chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I cannot see how league membership and/or the SPL share could be treated as an asset in the same way as eg the stadium. If the company is liquidated then the transfer of share to a new entity would be at the behest of the SPL - ie it is not an asset. Fully agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If you regard the legal entity as 'the football club'. Which many people will not. The football authorities in England did not when Leeds Utd went bust - and I'm sure their fans don't either. I'm sure fans of their arch-rivals do. Some people hold the view that the unaffected continuation of the "football assets" means the continuation of the football club. That could include via transferance to another company, before/due to liquidation. I've no doubt that if it happens, Rangers fans will claim continuation, and their rivals will claim otherwise, and it'll go on forevermore. There's no regarding about it. The legal identity of a company is fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Does anyone know what the legal mechanism is for the SPL and are they a Ltd? They're a Private Limited Company. There's no regarding about it. The legal identity of a company is fixed. Undoubtedly. The legal entity of a company isn't the issue though. Were "Leeds Utd" founded in 1893 or 2007? You'll get different answers there. Leeds Utd fans will say 1893. In 2007, the FA + FL didn't say 2007. Etc. etc. Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) It looks more likely that what the administrators, Rangers fans and the football authorities will term 'Rangers' might - rightly or wrongly - in the way Leeds did. If it is that straight-forward, why did Dundee and Livingston choose to push through extremely difficult CVAs instead of this get-out-of-jail-free card? If it were this easy, literally no troubled football club would choose to honour their debts. The above conspiracy is entirely unconvincing, much as the 'Craig Whyte is going to walk in again, screw HMRC with a pre-pack CVA and lead them to a brighter future' conspiracy. I am done reading every poorly constructed hand-wringing exercise that someone can construct - lets stick to matters as they stand and continued mirth. Edited March 5, 2012 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17221172 Not very exciting for those wanting something to laugh at. That was Saturday's paper Chico... do keep up! BTW I am reading my way through the thread and I hope by the time I get to the end there will be some SPLENDID news! Butterkist at the ready... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) If it is that straight-forward, why did Dundee and Livingston choose to push through extremely difficult CVAs instead of this get-out-of-jail-free card? If it were this easy, literally no troubled football club would choose to honour their debts. I don't think anyone would suggest it's straightforward. It's pretty clearly what the administrator was alluding to earlier, though, with his "definitions". To answer your question particularly - after Airdrie United, SFL inserted a rule which (while not preventing it) makes it harder for a club to do what Airdrie did, or what Leeds did. Also worth noting SFL isn't a Limited Company, it's just a members association, although it's not fundemental. SFL has a rule which says that for a member to transfer its membership to another legal entity requires its own approval. I've no doubt that in the case of Dundee and Livingston, their fellow clubs would not have granted such approval. Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 According to the BBC's Chris McLaughlin on Twitter - "No decision re #Rangers cuts tonight. Players have asked for delay until tomorrow." I'm thinking they could ask for the moon on a stick and Duff & Phelps would oblige. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bring me SON shine Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It won't be of any real meaning for 'precedent' or anything... but have there been cases in other European countries, of clubs using "2nd contracts" after the event? If so - what punishments were given? Google ... Steve Evans / Boston Utd http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5412612.stm Funny Steve Evans now in charge of Crawley Town who's home gate of a mere 1,500, managed to get loads of half decent (for that standard) players last season on shite wages and easily won promotion to League Two from the Blue Square Leopards, spots anyone!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Another of Craig Whyte's mates goes into hiding: Rangers FC company secretary Gary Withey has left Collyer Bristow for “family and personal reasons”, the firm has confirmed.Withey, a partner at the firm, had become embroiled in the Glasgow football club’s administration, after advising businessman Craig Whyte on his takeover of the club last year. Collyer Bristow has confirmed that Withey left the partnership and the firm on 2 March and that the firm does not know of his whereabouts. “We’ve been in contact with him and he is no longer a partner of the firm,” a Collyer Bristow spokesperson said. The spokesperson said that the firm has been in e-mail contact with Withey for the past 10 days, but had not made any attempts to trace his location using his IP address. It is understood that Withey did not attend a meeting on 29 February, the day before his membership of the firm ended. My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambopompey Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Apparently not. From Companies House The name has changed obviously but the company identity (SC0003487) seems to have been around for just shy of 105 years i think that the bunnet tried to do a newco but was told that it would close down celtic and lose their SFA membership, so he had to do the takeover and reworking with a name change rather than a close down and set up of brand new company 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) SSN: No job cuts today, no agreement can be reached. Everyone is away to think about things overnight. Can someone please remind me what the function of an administrator is again!? Recap (again) until tomorrow: Smith and Russell on the golf course, or re-decorating the kitchen. Matt McKay sampling far eastern cuisine. Daniel Cousin playing FIFA 12 on his Playstation. Night, night John Boy... Edited March 5, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young_bairn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Haha. Now the players are doing their best to send the club under 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 According to the BBC's Chris McLaughlin on Twitter - "No decision re #Rangers cuts tonight. Players have asked for delay until tomorrow." I'm thinking they could ask for the moon on a stick and Duff & Phelps would oblige. Hang on. I am not sure who is in charge here. Administrator who has certain legal responsibilities, including cutting the current running costs, attempts to cut costs and then the staff say 'oh we aren't ready yet'. Maybe tomorrow? Or next week perhaps? Is this administrator capable of making ANY decisions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Can someone please remind me what the function of an administrator is again!? I'd imagine to bring the company round to a position where it's a viable entity for a potential buyer or board, ensuring a favourable outcome for creditors. The players do seem to be allowed more input than any other administration of a football club, that I've watched, in this case. Peculiar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd imagine to bring the company round to a position where it's a viable entity for a potential buyer or board, ensuring a favourable outcome for creditors. The players do seem to be allowed more input than any other administration of a football club, that I've watched, in this case. Peculiar. Again, I'd say that the players or some of them are trying to do a decent thing by proposing wage cuts. It's an option for the administrator but ultimately he had to make a decision In the interests of the business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Again, I'd say that the players or some of them are trying to do a decent thing by proposing wage cuts. I agree - the players who have proposed wage cuts were not obliged to do so, and this weekend's paper said 4 of the senior players had offered to play the next 2 months for free, subject to insurance. It's an option they didn't have to make available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 A noble gesture, I'm sure. Pishing in the wind when considering the sum required to be shaved off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Clicky Duff and Phelps, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement: Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "Everyone involved in the administration process has been attempting to reach a consensual solution in regard to job losses within the playing squad. The prime reason for this has been to achieve essential cost savings while preserving the fabric of the first team. Sorry, but this is absurd. The administrators should have no concern for preserving the first team. They have to get the company to a position where it can break even, and if that means Rangers lose the majority of their first team and have to play youth players for the rest of the season then tough. The effect it has on Rangers on the pitch for the rest of the season shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. Have these two ever actually dealt with a company in administration before? They don't have a clue what they're doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Never known adminstrators to enter negotiations with staff or seek concensus...normally they jusy shove people out the door asap to cut costs. really wouldnt be surprised if hmrc start to push for different admins to be appointed. Does feel like there is manouevring for a liquation and phoenix club somehow parachuted into spl....if they liquidate and have to go into sfl3....they will either have a massive unsustainable facilty in terms of ibrox which could cause another financial crisis even with part time players due to costs of running stadium ( they wont be able to get credit so will have to live within their means ) or they try to buy a current sfl club ( where the money comes from that who knows?? ) and live in a small stadium...which will make it impossible for them to finance players capable of rising thru the leagues ( remember gotta live within their means ) and may not even be spl compatible ( and they wont have cash for a new stadium). ibrox is only worth money as an asset in terms of real estate and its not certain who would retain ownership in event of liquidation...so even if they just leased it there would still be a prohibitive cost for an sfl3 team playing front of a few hundred fans....and not owning a stadium hasnt worked out that well for likes of coventry. I imagine its spl or utterly bust for a newco....and its hard to see any result other than a newco....course the current investigation (granted there could be 5 more by time i stop typing ) is also another factor.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd personally think it's highly optimistic to suggest that a "new Rangers" can only survive in the SPL. They've a big enough core support to happily sustain a decent SFL operation, whether playing from Scotstoun, Firhill, etc. if necessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.