The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

[afraser2k]

In which case they will be back in court for dishing out a punishment that they have already admitted is "too severe" for the 'crime'.

FIFA statutes say that each association has a clear path for appeals reaching the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The SFA's statute deems their own appeals panel as FINAL (their wording). Therefore the CAS has no jurisdiction, which is blatantly at odds with FIFA.

Rangers had no other choice but to take the case to a civil court, other than to accept an unlawful punishment - which any right minded person would surely admit is not fair.

Put it this way, as an individual, say you were caught speeding and the judge gave you life in prison, despite it not being 1 of the available punishments, would you appeal it on those grounds? I think everybody knows the answer.

I think that's why FIFA haven't said anything yet due to the SFA's lack of appeal process (i.e. they screwed up). It's also Rangers' main defence in this though increasingly the statements from other SPL chairmen and SFA are losing patience with them. With everything else going on that's why I see them having to punish the club to restore any authority left otherwise FIFA will push for the UK FA agenda.

The whole saga has shown the SPL and SFA rules aren't fit for purpose and they just seem to be making it up now to save face and jobs.

 

[steve1873]

They could have sold players prior to going into liquidation, D&P could have accepted a 2m offer for Naismith but it was rejected.




Yes, the 5.5m is Duff and Phelps fees, which include legal fees, just because they split them on the balance sheet does not mean they are their fees.

Yes, they could have still sold for example Naismith (or rather agreed to sell him once the transfer window opens). However, they would still have to have paid him up until that point. Do you think the player would have accepted to cut his wages by 75% had that been the case? Therefore, any fee recieved would have been eaten into - and if the club was liquidated in the meantime - guess what, his contract and any agreed transfer is, you've guessed it, null and void meaning creditors do not see a penny. Keeping the majority of the squad in tact was of greater value to creditors in so much as it increased the potential value of the business to any prospective buyers. The business would not have been sold if it had zero 'assets' in the way of players since it's fundamental to the business that it plays football, at as high a level as possible. If a buyer realised that the playing sauad needed replaced and it would require millions to do so, they would hardly 'buy' the business would they? In that case liquidation would be the only option - and hey, you've guessed it again - unsecured creditors recieve zero.

Mark, you may well have been involved in a CVA process in the past, but you are showing no sign of understanding that process with regards this case. Every business that suffers an insolvency event will have different circumstances and a firesale of players is only better for creditors under certain circumstances. These circumstances were outwith Duff & Phelps control since they cannot press a button and magically open the transfer window.

As for the £5.5 million being their fees? It clearly isn't. The balance sheet tells you what it is. It is the cost of realising the CVA. D&P have already passed on a deFamation case to their lawyers with regards Mark Daly claiming theor fees are 11 times higher than the claimed £500,000 in his 'story' from the other day.

 

[doopydug]

Yeah - I got the feeling that the ban on player registrations was too light anyway - just thought that the SFA were going easy on Rangers - now trhat Rangers didn't accept this, the only choice is to give them a more severe punishment - I have a feeling Rangers will regret taking it to court.

 

[steve1873]

Yeah - I got the feeling that the ban on player registrations was too light anyway - just thought that the SFA were going easy on Rangers - now trhat Rangers didn't accept this, the only choice is to give them a more severe punishment - I have a feeling Rangers will regret taking it to court.

Going easy? Haha, aye right you are.

Remind me what punishment a certain club got in 2010 for bringing the game into disrepute and being the catalyst for a referees strike?

 

[steve1873]

Yeah - I got the feeling that the ban on player registrations was too light anyway - just thought that the SFA were going easy on Rangers - now trhat Rangers didn't accept this, the only choice is to give them a more severe punishment - I have a feeling Rangers will regret taking it to court.

Also just to be clear, it was THE LAW that didn't accept the punishment.

 

[Metalface Mark]

Yes, they could have still sold for example Naismith (or rather agreed to sell him once the transfer window opens). However, they would still have to have paid him up until that point. Do you think the player would have accepted to cut his wages by 75% had that been the case? Therefore, any fee recieved would have been eaten into - and if the club was liquidated in the meantime - guess what, his contract and any agreed transfer is, you've guessed it, null and void meaning creditors do not see a penny. Keeping the majority of the squad in tact was of greater value to creditors in so much as it increased the potential value of the business to any prospective buyers. The business would not have been sold if it had zero 'assets' in the way of players since it's fundamental to the business that it plays football, at as high a level as possible. If a buyer realised that the playing sauad needed replaced and it would require millions to do so, they would hardly 'buy' the business would they? In that case liquidation would be the only option - and hey, you've guessed it again - unsecured creditors recieve zero.

Mark, you may well have been involved in a CVA process in the past, but you are showing no sign of understanding that process with regards this case. Every business that suffers an insolvency event will have different circumstances and a firesale of players is only better for creditors under certain circumstances. These circumstances were outwith Duff & Phelps control since they cannot press a button and magically open the transfer window.

As for the £5.5 million being their fees? It clearly isn't. The balance sheet tells you what it is. It is the cost of realising the CVA. D&P have already passed on a deFamation case to their lawyers with regards Mark Daly claiming theor fees are 11 times higher than the claimed £500,000 in his 'story' from the other day.

On the contrary Steve, it is you who does not understand the full facts of the administration.

Keeping the players on was a mistake, even terminating their contract would have been better for the creditors, it would have freed up a huge sum of money and left the players having to take whatever the other creditors got, which might then have been a bit more than 3-6p in the pound.

We will see anyway when it all finishes, Im fairly sure you will be saying "Mark, you know, you were right about many things, it was unfortunate that I couldnt see this due to my blue tinted specs, but you were right about most things, transfer window excluded".

 

[chameleon]

Surely the SFA now have a recourse available to give them a more severe punishment as the one they tried to impose has now been declared null and void. Regardless of the earlier opinion that they were too severe, as the chosen punishment is no longer available surely they have no recourse left but to impose one of the others? Bear in mind, appeals can go both ways. You can end up with a greater sanction if you appeal and it fails.
If FIFA are really peed off, do you think the SFA will jeopardise its international future for the sake of one team?

 

[doopydug]

If Rangers had accepted it, the LAW would not have given a toss - RANGERS did not accept it.

Also just to be clear, it was THE LAW that didn't accept the punishment.

 

[doopydug]

What has that got to do with this? There is no comparison and certainly not in a thread titled "Rangers in Adminsistration"

Going easy? Haha, aye right you are.

Remind me what punishment a certain club got in 2010 for bringing the game into disrepute and being the catalyst for a referees strike?

 

[steve1873]

On the contrary Steve, it is you who does not understand the full facts of the administration.

Keeping the players on was a mistake, even terminating their contract would have been better for the creditors, it would have freed up a huge sum of money and left the players having to take whatever the other creditors got, which might then have been a bit more than 3-6p in the pound.

We will see anyway when it all finishes, Im fairly sure you will be saying "Mark, you know, you were right about many things, it was unfortunate that I couldnt see this due to my blue tinted specs, but you were right about most things, transfer window excluded".

Are you full on mental?

Terminating contracts would have resulted in, for example Alan Mcgregor becoming a creditor to the tune of nearly £6million. That is 1 player. How on earth is and in what universe is that better for creditors? Go on, explain it to me. Please. I am dying to hear the logic in this...

 

[steve1873]

What has that got to do with this? There is no comparison and certainly not in a thread titled "Rangers in Adminsistration"

I think you will find the punishment was for "bringing the game into disrepute", and not directly linked to Rangers going into administration.

Another club recently brought the game into disrepute whih caused a referees strike. And in doing so recieved no punishment. In fact, their then lawyer was employed by the SFA to help rewrite the rules. Seems he didn't get around to re writing the rule the SFA used to punish Rangers before his tragic passing.

 

[McMav]

Surely the SFA now have a recourse available to give them a more severe punishment as the one they tried to impose has now been declared null and void. Regardless of the earlier opinion that they were too severe, as the chosen punishment is no longer available surely they have no recourse left but to impose one of the others? Bear in mind, appeals can go both ways. You can end up with a greater sanction if you appeal and it fails.
If FIFA are really peed off, do you think the SFA will jeopardise its international future for the sake of one team?

True. However it's funny why most haters here keep forgetting to mention the cup ban as one of the options. Clearly their hatred is so much that they are blinded to ONLY see suspension or expulsion. Once we come out of admin I wonder what all of you will do with your spare time no longer being cva experts or law enforcers

 

[McMav]

If Rangers had accepted it, the LAW would not have given a toss - RANGERS did not accept it.

And they proved right in a court of law.

 

[McMav]

What has that got to do with this? There is no comparison and certainly not in a thread titled "Rangers in Adminsistration"

Seems quite valid as we are talking about sfa rules and punishment. You seem a but defensive I wonder why.

 

[steve1873]

If Rangers had accepted it, the LAW would not have given a toss - RANGERS did not accept it.

Accepted an unlawful punishment that the SFA had no right to dish out?

Would you, personally accept a punishment from a court if your legal advice told you that the punishment was unlawful and outwith the remit of the judge who imposed it?

 

[Metalface Mark]

Are you full on mental?

Terminating contracts would have resulted in, for example Alan Mcgregor becoming a creditor to the tune of nearly £6million. That is 1 player. How on earth is and in what universe is that better for creditors? Go on, explain it to me. Please. I am dying to hear the logic in this...

Its simple arithmetic, cost of players outstanding contracts may have been 15m for example, its putting 15m into debtors, money saved would have been 4 or 5 million, its putting, that into creditors pot.

If creditors get 10 or even 15p in the pound, they would have gone more with the extra 4 or 5 million in wages that have gone into the pot even with the player contracts inflating the pool. As it stands, they will get 3p or less.

 

[Metalface Mark]

Accepted an unlawful punishment that the SFA had no right to dish out?

Would you, personally accept a punishment from a court if your legal advice told you that the punishment was unlawful and outwith the remit of the judge who imposed it?

If you were caught stealing, and the shopkeeper said, Ill deal with this, but you have to accept a punch in the face, while if I shop you to the police you may have your hands cut off or be executed, you take the punch in the face even though its not lawful.

 

[steve1873]

Its simple arithmetic, cost of players outstanding contracts may have been 15m for example, its putting 15m into debtors, money saved would have been 4 or 5 million, its putting, that into creditors pot.

If creditors get 10 or even 15p in the pound, they would have gone more with the extra 4 or 5 million in wages that have gone into the pot even with the player contracts inflating the pool. As it stands, they will get 3p or less.

Cost of players outstanding wages £15million? I've already pointed out 1 player had outstanding wages of nearly £6million. Naismith is on slightly less, but wi still be approaching £5million. Davis has a 4 and a half year contract at over £30k per week. That is another £7million or thereabouts.

That is £18 million for THREE players. It would appear your 'simple' arithmetic is a little bit out Mark. By the time it is all added up, it wouldn't be a kick in the baws off £50million. Adding that to the creditors is going to help the existing creditors how?

 

[steve1873]

If you were caught stealing, and the shopkeeper said, Ill deal with this, but you have to accept a punch in the face, while if I shop you to the police you may have your hands cut off or be executed, you take the punch in the face even though its not lawful.

Are you serious?

 

[Metalface Mark]

Cost of players outstanding wages £15million? I've already pointed out 1 player had outstanding wages of nearly £6million. Naismith is on slightly less, but wi still be approaching £5million. Davis has a 4 and a half year contract at over £30k per week. That is another £7million or thereabouts.

That is £18 million for THREE players. It would appear your 'simple' arithmetic is a little bit out Mark. By the time it is all added up, it wouldn't be a kick in the baws off £50million. Adding that to the creditors is going to help the existing creditors how?

Even if it was 50m, if that freed up 5m wages over the administration it would pay for itself, less if they obviously sold some of the players.