The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Gav · 31 May 2012 at 14:23

Metalface Mark said:
Yes, it states transfers can happen as soon as the season ends.

From: david ogilvie ([email protected]) 2:21 PM (0 minutes ago)

Hi Gavin

The dates are June 9 to August 31

Regards

David

Guess you were wrong again Mark..

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 14:27

For player registrations.

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 14:44

Metalface Mark said:
For player registrations.

That is what transfers are. To give them their correct description:

Transfer of player registration.

Anyway, fairly irrelevant to the topic.

Gav · 31 May 2012 at 14:46

Metalface Mark said:
For player registrations.

Which ever way you wish to sugar coat it....

You were wrong..

Even the SFA say so... :-)

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 14:50

Id disagree but as Steve we are off topic so with that in mind, we should never speak of this again.

jas72 · 31 May 2012 at 15:20

lol people won't show an interest in players until after the 14th anyway.....

As there is still the PFA issue regarding freedom to not accept transfer of contract to a newco.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 15:24

jas72 said:
lol people won't show an interest in players until after the 14th anyway.....

As there is still the PFA issue regarding freedom to not accept transfer of contract to a newco.

Well Rangers wont be able to sign anyone anyway until mid July surely at the very earliest for the cooling off period if the CVA was accepted. (which it wont be).

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 15:35

Metalface Mark said:
Well Rangers wont be able to sign anyone anyway until mid July surely at the very earliest for the cooling off period if the CVA was accepted. (which it wont be).

See thats what people are getting at. Why the need for the comment in brackets?

The offer will or wont be accepted on its merits, not whether you say it wont be a couple million times.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 15:38

Yeah I know it will or wont be accepted on its merits, thats why it wont be, it has no merits for the creditors.

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 15:55

Metalface Mark said:
Yeah I know it will or wont be accepted on its merits, thats why it wont be, it has no merits for the creditors.

Well considering Ticketus, who are currently the largest creditor have already indicated acceptance of the terms of offer, I'd suggest your opinion regarding the merits of the offer are as informed as your knowledge of the transfer window.

Gav · 31 May 2012 at 15:57

steve1873 said:
Well considering Ticketus, who are currently the largest creditor have already indicated acceptance of the terms of offer, I'd suggest your opinion regarding the merits of the offer are as informed as your knowledge of the transfer window.

Bhoya · 31 May 2012 at 16:00

steve1873 said:
Well considering Ticketus, who are currently the largest creditor have already indicated acceptance of the terms of offer, I'd suggest your opinion regarding the merits of the offer are as informed as your knowledge of the transfer window.

Any source on that one? I'm curious about how the whole chasing Whyte down for his personal guarentees will work if they take a CVA.

edit - should say, if they accept a CVA then the debt is legally settled. They're giving up the chance to chase Whyte for the full value if they accept it, seems crazy - but then again his money will be off the radar by now.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 16:03

steve1873 said:
Well considering Ticketus, who are currently the largest creditor have already indicated acceptance of the terms of offer, I'd suggest your opinion regarding the merits of the offer are as informed as your knowledge of the transfer window.

Where have ticketus indicated they would accept the offer?

Its a moot point anyway, whether or not ticketus accept, HMRC wont accept it. Of course Green has indicated that HMRC will accept a CVA, but we already know he tells fibs.

Gav · 31 May 2012 at 16:23

Bhoya said:
Any source on that one? I'm curious about how the whole chasing Whyte down for his personal guarentees will work if they take a CVA.

edit - should say, if they accept a CVA then the debt is legally settled. They're giving up the chance to chase Whyte for the full value if they accept it, seems crazy - but then again his money will be off the radar by now.

It will be similar to how a joint loan is dealt with.

If one person in a joint loan, fails to make payments.. The lender goes after the other person for the full amount. If the person, who fails to make payments, goes for an IVA/Trust Deed (personal version of a CVA), The amount they agree to pay is taken from the total amount of the loan. The rest is then to be paid by the second party.

The ticketus deal will be similar due to the "personal guarantees" that Whyte made (allegedly). What ever they get from the CVA will be deducted from the total. The rest will be sought from Whyte.

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 16:26

Bhoya said:
Any source on that one? I'm curious about how the whole chasing Whyte down for his personal guarentees will work if they take a CVA.

edit - should say, if they accept a CVA then the debt is legally settled. They're giving up the chance to chase Whyte for the full value if they accept it, seems crazy - but then again his money will be off the radar by now.

That is not the case as far as I understand. The money was lent to Craig Whyte with the condition of purchasing tranches of season tickets. They then formed a contract with Whyte through Liberty Capital (now Rangers Group LTD), with personal guarantees from Whyte.

They then have a contract with Rangers which entitles them to the tickets. The administrators were given permission to tear up this contract and basically terminate the agreement which in turn results in Ticketus becoming an unsecured creditor. If they accept a CVA which gives them say £2million and Whytes personal guarantee was for £30 million, the they are entitled to chase him for the difference i.e. £28million using my example.

That is it in its simplest form as far as I understand it.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 16:51

The ticketus thing with Whyte will drag on for ages, i very much doubt he has given a personal guarantee, more than likely it will be a business one which is worth nothing, hes a slippery character and it will all hinge on whether he set out to defraud ticketus, it really would not be surprising if Whyte ends up with criminal charges although they may be tricky to prove.

The one thing that is funny about Whye and Duff and Phelps, if Whyte is not somehow in cahoots with them you get the feeling he will turn on them and potentially have the administration ripped up, one press conference confirming they knew what the ticketus money was really for is all it would take.

jas72 · 31 May 2012 at 18:07

Metalface Mark said:
Well Rangers wont be able to sign anyone anyway until mid July surely at the very earliest for the cooling off period if the CVA was accepted. (which it wont be).

It wasn't regarding buying players but players leaving for free or at reduced rates....

No club would bid just now when it's possible they could get someone on a free in 3 weeks time

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 18:44

jas72 said:
It wasn't regarding buying players but players leaving for free or at reduced rates....

No club would bid just now when it's possible they could get someone on a free in 3 weeks time

That is a good point actually. Given the uncertainty regarding the CVA/ newco scenario and players possibly being able to walk away, it would be foolish for any club to throw money when they could land the same player for free 2 weeks down the line.

Most of the business in the transfer market wont be done until after the Euros anyway I would think, so clubs will probably be keeping their powder dry until they can survey the market and what is available.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 18:49

jas72 said:
It wasn't regarding buying players but players leaving for free or at reduced rates....

No club would bid just now when it's possible they could get someone on a free in 3 weeks time

Well rangers are under a transfer embargo just now so they couldn't even If they wanted to

Gav · 31 May 2012 at 19:04

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive:

"In light of Tuesday’s decision by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session, it is necessary to clarify the position of the Scottish FA in relation to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on Rangers FC.
"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.
"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.
"The Scottish FA is bound – as are all other decision-making bodies in this country – by the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court under Scots Law. The Scottish FA’s Senior Counsel represented to the Court of Session that it had no jurisdiction with reference to Article 5.1(b) and (c) of the Scottish FA’s Articles and Articles 4(2), 62(1), 63(1), 63(2) and 64(2) of the FIFA Statutes. This representation was rejected by Lord Glennie, who considered that the provisions of the FIFA statutes and the provisions of the Scottish FA Articles did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to deal with questions of the powers open to the tribunal.
"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue.
"With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."