Jump to content

Steve Diggle

Straight Question To The Board Of Mfc Re. Rangers Newco

  

147 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The NEWCO Be Allowed Back Into The SPL?



Recommended Posts

 

A march involving fans of Scottish Clubs (except one) would be great......I think (if properly organized) the turnout could be huge

 

I am surprised that there has not been one organised before now. If Rangers fans can organise a march to Hampden surely the other 11 can do likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that there are at least 2 other clubs monitoring the 'Newco' situation very closely with a view to going down the same road should the penalties be anything less than severe for Rangers.

 

Herts and Killie guaranteed!! Aberdeen mibbies a 3rd.

 

And Mad Vlad is just crazy enough to sue the crap out the SFA/SPL/etc when he puts Herts into a newco and they are booted to Div 3 immediately without any dragged on debate. That will result in UEFA/FIFA hammering us, Scotland are out of World Cup 2014 qualfying before it even begins, no Champions League adventure for us and the final nail in the coffin of Scottish football.

 

Wonder if this is being considered by the chairmen ready to vote YES accross the land?

 

Also, wonder if they are considering if TV money and a Rangers love fest are worth the negative attention and possible sanctions we will face as a nation from UEFA/FIFA?

 

Or maybe they are too narrow minded to see that way....or completely ignorant.

 

And that is the ultimate tragedy of our game. Take the money now we are dead in 5years. Take the financial hit now, and we will have a new dawn in 5years. One sacrifices the fundamentals of sport....the other encourages it. Either way, this decision will reflect on our game throughout the world. Do we become a symbol of integrity, or a laughing stock?! Precedents need to be set now. No one is too big to fail......CASE CLOSED!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mad vlad basically owes himself £25 million. for them to do a rangers he would be bumping his own bank. not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this guy since I read his comments yesterday and the more I read the more I'm wondering what his motives were?

 

According to the club he is a director but has had no dealing with the club for a few years. According to a poster on here he was appointed by JB and was/is an associate of his. Is it possible that the guy is not speaking his mind but is infact stating what JB might be saying privatly? - stranger thing have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mad vlad basically owes himself £25 million. for them to do a rangers he would be bumping his own bank. not happening.

 

But the bank is main creditor and he won't recoup his money by selling the club, but will through liquidation....sahfting everyone along the process in the same way Duff&Phelps basically get all of the money Green paid for the assets. Herts are a DEAD cert for newco IMO....would alough Mad Vlad to finally wash his hands of the club without taking the financial hit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this guy since I read his comments yesterday and the more I read the more I'm wondering what his motives were?

 

According to the club he is a director but has had no dealing with the club for a few years. According to a poster on here he was appointed by JB and was/is an associate of his. Is it possible that the guy is not speaking his mind but is infact stating what JB might be saying privatly? - stranger thing have happened.

yip that was my thoughts as soon as I figured out who Andrew Lapping was, he's definitely a JB man, I've no doubt it was a way of him getting his thoughts into the press to stir debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a rumour and remember it's just a "rumour" that Sky will pay up the full rights to the SPL without Rangers or THE Rangers for 1 season only . By my reckoning that means that possibly teams or the SFA may sanction relegation the the first division with a team taking their place possibly Dundee or Dunfermline.

 

This may be the reason why SFA are trying to push through quickly their idea of one football authority in Scotland rather than have the SFA and the SFL .

 

Remember I could be completely wrong as the source came from a relative of the Rangers kit man, so may not be reliable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pretty much kept my own counsel on this for a while, so here goes...

 

Firstly, as I understand it, the SPL has no provisions in place for a club going into liquidation. By voting no, do the other clubs risk finding themselves in a similar situation to the SFA with its transfer embargo by dishing out a punishment that's not in the rule and therefore one that RAngers can appeal?

 

That aside, the transfer of an SPL share to a new comnpany is another thing that puzzles me. It's my understanding that only the company has been liquidated and the team that is owned by the newco will still be Rangers. So in real terms, you're looking at punishing any team that changes hands here. For me, that means by voting no to a newco you're doing exactly what you're accusing "yes" voters of doing, treating football like a business rather than a sport. For me, to punish financial failings such as going into administration or liquidation, the punishments should be financial. I know UEFA bars clubs from European competition but frankly European football seems a money making exercise in general so maybe that is a financial punishment. To use the hot phrase, "sporting integrity" would seem to be preserved by not punishing the team for the sins of the parent company. If you see football as a sport rather than a business, that seems the way to go for me. Any proportionate financial penalties, would have the trickle down effect of punishing the team in a sporting sense anyway. Fact is that Rangers finished second last season. True, by not paying tax or other bills. My solution would be to fine any newco the equivalent of any unpaid bills (with interest), plus punitive damanges, with all money going to SFA youth development. Those should be the minimum punishments put it place. For me, a direct punishment on the field, for indiscretions off the field blurs the lines between sport and business, which is something we'd all like to avoid.

 

So for me, voting "no" to a newco goes against my principles...

 

BUT the investigation into double contracts must continue. If found guilty (something I find pretty likely), then for me this would be the real reason for kicking Rangers out of the SPL. Personally, I think people's focus is on the wrong area right now. A newco and the possibility of it being in or out of the SPL is simply window dressing. Tax dodging and no payment of bills happens off the field. The real issue that people should be focussing on and pushing for answers on is the the blatant cheating that is non-declaration of payments to players and staff. You can say that comes under the bracket of tax dodging but it is a breach of SFA rules and therefore can be dealt with by a football punishment.

 

So as controversial as it sounds, I'd vote yes for a newco with appropriate financial penalties. But if found guilty of paying players "off the books", then they souldbe drummed out of the SPL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bank is main creditor and he won't recoup his money by selling the club, but will through liquidation....sahfting everyone along the process in the same way Duff&Phelps basically get all of the money Green paid for the assets. Herts are a DEAD cert for newco IMO....would alough Mad Vlad to finally wash his hands of the club without taking the financial hit!

 

none of that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none of that makes any sense.

 

 

Mad Vlad is looking to sell Hearts. He has placed a £35m price tag on the club, taking into account the £25m overdraft with his bank and the £10m value he's placed on the assets. No one in a million years is going to pay that!! That £25m is pretty much lost.

 

It is reported Hearts have further debts of £12m and his bank has refused to increase the overdraft, leading to missed wages, etc.

 

Now, if he liquidates Hearts he can asset strip or set up a newco to another company he owes. Every penny received from sales, etc would go to his bank. Say all in through asset stripping, cuts and firesales, he generates £10m, that reduced the debt of the club to £15m. That £15m overdraft can be transferred to a newco at the discretion of the bank - his bank.

 

So basically Hearts come out the other side with a £15m overdraft, no other debts and Mad Vald has just clawed £10m back. The £12m owed to other creditors is binned. Also the running costs have reduced significantly allowing the newco to deal with the overdraft better and the Newco Hearts apply to get into the SPL. If they are refused after Rangers were allowed in, he will take them to court.

 

It also increases his chances of selling club, taking £10-12m and all money goes to his bank. £3m loss rather than £25m loss thanks to Newco route.

 

Just how I see it going....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pretty much kept my own counsel on this for a while, so here goes...

Sorry MB I was gonna try and respond but you have the issue so confused I've deleted it, i'll try a quick response

 

you answer your own query point 1 about SPL rules on liquidated company by mentioning share transfer so yes they have rules, normally a board vote but re-assigned within the rules to a members vote

 

and then you go a wandering but get to the point about tax evasion and EBTs

 

and you want Rangers punished for either or, so just to point out, they have only been put into liquidation for Tax evasion, no other reason, HMRC were the only objectors to the CVA as Rangers didn't pay tax since Murray left, even before the big case comes to a decision

 

as for sporting integrity, sport is a competitive, integrity keeps things equal, Rangers took at least £900k from us last season by not trading in the same market we did = cheated

 

I get your business is not sport sport is not business, but sadly professional sport is business and needs guiding principals to keep it from being corrupt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pretty much kept my own counsel on this for a while, so here goes...

 

Firstly, as I understand it, the SPL has no provisions in place for a club going into liquidation. By voting no, do the other clubs risk finding themselves in a similar situation to the SFA with its transfer embargo by dishing out a punishment that's not in the rule and therefore one that RAngers can appeal?

 

That aside, the transfer of an SPL share to a new comnpany is another thing that puzzles me. It's my understanding that only the company has been liquidated and the team that is owned by the newco will still be Rangers. So in real terms, you're looking at punishing any team that changes hands here. For me, that means by voting no to a newco you're doing exactly what you're accusing "yes" voters of doing, treating football like a business rather than a sport. For me, to punish financial failings such as going into administration or liquidation, the punishments should be financial. I know UEFA bars clubs from European competition but frankly European football seems a money making exercise in general so maybe that is a financial punishment. To use the hot phrase, "sporting integrity" would seem to be preserved by not punishing the team for the sins of the parent company. If you see football as a sport rather than a business, that seems the way to go for me. Any proportionate financial penalties, would have the trickle down effect of punishing the team in a sporting sense anyway. Fact is that Rangers finished second last season. True, by not paying tax or other bills. My solution would be to fine any newco the equivalent of any unpaid bills (with interest), plus punitive damanges, with all money going to SFA youth development. Those should be the minimum punishments put it place. For me, a direct punishment on the field, for indiscretions off the field blurs the lines between sport and business, which is something we'd all like to avoid.

 

So for me, voting "no" to a newco goes against my principles...

 

BUT the investigation into double contracts must continue. If found guilty (something I find pretty likely), then for me this would be the real reason for kicking Rangers out of the SPL. Personally, I think people's focus is on the wrong area right now. A newco and the possibility of it being in or out of the SPL is simply window dressing. Tax dodging and no payment of bills happens off the field. The real issue that people should be focussing on and pushing for answers on is the the blatant cheating that is non-declaration of payments to players and staff. You can say that comes under the bracket of tax dodging but it is a breach of SFA rules and therefore can be dealt with by a football punishment.

 

So as controversial as it sounds, I'd vote yes for a newco with appropriate financial penalties. But if found guilty of paying players "off the books", then they souldbe drummed out of the SPL...

No this is a new team under the Rangers banner that wants to be parachuted right to the SPL. The rule that bars them is one that says "A club has to me a member of their association for three years before being granted a UEFA licence." Therefore, it is not really a ban it just means they haven't qualified yet.

 

The vote that is going to take place is as a result of an application to the SPL by "The Rangers". If this was about punishment Rangers wouldn't have needed to "apply" would they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the days when both Rangers and Celtic were talking about leaving us behind and moving on to the Atlantic League or the EPL or wherever? Remember those days?

 

Where was the talk of Scottish football dying, television deals being retracted and general doomsday shenanigans then? I seem to remember the likes of Walter Smith, and many in the media, saying that such a thing is exactly what Scottish football needed. It would flourish without the Old Firm holding it back and so on.

 

That was us looking at losing both sides of the Old Firm, making the SPL less appealing to television companies than it would be without only Rangers.

 

Now things are different. Why?

 

I'll hazzard a guess here, and say that the reason the media have changed their tune is because the exit of Rangers from the SPL isn't going to provide them with nice trips to high profile grounds in the EPL or in Europe as it would have with the Atlantic league. There's no free lunches and paid holidays for the media where Rangers are going.

 

As for the likes of Walter Smith and other Rangers apologists, they've changed their tune simply because they're not going somewhere more attractive than the SPL.

 

The whole thing reeks of bullshit, all of it being thrown around by the exact same people who were championing an old firm exit to pastures new not that long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No this is a new team under the Rangers banner that wants to be parachuted right to the SPL. The rule that bars them is one that says "A club has to me a member of their association for three years before being granted a UEFA licence." Therefore, it is not really a ban it just means they haven't qualified yet.

 

The vote that is going to take place is as a result of an application to the SPL by "The Rangers". If this was about punishment Rangers wouldn't have needed to "apply" would they?

I was under the impression that "The Rangers Plc" was just the company nume under which Rangers FC would now be playing. Still doesn't change anything for me. On a footballing basis, I'd have them in there unless they were found to be cheating in a sporting sense. For me that means they retain their SPL status unless they're found guilty of paying players off the books...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mad Vlad is looking to sell Hearts. He has placed a £35m price tag on the club, taking into account the £25m overdraft with his bank and the £10m value he's placed on the assets. No one in a million years is going to pay that!! That £25m is pretty much lost.

 

It is reported Hearts have further debts of £12m and his bank has refused to increase the overdraft, leading to missed wages, etc.

 

Now, if he liquidates Hearts he can asset strip or set up a newco to another company he owes. Every penny received from sales, etc would go to his bank. Say all in through asset stripping, cuts and firesales, he generates £10m, that reduced the debt of the club to £15m. That £15m overdraft can be transferred to a newco at the discretion of the bank - his bank.

 

So basically Hearts come out the other side with a £15m overdraft, no other debts and Mad Vald has just clawed £10m back. The £12m owed to other creditors is binned. Also the running costs have reduced significantly allowing the newco to deal with the overdraft better and the Newco Hearts apply to get into the SPL. If they are refused after Rangers were allowed in, he will take them to court.

 

Just how I see it going....

 

they only owe money to his bank as far as i'm aware. no one else is crazy enough to lend to them. the real figure of what he has spent on hearts is nearer £40m but he has wrote a lot of it off already.

 

you can't transfer debt to a newco, that would definitely be illegal.

 

right now vlad has all the debt and complete control of the club. there is no advantage for him in them going into admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that "The Rangers Plc" was just the company nume under which Rangers FC would now be playing. Still doesn't change anything for me. On a footballing basis, I'd have them in there unless they were found to be cheating in a sporting sense. For me that means they retain their SPL status unless they're found guilty of paying players off the books...

That's what Mr Green would have you believe but to FIFA and the SFA they are just a new team who need to be an SFA member for 3 years before they can be granted a UEFA licence.

 

Do you realy think allowing them straight to the top league is fair on all the other teams around them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what Mr Green would have you believe but to FIFA and the SFA they are just a new team who need to be an SFA member for 3 years before they can be granted a UEFA licence.

 

Do you realy think allowing them straight to the top league is fair on all the other teams around them?

Do you really think that because it's a new team on paper, that you should disregard the fact that they're playing in the same stadium wearing the same colours and have some of the same players? In a "sporting" sense rather than a "business" sense, it's still the same team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are a new team and should follow the same processes as all other teams wishing entry in league football. The same route as Annan, Peterhead, etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legally the company operates the football club. they aren't the same thing.

 

from court of session document

 

 

 

[1] This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that because it's a new team on paper, that you should disregard the fact that they're playing in the same stadium wearing the same colours and have some of the same players? In a "sporting" sense rather than a "business" sense, it's still the same team...

 

 

Put it this way....it's the same thing that happened to Airdrie, Livingston and Gretna. All the clubs went bust for not paying their bills. With Rangers its not paying tax. Football are businesses. Anything involving people paying for something (their match ticket on Saturday, etc) requires the club to pay tax. Any wages that a club payout require payment of PAYE. Rangers did not do this. Livingston went belly up and got sent to Div 3. Gretna went bust and were refused permission to join Div 3 and are now a junior club. Airdrie were refused entry to div 3, so bought out Clydebank, rebranded and relocated them, and went into Div. 3.

 

Why should Rangers be any diffrent?! Arguably more guilty considering their budgets, etc. And if you never paid your tax you would go to jail, so why should they get off lightly?! By not paying their bills when the other SPL clubs are, this is blantant breach of rules both in football terms and business terms.

 

And there is serious questions as to wether the Newco can be held responsible for the old Rangers transgressions. Therefore, sanctions from a ruling on illegal dual contracts under the EBT scheme may not be applied to the Newco. The Rangers you know went bust. Another company was set up and they bought the stadium and other assets and will register under a name similar to Rangers.

 

To many, they will be the same old Rangers. But this is an entirely new company, and therefore an entirely new club. Their history has died with the old Rangers. No trophies, no records, nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that "The Rangers Plc" was just the company nume under which Rangers FC would now be playing. Still doesn't change anything for me. On a footballing basis, I'd have them in there unless they were found to be cheating in a sporting sense. For me that means they retain their SPL status unless they're found guilty of paying players off the books...

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Rangers FC do not exist... the company that owned them has been liquidated and as such they have no players contracted to them and their assets have been sold to 'The Rangers' for £5.5 million. Now the issue is that 'The Rangers' want to form a football club and have applied to play in the SPL... something that has never been heard of before. That's my understanding anyway but what I'm not sure of is how there can possibly be a Rangers vote included when the clubs meet if they do not currently exist?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Rangers FC do not exist... the company that owned them has been liquidated and as such they have no players contracted to them and their assets have been sold to 'The Rangers' for £5.5 million.

 

they do exist.

 

they are still sfa members and still hold an spl share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way....it's the same thing that happened to Airdrie, Livingston and Gretna. All the clubs went bust for not paying their bills. With Rangers its not paying tax. Football are businesses. Anything involving people paying for something (their match ticket on Saturday, etc) requires the club to pay tax. Any wages that a club payout require payment of PAYE. Rangers did not do this. Livingston went belly up and got sent to Div 3. Gretna went bust and were refused permission to join Div 3 and are now a junior club. Airdrie were refused entry to div 3, so bought out Clydebank, rebranded and relocated them, and went into Div. 3.

 

Why should Rangers be any diffrent?! Arguably more guilty considering their budgets, etc. And if you never paid your tax you would go to jail, so why should they get off lightly?! By not paying their bills when the other SPL clubs are, this is blantant breach of rules both in football terms and business terms.

 

And there is serious questions as to wether the Newco can be held responsible for the old Rangers transgressions. Therefore, sanctions from a ruling on illegal dual contracts under the EBT scheme may not be applied to the Newco. The Rangers you know went bust. Another company was set up and they bought the stadium and other assets and will register under a name similar to Rangers.

 

To many, they will be the same old Rangers. But this is an entirely new company, and therefore an entirely new club. Their history has died with the old Rangers. No trophies, no records, nothing.

Should it have happened to Airdrie, Gretna and Livingston though? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

For me, they're still the same team. Legally, maybe not. But in a sporting sense, it's still the same team. To deny it, is just laughable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KInd of the point I wasmaking, but to call them a new team strikes me as being pedantic for the sake of arguing against a newco Rangers...

 

ages ago we were debating about what actually constitutes a football club. i still think that association membership is thing that counts so as long as you keep continuous membership then you're the same club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×