blonde poker forum

Rangers have filed court papers signalling their intention to go into administration.

STV can exclusively reveal the Ibrox club lodged the notice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh at lunchtime on Monday.

It is understood the papers are the first step in any formal administration process. They now have ten days in which to declare administrators have taken over the running of the Glasgow-based club.

This period allows the company to speak to creditors to see if they reach an agreement. If they enter administration the Scottish Premier League champions would automatically be docked ten points.

Rangers FC are currently awaiting the result of a £49m tax case with HM Revenue and Customs in relation to the club's use of an Employee Benefits Trust to pay players and staff. It is thought the decision to lodge court papers means the result of this tax case is likely to be known imminently.

The Court of Session confirmed to STV that papers signalling the intention to appoint administrators had been received from the club's solicitors acting on behalf of their directors.

thread posted with my eyes open

Back in the old days, it would have been an invitation for flaming etc on here as passions run high when it comes to Rangers and their rivals

Lets debate this sensibly. If not, I'll live and learn and delete the thread

Betfair currently price SPL   1.07 Celtic and 12.0 Rangers!!

I guess they want the 10 point penalty this year and not next.

Penalty is automatic upon entering administration. I wonder if the bookies have adjusted the price of Celtic to win the league which is now surely almost no price at all.

Sandy

gtfo!!!!

Cliffs to background of Rangers debt problems?

Do Celtic & Rangers make money through TV in Scotland to cover wages etc?  (Are they above breakeven season by season excluding debt problems)

well they wont go away thats for sure

But it pretty much  shows that scottish football is going to be on a par with latvian football from here on in

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=7781&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=celtic-interim-results-steady-despite-hard-times&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Celtic interim results: steady despite hard times
 
0
share  
Despite entry into the group stages of the Europa League, Celtic’s income to the six months to 31 December 2011 increased by only £0.88m to £29.27m on the corresponding period the previous year, reflecting a fall in income from pre-season tours and a drop in merchandise sales of £454k.

Despite playing one more home game than during the last six months of 2010, income from football and stadium operations dropped £224k.

Operating expenses increased by £867k to £28.388m, reflecting inflationary pressures and the cost of Europa League participation while net bank debt dropped in the year by £2.0m to £7.05m.  The club made a profit before tax of £177k.

Considering this was a period of difficult economic times and came on the heels of a loss of the league title and poor results on the field until the last seven weeks of the year, these are solid financial results.  The club continues to live within its means while chipping away at legacy debt.  Failure to gain entry into the group stage of the Europa League would have put further downward pressure on income but, conversely, future participation in the Champions League would transform finances.

It is important that the club regains the SPL title which would give it an excellent chance of reaching the Champions League group stage, making it a more attractive pre-season tournament proposition while boosting merchandise sales.

Around this time of the year we normally benchmark Celtic’s financial results with those from Rangers. The Ibrox club failed to submit their accounts for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 by the required date, prompting the Plus Exchange to suspend trading in their shares, so there appears to be little chance Rangers will submit even their usual eight line interims.

Sandy

if they can clear the debts in administration it will be huge boost to them, even with 10pts deducted they will still get 2nd spot and a qualifying spot for ECL
they wont be restricted in transfer market and will have funds to spend that would otherwise be going on debt repayment/intrest
rangers will be bigger than every after adminstration
but HMRC are invovled and might want rangers wond up this would be devasting to a large percentage of scotland
but could be great for scotish football to make it more competitive in the long run and get a decent  league structure in place

Celtic really don't want rangers to disappear!

Outside of rivalries, if rangers disappear, the revenue in Scottish football would disappear and other big clubs (as we know them) too

Not 100% sure but they have registered intent to go into administration but not actually went in yet. We are subject to a court case which could see us fined £50m+ for unpaid tax so I think the ruling is expected this week and if we lose we will insta go into admin

They should just liquidate the whole of Scottish footy and be done with it to put the whole country out of their misery  ;whistle;

FYP

FMFYP

It won't be long before the premiership is rocked again

#simplythebust

Sandy

Biters are gonna bite  (http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz200/pepper2010_bucket/fishing.gif)   ;D

Think Woodsey missed this bit.

Plenty of clubs have gone into administration and it's made fk all difference in the long run. Even less to Rangers as the points deduction won't even lose them a place in the table.

Rangers will still be around come next season.

Yeah I did, couldn't help myself sorry  :P

Paddy power to pay out on Celtic for the league.

#simplythebust

You were the people.

Sandy

Except for the last line all the above is false information.
Liquidation is almost a cert and Rangers2012 is on the way.

Sounds like a man thats knows all the details.......

Its as simple as years of financial mismanagement catching up with them, spending money that they simply didn't have for over a decade, Craig Whyte says Rangers have an annual deficit of £10m. Being knocked out of 4 cups this season has probably accelerated this somewhat as Rangers have very few income streams left open to them, they don't have a credit facility at any bank although apparently they do with Close Brothers, they have also sold a large %age of the next 3/4 years future season ticket money (somewhere between £20-24m)to a company called Ticketus just to help with the day to day running of the club.

This isn't a surprise to anyone who follows Scottish football it was only a case of when not if.

This is also separate from the tax case, which will run into 10s of millions if it goes against Rangers, this guy here has been blogging it for almost a year.

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/03/

The future is bright the future is . . . . . .

This is only the tip of the iceberg as far as I understand. 

Rangers fans have to take as much of the blame on this issue as David Murray and the media in Scotland who have let this go unchallenged for so long.

The previous poster mentioned the Rangers Tax Case blogger this guy/guys as well as others have consistently blogged on the issue and breaking story after story before the media in Scotland would run with it.

Celtic fans are often told they are paranoid but when one looks around at the digging and the scandal that was brought upon Celtic and other clubs when they were close to the brink yet Rangers and their stakeholders were given free reign. 

The football league/the fa in England have threatened to withdraw the right of clubs to play in the competition if they leave administration without an CVA making it harder to get rid of debt. Will Rangers face the same problems or are the SFA likely to think that they need Rangers to exist to protect their product and make it easier for them?

WTF?  What have the fans got to do with it?  And where do you live? Cant be Scotland if the above is for real because Rangers have taken an absolute battering in the media in the last few months with some of the most ridic rumour-mongering Ive ever seen.  Pretty ridic post.  Is that you bandit?

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/taxbombhits1.png)

(http://i43.tinypic.com/314rsep.gif)

(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1931/aaaahm.jpg)

Sandy

(http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/516397342.gif?Expires=1329166150&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=lcB6Y3WC6H2Ik7F35HDx3guDN06zn4mKSCyKw11Gv3uULa5jdyiQ0Bnp6BeCv~E1ry3b~XFytKaqQiuehhrVjXYJwmDSlcuSRwp~jizOMGdhQBDhR6U6ybO-V1XO6SZPLt6Wl5ybnBQlOuHmfJjuOQMTTJBdonQC6eHmTclrTO8_)

I guess he won't be having jelly and ice cream :D

Sandy

How on earth is this possible?

Must be some serious f**k ups within that club.

I'm not sure the suppliers who end up not being paid for their work would agree.

Can't have any sympathy for the Refs though, they'll just need to do without  ;D

Sandy

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/297509-hmrc-moves-to-put-rangers-into-administration/

HMRC moves to put Rangers into administration
This comes after Rangers had lodged a notice of intent to appoint an administrator.

14 February 2012 11:02 GMT
Comment

HM Revenue and Customs have lodged an application to put Rangers into administration.

The club had lodged a notice of intent to appoint an administrator.

However, on Tuesday HMRC lodged an order with the Court of Session in Edinburgh calling for the court to appoint an administrator.

It will be heard before a judge at midday and HMRC are due to make a statement afterwards.


Sandy

(http://c0014179.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_af1ecac)

Sandy

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/297531-rangers-appointing-administrators-today/

Rangers 'appointing administrators today'
Legal representatives from the Ibrox club claimed administrators will be appointed regardless of the HMRC court hearing outcome.

By Mike Farrell
14 February 2012 13:05 GMT
Comment

Rangers say they are appointing administrators on Tuesday but HMRC is disputing the legality of this.

The club told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that paperwork was on its way to appoint an administrator on Tuesday afternoon.

HMRC told the court that it had applied to the court to appoint an administrator on Monday, before Rangers lodged their intention to appoint an administrator.

The tax authority is opposing the move for Rangers to bring in its own administrators, claiming that it is not valid.

Before arguments were heard from both sides before Lord Menzies, legal representatives for the Ibrox club confirmed it plans to call in administrators on Tuesday afternoon.

Whether Rangers are allowed to appoint their own administrator, or one will be brought in after HMRC applied to the court remains to be seen and the court case will resume for legal argument at the Court of Session on Tuesday.

As a result of the move, the club have automatically been docked ten points in the SPL, leaving them 14 points behind Celtic in second place.

Administrators have been appointed to take over the running of Rangers as the club is awaiting the outcome of a crucial tax case with HMRC that could result in them being hit with a bill of up to £75m, according to owner Mr Whyte.

Sandy

Done deal. HMRC has withdrawn petition and sought expenses to date from Rangers F C. Court has granted expenses. Rangers has appointed administrator. 10 points docked.

Sandy

what you need to remember about all this stuff when you hear it in the media, is that the outcome is already known. These are planned and worked on, things dont really happen by surprise when involving such big entities

I don't think it was planned that HMRC would force a court case today. It is a bit ironic that Rangers have to pay court expenses though.

Sandy

10/1 Kilmarnock on Saturday anyone?

HMRC went to court today because of the £9m in unpaid PAYE and NI since Whyte took over in May 2011 not because of the "Big" Tax case. RTC blogged about this weeks ago.

What has whyte put into the club? bought for  £1 paid off bank £20m with future season ticket sales revenue. He promised to inject funds to pay all the tax off and has not.

"Sources tell me HMRC played hard ball with #rangers because sees it as test case. Has some big English clubs in same sights." @afneil

Sandy

League without rangers is a dead league though as much as it pains me to say. Try getting a decent TV rights $ without the big two derbys.

Rangers have just announced a tv deal...from next season there games will be shown on the history channel.

Sandy

Celtic get less than £2m a season from Sky/ESPN, we can live without that quite easily. I can't remember talk of a dead league when Celtic nearly went out of business.

The league was a lot different by then, werent Celtic terrible back then anyway? And I think Aberdeen, Motherwell, Hearts were somewhat competing at the time.

I think Celtic will lose out on money from TV and sponsorship.  Will it affect them a lot? Maybe not but I think itll affect the other teams a lot more and cause a downward spiral effect that, imo, has to affect Celtic.  Also I see the overall product at Celtic having to downsize as a result, making less money and with every other team so far behind in quality there is no need to be paying so much in wages when they could spent a lot less and still win it.

As much as Celtic fans are gloating over it all and want to beleive they will be fine, I think its incredibly optimistic to think that removing 1 of the old firm doesnt result in the league being on the same level as the Irish or Welsh leagues.

time for Celtic to join the championship :)

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjzOpdc1x0

Sandy

Yes we were terrible back then and Rangers were terrible throughout the late 70s to the mid to late 80's, Scottish football was much more competitive in both eras with Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in particular very good teams. Scotland does not "need" a strong Celtic and Rangers its proved that before, the standard has gone back since clubs tried to keep pace with the spending of the Murray era Rangers who it turns out were living beyond their means for the best part of 2 decades.

Will Celtic be affected? Of course and an element of re-modelling will no doubt have to be undertaken but the hyperbole is coming mostly from Rangers fans and press and media who realise there jobs will probably be at stake.

What cannot happen is that Rangers get away with this without the harshest of penalties from the SPL not a slap on the wrists. They owe Hearts £1m for Wallace, Dundee Utd for gate money for the recent Scottish Cup tie, Dunfermline gate money for the game at East End Park on Saturday and ICT ticket money for next weeks game, I'm just glad our ticket office had the foresight to demand ticket money up front for our game at the end of December or you would have stiffed us for that as well.

Anyway, thanks for your concern, its heart warming to know that you've taken more time to post about Celtic than your own club who are the ones in administration and possibly heading for liquidation  :)

Surely you should be disgusted by the individual(s) rather than the clubs?

all football debts have to be meet 100% before they can come out of adminstration and get accepted back into the league

Did anyone get on?Was best priced 17/2 before the Match.

Henrik777, their has been a few decent Videos you haven't posted of late, whats up?

I was off on the glorious day and the day after so had plenty time to transfer from twitter to here. Thought i'd posted this one but obviously not.


Feel free to add your own.

It also seems like rangers bashing isn't appreciated by Tighty either.

Sandy
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3_hyBbvFZI

that's all Sandy

I hold no candle for either team, just the bashing has historically led to worse, that's all

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HyPCe73fdw
"Jock" Bashing seems to be fair game tho.

Luv it :)

Sandy

Is that true? Don't you just have to have agreed a payment plan?

yeah that could be right but 100% of all footballing debt including wages have to have a plan of repayment

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Rules%20as%20at%2019-Dec-11%20(CURRENT).pdf

D9.3 No Player may receive any payment of any description from or
on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player’s participation in
Association Football or in an activity connected with Association
Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually
incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that
Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a
Contract of Service between that Club and the Player
concerned..


YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DdHRCqxCuQ


Improperly registered players ?

Big trouble.

Sandy

They're not THAT thick!

Oh, no wait a minute, carry on as you were.

I heard the punishment for this is every game these Players participated in then the scoreline will read 3-0 against the offending Club.
How long have these contracts been getting dished out for?

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/03/28/what-is-rangers-tax-case-all-about/

2000/1 apparently.

Of course Paul Murray has been on the board in this time and is rumoured to want to get involved again. Not quite sure how anyone involved can be a "fit and proper" person.

Sandy

.
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8x_59EjZOs

^^ My favourite yet i think.


Some very interesting thoughts http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/craig-whyte-the-notice-of-appointment-of-duff-phelps-could-it-be-invalid-other-questions/

Sandy

Yet another bill to pay.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/299136-rangers-hit-with-50000-fine-over-craig-whyte/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Rangers hit with £50,000 fine over Craig Whyte
£50,000 fine from the Plus stock exchange over failing to declare Craig Whyte ban.

By John Kilbride
27 February 2012 12:16 GMT
Comment

Craig Whyte: Fine for Rangers from stock exchange. Pic: © STV

Rangers have been fined £50,000 by the Plus stock exchange over failing to declare Craig Whyte's ban on being a director.

The disciplinary notice was posted on the website of the Plus stock exchange on Tuesday.

Plus began an investigation into Craig Whyte following a BBC documentary that was broadcast in October 2011.

The documentay had claimed that Mr Whyte had been disqualified as a director in 2000 for a period of seven years.

Plus stock exchange found that Rangers were in breach of their rules by not disclosing that Craig Whyte had been disqualified at the time of the annoucement in May 2011 that he was buying the company.

The stock exchange said that they considered this to be a serious breach of their rules because such a disclosure was expressly required in their rules becuse it is relevant to investors who would need this information so that they could form an opinion on a company and its management. The information would have affected the reputation of the Rangers board.

Plus stock exchange said: "The information relating to Mr Whyte goes to the reputation of Rangers FC's board of directors. Mr. Whyte's director disqualification may have an effect on the prospects of Rangers FC as an issuer traded on the Plus-quoted market as well as on Rangers FC’s ability to raise further funding if required at a future date.

"The failure by Rangers FC to disclose this information has generated adverse publicity for Rangers FC which has harmed its interests."

They added that they have an obligation to protect investors and to maintain an orderly diclosure-based market, saying "A consequence of non-disclosure by Rangers FC of information required to be announced by the Plus Rules is that Plus was impeded from exercising its regulatory functions."

Plus added that despite meeting with officials from the club at the club on November 8, they did not announce it until Noember 30, six weeks after the documentary, which they considered an unreasonable delay.

In their statement they also said that they took seriously the club's failure to disclose Craig Whyte's disqualification to other bodies, namely the Takeover Panel and the SFA.

They said: "Whilst Plus does not rely on any breaches of regulations other than the Plus Rules to reach its decision to serve this Disciplinary Notice, the lack of disclosure to other regulatory bodies further illustrates (i) that the failure to disclose was deliberate, negligent or reckless and (ii) Rangers FC's lack of willingness to make an announcement in a timely fashion."

They concluded: "Plus considers the regulatory fine of GBP 50,000 imposed on Rangers FC as appropriate taking into account a range of factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the rule breach and the circumstances of Rangers FC."

Sandy

They are about to release up to 11 Players shortly.
Can get 11/2 Hearts for Saturday, nearly half the price of the Killie bet but it will.be shorter come pm Saturday.

Well played sir!

bbc

Rangers director Dave King fears liquidation is 'inevitable'

Rangers director Dave King fears the club will not exit administration and that liquidation is "inevitable".

In a statement, King said the club's owner Craig Whyte has "abused the loyalty of fans" by mortgaging future sales of tickets to Ticketus.

King also claims that Sir David Murray had no knowledge that proof of funds supplied by Whyte to purchase the club was secured by season ticket sales.

The South Africa-based businessman said the club's plight "grieved him".

King, who remains a non-executive director of the troubled Scottish Premier League club, met administrators Duff and Phelps two weeks ago to discuss the Ibrox side's current financial situation.

    “I intend to remain involved with the club, at least on my present basis, post-reconstruction if that is at all possible under the new ownership structure”

Dave King Rangers non-executive director

He was previously involved in takeover talks with the club, who were forced into administration following action from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs over a £9m tax bill.

Along with fellow-director Paul Murray, King also made a late bid for the club in 2011 to prevent the eventual successful takeover by Whyte.

King invested £20m in the club in 2000 and is the second-largest shareholder, but has also been hit with a £250m bill after losing a 10-year battle with the taxman in South Africa.

In his statement, King said that he intended to continue his involvement with the Glasgow club in conjunction with Paul Murray and had approached the Scottish Football Association to approve him as a "fit and proper person" to be in a position of control at Ibrox.

"I intend to remain involved with the club, at least on my present basis, post-reconstruction if that is at all possible under the new ownership structure," said King.

"I am however alert to the raw sentiment around the need for Rangers to have 'fit and proper' persons at its helm.

"In view of my own well-publicised and acrimonious legal disputes with the authorities in South Africa I have taken it upon myself to approach the SFA in that regard in advance of considering an increased role in the club going forward. I will be guided by the SFA's response in that regard."

The SFA confirmed to BBC Scotland on Wednesday that King had made and enquiry regarding the criteria directors of football clubs are required to comply with.

However, former Rangers director Paul Murray told BBC Scotland he does not agree with King's belief that liquidation of the Ibrox club is inevitable and he says he is working with the administrators to try and avoid it.

Paul Murray believes liquidation would not help him in any proposed takeover bid and it would be a last resort due to the inevitable footballing implications.

In the statement, King also said:

    * Craig Whyte confirmed to him that Ticketus has no recourse to the football club with regards to the money provided for future sales of season tickets.
    * The club was not debt free as claimed by the Murray Group and Craig Whyte at the time of its sale, and "was in a much worse economic position than before and had no chance of survival even if we had progressed in Europe".
    * Rangers will not meet its financial requirements before the Uefa deadline of 31 March and will consequently not participate in European football next year. King also asserts that "liquidation might extend that by another two years".
    * He remains confident that Rangers will not be stripped of any historical titles or trophies should any current inquiries underway by the SFA and SPL find the club guilty of wrong-doing in previous seasons.
    * A legal claim of £20m will be made by King on the basis of non-disclosure by former Rangers chairman David Murray regarding the club's true financial position as far back as 2000.

The statement also expressed support for former Rangers chief executive Martin Bain and former chairman John McClelland who both left the club when Whyte took over.

King also specifically stated that he hoped former player, manager and director John Greig would "be able to resume his rightful iconic place in the director's box" soon.

Greig resigned as a director in October along with McClelland, claiming he had been sidelined by new owner Whyte.

We are in such a sad state and I'm trying my best not to think about it!

Its going to take years to rebuild but I am confident we will be a strong force(in SPL Terms) within the next 5-7 years

Prankster pretending to be a perspective investor of 10 million ;D got Craig Whyte a cracker!

http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=884%3Acraig-whyte-agrees-p10-million-rangers-investment-with-tommy-in-glasgow&catid=47%3Aseason-2011-2012&Itemid

Motherwell in Europe...

Wiiiiiiiiiii

If this is true its a bigger story than the current administration and looming liquidation. Its worth noting that the current President of the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie, was the Rangers Secretary for much of this time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-accused-misleading-SFA-secret-deals.html?ITO=1490

Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called 'big tax case', it appears such payments were kept 'off the books' - in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.


Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club's directors were aware of the arrangement - one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.
'They weren't included in the contracts. They definitely weren't. That was the whole point of them,' he said. 'If they'd been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
'I don't think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
'The directors just wanted to sit in the directors' box. That's all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.
'I just didn't know the details of them. They became accepted. 'The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.


'People never really asked serious questions about them. "It's perfectly legal" was what they thought.
'It wasn't happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn't take them seriously because they didn't appear in the books.'
Adam's revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook - and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.
The SFA rule on registration states: 'All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.
'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'
Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.
It's understood the 'big tax case' relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: 'Without having any specialist knowledge, I'm pretty sure.


'People didn't want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
'You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. 'It's this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn't the case with the overseas things.
'It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn't give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn't think it was important.
'Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn't. I don't know if you remember radio stations from ships.
'I don't think they were making a fortune but they weren't costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.
'When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.'They were doing things they shouldn't have been doing.
'They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they'd get away wi th i t forever. '
It would be an offshore trust - almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn't something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.
'The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don't give a damn where it's coming from.'

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/08/rangers-deathwatch-qa/

If my twitter feed is anything to go by, the quickening drumbeat surrounding Rangers FC (In Administration) is causing confusion in those who have only recently become aware of the immediacy of this crisis. So, I will try another Q&A to help clarify some of the most commonly asked questions and misapprehensions. (Apologies to our resident technical experts and old-timers for any simplifications).


What happened yesterday to cause all the fuss?
Rangers’ administrators released a statement saying that negotiations with players aimed at avoiding a mass-layoff had failed and that if a buyer did not step forward very soon (by Friday), drastic action would be necessary.

Does this mean Rangers will be liquidated on Friday (or Monday)?
No- not necessarily. Duff & Phelps did not clarify their intended course of action. Their options are a cull of the first team squad to bring about rapid cost cuts or they can cut-to-the-chase and just liquidate if they do not see any serious prospects of anyone buying the club in its current state.

What do you think is most likely- savage cost cuts or liquidation?
If I was the betting type, my money would be on savage cost cuts. It could be important for Duff & Phelps to be seen to have exhausted all options. However, we will see some arguments for immediate liquidation below.

Is liquidation inevitable?
Eventually, yes- it seems that way. The liabilities amassed by Rangers FC (In Administration) are probably more than the underlying business is worth- even without the Big Tax Case (BTC) liability. Include the likely amounts for underpayment & interest for the BTC, and Rangers’ total debts will probably be in the region of £70m. HMRC would then proceed with the penalty phase. This will add an additional £18m or thereabouts. No one planning on keeping Rangers alive can hope to spend less than £88m before a player is signed or a ball is kicked.
Keeping Rangers alive would also entail dealing with the responsibility for at least a decade of breaking league rules regarding player contracts and other illegal payments (such as those exposed in the Wee Tax Case). In short, Rangers today are an accumulation of time-bombs set years ago as expediencies designed to “win the title now” without regard to the future. They are all exploding together now. It would simply make financial sense to let the club founded by ‘four boys with a dream’ on Flesher’s Haugh in 1872 die and to start again.

Why have Duff & Phelps not cut costs more dramatically?
They say that they have been trying to preserve asset values by retaining as many sellable players as possible. This is quite possible and a case can be made that this is a reasonable approach. However, one of the primary roles of an administrator is to determine if a distressed business can be rescued or not. To go into liquidation without wielding a chainsaw to the cost structure would be strange. Most insolvency practitioners will want to demonstrate whether costs can be reduced below income. Given the unique legal powers of an administrator, if they cannot reduce costs below income, then no one can, and the business is beyond salvaging. Hence, I would be surprised if there is not at least a short period of Rangers operating with what amounts to a youth team playing for very little money. The administrators have other drastic tools available- such as cancelling season tickets and asking all fans to pay for entry to all future games. Given the stakes and emotions bound in this case, it would surprising if Duff & Phelps do not want to be seen to have tried everything.

Why have they mentioned not fulfilling all fixtures this season?
If they are going to skip the cost cutting and proceed straight to liquidation, failing to show up becomes inevitable. I understand (but have not yet verified) that the process for a team that does not fulfill all of its fixtures is that all of its results are voided and it finishes the season on zero points. (or -10 points in Rangers’ case due to the penalty for insolvency). This would relegate Rangers from the SPL. The number of clubs who would likely object to a newco being dropped into the SPL could then start to rise. The chances of the SPL getting bogged down in court proceedings start to increase dramatically. Thus far, the SFA and the SPL have failed miserably to provide leadership in this process. Only recently stirred from their slumbers, they do not appear to have thought any of these processes through. It is vital that these organisations start thinking and listening to expert advice. They must figure out all of the pathways and pitfalls now.

Why would they go straight to liquidation?
If the liabilities accrued to Rangers- debt to Craig Whyte’s Wavetower, tickets owed to Ticketus, assorted unpaid tax bills over the last year, and so on are such that even if Rangers won the Big Tax Case (and HMRC did not appeal), that the club would still be unable to dig itself out, then liquidation would be inevitable. Cost cutting would only buy some time, but would not affect the final outcome. On top of these bills, the costs of litigating all of the legal messes created would also be significant. It is unlikely that any of our dashing heroes waiting in the morgue to collect the corpse would want to take on such a disaster.

If liquidation is inevitable, why is Paul Murray saying otherwise?
As Graham Spiers accurately recalled on TV last night, this is the same Paul Murray who said that it made no sense for anyone to buy Rangers with the Big Tax Case hanging over the club. Yet, today he is posturing on the periphery trying to look like a hero set to save the day? Nothing about Rangers’ position has improved since then. I will call it as I see it: Paul Murray is fronting a consortium of ex-directors who want to claim the corpse of the club killed by their own actions. They are hoping to make life for Craig Whyte so uncomfortable post-liquidation that he will surrender his claim on Rangers’ assets cheaply. Paul Murray is neither so naive nor so stupid as to believe that he can really save the club. He is so cynical as to toy with the hopes and emotions of the Rangers’ many supporters.

Can Rangers stay in the SPL if liquidated?
Contrary to some of the word-play coming from Duff & Phelps and Neil Doncaster of the SPL, if Rangers FC is liquidated- that is the end of the road. There are no provisions in current SPL rules to allow a club to stay in the SPL if it has been liquidated. There are no provisions to automatically allow a newco to automatically enter the Scottish Football League Division 3 either. This point was distorted by Neil Doncaster (abetted by arch St. Mirren supporter- Chick Young) as he tried to imply that re-entry to the SPL was the only path forward for a newco-Rangers. Mr. Doncaster should wait to hear the results of the inquiry he has ordered into the two-contracts scandal before he forms a set view. If a newco-Rangers is allowed free entry to the SPL- with no annual financial or points penalty as an “entrance fee”- the integrity of football in Scotland will have been torn to shreds. Free entry would do more to damage the game in Scotland than any loss of revenue from Rangers’ disappearance could ever do. If the SPL rules are modified in advance of a vote to make it easier to allow newco-Rangers free entry, then the damage will be ever greater. Likewise, a change in regulations would be necessary to allow the newco-Rangers to inherit the football honours (those won fairly and those that carry the taint of financial doping and illegal tax scams). This could prove to be the last straw for many football fans. Why bother playing the games? If one particular club is not allowed to face the consequences of its own reckless mismanagement, then the Scottish Premier League will not be worth watching at all.

When will the Big Tax Case result be released?
There is no set schedule. It could be days. It could be months. My guess is that we will not have to wait too much longer as the judges will have had the opportunity to write-up much of their findings of fact long before the final sitting of the tribunal.

What will happen to the Big Tax Case if Rangers are liquidated before the result?
HMRC would request that the result is still entered. Contrary to sports journalist speculation, a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) finding cannot be used to set precedent for other cases. (It would have to be heard at the Upper Tribunal or a higher court to be binding on other cases being heard in First Tier Tribunals). With no legal entity left to appeal to an upper chamber, Rangers’ case could not set precedent for anyone else. Rangers’ result could be referred to in other cases, but there are many unique aspects of Rangers’ case that will not be relevant in other cases.

In summary, the cascading effects of a Rangers liquidation pose a serious threat to the existence of professional football in Scotland. These problems cannot be resolved by simply wishing Rangers’ illegality and irresponsibility away and allowing them to proceed as if nothing has happened. There are a series of needles that need to be threaded together. This will require intensive effort to balance justice and fair-play with the economic interests of all clubs in the short and long term. I have seen nothing yet that would indicate that the leadership required to bring this disaster to a satisfactory conclusion is in place. However, I would love to write a blog in a few months withdrawing this charge and heaping praise on Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan for a difficult job well done. I do not envy their task.

Sandy

If the worst does happen it will be pretty grim for celtic and scottish football though, right?


I know the rivalry is huge, but imagine a league where you can't celebrate beating Rangers, no old firm, no genuine competition

Might as well get on the phone to the epl quick?

Moving to the EPL after proving to UEFA there is no credible home league? Been discussed as a possible out, but I'd doubt it happening.

What I see happening (and saw happening before the administration), is that after Rangers liquidate, a group of money men eg Tom Hunter etc, buy Ibrox and buy another Scottish Team, taking their place in the league & forming Zombie Rangers. There are a few clubs vulnerable, from Cowdenbeath, through Queen of the South, and even St Mirren (the costs of buying them would be easily outweighed by starting straight back in the SPL). Whether that could be done prior to next season would depend on whether Craig Whyte got paid or not, as any court case to supersede his priority debt could drag things too far to allow this to happen next season, but any cash to him does nothing to establish the Zombie Rangers.

Meantime the financial effects on the other clubs might not be as severe as initially thought. TV money isn't high & away crowds are down anyway, cuts to that should be survivable for most, there was a study that estimated that every club apart from Celtic needed an average of 600 more fans per game to make up for the loss of Rangers. With more European places available there is the possibility of increased crowds for some clubs at least. Celtic would be hardest hit, although the feel-good feeling of season 1 without Rangers would probably keep the gates up, and the money available for competing in the Champions League would more than cover the losses, providing a Groups Stage place was achieved. The Scottish League has survived spells where either of the 'Old Firm' have been out of contention (and the smaller clubs have thrived during them), this would just be a more dramatic one with their return in sight at some point.

The potential for disaster is more if (as some are discussing) newco Rangers get back in without punishment, with the banks in particular rattling sabres about calling in all debts from football clubs if football proves untrustworthy - THAT would kill a lot more clubs than the financial hit of no Rangers in the SPL for a 1-4 seasons would.

The zombie club option has happened before - Airdrie went bust and then someone bought Clydebank and renamed and relocated them to become Airdrie.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/300149-sfa-statement-on-rangers-inquiry-in-full/

Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed that the findings of the independent inquiry into Rangers had been heard by the association's board.

Here is his statement in full:

"I can confirm that the Scottish FA convened a special board meeting at Hampden Park today to discuss the findings of the independent inquiry into Rangers FC, prepared by the Chair, The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith.

"Principally, it is the belief of the board, taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a position within association football.

"We will be writing to Mr Whyte in relation to those findings and shall seek a response within seven days.

"The report submitted by Lord Nimmo Smith, having been considered fully by the board, highlights a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner. The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a judicial panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.

"As such, the report’s contents will not be published at this time. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. Specifically, areas of potential breach to be considered by the Judicial Panel include:

Obligations and duties of members
Official return
Financial records
Division of receipts and payment of expenses (Scottish Cup)
"I would like to clarify the situation relating to possible non-disclosure of payments to players, and in particular the Employee Benefit Trust. Having noted the Scottish Premier League’s intention to investigate this matter, the board has decided to allow the SPL to complete this process, given our potential status as the appellate body. We retain our position until such time as the SPL’s investigation is concluded.

"Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the cup competition rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A notice of complaint has been issued to that effect."

Sandy

Rangers going busto and starting in Div 3 of the SFL wouldn't be the disaster that the media are trying to make out.

Another team takes Rangers place in SPL that wouldn't have been  in it.

A European place opens up for the next 3 years for the mid level SPL clubs.

Rangers coming through the leagues gives them 3 years to get their house in order and rebuild

and gives all the SFL teams at least a season with 2 Rangers home games and 2 trips to Ibrox  creating much needed income at the lower levels.

A TV deal for the SFL would almost certainly happen (SPL deal would probably be renegotiated at a lower level)

As Rod says Celtic would probably be impacted more than any other club but I'm sure we'll cope  :)

If rangers are liquidated any phoenix team won't have ibrox teacake

They'd need to buy it obviously, but what other buyers will there be? Front of Main stand is a listed building, there is a big supermarket a few hundred yards away, it's not a great area where land is expensive or housing in demand....

In the end it's a good football ground but not much use otherwise. Rangers had it down as a near £100m asset AFAICR, but while that might be the rebuild value, it doesn't seem likely to be a sale value especially in event of a liquidation.

just what a new team in the 4th tier of scottish football would need to do spending multi millions of pounds on a stadium lumbering them in crippling debts while they are unable to recoup much money for 4 or 5 seasons

You're assuming they'd be in the 4th tier - what's to stop them buying St Mirren or Dunfermline & taking their place in the SPL? Or QOS in Div1 (or 2 as looks likely)? And don't write off sheer f'in stubbornness on the support's part - they'd still get 20K+ gates, a lot of the time, add in cup ties etc. All depends what they have to spend, but if a businessman wants to get hold of the support & attach them to a newco Rangers, they need the ground anyone establishing that newco has to be in it longer term, not just for a quick buck, and make no mistake, there's money there to be made, but there will be a fair amount of up front spend to access it.

Did Walter Smith know about, or benefit financially from,EBTs ? Ally McCoist? or indeed any of the other ex players, directors or hangers on who have plenty to say now ?

Sandy

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf

That's quite a lot of money !!!

Sandy

why is it that its mainly celtic fans that are asking question on here and everywhere else?

Are you a celtic fan ?

Sandy

and Aberdeen.You would think it would be Rangers fans that would be worried and maybe they wouldn't have got to this stage, strange one.

Shouldn't say I told you so, but the news that Whyte's lawyer was looking over the St Mirren books as part of a proposed consortium buyout of St. Mirren before RFC went into administration brought a wry smile to my face.

I'm actually wondering how much Whyte would have got away with if it hadn't been for the early Euro exits & those pesky inquisitive Celtic Fans.

Blue Knights withdraw.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/303643-blue-knights-withdraw-bid-for-rangers/

Sandy

Looks like they're walking away

Monday could be gg gtfo time.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/304252-rangers-crisis-american-bill-millers-bid-statement-in-full/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Somehow the administrators say this bid is credible.

However his statement says

Facts about my bid:

"Of the three qualified bidders, I am the only bidder who refused to entertain offers from Ticketus or engage in discussions with Craig Whyte."


Craig Whyte is the majority share holder and controls most assets. How can a bid be credible without his agreement ?

Sandy

He also says his bid demands no Relegation, fines or point deductions for the Newco.
Even in Scotland these demands are a bit much.

Rangers FC 2013 Line up - Naismith, Naifuture, Naiclass, Naimoney, Naistadium, Naihope, Naitrophies, Naiprospects, Naifans, Naimanager, Naiplayers. :)

 ;D ;D ;D

Bill Miller obviously isn't a Rangers fan, he has walked away.

Rangers Newco to rebrand as Fiasco.

Sandy

Things getting ridiculous now. There's a LOT to come out from all this.

Ch4 attempt to outline the people involved in the financial/contractual shenanigans.

(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/471962_10150817664417857_615042856_9788018_390961398_o.jpg)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18049325

Takeover deal for Rangers agreed


Former Sheffield United chief executive Charles Green has agreed a deal to buy Scottish Premier League side Rangers.
The deal will be announced at the club's training base Murray Park at 10:00 BST on Sunday when the 59-year-old is due to outline his plans.
It is understood Green wants to form a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) and he is backed with finance from Singapore businessmen.
He plans to watch Sunday's final SPL match of the season at St Johnstone.
Green joined the race to rescue the crisis-hit club last week before previous favourite Bill Miller withdrew his bid.
More to follow.

Sandy

http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/902819485

Sandy

Thats not him

Damn twitter !

As an aside the bbc report is flawed. Prefered bidder status surely ?

Sandy

Nut result for Celtic ?

Guy was a joke at Sheff U.

Appeal of the transfer embargo refused.

Sandy

Never mind Rangers. I'm sure all the existing players will stay when they have the option of making lots more money elsewhere. You don't do walking away after all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973

Rangers supporters assembly president Andy Kerr

"It looks as though the way they have reasoned the case is that effectively the actions of the owner apply equally to the actions of the club. We think that was totally unreasonable."

 ;D

Sandy

Honestly these guys are idiots. If he thinks this is bad God knows how he'll react to the really serious stuff like the Big Tax Case and dual contracts when they are dealt with.

The BBC 1 Scotland documentary tonight on this saga should be interesting viewing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j0k6k

Rumour has it that a visit to the Leveson inquiry might be in order. Can just see "The Bunnet" in the witness seat.

Sandy

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OMDIXNkYotA/TTmDvECXhgI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/HDLPQktqLaU/s1600/Shit+hits+fan.jpg)

If you knew nothing, i guess you might have been informed. 10 mins at the end for me. Pretty poor IMO.

Sandy

Got to remember what we've seen unfold over months on the Tax Case blog etc has been written off as 'internet nonsense' by the mainstream media etc.

All of a sudden the nutters are showed to be right. Expecting much 'new' to people who've been following for a long time was unreasonable, getting the breakdown of side letters, reductions in wages covered by EBT payments etc is the thing we were looking for here & we got it.

The side letters info has taken the worry about newco etc & what to do with them & made it all moot. Playing illegally registered players for years, therefore denying not just Scottish but European clubs significant revenue means there are no sanctions below expulsion IMO. And if the SPL/SFA screw that up - UEFA are waiting.

Bit of dirt for Souness too - not a provable allegation from what they showed, but certainly makes the payment look suspect.

The newsnight at 11 will be interesting - don't see how anyone can put +ve spin on that programme for RFC.

tivo'd it ...worth watching?

If you're curious and haven't read much then yes.

If you've followed it with interest then there isn't a whole lot of new.

Aside from the informative aspect it was a pretty poor production and could easily have been 30 mins and less shite to waste time.

Sandy

Tough crowd, I'm not sure what you were expecting here. The only people interested in this so far have been Scottish football fans, the programme laid it all out there, Rangers are only a part of this (albeit a rather big part) it goes further than them, Murray and the Bank of Scotland in particular have a lot to answer for.

If you are a football fan I would recommend watching this, I especially liked The Wire theme tune at one point, follow the money.... 

I thought it was Howard Kendall having a leading role.

The fact Rangers went to the Court of Session is widely reported. None of these professional news teams seem to have picked up on the fact they are not allowed to do this under Fifa rules and the last time a club tried this (Sion) it was potentially bad for the football in the whole country. Man Utd almost got a champions league recall until the Swizz FA hammered Sion with a 36 point penalty.

Sandy

Watched it. As most big clubs use EBTs as a tax loophole is this a precursor of a shitstorm in EPL or were RFC just blatantent in using "loans" to replace "wages"?

Both. Strong rumour has been that this is a test case. Arsenal apparently struck a deal for £40 million.

Sandy

As far as I'm aware this has been fairly rife in English football - one club I've heard mentioned is Arsenal (only rumour tho) - hence the Taxman is likely to play hardball and is very unlikely to accept a p in the £ deal at Rangers - it's not their £70m that matters but the several hundred £m at stake in the wider industry.

As for the programme, very little was new, but it was an excellent summary of all the stuff that the pathetic media in Scotland have been too scared/far up "Sir" D Murray's arse to print for the last few years. Mark Daly's a really good journo and I'd be most surprised if Duff & Phelps actually raise a writ against the BBC, let alone be successful with it.

@stvmike  Latest twist in Rangers CVA saga - Clark admits they aren't able to make p in £ offer, but says it is 'best deal for creditors'???

Sandy

Transfer embargo is not a sanction available for Rangers crimes. Sanctions available are set out in SFA rules as: fine, suspension, expulsion from Cup & termination of membership.

Sandy

So "winning" this case could turn out to be a complete disaster if the Panel now feel they have no alternative but suspension/termination of membership?

They could, and probably will, fine them more money which is a tad ironic. The alternatives put them out of business.

They also have to come out of administration to be able to sign anyone anyway.

Sandy

Who knew  ;whistle;

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103811-fifa-warn-scottish-fa-they-must-punish-rangers-for-using-law-courts/

FIFA warn Scottish FA they must act against Rangers for use of law courts
STV 29 May 2012 17:04 BST

Rangers will again go before a Scottish FA appeal panel, with a date to be confirmed.



FIFA has warned the Scottish Football Association it must take action after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.

The Scottish Premier League side won a case at the Court of Session on Tuesday, with a judge ruling the Scottish FA had no power to impose a signing ban on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.

A statement from FIFA read: "At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.

"In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.

"As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.

"FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."

Rangers' case will now be referred back to the original appeal tribunal, which has been ordered to operate within the framework which exists.

Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.


Sandy

Well played Rangers, you've just won a game of bingo on the Titanic.

Tighty must be thanking his lucky stars this forum has run out of Rangers supporters. 

Catching on now.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html

Boot Gers out!

TOO MUCH PRESSURE ... Stewart Regan
Pic: Kenny Ramsay
EXCLUSIVE
By IAIN KING
Published: Today at 00:12
RANGERS this morning run the risk of being booted OUT of Scottish football.
 48 comments



SunSport can reveal the SFA will today hold an emergency Hampden summit in the wake of yesterday’s Court of Session decision to scrap the 12-month transfer embargo on shamed Gers.

There is growing unrest among SPL clubs that Gers could yet wriggle free of real punishment for failing to pay £14.3million worth of taxes during the disastrous Craig Whyte reign.

Lord Glennie’s ruling that an SFA panel imposing a signing ban on Gers was unjust now has FIFA breathing down the necks of Hampden bosses.

SunSport understands SFA chief Stewart Regan will head a meeting of the SFA board and their legal advisers.

After their transfer embargo punishment was trashed, there are fears the Court of Session decision leaves Lord Carloway with little room for manoeuvre should the SFA choose to appeal.

One of Scotland’s top legal eagles has had his judgement called into question.

A Court of Session statement stressed Lord Glennie felt the SFA panel should have looked at the tariff of punishments they had available and NOT invented one like the transfer embargo.

That advice points to the highest sanction available in the SFA statutes — a £1MILLION fine and termination of membership.

That is the real risk Rangers are taking now if Lord Carloway has to hear the case again.

He has effectively been told by another Supreme Court judge his original verdict was wrong. Now he could take the view there is no point in fining a club with no money £1m.

And he could decide termination of membership of the SFA — or suspension for 12 months — is the only way to go.

When he assessed the case at the appeal, Lord Carloway pored over the decision of the SFA panel that consisted of QC Gary Allan, Raith Rovers director Eric Drysdale and broadcaster Alistair Murning.

He pondered the matter alongside ex-Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan and Spartans supremo Craig Graham.

They concluded the SFA panel had looked at the punishments available and felt they were, at one end, too extreme and, at the other, not extreme enough.

Lord Carloway felt it was competent for the panel to give a proportionate penalty to a club who have not paid their taxes and gained an advantage from that.

SFA articles state: “The Panel is empowered to make whatever sanctions it feels are appropriate.”

Their verdict, though, has now been thrown out and the SFA — who also have the power to kick Gers out of the Scottish Cup — have three weeks to appeal, while the other looming cloud is the fury of FIFA.

Football’s ruling body are angry the game has been dragged into the courts and could exert pressure on the SFA to deal with Rangers.

UEFA placed heavy pressure on Sion when they protested about the decision that kicked the Swiss club out of European football to allow Celtic back in.

Sion went to a Swiss court, who said the club should be reinstated in European football despite their breaking of a transfer embargo.

Sion then threatened to sue UEFA president Michel Platini for breaching his powers.

That infuriated the European bigwigs, who countered by vowing to ban Swiss clubs from Europe and kick their international team out of the game.

If the SFA are faced with those sort of penalties for not bringing their clubs to book then they could yet kick Gers out of football for a year — or for good.

These are the nightmarish issues facing SFA supremo Regan, his board and their lawyers.

The various scenarios could play out this way;

The SFA accept yesterday’s court decision, even though they find it wholly unpalatable.

The SFA appeal and win, then the penalty they see as fair stays in place, and Gers can’t sign any players over 18 for a year.

SFA beaks appeal and lose and see the transfer embargo scrapped. It is understood there is a deep anger inside Hampden over that prospect because they feel the punishment should not be neutered.

The SFA appeal goes back to Lord Carloway’s panel and he opts for a different option — like booting Rangers out of the Scottish Cup or even suspending their membership of the SFA.

The final scenario is the SFA don’t act then FIFA could get involved. The SFA would then bid to convince Gers the penalties for Scottish football are too great and they should accept the transfer embargo.

SFA statutes will be examined today as it was felt they didn’t have the proper wording to force Gers to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne first instead of a civil court.

FIFA will today begin to turn the heat on the Hampden hierarchy and if our whole game faces a beating then the threat of expulsion of Rangers will truly come into play.




Sandy

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/30/rangers-in-crisis-sfa-could-be-forced-to-shut-ibrox-club-down-for-good-86908-23878683/

Rangers in crisis: SFA could be forced to shut Ibrox club down for good
May 30 2012 By Keith Jackson

ibrox stadium large

THE SFA were last night threatening to shut Rangers down for good after the club’s administrators backed them into a corner in the Court of Session.
Despite successfully overturning a hugely controversial 12-month transfer ban, Duff and Phelps also triggered a full-scale FIFA probe into the escalating Scottish crisis.
News of Judge Lord Glennie’s decision to rule against Hampden’s top brass has infuriated the game’s governing body in Switzerland.
And, as a result, last night FIFA were preparing to wade into the saga by threatening to go to war with the entire Scottish game unless Rangers’ bungling administrators are forced to back down.
FIFA’s furious response – almost identical to the stance they took during a courtroom battle involving Swiss side Sion last season – could see Craig Levein’s national side booted out of the next World Cup and Celtic denied a £15million ticket into next term’s Champions League.
Motherwell could also be robbed of their chance to secure a spot among the European elite while Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone have been left to sweat over their own money-spinning places into the Europa League.
Very quickly the courtroom triumph was beginning to look like the hollowest of victories imaginable for Duff and Phelps, who may have left the SFA with little choice but to dish out an even heftier punishment for the rule breaches carried out by the Craig Whyte regime.
In fact, fears were growing inside Hampden last night that crisis-ravaged Rangers may have to be sacrificed, and have their SFA membership terminated, in order to spare the rest of the national game from FIFA’s wrath.
In an official statement from Switzerland, the game’s governors said they had not yet been informed of the row by the SFA.
But a senior source inside Sepp Blatter’s Nyon bunker told Record Sport FIFA are now prepared to fight tooth and nail, just as they did last season when Sion famously rebelled against the game’s authorities over their place in the Europa League.
And a spokesman warned: “In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
“As a rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, the Member Association shall take action to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.
“FIFA will now closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”
Lord Glennie judged yesterday that the SFA’s judicial panel had acted outwith its own remit when it hammered Rangers with a year long ban from signing players. He also ordered the matter be placed back in front of the SFA’s appeals tribunal for urgent review.
But, having insisted that Whyte’s mishandling of affairs were so shameful that only match fixing would have been looked upon more seriously – the SFA have now been backed into a corner with almost no room to manoeuvre.
The decision to impose a 12-month embargo was seen as a compromise and a way to avoid having to take the ultimate sanction of booting Rangers out of the game.
But now, unless Duff and Phelps or Charles Green accept the original sanction the same appeals tribunal will have to choose between softening the punishment to include a possible ban from next term’s Scottish Cup – or taking the ultimate hard line by ripping up the club’s membership and banishing them into the wilderness.
But all of that was lost on the administrators yesterday who seemed to believe they had struck a blow for justice in the Court of Session.
Paul Clark said: “We welcome the decision by Judge Lord Glennie today that vindicates the Club’s position that the original SFA judicial panel tribunal and the appellate tribunal acted beyond their powers in imposing a transfer embargo on the Club.
“The costs for this legal action have been awarded against the SFA and it is very regrettable that court action was required.
“We, and the SFA, will study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published and either side has 21 days to decide the next course of action or whether to appeal.”
An SFA spokesperson later said: “We are surprised by today’s verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court judge.
“We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment.”

Sandy

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sfa-fury-as-judge-throws-out-rangers-transfer-ban.17734308

WEDNESDAY 30 MAY 2012 TEXT SIZE   SFA fury as judge throws out Rangers transfer ban

Jody Harrison
Reporter
RANGERS are facing fresh sanctions after winning a legal battle against the Scottish Football Association's ban on the club signing new players.

 

 
lord GLENNIE: Ruled in favour of lifting transfer ban.
The administration-hit Ibrox club is now in line for further punishment from Scottish football's governing body after persuading a Court of Session judge yesterday to lift the transfer embargo, which would have lasted for a year.

It had been imposed by a judicial panel of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), along with a fine of £100,000 on the club for bringing the game into disrepute, after former owner Craig Whyte took the club into administration in February.

The SFA, which has been left to foot the bill for Rangers' legal costs, will be required to impose another punishment. Only suspension, a further fine or expulsion remain.

Fifa, world football's governing body, last night warned action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge the embargo.

The exact punishment is yet to be decided, but could involve the club being ejected from next year's Scottish Cup, or further fines.

It could even mean the doomsday scenario of Rangers being thrown out of football, although this remains an unlikely prospect, given the club's economic value to the Scottish game.

The SFA is angry that Rangers deliberately set themselves on a direct collision course with the game's lawmakers, with one source saying: "We could be looking at expulsion now. Rangers should be careful what they wish for."

SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment.

Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters' Assembly, said he was pleased at Lord Glennie's ruling. He said: "We always felt that it was an unwarranted and severe punishment. The case had been funded by a fighting fund set up by fans following administration.

"However, we don't exactly know what is now available to the tribunal. A financial sanction is obviously preferable as it doesn't affect our ability to compete on the field, but now the issue of expulsions from individual competitions or even from the association have been raised.

"The SFA might be feeling a bit sore, particularly as it has to pay the legal costs, but you would think the attitude of a governing body should be 'how do we best help a member club to continue to play?'.

"Fifa said it would prefer that matters relating to the game were not dealt with by the courts, but through the sporting authorities of the jurisdiction, but we thought the best recourse was through the courts because it was a legal matter."

The club had already tried to have the transfer ban removed by going to the SFA's appeal tribunal, whose members include the judge Lord Carloway, only to have the decision upheld.

The club's counsel, Richard Keen, QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, was able to convince Scotland's highest civil court the punishment was "unlawful".

He said: "We are the victim of an unlawful sanction and we have had imposed on us a sanction that the SFA panel had no right to impose.

"The sanction of suspending the registration of players is not available under the general disciplinary rules to the tribunal in respect of the alleged breach.

"It follows ... that the purported additional sanction imposed by the tribunal and confirmed by the appeal tribunal was not a competent sanction."

Aidan O'Neill, QC, for the SFA, said that

the £100,000 fine was "simply not enough given the gravity of the issues here".

He said that if their powers of penalty were restricted to sanctions such as suspension or expulsion, then suspension would have to be looked at.

Mr O'Neill told the court the paradox was that Mr Keen's argument could lead to greater sanction.

"Suspension would not just simply impose a transfer ban, but would stop any playing of friendly matches in the off-season," he said. "Suspension is a greater sanction than the targeted sanction of the transfer ban that was in fact imposed."

Rangers administrator Duff & Phelps welcomed the decision, adding that it was "regrettable" they had had to take the case to court.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "Both we, and the SFA, will have to study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published, and either side has 21 days in which to decide the next course of action or whether they wish to appeal."

An SFA spokesman said: "We are surprised by today's verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge.

"We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment."

Fifa warned that action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.

It indicated that any governing body was entitled to "direct action" against a club which sought "redress in front of ordinary court" under its articles of association.

It said the situation should be closely monitored "so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible".

European football's ruling body, Uefa, described it as a "domestic matter", saying: "It's up to the Scottish Football Association to make sure that the regulations and national law are adhered to.

Sandy

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers-administration-club-run-risk-of-new-sanctions-1-2325337

Rangers administration: Club run risk of new sanctions

Rangers were handed a 12-month transfer embargo by the SFA. Picture: TSPL
By ALAN PATTULLO AND JOHN ROBERTSON
Published on Tuesday 29 May 2012 23:47

Rangers won a court fight yesterday against the 12-month transfer ban imposed by a Scottish Football Association discipline tribunal, but the Ibrox club could end up with a worse punishment for bringing the game into disrepute.

The judge, Lord Glennie, decided at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the sanction of a prohibition on registering players was outwith the penalties set down by the SFA’s articles of association and its judicial panel protocol. He therefore ruled that the transfer ban had been outwith the legitimate powers of the discipline tribunal and should not have been affirmed by an appeals tribunal, which was chaired by one of his colleagues, Lord Carloway.

However, the prospect of an own goal by the Ibrox club was raised by Lord Glennie saying that the matter would be sent back to the appeals tribunal for reconsideration.

The explicit punishments stated in the SFA’s rule 66 are a maximum £100,000 fine, suspension or expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup or termination of membership. The original judicial panel’s report stated that, in their view, “only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach” than the financial irregularities committed by the Ibrox club. The report revealed that the tribunal had considered suspension of membership of the SFA to be an “appropriately severe punishment”, but had, in the final analysis, deemed it “too severe”.

Lord Glennie’s decision has put the ball back into the SFA’s side of the court, or at least that of an independent judicial panel. He said: “The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanction to be ultra vires [beyond one’s powers or authority] does not necessarily mean the petitioners (Rangers) will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the appellate tribunal and not this court.”

The SFA released a statement last night expressing “surprise” at Lord Glennie’s decision, which also ruled that the governing body must pay the costs of the case. The governing body was further rocked by Fifa stepping into the saga. World football’s governing body take a dim view of clubs using courts of law to settle football disputes. Fifa have now pointed out that they expect member associations to take “direct action” against clubs who take them to court.

“We are surprised by today’s verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court judge,” said an SFA spokesperson last night. “We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment.”

Lord Glennie had been told that the discipline tribunal had turned away from sanctions which were open to it, such as suspension or termination of Rangers’ membership of the SFA, because it felt those would be “too harsh”. A fine of £100,000 had been imposed but, on its own, that had been felt to be too lenient, so the additional sanction of the transfer ban was selected.

The SFA’s counsel, Aidan O’Neill, QC, argued that there must be room in interpreting the 61 pages of disciplinary rules for something between a fine, at the one end, and suspension or termination, at the other, which was proportionate and effective.

Without the “something in between” which had been selected – the transfer ban – the tribunal had said that suspension might have to be thought appropriate for such serious conduct, the court heard.

“Suspension is a greater sanction than the transfer ban which was imposed. Suspension would not just simply impose a transfer ban, but would stop any playing of friendly matches in the off-season,” said Mr O’Neill.

However, Lord Glennie agreed with the interpretation of the rules for which Richard Keen, QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, for Rangers, had argued. That was, in effect, that the only sanctions which the tribunal could impose were those listed in the rules for the specific charge, and a transfer ban was quite clearly not on the list.

“We are the victim of an unlawful sanction and we have had imposed on us a sanction that the SFA panel had no right to impose,” said Mr Keen.

Lord Glennie stressed that the only issue before him in the petition for judicial review brought by Rangers was whether the “additional sanction”, the transfer ban, was within the powers of the two tribunals. Lord Glennie was not hearing an appeal and did not have to decide whether the sanctions were too lenient or severe.

Ruling on a preliminary issue, Lord Glennie rejected a submission by the SFA that he was not entitled to hear the case because such matters were reserved for the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport. He also ruled that the expenses of the case before him should be met by the SFA.

The fact the matter was being heard in a court of law at all has been noted by Fifa, who have warned the SFA that they must now take action against Rangers for seeking recourse in the ordinary courts.

A statement from Fifa read: “At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.

“In such a case, Fifa will ask the member association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.

“Fifa will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”

Fifa’s articles of association call for member bodies to take “direct action” against clubs who seek redress over football matters before ordinary courts. Last year the governing body threatened to suspend the Swiss Football Association if it failed to impose strict sanctions on FC Sion, who had been involved in a long-running legal dispute with Uefa after being refused re-entry to the Europa League following a breach of player recruitment rules. Celtic took Sion’s place instead, while the Swiss club were eventually hit with a 36-point suspension.

An SFA source last night expressed a fear that Rangers’ actions could yet rebound on Scottish football as a whole, with Fifa having been prepared to take such extreme action in the case of Switzerland.

However, Rangers administrator Paul Clark hailed yesterday’s events in the Court of Session, saying: “We welcome the decision by Judge Lord Glennie today that vindicates the club’s position that the original SFA judicial panel tribunal and the appellate tribunal acted beyond their powers in imposing a transfer embargo on the club.

“The costs for this legal action have been awarded against the SFA and it is our position it is very regrettable that court action was required.

“Both we, and the SFA, will have to study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published and either side has 21 days in which to decide the next course of action or whether they wish to appeal.”

Sandy

Not much of what has been posted here is incorrect or inflammatory, besides some of them have kind of accepted the situation and just want it over whatever the outcome.

IMO.

Sandy

Correct. Most Rangers fans in our pub have now accepted the fact that their club has behaved disgracefully and the only sensible option is for them to start again from the bottom of the Scottish league. I feel desperately sorry for the many true Rangers fans out there but their crimes have been so horrendous that a proper punishment needs to be applied.

They still haven't been punished at all for the most serious offence - the secret dual contracts of the EBTs, regardless of what the Tax Case ruling is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18261343

30 May 2012 Last updated at 08:21

Scottish football 'faces international ban' over Rangers SFA court challenge

Scottish football could face a ban after Rangers challenged the national associationContinue reading the main story
Rangers in administration


Scottish football could face an international ban after Rangers challenged the SFA's transfer sanctions in the courts, it has been warned.

A judge overturned Rangers' one year transfer ban and a £100,000 fine for bringing the game into disrepute.

The SFA is considering its response, which could mean alternative sanctions.

But sports lawyer Dr Gregory Ioannidis said if further punishment is not imposed for the court challenge, Fifa could ban all Scottish clubs.

The articles of world governing body Fifa and Uefa state that association decisions cannot be challenged in an ordinary court.

Prior to the Court of Session decision on Tuesday, Fifa said it wanted Rangers' request withdrawn from the ordinary courts.

Lord Glennie said the transfer ban should be reconsidered by the SFA appeal panel on the grounds it was not one of the sanctions listed in the association's own regulations.

'Damaging' situation
Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps said the club's position had been vindicated and that they would study the judgement and consider their course of action.




Fifa can penalise both the Scottish association and the individual clubs and the national team of Scotland ”

Dr Gregory Ioannidis
Sport lawyer
The disrepute charge was handed down mainly over the club's failure to pay more than £13m in taxes last season.

The SFA said it was surprised by the Court of Session verdict and would consult its legal advisers. Options it can consider over the disrepute charge include a further fine, suspension from the Scottish Cup and expulsion from the game.

Dr Ioannidis, one of Europe's top experts on sports law, told the BBC's Newsnight Scotland the court challenge could also have wider implications for the game.

He said: "It's going to be damaging for Scottish football.

"If the Scottish Football Association decide not to take action against Rangers in relation to Rangers submitting the application to the Court of Session then Fifa can penalise both the Scottish association and the individual clubs and the national team of Scotland and impose an international ban on all of them."

Dr Ioannidis said Fifa had threatened such bans in the recent past, including in the case of FC Sion, who were thrown out of the Europa League for fielding ineligible players.

The SFA has three weeks to decide on its course of action. A Fifa spokesman said: "Fifa will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."


Sandy

http://sport.stv.tv/football/103918-why-rangers-court-win-against-the-sfa-raises-more-questions-than-answers/

Why Rangers' court win against the SFA raises more questions than answers
By Jamie Borthwick 30 May 2012 11:29 BST

The Court of Session ruling has put the Scottish Football Association in a difficult position.



The landmark ruling of the Court of Session in favour of Rangers FC this week left many more questions than answers regarding the constitutional future of punitive measures handed out by the Scottish FA.

Rangers chose to challenge an SFA punishment which placed an embargo on them registering new players over the age of 18 for a period of 12 months, which was handed out after the club was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by not paying taxes under owner Craig Whyte.

Because this punishment is not specifically laid out in the SFA’s article of association, Rangers argued that it was unlawful.

Fifa laws disallow clubs and individuals within football from taking a national association to ordinary court and recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the highest authority on such disputes.

So why did Rangers not go to CAS? Why did the Court of Session believe it held jurisdiction over the dispute? And what does it mean for the future of the SFA’s Judicial Panel?

Who is responsible for disciplinary matters?
The SFA’s Judicial Panel hands out disciplinary measures against member clubs found to be guilty of rule breaches.

Article 65 of the SFA’s Articles of Association states that a panel will “carry out and enforce disciplinary procedures” as well as appeals against these decisions. Article 65.3(b) specifically states that “the decision of the judicial panel in any appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned”.

Can you appeal an appeal?
The SFA does not allow for this. Once the appeal has been heard and a verdict delivered that is expected to be the end of the matter, as per article 65.3(b).

So why didn’t Rangers go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport?
The lawyers acting on behalf of Rangers FC argued that CAS had no jurisdiction over their case. They used the legal case of Ashley Cole versus the FA Premier League in 2005 as precedent for this.

In 2005, Cole was fined £100,000 by the Premier League for meeting with Chelsea to discuss a transfer while he was still under contract to Arsenal. An appeal by Cole reduced the fine to £75,000 but he then took the case to CAS.

The CAS ruling of August 31, 2005, stated that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because the rules of the Premier League do not contain any reference to a right to appeal to CAS. Premier League rule R63 state that their decision is final and binding – exactly the same wording used in the SFA’s rule 65.3(b).

Lord Glennie at the Court of Session agreed with this argument and ruled that the civil court in Scotland was therefore competent to deal with the dispute between Rangers and the SFA.

Do Fifa expect football associations to direct all appeals to CAS?
Fifa leaves it up to individual national associations to decide who the ultimate appeal board should be. Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”.

The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules.

So why are Fifa angry?
It is absolutely against Fifa’s statutes to take a dispute with a national association to the court of law. Fifa statute 64.2 states &“recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”.

Fifa insist that associations insert a clause in their rules to specifically prohibit such legal actions. The SFA’s is contained in 65.5 and says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”.

Rangers broke this term of their membership by going to the Court of Session and Fifa’s anger stems from the fact that the SFA appears not to have tried to stop it.

What happens now?
The route is now available for members of the SFA to appeal the punishments of the Judicial Panel in a Scottish court of law. Rangers did not seek to overturn the findings of the panel, just the punishment aspect.

However this route still breaches SFA law 65.5 and Fifa statute 64.2 and leaves any member who goes to court open to additional sanctions.

What has changed now is that the SFA no longer has the option of handing down any punishment it sees fit for a member brought on a disrepute charge. It must use the sanctions specifically laid down in article 94.1, “to fine, suspend, expel or eject from the [Scottish] Cup”.

Sandy

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

"Although the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Were that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct, which has brought the game into disrepute."

Sandy

HMRC reject the CVA offer, Rangers now heading for Liquidation. Green to attempt an asset transfer to a Newco, where they will try to pass the new club off as the same old Rangers. Expecting a blocker to that move as well.

How soon will we start seeing the stars leaving Ibrox?

If they set up a new company - are all players contracts void and therefore they rely on good will not to walk away, (and therefore no player is an asset?)

Rangers don't do walking away sure ;D ;D

so if this happens the other spl clubs will vote on whether to let new rangers stay in the spl. what way is this vote likely to go?

Club bosses caught on the horns of a dilemma. Fans making it very clear that they are against a New Club just taking up where the old one left off. However a high profile publicity campaign forecasting the death of Scottish football if Rangers are not in the SPL is trying to force their hands. Aberdeen, Celtic, St Johnstone, St Mirren highly likely to vote no, Hearts god only knows although they're about to be bumped for £800K so won't be looking at RFC as a friendly club. They need 8 for & 4 against to get back in. Things will be tight.

This is assuming they can get their act in gear enough to be able to try to retain the share in the SPL.  Transfer to a new club could face legal challenges, without the assets newclub would be impossible of course. SFA punishment still to be decided & Rangers apparently delaying the process. SPL investigation into playing players who were not properly registered still to announce decision. Any one of these could stop any newclub being in place for next season.

My prediction, another year or so of legal wrangling over the assets (ground/training ground/carpark) then whoever emerges owning the ground starts a new club & looks to apply for SFL entry or buy a weak club & take their place in 2013/14 at the earliest.

Today is the day the teddy bears got their pitch nicked

tumbleweed.jpg

I can't get my head round why oldco Rangers have a vote alongside the existing 11 clubs on whether to let newco Rangers straight into the SPL. It's all a bit yucky.

Hopefully Aberdeen vote the right way thanks to fan pressure and enough other clubs follow suit.

Think today's news that they've a prima facie case to answer over undeclared payments to players as far back as 1998 makes the vote moot Tank.

Every game a 3-0 loss, titles/cups stripped, UEFA sanctions to follow, teams robbed of millions of UEFA revenue (both in Scotland & others in European qualifiers.... Think Sevco 5088 who have just applied for Rangers SPL position are as well withdrawing it & applying for the 3rd division,

it will be a greedy scandal if they are voted into the league. Zero chance if anyone outside the big two had the same thing happen to them.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/why-rangers-can-vote-on-4th-july-and-how-the-spl-and-rangers-are-in-error/

Why Rangers Can Vote on 4th July, and How the SPL and Rangers are in Error
In which I try to explain some details about the July 4 meeting; suggest why Rangers PLC can vote on Sevco Rangers; clarify precisely what the SPL members are considering; and what this has to do with the ongoing EBT investigation.

As matters stand, it looks as if the SPL is treating Rangers FC as an ongoing entity, which is bad news for Mr Green as it seems there are still lots of things to be done which have not been carried out yet, and the season looms ever closer.

It also leaves the possibility of chaos if Dunfermline, Dundee or both, challenge the actions of the SPL as ultra vires!

As things stand, do the SPL know what they are doing?

The SPL Board considered various issues today, including two related to Rangers.

The section of the press release relevant to the admission of “The Rangers Football Club” to the SPL is shown immediately below.

—————————————————-

At its meeting earlier today, the SPL Board considered a number of issues relating to Rangers FC.

General Meeting

An application for registration of transfer of Rangers’ SPL share has been received. Consideration of the application will depend on receipt by the SPL Board of all required documentation and verification.

A general meeting of all 12 member clubs has been convened for 10am on Wednesday 4 July 2012 for members to decide whether to approve the transfer.

—————————————————-

So what will happen on 4th July, who can vote, and what does Sevco 5088 Ltd need to achieve for Club 12 to be ”Rangers”?

The SPL Articles and Rules are where the answers are contained, and the relevant sections are shown at the foot of this piece.

I will refer in this piece to Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) as “Rangers PLC”; to Rangers Football Club, as distinct from the corporate entities, as “Rangers FC”; and to “The Rangers Football Club” and Sevco 5088 Ltd as “Sevco”. I will refer to the General Meeting as “GM”.

 

Can “Rangers” Vote on 4th July?

Under Article 28, every Member of the SPL has a duty to attend the General Meeting fixed for 4th July. Under Article 46, every Member shall have one vote.

A Member can cast a vote and is defined in the Articles as follows – “Member means a person who or which is the holder of a Share”.

At present Rangers PLC owns the SPL share. Rangers FC has no corporate identity allowing it to own the Share, and Sevco cannot be the owner of the Share until the transfer is approved. Even although the SPL Share has been sold by Rangers PLC to Sevco, it only is completed when the transfer of the share is approved. This is what the SPL Members are being asked to decide at the GM.

Therefore it seems that Rangers PLC, in the form of Duff & Phelps, have a vote. They can appoint Mr Green as their proxy. In addition, the sale agreement between Rangers PLC and Sevco will undoubtedly have required D&P to use its best endeavours to ensure that the share transfer was successful. Therefore Rangers PLC will vote for Sevco.

Article 6 states that a share may only be held by a person who “is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share”. The whole assets and business of Rangers have, we are told, been sold unconditionally to Sevco. Therefore this must include the “Club”. If Rangers PLC is no longer an owner and operator of a football club, then surely it loses its vote?

No, it doesn’t.

Whilst Rangers PLC is no longer entitled to hold a share, it still does hold it until it is removed or transferred away. A member is not defined as someone entitled to a share, but as someone who has a share. Therefore, even if no longer entitled to a share, until the share is no longer in the person’s ownership, they are still a shareholder and have voting rights.

Under Article 14, where a Member is no longer entitled to hold a share, the share can be removed from it and transferred to another party, effectively by force. This involves a GM of the Members passing a Qualified Resolution instructing the Board to write to the Member instructing the transfer of the share to a named transferee. That transfer causes the transferor’s club no longer to be a member of the league. If the no longer entitled Member fails to effect the transfer, then the SPL can enforce the transfer by filling out the papers itself.

That procedure will not take place prior to the vote on 4th July and therefore Rangers PLC will have the right to vote.



What Is the Vote to Decide?

Article 11 states “…the approval of the Members in General Meeting shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered …”

It is the registration of the transfer which completes it. Until the transfer is registered, the original owner remains the “owner” of the share. As a Private Limited Company, the Company must consent to the transfer before it is completed. If the Company does not consent, then the transfer is ineffective.

Therefore the vote on 4th July is to approve the transfer.

As less than 21 days notice of the meeting has been given, the SPL must consider that this is simply an Ordinary Resolution, which is dealt with under Article 36. This requires “not less than 66% of the Members of the Company who are entitled to attend and vote at a General Meeting” to consent. Put in simple numbers, there need to be 8 votes in favour of the transfer. That is the case whether or not there are abstentions. An abstention is therefore a “no” vote. Failure to turn up would be a “no” vote.

Can Sevco muster an additional seven votes to have the transfer approved?

 

Might The Meeting Be Considering the Wrong Motion?

This relates to the question of whether there is an existing Rangers FC, or a newly created one.

If it is seen as an existing and continuing Rangers FC, then the vote on the share transfer seems to sort the matter out. Eight votes for Sevco, and Rangers are in as Club 12 for the coming season.

However, there are a couple of issues here. The SPL itself does not seem to have worked out the precise status of Rangers FC.

As its press release today said:- ”The SPL Board heard a report from its solicitors following the investigation into payments to, or for the benefit of, players allegedly made by Rangers FC outside of contract. The delay in concluding the investigation was caused by an initial lack of co-operation from Rangers FC. The investigation has now been completed and, in the view of the SPL, there is a prima facie case to answer in respect of its Rules. Disciplinary charges will be brought when the future status of Rangers FC is clarified and prior to the start of season 2012/13.”

If Rangers FC is a continuing entity, then it still possesses, subject to the SPL Disciplinary Processes, its “history”. However, if it is a continuing entity, then it also needs, under Rule A2.2, to satisfy the “Membership Criteria”. These are detailed in Article A2.5 and I wrote about them here.

It is quite clear that Rangers FC has not fulfilled the Membership Criteria, in connection with audited accounts, audited financial statements and non payment of taxes.

Under Article A2.4 where the requirements of Rule A2.7 are not met, a member club “shall be subject to such sanction or sanctions and such action may be taken as the Company in General Meeting shall, in its absolute discretion, determine”.

If Rangers FC is a continuing club, then there ought to be a hearing at a GM to establish what sanctions there should be for its failure to meet those requirements.

Under Rule A2.6 a club can apply for a waiver by 31st March, but Rule A2.7 permits the Board “in its absolute discretion to waive, relax or grant a period of grace in respect of any Club’s or Candidate Club’s requirement to comply with any part of the Membership Criteria…”

If Rangers FC is a continuing entity, then did D&P apply to the SPL for a waiver of the requirements, or for a further extension of time? Bearing in mind that the SPL commented on the lack of co-operation of Rangers FC in the EBT investigation, how helpful would the SPL be to Rangers in looking for their failings to be forgiven?

As matters stand therefore, the July 4 GM is considering the share transfer. If approved, there will still need to be a decision made about what “sanction or sanctions” should be imposed on Rangers FC for its failure to meet Membership Requirements.

The way round this is for the SPL Board to be asked by Rangers FC for a waiver. Would the Board permit a team to ignore and indeed wilfully flout the Financial Fair Play rules, bearing in mind the importance of these matters to UEFA?

 

What if it is not “Continuing Rangers”?

If the SPL treats Rangers FC as a new entity, this would probably negate the effects of the EBT investigation going forward. Is it simply a case of transferring the share, and automatically Sevco has a team in the SPL?

Rule A2.1 states “The association football clubs eligible to participate in the League in any Season shall … be those Clubs which participated in the League in the immediately preceding Season…“

Therefore “new Rangers” has no right to participate in the SPL, without being “admitted”. Indeed, if Rangers PLC’s team no longer exists, then there are only eleven clubs left in the SPL.

On that basis, Article 38 becomes relevant. This states, inter alia, that “A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-

(i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL).”

Logically the “addition or admission” of a new Member, which is what Rangers would be if not a continuing Member, would expand the SPL from its present eleven members to twelve.

That would require an 83% vote in favour. That equates to 10 votes out of 12 to allow “new Rangers” into the league. Bizarrely Rangers PLC would still have its vote, as the holder of a share!

If that is the case, has Sevco fulfilled the Membership Requirements? It does not have historical accounts. It does not have financial statements. It might have financial projections, but of what value?

 

Conclusion

It is by now axiomatic that nothing involving Rangers is simple, and I don’t think that this is simply because I complicate matters.

If the SPL has decided to proceed down the road of “only” requiring a share transfer, that is an acknowledgement that Rangers FC continues. However, all the Membership Requirements are still to be addressed, either by applying for a waiver or further time extension. Can that be carried out in time for the season starting? Bearing in mind that the SPL has said that disciplinary procedures will start prior to next season, once the position of Rangers is clarified, it would be possible that, having been admitted by the SPL, Rangers FC would be eliminated as part of the disciplinary process.

If Sevco Rangers is treated as a new entity, then I think that either Dunfermline or Dundee, or indeed both, would have grounds for action against the SPL. This would be on the basis that the SPL was not following its rules. There might then be an argument about which team was to replace Rangers, but the SPL could be putting itself in difficulties. Either of the clubs mentioned would, I submit, not fall foul of rules against football litigation, on the basis that they have no other forum for arguing that a decision to admit a Sevco Rangers would be ultra vires.

The dangers is that vested interests will argue that only “Rangers” whatever that entity might be, is set up to play in the SPL next season. That would be a lame excuse though.





Sandy

If you're posting a link to a big long article, you don't have to copy and paste the article - that's what the link is for.

I posted the link so that the original source gets credit and so if the article is interesting others can go scot around for other articles by the same author. That's what the link is for.

Sandy

not sure what the problem is

if anybody is going to reply to my post please can you make sure you quote please as I dont often read this thread and would hate to miss any responses.

For those that don't read everything -

why are Dunfermline & Dundee mentioned separately?

ta

I assume it's because in the event of The Rangers not being voted into the SPL on July 4th as Team 12 there would be an empty slot in the SPL.

Dunfermline (the team relegated from the SPL last season) and Dundee (the team who last season finished second in the first division) are the two natural candidates to fill that spot.

I think which one it would be is a 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' question but at the moment both may have a particular interest in the SPL voting not to allow The Rangers entry into the SPL.

The computer seems to favour a Glasgow based team or Dunfermline. Team 12, if Dundee, would cause fixture chaos if you check out any home games whilst Dundee Utd are at home.

Dunfermline don't have a home clash issue.

A Glasgow based team would only clash once with Celtic but that Celtic game has been cancelled so Celtic can play a game v Real Madrid.

Sandy

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20120621/vr-statement_2241384_2818454

Mr Vladimir Romanov today issued the following statement after recent revelations that have had a hugely damaging affect on the game in this country.

Mr Romanov, who has been consistent in his views since investing in Scottish football in 2005, said:

"The opinion of Heart of Midlothian FC in regards to the current situation of Scottish football is clear and robust.

"The football mafia represented by former owners of Rangers FC and Rupert Murdoch's media are to blame for some of the worst problems to hit Scottish football and must not be allowed back in under any circumstances.

"As regards the club itself, we can only express our deepest condolences to its supporters, who have been lied to for so many years.

"It had to happen sooner or later. Victories were achieved not by sporting merits, but through slander, conspiracies amongst players and their poaching via third parties, unfair pressuring of referees, who in themselves are as valuable to the fabric of football as the football stars themselves.

"All of this brought hollow victories and destroyed football. We can also mention the attempts to eliminate Hearts with the help of the tax petitions, through false accusations and threats to revoke the club license. There is a saying about digging a grave for someone: you get it for yourself …

"Without these people football will become cleaner and stronger. Without Murdoch the whole of society will improve, in particular sport and culture.

"Supporters deserve a new beginning and have to accept the fact that their club has to start from the lower league, keeping order in the SPL and without creating unfair competition with other clubs.

"As regards the pitiful state of Scottish football finances, a lot of the blame should be placed at the doors of Murdoch's media. They pay huge sums to English clubs, whilst in Scotland, where football is better supported per capita than anywhere else in Europe and there are more cable or Sky subscribers per capita than in England, clubs receive peanuts for their broadcasting rights.

"At the very least this is discrimination and protectionism for the English football product, which at the same time stunts the development of the game in Scotland, that is regarded as the cradle of football.

"I feel that it is absolutely realistic to create a company that would bring to Scottish clubs at least the same broadcasting income, and even grow it by 50-100% over the next two to three years. This company should be in the hands of Scottish clubs and work with those who want to earn money the honest way, instead of conducting business the Murdoch way.

"They have lived beyond law and all morals, and should now be declared beyond the pale. A society that allows the destruction of integrity in sport, which is a crucial part of Scottish culture, is destroying itself - and all for the benefit of a media aborigine


Eh, I think we can put that down as no to a Newco in the SPL from Hearts then.
Hibs will vote no, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Celtic will probably vote no as well.
Not that the Newco actually meets the criteria to get a place anyway.

Hearts and hibs are def no's.

I've heard a 3rd club will announce no 2mo. As soon as it looks like 5 nos are a certainty, surely Celtic won't miss the PR of being the 5th to declare and put the nail in the coffin!

Personally as someone who is impartial I think it would be morally corrupt (heard that alot on the radio today), to allow them to stay!

Dundee UTD have announced in the last few minutes that they will say no.

Sandy

Celtic are doing the right thing keeping quiet, this can't be sidetracked into a Celtic/Rangers fight.

Season ticket sales are through the floor at Dundee Utd I would expect that will change now and I would imagine Aberdeen might show their hand soon as they are in the same position.   

Personally I don't see how this can be good for Celtic at all.  Sure they win everything but they lose the 4 games a year that probably drives the demand for their TV rights.  No Rangers can only lead to massively reduced TV money for SPL and presumably crowds too if it becomes too much of a one horse race.

Won't the rangers fans just support Celtic instead ???

Tv Money is worth 1m a year.Sporting Integrity is priceless.
Rumours tonight that Celtic will share out a bigger slice of their Tv Money with the rest of the Spl.
Polls have taken place throughout the spl Clubs and nearly every Clubs fans percentage was 90% to show them the Door.

Per year the SPL gets about £16/18 million. A massive reduction would be what exactly ?  A reduction perhaps, even though on twitter Sky have said they have no plans to ditch SPL football.

Scaremongering.

If Rangers get back in the SPL they can't afford it anyway. Couldn't afford it before so how can they plug the £10 million per season gap in funds without cost cutting ? No European jackpots for 3 years even if they did overcome this.

To rescue Rangers, whatever happens, will take lots of money (i.e. many many millions)and/or lots of time and not just 2/3 years either.

Sandy

No plans do ditch SPL but want to make a considerable ammendment to the agreed £80m deal. Think that is fair enough without Old firm games which is the marquee event of the SPL. As a Rangers fan I want to take our punishment and go the the 3rd division and let the rest get on with it.

the money the SPL teams would lose from the fans boycotting the season tickets this season is slightly more than the money they will lose on sky pulling out

Doubtful... Would hazard a guess vast majority of non old firms struggle to reach £1m per year in season tickets(and you wouldn't lose 100% of these season tickets)

Doubt Sky would have a clause allowing the deal to be renegoiated if Rangers leave the SPL. As technically I guess they already have anyway.

Aberdeen are the 3rd team to say no

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hibernian/107728-hibernian-confirm-they-will-vote-against-admitting-newco-rangers-to-spl/

Hibs, Dundee Utd and Hearts have now confirmed they intend to say no.

Sandy

Police investigation launched.

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/107835-in-full-crown-office-statement-on-criminal-probe-into-rangers/

Sandy

ICT and Aberdeen also confirm they are voting no

Yup. Looks like Lawell did the correct thing as now we are not to blame.

St Johnstone makes 6. Surely it's a certainty to be 11 - 0 as nobody will want to piss off season ticket holders or travelling fans in case it costs them money.

Sandy

not really sure how scottish football is going to recover from this the only game that is vaguley worth watching is old firm and now its gone... bad times

http://www.raithrovers.net/3766/statement-of-board-of-directors.htm

Even the SFL clubs are telling them to shove it.

Sandy

Best games last season were Celtic - Hearts & Rangers - Dundee Utd - OK they don't have the associated lunacy, but they were the best fixtures.

Last time Rangers were winning nothing the league coped well, more recently when Celtic were in trouble and struggling to make europe even, the league survived it. There will be financial implications but if all the clubs get something like 300 extra season ticket holders then it should bring about as much as will be lost. THe fans demanded the Newco not be in the SPL it's the fans job to support their club & league after the decision. Hopefully it'll be a wakeup call and help rather than hinder Scottish football.

leaving aside the Rangers mess, what's the future for Scottish football now?

Celtic win the SPL virtually unchallenged for the next few years. No Old firm games. None of that drama and rivalry for celtic fans. More difficult to attract players up to celtic?

Weaker SPL teams get into Europe, eventually the UEFA Co-efficients for Scotland fall, meaning less European places?

The next TV deal without a really competitive league (minus Rangers potentially winning the league each year, even if funded irresponsibly) gives no negotiating position to the clubs

I know the clubs via the voting and the fans via their support for that are doing the right thing, morally....but the future doesn't look bright for Scottish football now does it? Or does it?

Aside from 4 old firm games, what would be different with Rangers in the SPL ? The administrators said they were running at a £10m loss per year. The players won't take reduced wages anymore. The standard of player will drop substantially as they can't afford anybody even of Hearts, Dundee Utd & Hibs price range. They can't cut costs of stadium. They cant play in Europe.

Rangers won 9 in a row and 7 times Celtic were not even 2nd (3 times not even 3rd). Didn't hurt the product in the way you describe.


Rangers were rank rotten before Murray but Scottish football survived.



The future, for sure, is uncertain. Celtic will turn attention to Europe. Other clubs have a great chance to strengthen as there is now 1 more european spot for grabs. Extra revenue although deep runs would be a tall order. Shamrock Rovers can inspire them hopefully.

There will be SPL on the TV. Fans have reacted well to the clubs who have said no. Season tickets are selling like hot cakes.

Don't fall for the Rangers spin. They tried to put the fear into the clubs but the real fear was when the fans didn't buy season tickets until they said ok we'll teach them a lesson. Fan power shows there is interest in the game in Scotland. Can there be much less interest in England anyway ?

Sandy

Good Post and your last paragraph sums it up very nicely imo. Rangers tried the bully boy tactics and it's blown up in their face.

You only have to read a couple of Rangers Forums to realise how deluded their fans are, they think that by trying to strongarm their way to not being punished or to just blame David Murray/Craig Whyte and start next season in the SPL that things will be hunky dory.

If my company cheated the way Rangers have it is not just the guys at the top(Directors) who get punished but the ordinary workers(ie lose our jobs), so for the Rangers fans to spout about ordinary fans being penalised for mis-management over the years is complete bolllloxx.

Excellent post  Sandy

Whatever the future is for Scottish football it will be better for not letting Rangers back in.
Wouldn't have been a credible league if not.

Couple of questions? Has the tax man done his dough? I'm sure I read something along the lines of "using it as an example case ready to take on some English clubs". Will the tactics have to change if clubs can just get rid of the debt even if it means starting again? Will the tax man be more likely to do deals and take rubbish offers of pennies in the pound?

Rangers - any chance they could realistically join the English league? If they had to start non-league in one of the countries would England be the +ve move?

Well if they spit their dummy out they may as well do it good and proper.

Rangers and Celtic never had a chance of playing in England, ever.

Sandy

The reason why HMRC wouldn't accept the CVA was because liquidation allows full examination of the running of the club and may allow them to pursue the individuals involved.  The message (quite rightly) is that if you think that you can have a weekly wage bill of millions and not bother to pay the tax deducted to HMRC, you can think again.

What is the view on the statement from the TV companies this morning?

Here's 17m of tv money, but it is dependent upon RFC being in SPL in 13/14.

What if they don't get promoted? Do SFA ignore on pitch failure?

Where did you see this?

SPL chief exec statements about tv deals quoted on Twitter.

Yeah, not finding any reference from TV companies - purely reported by Neil Doncaster of the SPL who has pretty much nailed his colours to the mast over what he wants to happen - editing the document to the SFL clubs before it was sent to them, long on rhetoric, short on facts.

By who ?

Say what you mean Turbull Hutton. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/109094-raith-director-we-are-being-bullied-and-lied-to-over-rangers-situation/

SAndy

Ah - Good old Doncaster - firmly in keep Rangers camp. Kept stating that TV money going if not in SPL, now it's TV money going if not in SFL1, moving goalposts and nothing to back up his comments from the TV companies. Forgetting that Sevco do not meet the entry requirements for SPL or SFL.

http://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/04/4137/

Sandy

SPL confirmed no vote minutes ago.

Sandy

I read that as their would be no vote today.
So their will be no Newco in the SPL but Doncasters doing everthing to get them in the 1st Division, be it threats, bribes or no invite to a possible Spl 2.

So a new club who fail to meet the criteria for entry into Senior Football, are to be allowed in, force promoted to the op league of the SFL & with effectively  a guarantee of promotion, since they need to be back in the SPl to keep the alleged £17m TV/Sponsor money (or else what would be the point?) - I don't think all the scaremongering in the world will get that through the SFL clubs. So far about 10 have objected - needs 16.

This looks like an incredibly stupid move, even by SFA standards.

http://bbc.in/OpGHHR

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/category/tupe/

Sandy

(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9054/searching.gif)

Sandy

Reported today that Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his Tour De France titles.

I have decided to call myself The Lance Armstrong, buy his old bike, claim his titles & demand entry into next years tour. If anyone objects I will call them a bigot.

Lance Armstrong then, Lance Armstrong now, Lance Armstrong forever.

We don't do cycling away!!

Sandy

The mantra has changed from we don't do walking away to we don't do winning away. They were lucky to get a draw today.

Bit harsh, not only were they away from home, they had to travel to a foreign country. Gotta be pleased with a draw. :)

lol rangers 4th in 3rd div.... would be such a joke if they didnt get promoted....

I had a little chuckle at this!

Paddy Power ‏@paddypower

TRANSFER RUMOUR: Emile Heskey is in talks to join Glasgow Rangers.....Never knew the #SFA imposed a goal scoring ban on them as well!

cant possibly be true..... would be another to add to the list of heskey jokes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/03/sun-scotland?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Sandy

Entered administration on Valentines Day liquidated on Halloween.   :)

http://billynowell.com/2013/12/23/hairy-tale-of-oldco-by-billy-nowell/

Can't beat a bit of pogues at xmas.

Sandy