GirondistNYC

Yup - but it's irrelevant because the BTC is explicitly included in the CVA anyway. Your analysis would govern any other monetary claims against Rangers that emerged after the CVA though. I still find it hard to believe HMRC would agree to a CVA on these terms. Hard to see how accepting a artfully crafted lowball bid makes sense when the deterrent value of playing hardball to scare others into compliance is backed by a host of other factors. And that's before we even get to whether D&P's liquidation value is accurate (as opposed to defensible).

That's my understanding, but in the flurry of twitters and posts today I distinctly recall somebody making a fairly convincing argument that the registration might be passed to One of the governing bodies while a liquidator flogged them, with proceeds going into the pot. No idea if this is correct, but it would obviously change the dynamics.

No. The CVA explicitly includes the BTC as a contingent liability, which is why the amounts payable can't be calculated now. The proposal contemplates flaying the final settlement until the BTC is resolved. If the CVA goes through (I.e. HMRC agrees) the BTC is gone. The issue of second contracts and punishment for same would remain, however.

The whole reason FIFA hates clubs going to civil court is that it opens a pandoras box of slow civil litigation disrupting the integrity of a contest: e.g. On appeal a German high court overturns a lower courts decision that Fortuna can get promotion to 1 Bundesliga despite crowd trouble in the Hertha game two days before the start of the season on an EU panel decides a 10 point penalty that has been in place should be revoked, therefore changing the relegation picture with a handful of games to go. That's a reasonable concern. Whatever you think about Scottish courts the Italian or Romanian ones would be a potential nightmare if unleashed on the substance of football regulations. The refusal, without excption, of Rangers fans on here to understand this is annoying. At the back of FIFAs mind may be that the entire architecture of interlinked regional transfer restrictions is open to challenge as an economic restraint in certain critical jurisdictions. The Bosman case shows what one player could do - what happens if the new financial fair play rules are open to civil challenge by clubs? Goodbye any hope of restraint on the big clubs. That being said I can see FIFA blaming this on the SFA having a bad rulebook, counting their lucky stars that it was in Scotland where the courts act fast and are broadly respected, distinguishing the case because there was no clear route to CAS appeal and writing a memo to every member association that their rulebook has to clearly outline discretionary powers to punish and CAS appeal procedures pronto so it never happens again.That shouldn't be ruled out and nobody should be surprised if it happens. On the other hand, I can also see FIFA thinking this is a wonderful opportunity to lay down the law and make a point that recourse to civil litigation is verboten under all circumstances. Rangers are just high profile enough to be part of the global football consciousness but not actually big enough that their demise would meaningfully hurt the game. the fact that the totality of their conduct makes them vastly unsympathetic would be a bonus here. If I was realistically optimistic, I'd plump for a scenario where the SFA begs quietly to FIFA to force their hand and UEFA lobbies behind the scenes because seeing Rangers kicked out would scare the crap out of everybody going into Platini's brave new world of Financial Fair Play. But that's speculation.

Alas, there is not one of those smiley emoticons on here for "hangs head in shame" Damn piece of crap IPad

No they wouldn't. The COS didn't meet the merits of Rangers claims at all - that Rangers brought the game into disrepute is now established and COS didn't change that. Nor did the COS rule that the transfer embargo was somehow disproportionate. The COS pears to have simply ruled that under its own badly drafted rules the SFA is stuck with explicitly laid out punishments and can't impose a compromise tailored to circumstances using a discretionary clause. The SFA could expel or suspend Rangers and they would have no recourse under today's ruling. it would be an explicitly provided for penalty that they said they considered and only rejected due to being able to impose a lesser discretionary penalty. From the SFAs standpoint the fact they said they thought about explosion seriously but considered it too harsh might allow an argument that it's still too harsh. However, it's also perfectly arguable that it was only too harsh given the intermediate discretionary sanction and thus given the option now of either a lap on the wrist or the death penalty they now must choose the harsher sanction because the COS has effectively barred reasonable leniency as an option given that they concluded the conduct was just short of match fixing. Then there is the fact by going to the COS at all Rangers committed a new breach of the rules. The fact that apparently the SFA wanted the Rangers to try and go to the CAS not withstanding the lack of explicit sanction makes Rangers position weaker here than it otherwise might be, as does the fact that D&P appear to have indicated that they didn't even check on the poet natural negative impact of going to the COS on Scottish football before doing so. Regardless, the SFA could hammer Rangers under the COS ruling without any reference to Rangers having gone to COS. Mind you, thy don't have to.

Wasn't assuming - if a CVA goes through than SFA expulsion/suspension or SPL dual contracts punishment is it. Both messy. The Green bid for assets seems an invitation to interested parties to jump in. Say you're a wealthy Rugby guy - buy Ibrox for more than the Green valuation, get a home for Glasgow Warriors and recoup the running costs from renting to whoever is continuing as Rangers. Unlikely in its specifics, I know but given the paltry amounts from the CVA taking a chance on liquidation seems something worse considering instead of just accepting these valuations.

I would disagree with this a bit, although clearly the CVA is critical. The decision today means the only chance for Rangers to stay in the SPL with sanctions attached that the rest of the teams might see as sugaring the pill of Rangers playing next year is a) SPL punishment attached to double contracts decision or b) sanctions attached to permission to transfer SPL share in a New Co scenario. 1) might be problematic even if the SPL doesn't bottle it - does anybody know if the SPL rules are any better than the SFAs on explicit punishments? I think that all of the assumptions people have been making about how the SPL teams would vote were predicated on a transfer embargo. Being seen to allow Rangers to get off largely scott free would alienate supporters even more than what people were contemplating a week ago. Pressure on the SPL just increased tremendously. I remain baffled as to why Rangers didn't put out a statement saying they were appealing to the COS solely because the CAS route was blocked and imploring FIFA for guidance at the same time. Would have strengthened their hand politically,

I am quite aware of that. Read my posts. Some of your fellow supporters are not. Some are perfectly aware of this but are blurring the distinctions -- see, e.g. No.8 saying the judge found the sanction "unjust". Thus the comment. If you are implying I am preternaturally stupid because I didn't include the phrase "a large vocal minority" explicitly in my statement, and that any comment about the reaction of a group of supporters requires such clarification, that seems a bit harsh, but fair enough as long as you under all circumstances can post in compliance with the same high standards.

That's grossly unfair. Thy were applying rules which didn't have the flexibility necessary to hanle this situation nd did a very good job of explaining why there was discretion and it was neccessary to apply this discretion given the ultimate penalty was too harsh and others far too lenient. The COS just happened to apply the rules more akin to a criminal statute than a contractual relationship. Smart judgements by smart judges get overturned all the time. It's the way the law works. The fact the Orcs seem to think this means a court has found them innocent of wrongdoing is unedifying.

Well, this is a right mess. 1) it can be argued that the only reason Rangers brought, and the court accepted, the case is because the SFA didn't provide a clear right of appeal to CAS, which FIFA contemplates even if it didn't absolutely require. That gives an out for the SFA, and for that matter FIFA, that bringing this case wasn't binging the game into disrepute and makes the Rangers = Sion point much less clear 2) If the punishment is heightened on remand the Orcs will forever after claim they were punished for exercising their legal rights (never mind that's bollix). Some outside observers might agree. Cue angry questions in parliament from Tory Eurosckeptics (FIFA and UEFA are close enough, natch). 3) The language that the original tribunal considered expulsion and that it was akin to match fixing means any lesser punishment will smack of abject cowardice. The other chairmen have to be pretty pissed at Rangers right now. Note Rangers didn't make a public case for the reasonable CAS route or appeal to UEFA for clariication, they went straight to the nulear option. Fines would be a joke, the Scottish Cup expulsion only lightly less so. Celtic and Diddy fans will go berserk. 4) what the hell does suspension mean in the current circumstances? Other than the death of the club in short order. Bottom Line is SFA rules are badly drafted and not fit for purpose. Given the legal reasoning of the SFA panels I'm surprised the court didn't recognize that badly drafted as they were Rangers signed up for them and a transfer embargo was reasonable even if it stressed the discretionary language to a high level. That being said, some smart TimLawLoggers were pointing out flaws in the SFA rules ladt week so the COS decision doesn't necessarily involve funny handshakes. The chance of this ending without a huge chunk of either Rangers supporters or every other teams supporters not being convinced that Scottish Football is a corrupt sham which should be abandoned just went to Nil. No way to hide, no way to make it look objective.

On a lighter note, Aiden McGeady's transfer fee fom Spartak would almost be enough to secure Rangers assets - history, brand, intellectual property, the Big House, Murray Park and the remaining players based on Duff & Phelps liquidation and NewCo valuations. If anything hammers in how absurd the situation is, it's surely that.

The problem appears to be that CAS may not have automatic jurisdiction if it's not provided for. The speculation seems to be remand for SFA explicit punishment or remanded with instruction to allow appeal to SFA. Shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for Rangers regardless. Might be able to avoid UEFA / FIFA ban hammer for going o COS on grounds wasn't clear they could go directly there. May end with appeal to CAS of initial transfer embargo.

Here is the twitter link from which comes the gloom and doom: https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/mdkster The SFA may have screwed the pooch by not explicitly Allowing appeal to the CAS sporting tribunal. Take with grain of salt - its twitter, it's live blogging from court, etc.

Still catching up on thread and CVA but seems like the COS process went poorly for the SFA side based on twitter. Bench seemed to Discount discretionary clause and implicit ability to appeal to sports tribunal. That's just presentation, decision may not reflect. Apologies if someone posted, but wanted to lower expectations a bit so we can be pleasantly surprised rather than shocked and appalled.

If you are actually a Celtic fan, I would like to ask you in the nicest possible way as a fellow supporter to f**k off and not come back until you have figured out the general code of behavior on this forum as a whole and this thread in particular and can abide by them. You are derailing the thread and pissing people off. Worse, you are making Rangers supporters look reasonable. If you are not, just f**k off.

While Kings legal entanglements kinda of invite these type of theories, "my best mate is X ( very high up) and he says Y is happening". Most people who have good sources within this whole maelstrom have been very, very careful about implying where the source is from for obvious reasons. I suspect here either the source isn't really a best friend (if so, They won't be soon) or isn't really very high up. Interesting but pure speculation. The problem with the whole Bank of Scotland angle is that going after BOS for lax lending practices towards Rangers and MiH is kinda like handing out speeding tickets at the Monaco Grand Prix -- plenty of even more objectively stupid stuff was going on, so making the story about Rangers is kinda impossible. You're left with the argument that BOS generally acted in a reasonable prudent manner with Scottish football teams, but acted just as irresponsibly as it did with broad swathes of its portfolio with Rangers. I can't see tht outraging that many people who aren't fans without more.

I read it as he thought Rangers had an argument that Internal rules had been contravened, and if the argument was accepted it would be a violation of due process etc. and lead to a reversal and the ball back in the SFA court. He thinks if that happened it wouldn't necessarily be good for Rangers. He seemed to clarify at the end that he wasn't saying it would happen. I'm not at all familiar with the standards that apply to a COS review of an organizations application of its own rules but I'd imagine it would work like an appeal against an arbitration decision. There, you generally need to prove a) hard evidence of bias or b) clear violation of the rules of the arbitration process. Some Rangers fans seem to think its about a) but the actual case is based narrowly on b). The importance of the arbitration analogy is that 1) courts generally dislike overturning such judgements if it's clear sophisticated parties agreed to the process (clearly the case here) and 2) courts recognize that the standards that apply to an arbitration panel are not required to meet the standards that would be expected of an actual court of law - the whole point of arbitration is its faster and cheaper (in theory) to full judicial review. Here, the SFA rules clearly are less than ideal since they effectively have a huge gap between explicit provisions for a lap on the wrist and explicit provision for the death penalty (expulsion). There is language that could be read to be granting discretion, but it's not as clear as it otherwise might be. If the SFA.rules were criminal statutes and a court of law applied the transfer embargo against Rangers they would have an excellent case. Thing is The SFA rules aren't a statute and the tribunal isn't a court of law. The standards for clarity of the rules should be judged to a lower standard and under the rules there is an excellent argument that given the findings against Rangers a transfer embargo was a reasonable halfway house between Largely irrelevant fines and expulsion. Both the initial finding and the appeal laid out their reasoning for the punishment and that they had considered the explicitly authorized punishment of expulsion - the match fixing comment seems intended to buttress this. IN THE CONTEXT OF A NON JUDICIAL PROCEDURE it seems to be me that if you signed up for a procedure that included the possibility of expulsion its hard to complain when you get a lesser penalty. If the SFA rules only explicitly authorized fines it would be a different story. The other option for Rangers is to argue that the SFA does have the ability to impose a discretionary penalty but that a one year transfer embargo is too harsh. Problem with this is a) it's not cllear to me based on their statements Rangers are even making this argument and b) if it's a question of fact and degree, rather than clear contravention of rules, the COS should be inclined to defer to the findings of he. Specialized internal procedure rather than in effect here the case against Rangers itself applying SFA rules rather than the actual law - they certainly would be loathe to do so in an arbitration context. Sorry for the lengthy post here.

Mr. Hyde personality today then?

I find that very, very hard to believe even after all that's happened. Really can't imagine it, and the isle of man hint leans the other way. But it couldn't be in the SPL so it's gotta be Europe.... Surely all those Chelsea fans didn't riot on a lie.

I am aware of this. Doesn't matter. Settled case law of the Internet. I refer you to Juggalo Funeral v. I.H.M., 78 IntFed 456 (2009).

Any argument that quotes or paraphrases Insane Clown Posse in its support is wrong. Period. Well established rule of the Internet. Just by posting this you have harmed the diddy cause and, by association, made me feel a single neuron of affinity for the old order and Rangers. "magnets! How do they work?". Juggalos are worse than Rangers fans. Somebody has to be.

Out of greenies, but this is brilliant imagery.

And they wonder why, despite desperate attempts to big up a bunch of EDL muppets acting hard on twitter and a pub dispute between Celtic fans, the Internet is filled with NCFC-Celtic love....

Have been spending far too much time thinking about what in Gods name possessed Rangers to bring the court case. Still head scratching, so thought I'd lay out some worst case scenarios. 1) the Side letters exist, but are not what they are assumed to be and evidence indicates to this point. Rangers are confident they can ultimately win on second contracts issue even if they lose the BTC. This seems unlikely. 2) No side letters exist or for some other reason Rangers think they are going to win the BTC and beat the second contract point. This seems very unlikely indeed. 3) Rangers are guilty, guilty but HMRC will be happy with a CVA even at derisory returns because the liquidation value will be much less (because of CW floating charge or other reasons). Politics may be involved. Green is peddling this today, Hillier has been peddling it for weeks. Lots of people much better informed than me think this is unlikely, but it's hard to speculate. Note ths ignores Ticketus being a holdout. 4) Rangers are guilty, guilty but the SPL chairmen will move heaven and earth to keep them in the league. Celtic will make loud noises of disapproval only when they know Rangers are safe back on sky. Sadly, I can't say this is unlikely, but it seems more unlikely after Rangers went to civil law. 5) The SFA procedure was legally challengable and there will be a rapid and crushingly clear verdict that the SFA breached its own rules. FIFA and UEFA accept this because Rangers was appealing an SFA judgement rather thn one of theirs directly and they'd rather have a special circumstances verdict than run the risk of Rangers challenging whether transfer embargoes are per se illegal. Ths seems unlikely to the point of not to me. 6) The Green consortium has a great deal of money, and are walking a tightrope between pleasing the Orcs and not enraging the creditors. They think they can make money off Rangers by beating AC Milan rather than by selling the silverware and milking the Orcs on the cheap. They are willing to tough out a transfer embargo and (if (3) above is not correct) three years without Europe. We really don't have enough info but seems implausible. 7) David Cameron leads the coalition benches in a rousing chorus of the Billy Boys after Warren Buffet reveals his full pectoral red hand tattoo at the press conference announcing his takeover. Unlikely. For Rangers to be where RM thinks they will be, (5) and (6) have to be true and they need combination of the others to stay in the SPL. I'm struggling to think why civil action makes sense if more than a handful of the above are true even if they're overconfident on (5) itself.