germn league players find their opportunity to get a game and thus maintain employment vastly reduced. With your keen insight into EU employment law I suggest you cll your friends at HSV and Rostock to see if they've released any 24 year olds, take their case and win fame and fortune. Note, of course, that the above is a league wide rule. The Rangers sanction is one team - the negative effect on any over 18 year olds employment prospects given the scores of clubs in Scotland, let alone the EU, is de minimis. They just go somewhere else. Employment law rights are about protecting employees, not employers. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't quit your day job to become an EU employment lawyer.

The assumption some people are making is that D&P's actions as administrators have been influenced throughout by a pre-existing relationship with Whyte. I simply don't think that's true. At most, they entered with a ludicrously rosy picture of the situation based on what Whyte old them (last nights emails back this up). Once they are in the hotseat they, out of duty and out of naked self-interest, would proceed to the best of their abilities having realized what a crock of shite they actually had. In hindsight, the best of their abilities may be roughly comparable to Regi Blinker but I don't think any perceived conflict of interest involving Whyte has anything to do with it. I think they made a catastrophic error in guessing they could get clarity on a resolution before the player release clauses kicked in and before money started to run out, But I think that was because they misread the market for a takeover, reasonably factored the probability of a swifter BTC judgement and bought a bad line from the Rangers staff that an intact, happy squad would be more valuable on and off the pitch and more attractive to a bidder. Cock-up not conspiracy. If a firm wanted to sail close to the wind in an administration, this is by far the worst scenario to think "this shit would never see the light of day". The sporting context and the nature of the Scottish media meant they would be under an absurdly disproportionate level of scrutiny. Do you think Daly would be doing this stuff if it was Clinon Cards or that game store chain that went bust? I'll leave to an expert on accountancy and inolvency matters to determine whether the perceived conflict of interest means they never should have accepted the role in the first place, but I find it hard to believe it mattered in practice. P.S. quite liked the dead parrot bit. Brilliant!

Ticketus thought they had a valid sale of tickets -- a future flow asset securitization. The advantage of this approach is you are insulated from a bankruptcy of the seller as you are deemed to own the ticket revenue stream and are thus not a creditor at all. That means credit checks work slightly differently. The risk for Ticketus was that ticket sales would collapse entirely or a NewCo structure would allow a challenge to the deal. Based on the snippets in the COS decision involving Ticketus they may have had the second angle covered (the language seemed to be tickets to Ibrox, not tickets to Rangers in its current form). These deals are perfectly above board and work (the problem in the US RMBS market wasn't the structure, it was the assets were crap beyond everyone's expectation). They are much, much trickier when future assets are involved however. The problem for Ticketus is they unforgivably failed to take into account that however characterized tickets to Ibrox are SCOTTISH assets and even though the trust structure they used was governed by English law and (apparently) valid there under Scottish law works differently for future flow assets - or rather, it doesn't work at all. They ae left with a contractual right subject to cancellation and an ordinary claim as creditor. They are screwed, although they may pop up to wreak havoc later with a variety of legal claims. They clearly have determined that nothing is to be gained by engaging in the public kabuki show. Nobody vaguely rational would put themselves in the position they are in as part of some master plan. Someone who knows more than me explained most of this to you last night and even provided a COS link. Was that TLDR for you? D&P have taken a lot of stick here, some of which seems as a non-accountant on the outside justified, but I really, really don't believe they are part of a "stich-up". They are an international brand, and reputation matters a lot to them. The idea that the firm as a whole, as opposed to one partner, had a relationship with a non-entity like Whyte is risable. The idea they would somehow go through with a plan detrimental to creditors based on an opportunity to run up the bill a wee bit and fond feelings for whichever evil genius people think is behind the master plan is not credible. The reputational hit they' had taken even before Daly started hammering them far, far outweighs any gain. They clearly deployed a high risk stratagey in the expectation decent money bidders would show up. They probably failed to understand how different from an ordinary administration a football club is and overcompensated on the side of football at crucial points early on. But I don't think their senior partners are happy with the situation at all. The above in no way meant to defend Ticketus or D&P (especially after the crude burying of the post-admin HMRC liabilities in the CVA) but this is a cock-up, not a conspiracy. At most, any conspiracy is limited to some combination of bidders and Whyte.

An ethnic identity in the United States prevelant in the Southern high country most noted for having tragically lost their ancestral knowledge of crafting whisky and making do by inventing bourbon.

I apologize for agent Bernadette. We thought she was ready. I blame our Timposter schools.

Dear Agent Bernadette: There appears to have been a mistake in your orders. You were told to infiltrate a forum in the persona of an absurd caricature of a Rangers fan and sow dissension. It should have been clear to you that you were supposed to Infiltrate a RANGERS forum. Instead, you have infiltrated a forum neutral in our great struggle to bring counter-reformation, the house Stuart and Jedward to an independent Scotland. You have wasted time. You have distracted other servants of Lawwell. You have made me waste a precious reddie. On the plus side, the avatar was good and the patter should get you through the door when you approach the correct target. In particular the random dig at Morton was exactly the type of quick thinking nasty disruptive comment we are looking for. Remember the task before you Child is to stretch logic beyond the breaking point, endure the unendurable and become the enemy. Go forth and sin no more

And one explanation for their otherwise baffling inactivity would be they have a legal opinion as to the validity of the sale backed by a very, very hefty malpractice policy and have otherwise written off the whole debacle in their "what kind of United Kingdom has two frakkin legal systems" file. It will be quite fun if they leap into action and claim they have a charge on the ticket revenue after the dust settles, however.

Yup

The problem with Bosman as an analogy is that as an individual he didn't really have an option as to what contract regime to play under if he wanted to play pro football. The rules at the time acted as a direct restraint on his economic liberty and ability to earn a living and were not rules he ever agreed to. The EU cares a great deal about both individual rights and freedom of contract. Thus Bosman. Rangers, on the other hand, are a sophisticated institution that signed up to these rules last year. They wouldn't be barred fom existing if the SFA chucked them and they could presumably in theory play glamour friendlies against Linfield and Schezuan 1690 FC to pay the bills, and if they went to the wall everyone involved could find work elsewhere. They're not dependent on others hiring them in the way Bosman was and they aren't exactly the sympathetic wee soul fighting against the wicked club and league. Also, they're being punished for something a little bit more serious than being kind crap and falling out with the manager. Bosman does not equal Rangers. FIFA and UEFA probably are terrified of challenges to the transfer system as a whole and the upcoming financial fair play rules, but that's an excellent reason to absolutely hammer Rangers now: since the COS took the transfer ban off the table, none of the stuff thy are worried about would be involved in Rangers case, and Rangers is a wonderfully unsympathetic (and cash poor) standard bearer or a general attack on the legality of federation and international boies governing football and discouraging recourse to civil law. And have fun trying to fund any serious legl challenge in your current state.

Unless you can show me a lengthy definition from the FIFA rules (which may exist) limiting what "arbitration tribunal" means in 64.3 then I'm not sure you're right there: small a arbitration means contractually agreed dispute resolution, and in the real world ranges from internationally recognized bodies working under procedures very similar to courts to sole practioners mediating family law disputes. The SFA tribunal had rules, procedures etc and was contractually agreed. I think it could be easily classed as a small a arbitration panel and fit under FIFA rules. I also think that the procedures to pick the panel members could be classed as "independent". It wasn't a tribunal of SFA employees. It wasn't a tribunal of chairmen of the other clubs. Nobody involved had a direct stake in the decision. If the entirety of the procedure had been made up when Rangers appealed and no prexisting list for selection existed you would have a better case, but again if it's small i "independent" the SFA or FIFA can argue quite credibly 64.3 was met. I think from both a legal and moral perspective Rangers would have a better case if the rules in question hadn't been agreed to by Rangers recently (last year?) The SFA bollixed this up badly in having poorly drafted rules. CAS appeals should have been in there. But IF FIFA really does care and puts pressure on Rangers, and/or IF the panel on remand gives Rangers a savage, but explicit in the rules, penalty I don't think recourse to FIFAs rulebook would save you. There are some very good legal bloggers and twitters who were excellent in explaining why yesterday's decision made sense in the context of a lack of specificity under Scottish, as opposed to English, precedent. I haven't yet seen an argument why a specifically enumerated punishment like expulsion would also be subject to reversal by the COS. There may be an excellent one.

This is true, but: 1) while everyone agrees the book value is irrelevant and the real value in liquidation is much, much less (and there isn't really anything illegal about that fact) the breakup value of the assets may be higher than D&P estimate, which is reasonable but not certain. Greens asset bid should be a floor, not a binding ceiling. This might come into play. 2) lots of Bears seem to think HMRC are legally bound to accept pence in the pound in all circumstances if the liquidation value is zero. They're not. If they were running up huge post admin costs to drive liquidation values to zero and then offering a CVA value designed to be exactly 1p would be the perfect stratagey for dealing with HMRC. That would be suboptimal from the standpoint of revenue raising. Nobody can be absolutely sure what HMRC will do. It would seem to me perfectly reasonable from a policy perspective for HMRC to refuse this CVA on the basis that the derisory sums recovered are outweighed by the larger gains fom football clubs ever after taking their tax bills more seriously lest they end up like Rangers. it would also seem that the totality of conduct by Rangers over the years should be taken into account. Given the apparent fact that the CVA rolls unpaid post-admin amounts due to HMRC into the debts to be settled or pence in the pound rather than off the top I can see HMRC being less charitable if true.

13.6 and 6.2 of the CVA are where the BTC is included and the date tied to it. Not much point in doing a CVA unless you either get rid of the BTC or are dead certain you're going to win. The CVA also assumes that the amount secured by Whyte's floating charge is nil both in his hands and implicitly if Ticketus claims it as security for it's guaranty. Lots of talk on RTC about how this might be a huge complication, speculation that Ticketus may have an alternative stratagey etc. no bloody idea how that plays out and can't see a CVA going through unless it's absolutely clear Whyte and the charge have gone or will go away.

We just don't know. FIFA and UEFA both have policies against going to civil law on core matters (as opposed to, say, a touch line ban for a manager (not that I'm defending that)). FIFA clarified this with a very clear rule last year and put tons of pressure on the Swiss SFA when Sion went to court. Said pressure was a factor in Sion getting absolutely hammered by the Swiss FA, as one of the ir people said in the papers today. The cases Bears are talking about predate FIFA clarifying their policy. UEFA is also very wedded to its financial fair play rules and clearly wants to show clubs it means business. Besitikas just got hammered or financial irregularities. One could see FIFA pushing SFA hard to give a strong penalty to Rangers to enforce the lesson that civil law is not an option to be taken lightly. Better to make an example of high profile but unimportant Rangers now than deal with Manchester City or Chelsea later. The general toxicity around Rangers conduct makes them a wonderfully attractive target compared to other clubs with more friends and potentially narrower issues. Cutting against that, though, is the fact the COS acted very fast and provided clarity. Also, the SFA's rules were badly drafted in providing inadequate range of enumerated punishments and imprecise language about discretion. It would be very easy for FIFA to accept something like a Scottish Cup ban as an adequate punishment and write off the brief COS interlude as the fault of flaws in the SFAs own setup. They give a warning, tell everyone to clarify their rules so it can't happen again and trust that Rangers are such a mess that nobody with sense will ever cite them as precedent. Sion, in a pinch, can be distinguished. Ionnadis, the lawyer on newsnight last night, has extensive experience in these things and indicates that the SFA will need to be seen to do something to placate FIFA. However, he didn't indicate contrary to what ome are saying that they will demand expulsion. We can't rely on Deus Ex Machina Platini/Blatter.

Well, he'll be putting more money in than TBK or Whyte and it will be very much at risk. By structuring the purchase as a loan, however, he can take a security interest / floating charge over Ibrox and other assets. That means that if they get the CVA and subsequently go bust again he can recover some of the cash by being first in line for the proceeds of sale. By the way, since it keeps cropping up, the BTC amounts ARE included in the CVA. If it goes through, HMRC can't come back and try and extract cash after the judgement - the CVA specifically makes creditors wait until the BTC is resolved to get paid.

I'll again assume for the sake of argument that you are a Celtic fan. If so, why the heck are you derailing an excellent thread mixing decent serious discussion of Rangers plight with brilliant mockery of Rangers? Why the heck are you pointlessly and rather witlessly taking the piss about diddy teams in matters unconnected with Rangers on a board thats core is diddy posters? To the extent you see yourself as reacting to slurs against Celtic and comments about us being just as bad as them, unfortunately your posts today and Monday are reinforcing, rather than countering, those prejudices. And it's kinda their board, a thick skin is required for Celtic fans anyway. Neil Lennon called, he said that you should stop "helping" on P&B unless you can craft a civil post focusing on Rangers and bringing something new to the table. So, DhenBhoy, what are your thoughts on D&P's liquidation valuations, especially the freehold properties? Failing that, post a funny GIF about Rangers. That would be nice.

Not worth engaging No.8 when he is in this mode. He'd much rather use the standard points to deflect discussion than actually talk about the topic of this thread.

They wouldn't, but might pay a non-trivial fire sale price to beat out other bidders and avoid waiting for the likes of McGregor to play the out of contract game all summer. Paying for certainty when you're getting a £5 keeper for £250k might make some sense. Just seems that assuming the non CVA route equals no player revenue is an absolute is a bit of stretch, The RTC point about treatment of post admin mounts is much more interesting though.

If you hadn't been hiding for the last couple of hundred pages you would know that all of the fans of other teams have been crunching the numbers on how Rangers impacts their clubs finances. Most of them have concluded that the argument that Rangers are such an economic boon to the game tht they need to be kpt in at all costs is bollocks. With the current split the TV money is not enough to be critical to Celtic at the top and not enough to outweigh the possibility of better things when the tiny shares get allocated at the bottom. In particular, if Rangers somehow stays in the SPL nobody is quaking in their boots at the thought of your away support not showing up in righteous wrath. There are good arguments that attendance at Old Firm in attendence home games is artificially depressed by the combination of unpleasant behavior and frequent TV showings. Nothing your lot can say or do will hurt fans of the other clubs. What may hurt them if you stay is apathy and disgust at being part of a rigged game, but naught to do with the fearsome hordes of ever loyal, who struggled to keep pace with a Rugby League club when asked to put money in their pocket for the fighting fund. BTW the hope of you (or, to be fair, us) leaving for any other league died in Manchester, but this train wreck will make sure nobody in Europe ever thinks about Rangers without laughing. You'll die or survive, but either way it will be in Scotland.

Or perhaps everyone from the thickest, most pence wise pound foolish Chairmen to the largely mythical diddy fans without bus fare to the most cautious and Beaureacratic SFA/SPL executives knows that people like you think this way and represent a large chunk, if not an outright majority, of the Bears. Given that a horde of vindictive Rangers fans will be out for blood at away games when they are not boycotting them, and given that a huge number of diddy supporters have been credibly threatening to walk away if you get off scott free, any economic benefits from keeping Rangers are vastly reduced. If the teams in the SPL or the people in the SFA grow a pair, it will be partially because of people like you. If you, it will be you that will reap what you so. You've helped to make you're brand the most toxic in UK football.

That makes sense but what if a liquidator has had discussions with interested parties in the interval before the appointment is effective and implements a fire sale at the moment the company dissolves? Alternatively, if a liquidator is coming in to replace D&P don't the latter still have a duty to creditors so they should sell players the moment it's clear a going concern will not emerge in the interim before the liquidator comes in? Given that players can extract much higher salaries if they o on a free, though, I'd assume the players association would go ape if either of the above occurred. Thanks for the response.