Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Steve McQueen]

1 years suspension from the SFA?

Dundee promoted

Space in 3rd for applicants to start next season

Rangers need to wait for someone else to go tits up to apply for SFL

[itzdrk]

bbc reporting as if the SFA only have 3 optionns

• termination of registration
• ban from cup
• suspension

but they have 5

they forgot about

• a 100k fine
• & ignoring the COS judge (which is what they may be seeking legal advice about)

Edited May 29, 2012 by itzdrk

[HibeeJibee]

Thinking about it from a FIFA point of view (who do not have the interests of Rangers fans at heart like the SFA do), surely this could result in a crushing blow to Rangers if they were to get involved.

Imo, a transfer embargo and a small fine was pretty lenient in comparison to what could of got flung at them.

However, the problems are... [1] it was actually outwith the powers of the SFA panel to impose a transfer embargo; [2] the original panel and the appeal panel, in deciding a transfer embargo was what they wanted to apply, also said an expulsion was too harsh; [3] it appears the SFA rules didn't allow Rangers to appeal to CAS which meant they'd no right of appeal at all - as they weren't supposed to go to court either.

It'd be surprising if - against that background - FIFA would demand Rangers hammerred, IMO.

[H_B]

Nope.

Just on the BBC news. Pretty outrageous by any measure.

That is incredible.

I knew these guys wouldn't come cheap but that is outrageous.

[GirondistNYC]

1338311780[/url]' post='6284430']

But you're assuming they have to Newco - looking at the way that H&D/Green have marshalled their deal (Green already having an offer of £5.3m for assets), the CVA sounds more likely:

The way they've framed it is pretty compelling irrespective of the p in £:

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through CVA £4,967,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through Newco £953,284

Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors through liquidation £Nil

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.

[Jambos]

Sorry, haven't read through everything...cant be arsed. Can someone summarise what state the cheats are in now? My understanding is that they foolishly challenged the lenient punishment, which will now be discarded, leaving a heaftier punishment like expulsion to be imposed instead? What is the likelihood of expulsion?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

But Lord Carloway was not acting in his role as a Court of Session judge and was not interpreting a point of law.

While not acting as a judge he was interpreting a point of law. The appeal Rangers made today was the exact same appeal that Carloway rejected. Rangers appealed by saying the punishment was unjust and not within the rules of the SFA. Carloway pointed out that the tribunal could interpret its own rules and while the transfer embargo didn't appear on the prescribed punishments the original tribunal was empowered to choose a punishment it saw fit. Further noting that the sanction was commensurate to the rule breach.

The judge has not found Rangers innocent or unjustly punished, all that he has said is that a transfer embargo is not an option for the SFA discipline panel, as he interprets their rules. A point that Carloway strenuously disagreed with.

This isn't some landmark ruling about transfer embargos being illegal, Dundee already lost that case. This was about the interpretation of SFA rules and whether Rangers were treated unfairly by the SFA. Notably the judge did not issue any sanctions on the SFA (other than costs) but told them to review their already reviewed decision by sending it back to Carloway et al.

Okay, so what does 'Protocol' refer to here? Is this taken from the SFA rules? If so, then would 'this Protocol' not include the previously posted article which states that all members have a right of appeal to CAS?

Protocol is the Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol which can be obtained from the SFA website. No mention of CAS other than the panel can punish you for not adhering to a CAS ruling.

[EdinburghBlue]

I thought the deal was at least 4. Just heat the balls in the draw for cup.

Revive the Glasgow Cup

[ayrmad]

You are joking!!!!!!

It's absurd, I wonder how much creditors would have received if this shower of shysters had cleared the decks on day 1 as per any other admin?

[Broccoli Dog]

What is the likelihood of expulsion?

About as likely as Hibs lifting the Cup.

[lichtie23]

Just expell them

[Paquis]

Thinking about it from a FIFA point of view (who do not have the interests of Rangers fans at heart like the SFA do), surely this could result in a crushing blow to Rangers if they were to get involved.

Imo, a transfer embargo and a small fine was pretty lenient in comparison to what could of got flung at them.

Rangers 'till July is still looking good to me

I presume we are no closer to knowing the result of the big tax case?

I do not believe that FIFA have any authority to act against Rangers. They can only act against the Association.

[WeeHectorPar]

Call me cynical, oh, go on, I won't mind, but is the latest "deadline delay" on the actuality of the CVA p/£ designed just to get past today's CoS case on the transfer embargo? Paul Clark stated earlier that"we WILL (hope to?) receive £8.5m from Mr Green's consortium". If you've seen the latest "plan" in today's Daily Ranger, Captain Green plans to do a share issue to "guarantee" investors a double-your-money offer. Several points on that

1. SDM tried it and it didnae work.

2. It means he still doesn't have full funding (if any).

3. He hopes to walk away with £4m. (nobody makes a fortune from football these days, excepting The Bunnet)

4. If the CoS decision goes against them, will he walk away , as one of his main plans for double your money, the buy 'em cheap, sell 'em dear plan for players, falls on its erchie.

5. if the CoS decision refers the matter back to the SFA, they'll surely be caught between a rock and a hard place, and have to grow a pair of 'nads and have to expel them. This might be him putting on his poker face hoping the SFA will back down, but if they don't, he can then claim that the SFA have forced his hand and a CVA is no longer an option. If they back down, he's won, RFC fans go ballistic and assail Post Offices across the land with their giros, to turn them into Greenback RFC Shares 2012.

Thoughts, pals?

I thought H&D accepted Green as PB on the basis of a letter from a bank stating that the money was available. Does this now mean that the letter was a clipart fake as in the case of Whyte?

[Baxter Parp]

While not acting as a judge he was interpreting a point of law.

Nope. The decision of an SFA Appeals Tribunal is not law.

[Paquis]

While not acting as a judge he was interpreting a point of law. The appeal Rangers made today was the exact same appeal that Carloway rejected. Rangers appealed by saying the punishment was unjust and not within the rules of the SFA. Carloway pointed out that the tribunal could interpret its own rules and while the transfer embargo didn't appear on the prescribed punishments the original tribunal was empowered to choose a punishment it saw fit. Further noting that the sanction was commensurate to the rule breach.

The judge has not found Rangers innocent or unjustly punished, all that he has said is that a transfer embargo is not an option for the SFA discipline panel, as he interprets their rules. A point that Carloway strenuously disagreed with.

This isn't some landmark ruling about transfer embargos being illegal, Dundee already lost that case. This was about the interpretation of SFA rules and whether Rangers were treated unfairly by the SFA. Notably the judge did not issue any sanctions on the SFA (other than costs) but told them to review their already reviewed decision by sending it back to Carloway et al.

Protocol is the Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol which can be obtained from the SFA website. No mention of CAS other than the panel can punish you for not adhering to a CAS ruling.

I agree with most of your post.

But given that the CoS has sent back the sanction, it is highly unlikely that the SFA will reimpose it. That is just asking for Rangers and the SFA to be back in front of the CoS pronto.

[Friedrich Engels]

I do not believe that FIFA have any authority to act against Rangers. They can only act against the Association.

?

[Paquis]

Nope. The decision of an SFA Appeals Tribunal is not law.

Neither are the SFA rules.

[billyg]

I do not believe that FIFA have any authority to act against Rangers. They can only act against the Association.

That is correct. They act against the associatiion thus ensuring the association has to hammer RFC !

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Nope. The decision of an SFA Appeals Tribunal is not law.

Pedant. But Carloway and Glennie were interpreting the exact same SFA rules. If a transfer embargo were explicitly stated as an available punishment for the tribunal then Rangers would not have won the court case.

[Paquis]

That is correct. They act against the associatiion thus ensuring the association has to hammer RFC !

But the SFA would be on very sticky legal grounds if they tried to 'hammer' RFC for exercising its right to seek redress from the CoS.