Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The end of Rangers?



severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
Their appeal against the transfer ban has been upheld today

The SFA are not moving from their firm stance against Rangers

The SFA have come out with their decisions over the appeal by Rangers. I don't think I need to add anything to their words.

The Appellate Tribunal will give its full reasons in writing in early course. However, in summary, it considers that:

1. It was competent for Disciplinary Tribunal to impose the additional sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or older for a period of 12 months.

2. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT - was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA.

3. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct also in holding that the maximum fine available for this breach was £100,000, and on its own was inadequate as a punishment for this misconduct. It was therefore correct to select an additional sanction.

4. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion.

5. Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute. In particular, the Appellate Tribunal recognises that the Disciplinary Tribunal decision does not affect Rangers’ ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs. The Appellate Tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category.

Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal
 








BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Does that mean to us laymen that the buyer will get Rangers FC and all of its assets including Ibrox Park for £5.5m which is what it is going to pay back to the creditors.
 


HawkTheSeagull

New member
Jan 31, 2012
9,122
Eastbourne
I wouldnt say the club is finished - the guy who wants to buy the club wants to buy the assets which will be sold to cover the debt. Whether the club will be allowed to rejoin the SPL will be down to the other clubs.
 




Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
How much money would save them?
 


Badger

NOT the Honey Badger
NSC Patron
May 8, 2007
12,794
Toronto
Perhaps Celtic should get docked 20 points in order to make the MTL competitive.
 


deletebeepbeepbeep

Well-known member
May 12, 2009
20,970
I hope they make them start at the bottom but no doubt theyll make up some shit that would let them start back in the SPL.
 






cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,109
La Rochelle
Does that mean to us laymen that the buyer will get Rangers FC and all of its assets including Ibrox Park for £5.5m which is what it is going to pay back to the creditors.

As I understand it, £2 million is by an unknown Asian investor, £2 million by a 'known', but as yet un-named investor and £1.5million by Charles Greens consortium. I presume that Duff & Phelps costs (well into 7 figures) will also be deducted from this figure.

How someone ( Charles Green, former Chairman of Sheffield United) can be thought to have Rangers interests at heart with such little investment is beyond me.
 


cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,109
La Rochelle
Why should HMRC take 9p in the pound? If I owe one pound I am expected to pay back one pound. why should Rangers or any other business be any different?

I believe the 9p in the pound offer was dependant on favourable decisions bythe HMRC on Rangers 'big' tax case.....which are never going to happen.
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Surely if this consortium buy Rangers they would buy it in its entirety that is, club, ground and registration so how does their continuance in the SPL come into question. If HMRC reject the CVA as has been suggested it would just be another company that has gone into liquidation and they would get nothing whatsoever but the new owners will carry on as was, starting from fresh. Sports Direct have done this about 3 times closed one night and started up the next day as a new business in the same premises and with the same stock just a different company name et6c.
 
Last edited:




Tony Towner's Fridge

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2003
5,384
GLASGOW,SCOTLAND,UK
Looks like a simple case of either

1)The SPL clubs vote to keep Newco Rangers in the SPL

or

2) they don't

in which case Newco Rangers will either

3)Apply to join the English Football League (Div 2)

or


4)Apply to join the Scottish Football League (Div 3?)


Interesting

TNBA
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Because they would be formed into a "new" company, just using the "old" companies assets.


Sorry I cannot see this there have been many buy outs in football and the clubs dont have to re-apply for membership etc. eg Leeds when Bates bought them, Chelsea when Bates sold them to Abramovich, Cardiff recently, MK Dons amongst many. When somebody buys a club they also buy their FA/SFA/WFA registration. What about AFC Bournemouth who was originally Bournemouth and Boscombe FC and nearer home how many times has Portsmouth changed hands and been formed as a new company ownership.
 


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
still hopeful that the SFA will respond to being taken to a civil court over their "unlawful" transfer ban and apply instead a fully lawful suspension from playing for one season. I am getting fed up with people saying "it wasn't the club it was the owners" whther it's Rangers or Portsmouth or whoever. Who are the owners if not the club? They acted unlawfully and gained massive sporting advantage as a result. It is only sporting that they should be punished accordingly
 
Last edited:


HawkTheSeagull

New member
Jan 31, 2012
9,122
Eastbourne
Sorry I cannot see this there have been many buy outs in football and the clubs dont have to re-apply for membership etc. eg Leeds when Bates bought them, Chelsea when Bates sold them to Abramovich, Cardiff recently, MK Dons amongst many. When somebody buys a club they also buy their FA/SFA/WFA registration. What about AFC Bournemouth who was originally Bournemouth and Boscombe FC and nearer home how many times has Portsmouth changed hands and been formed as a new company ownership.

At a guess they will be going through liquidation - but everything will be bought by the same person, who will start the club up again as a new company - so near enough the same.

This does make you wonder why this hasnt actually happened to Pompey yet ???
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,434
Chandlers Ford
Sorry I cannot see this there have been many buy outs in football and the clubs dont have to re-apply for membership etc. eg Leeds when Bates bought them, Chelsea when Bates sold them to Abramovich, Cardiff recently, MK Dons amongst many. When somebody buys a club they also buy their FA/SFA/WFA registration. What about AFC Bournemouth who was originally Bournemouth and Boscombe FC and nearer home how many times has Portsmouth changed hands and been formed as a new company ownership.

These were not liquidations, though.
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
still hopeful that the SFA will respond to being taken to a civil court over their "unlawful" transfer ban and apply instead a fully lawful suspension from playing for one season. I am getting fed up with people saying "it wasn't the club it was the owners" whther it's Rangers or Portsmouth or whoever. Who are the owners if not the club? They acted unlawfully and gained massive sporting advantage as a result. It is only sporting that they should be punished accordingly

I agree but cannot begin to think that anybody would pay £5.5m for Rangers unless there was a guarantee that they would continue in the SPL. If they have to start all over again like AFC Wimbledon better off paying nothing and then restarting a club at base roots.
 


The Rivet

Well-known member
Aug 9, 2011
4,512
HMRC & Rangers.....

If HMRC succesfully halts the suggestion of a cva for rangers then obviously Rangers PLC would be liquadated. Do the good people of NSC think the NEW club should be allowed to play immediately in the SPL? or should they be demoted to the lowest tier as if they were a 'new' club and be made to climb the ladder anew?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here