The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
steve1873 said:
It didn't cost them a cup ban. It saw their scoreline in previous round reversed and thus eliminated from the competition.

That was a player registration issue. The Rangers case is a disrepute charge. Try keep up!
Click to expand...


Ever get the feeling that someone is clutching at straws :-)
 
banned/removed is exactly the same thing.

The document was the cause of the punishment, if it was done correctly they wouldnt have been banned from it.

But it is good to see you both admitting that anyone with an incorrect contract should get the same treatment, remember that when you lose your titles and cups boys.
 
Metalface Mark said:
banned/removed is exactly the same thing.

The document was the cause of the punishment, if it was done correctly they wouldnt have been banned from it.

But it is good to see you both admitting that anyone with an incorrect contract should get the same treatment, remember that when you lose your titles and cups boys.
Click to expand...

Zzzzzzz......

Banned and removed aren't the same thing in that context. A ban is a pre-emptive punishment. Removed is after the fact. Were you part of the SFA's legal team yesterday? :p

Here we go titles removed now eh? On what basis? The utterings of a geriatric who left the club prior to EBT's being implemented, or the fine investigative journalism of Alex Thomson and Mark Daly who both isist they have seen "side letters" and yet like Hugh Adam have been unable to produce any?
 
Last edited:
THE SPL has approved a series of resolutions regarding financial fair play at a meeting at Hampden today.

All 12 SPL clubs were represented at the meeting, where it was also agreed that each club will be part of any future newco decision taken by the league, rather than the SPL's Board.

A statement from the SPL read: "It was agreed that, in future, any decision on the transfer of a share to a newco from any club will be considered by all member clubs, rather than the SPL Board, with flexibility to impose sanctions appropriate to each individual circumstance.


"The resolutions proposing fixed penalties on a newco were therefore withdrawn as being obsolete.

"Following the circulation to creditors of CVA proposals, the SPL Board withdrew the resolution to consider a transfer of Rangers FC SPL share to a newco.

"No newco proposal is currently under consideration by the SPL."

However a number of resolutions were passed that will change the way clubs are dealt with in regard to financial fair play.

The following resolutions were approved by the clubs and come into effect immediately:

- An increase in the sporting sanctions for any club going into administration in the future, from ten points to the greater of ten points and one third of the club's SPL points total in the preceding season;
- An extension of the sporting sanctions regime to the situation where the parent company of an SPL club goes into administration;
- Updates and extensions to the definition of 'Insolvency Events' in the SPL Rules to track recent changes in insolvency law;
- Specific requirements for SPL clubs to pay their players and HMRC on time and be subject to sanctions if they do not. Clubs must also report to the SPL any failure to pay players or HMRC on time.

No decision was taken on the resolution to amend SPL voting structure to a position where a 9-3 vote would be required in all cases.

That move will be discussed again at the SPL's AGM on 16 July.
Click to expand...
 
steve1873 said:
Bit of a backtrack. You said it was going to be less than a penny in the £, rounded up to 1.

But aye am quite confident the offer is significantly better than you obviously do.

So £100 paid via paypal to charity of choice!?
Click to expand...


**opens beer and sits back waiting on Mark's get-me-out-of-this reply**
 
Last edited:
@markdaly2
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

Should be interesting, the rush to get these guys in before HMRC could appoint administrators looked suspicious at the time.
 
Metalface Mark said:
Sure, thats fine. You said it would be over ten so 1 to 10 is reasonable.
Click to expand...

I actually said worst case it would be slightly over 4p in the £ if you care to check.

But I am happy with the terms of the bet.

As it stands the terms on offer are

Current estimated liabilities: £54,696,214.09
Estimated funds available for unsecured creditors: £4,967,284

Meaning the offer, is slightly over 9p in the £ currently without the result of a) the FTT and b) the litigations against Collyer Bristow, Phil Betts & Regenesis LTD.
 
Last edited:
So basically to sum up:

Ignoring the potential litigation additions to the CVA quantum on offer:

if the EBT liability is found to be the reported maximum of £75million it will put Rangers total liabilities at approximately £129.7 million, which would result is the quantum being 3.8p in the £ (worst case)

if however, the EBT liability is a smaller amount (Traynor at the Record has been adamant it will be between £6-£12million) so we will go with £12million as the high end of the best case scale: That would result in Rangers total liabilities being approx. £66.7 million which would result in the quantum on offer being 7.4p in the £ (if we assume best case is a £12million EBT liability)

Looks very much like you are very reliant on HMRC bailing you out with the maximum £75million liability Mark. (£44.8 million will nick it for you). But still a long way from your insistence yesterday that the offer was actually less than 1p in the £.
 
Last edited:
Bhoya said:
@markdaly2
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

Should be interesting, the rush to get these guys in before HMRC could appoint administrators looked suspicious at the time.
Click to expand...


Just what we want...

More half truths and here-say
 
steve1873 said:
So basically to sum up:

Ignoring the potential litigation additions to the CVA quantum on offer:

if the EBT liability is found to be the reported maximum of £75million it will put Rangers total liabilities at approximately £129.7 million, which would result is the quantum being 3.8p in the £ (worst case)

if however, the EBT liability is a smaller amount (Traynor at the Record has been adamant it will be between £6-£12million) so we will go with £12million as the high end of the best case scale: That would result in Rangers total liabilities being approx. £66.7 million which would result in the quantum on offer being 7.4p in the £ (if we assume best case is a £12million EBT liability)

Looks very much like you are very reliant on HMRC bailing you out with the maximum £75million liability Mark. (£44.8 million will nick it for you). But still a long way from your insistence yesterday that the offer was actually less than 1p in the £.
Click to expand...

You forget there are secured creditors not on that list and d&p fees in total which are going to be in the region of 5.5m, as usual in any administration, the only guys who do well out it are administators, certainly any time ive lost money as a company despite cva pots, ive yet to see anything from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom