The potential scenario of a Scottish Premier League club going out of business, becoming an ex-club, has played out in several places since we discussed it last month. As a result, we have all had an opportunity to establish our views on the matter, what would and would not be an acceptable reaction by the league and SFA.
The first ‘insolvency event’ of a failing club is likely to be the appointment of an administrator to protect the company from immediate creditors. This would draw a 10 point penalty. The choice of the administrator for a football club could be a controversial subject, especially if some creditors stand to lose a considerable amount of money through any rushed deal. For example, although Rangers have a considerable potential liability to HMRC hanging over them, their creditors might feel that a period of administration stretching several years into the future would enable all debts to be paid in full, a position not all administrators would necessarily agree with.
It’s normal for directors to appoint an administrator prior to a creditor getting to court but if creditors don’t feel the appointment is likely to serve their best interests they can apply to appoint their own. These battles can get acrimonious.
In the days after an administrator is appointed the club may not be in a position to fulfil its fixtures. When Gretna’s administrator informed the Scottish Football League they could not guarantee they would be able to fulfil the following season’s fixtures the league relegated them two divisions, to the bottom rung of the league structure. This proved to be a temporary position before the administrator admitted defeat and folded the company. Precedent suggests we should look out for a double relegation if a club in administration has to tell the league they cannot fulfil fixtures.
There is no point waiting until a well-organised administrator presents a fait accompli to the league before we look for precedents and debate an appropriate response. For the integrity of the Scottish game, football fans need to be ready for this debate. Where possibly, colours should be pinned to the mast.
One outcome of the online debate in the last couple of days (thanks to untiring work of our friend Phil) is that Celtic were forced to consider this question. I sought and received assurances that they will not vote to admonish owners of an ex-football club with a paltry point penalty, allowing them to reform as though nothing happened the following season.
The question is still-hypothetical, so clubs are not in a position to comment officially yet, but we are in a healthier position for the debate and should encourage high profile supporters of other clubs to engage the debate as some from our own club have recently.
Fans Against Criminalisation are holding a pubic meeting on Saturday, 12 November, at Whitehill Secondary School, 280 Onslow Drive, Denniston, with Michael McMahon, MSP, among others, speaking. Try to make it along to support this important initiative before you are criminalised by a combination of stealth and apathy.
779 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 21
- »
I am somewhat loathe to offer my view on Celtic’s position in the event of an ex-club seeking reinstatement.
However, vanity wins, so here goes.
The only logical reason for Phil’s article is that it was a sounding board and an opportunity for the club to unoffically state it’s position.
As I stated recently, as have many others, the only case that can be argued is the same one as Extensiongate; i.e., the integrity of the competition and adherence to the rules.
If that principle is compromised, then, over to UEFA.
We must assume that this situation has been exercising the minds of the Club’s PLC Board; men who didn’t get where they are today,etc.
Vinny
I just mailed you on FB mate.
ernie lynch says:
10 November, 2011 at 13:09
I don’t think the catholic church got anything at all from Salmond at that last meeting bar a couple of photos.
La grahame’s fingerprints are all over the present Bill and – if everyone plays their cards right – there may be an open goal for those of us wishing to Kill the Bill.
Very interesting is Hendrie’s assertion that it’s the police who are driving this policy. Right from the start it was orchestrated. Within hours of one another first Les of the Federation, then House of Strathclyde then ‘where’s the camera’ Corrigan all demanded punitive action. Lest we forget, the police are there to enforce the law not to make it. And it’s also noteworthy that the game which provoked all the hysteria was marked by an absence of crowd trouble.
Vhman,
If you can get Breaking Bad you will be amazed. No show on tv has gripped me like that. Absolutely outstanding!
“the end justifies the extreme”
SFFS
Fortunes Favour Mibbes says:
10 November, 2011 at 14:25
philvisreturns @ 14:24
What else are you blaming on the boogie??
——————————–
sunshine, moonlight, moonbeams???
Allyhuntersgloves says:
10 November, 2011 at 14:11
Celtic4me gone on then tell us how it’s inaccurate
we dont all know, he doesnt own 23% and he doesnt have total control.
Quite frightening, your last few words, Paul67. Do you really think things have come to such a pass?
jimmybhoycampbell @ 14:38
:) If the most recent web rumours are true, it will be Moonbeams to thank for us all boogying tomorrow night.
I posted this (below) elsewhere yesterday, and I still think that this should be the minimum penalty applied to Tax Dodgers FC…
In my opinion, if Rangers have gained a competitive advantage as a result of having far more money to spend on player acquisition and remuneration, only because they were not paying the proper taxes, then any punishment should apply to each and every season in which financial irregularities occurred.
As Rangers’ five league titles since 2001 were won by a combined total of just 12 points (with the biggest margin being 6 points), a 10 point penalty per season would effectively nullify every one of those five titles and see Celtic now competing for a 12th consecutive league title win.
We all know this will never happen, but wouldn’t it be nice if it did?!
Collusion, Collaboration and Competition are natural for any competitors/incumbents in any walk of life. Context decides which approach is used. Anyone who has seen “too big to fail” will see parallels and have a template for how this is currently and will play out.
When Dubai imploded, Abu Dhabi scolded the profligate prodigal brother – financially taking a huge chunk of value from the national airline (Emirates) and ensured that the “tallest building” was named after an Abu Dhabi Emir and not a Dubai one (Khalifa – huge symbolic victory).
Rotten to the core FC will survive in one form or another.
If Celtic are strategic about this they will seek multi-year measures against them (eg, multi-year points penalties, multi-year block on participation in European competition etc) and the big symbolic – remove the ridiculous five stars from their strips and all official references to “Scotland’s most successful team”
Strike a competitive (commercial and symbolic) blow from which they should never fully return…..
….all this and get our own house in order for the short and long term – including structure change that will see us leave them behind once and for all.
Sopranos
The Wire
Mad Men
Breaking Bad
Treme —-
Each to their own but I would add this to that list —
Sons Of Anarchy.
Paul67 et al
I cannot be the only one on here who has noticed the unusual spelling of the name Graham, in the case of MSP Christine Grahame. Is it an attempt perchance to distance herself from the Scottish clan of the same name or is there another, more innocent explanation? Question, where did she get that extra ‘e’?
gcctim says:
10 November, 2011 at 14:47
.all this and get our own house in order for the short and long term – including structure change that will see us leave them behind once and for all.
————
hear, hear
Celtic Mac says:
10 November, 2011 at 14:50
MSP Christine Grahame and Barry Lavety have one too many E’s
P
YouhearditherefirstCSC
2010 Never Again
Any Celtic shareholders on at the moment? If so, which shareholders at the Club get a guaranteed annual return and at what percentage? Cheers
Aussies bowled out for 47 by SA. Strewth!
The Pantaloon Duck says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:04
were lucky to get 47 as they were 22-9.
Imatim and so is Neil Lennon says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:00
2010 Never Again
Any Celtic shareholders on at the moment? If so, which shareholders at the Club get a guaranteed annual return and at what percentage? Cheers
Think its preference shares that pay a divided, i only have ordinary.
Preference will be owned by DD PL Mon etc
p
playfusbal
You may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment!
Another great box set to add to the impressive box set is “justified”. Just finished series 2 .. Excellent
Where’s “Treme” showing (Steve Earle fan here)
celtic40me, ally hunter’s gloves,
excuse me for interuppting your disagreement, but you are both right, to a certain extent.
DD owns 36% of the ordinary shares, and 30.5% of the non voting preference shares. he also owns 57% of the convertible preference shares, which I understand carry a vote – (anyone clarify ?) He can convert his cp shares to ordinary shares at a rate of 2 for 1.
He owns around 40% of the voting rights, so celtic40me, you are right, he doesn’t own the amount ally hunter’s gloves stated.
ally hunter’s gloves, your sentiments are still right, DD is not the majority shareholder yet he is the key decision maker at the club. Comments made by the former chairman and our current manager back that up. Is it too much to ask that he attend the AGM to explain some of those decisions to us ?
playfusbal4dguilders says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:07
The Pantaloon Duck says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:04
were lucky to get 47 as they were 22-9.
Imatim and so is Neil Lennon says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:00
2010 Never Again
Any Celtic shareholders on at the moment? If so, which shareholders at the Club get a guaranteed annual return and at what percentage? Cheers
Think its preference shares that pay a divided, i only have ordinary.
Preference will be owned by DD PL Mon etc
p
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2010 Never Again
Thanks. I’ve got 5100 ordinary shares…….and I was told Dermot Desmond gets a 6% annual return on his shares and I’m just wondering if that’s true.
South Of Tunis says:
10 November, 2011 at 14:48
I’ll back you up on SoA – got the S3 finale to watch this week. Can’t wait but unfortunately my wife’s out for the next two night. I’m chomping at the bit.
Here is my initial response to the BBC Trust letters:
Dear, Ms Tristram, I am not satisfied that my appeal has been properly considered and responded to due to that fact that specific points I raised have not been addressed and instead I have received a “consolidated appeal” response.
This response, as well as omitting points in my appeal, deals with matters that were put to the Trust by some of the other 26 appellants that do not form part of my appeal.
I am strongly of the view that according to your guidelines and the BBC Trust Charter and principles the serious complaints of twenty seven people should have been addressed individually.
I would be obliged if you would advise me of who I should raise my objections with?
Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance.
Yours sincerely, Big Nan.
C.c. MP
Imatim and so is Neil Lennon says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:15
My “family” have twice as many as you and we’ve got squat in 10 years.
Whilst understanding our own righteous indignation at what Rangers operation of EBT’s may have cost Celtic in terms of revenue and league titles I am not convinced that fans of other clubs will really care too much. Certainly I don’t believe they will care enough to provoke or organise opposition to any plan for a new Rangers to enter the SPL as soon as possible. The focus of the majority I do believe will be on how can they restore things to the norm they understand.
Some Celtic supporters think that the Celtic Bored are
working for Celtic and not themselves. They’re wrong.
Some Celtic supporters think that Scottish Independence
without a Serbian type Hun backlash on the Scottish
Catholic community is nonsense.They’re wrong.
Some Celtic supporters think the Tories are a peoples party
and not a corporate front. They’re wrong.
Some Celtic supporters think that the SFA and SPL are actually
going to do something about the Huns. They’re wrong
…errr naw Um urny!
Thindimebhoy says:
10 November, 2011 at 13:39
Thanks for that post.
Illuminating!
playfusbal4dguilders says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:07
22-9? Help ma Boab!
Breaking Bad – fantastic tv. just nearing the end of season 2 for me at the moment. Turned my mate in Tramore onto it. He thought it was so good he finished the entire series in 3 weeks.
Big Nan says:
Youv’e got in one.
Politicians are drawn like moths to flames by the ‘have to be seen to do something syndrome’.
In this particular case, the syndrome was driven by the BBC, just as it does with ‘Strictly’ kicking the nuts out of the McCoist/ Lennon confrontation.
I read somewhere that Neil has said that if Celtic win the league, he will reveal exactly what the Cheekie Chappie said.
Ex Ludo says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:13
Where’s “Treme” showing (Steve Earle fan here)
Showing on Sky Arts 1 – season 2 well under way. usual suspects like Quicksilverscreen will be streaming it.
I love it – its like Glee but for Jazz heads!
Imatim and so is Neil Lennon at 15:15
According to the accounts:
A 6% (before tax credit deduction) non-equity dividend of £0.54m (2009: £0.54m) is payable on 31 August 2010 to those holders of
Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares on the share register at 30 July 2010.
Demot Desmond has 5,131,300 of these shares.
Mort
Imatim
Preference shareholders get a 6% dividend on their shareholding. DD owns 5131300 of these, so he is entitled to £307,878 each year.
DD also holds 8000000 convertible preferred ordinary shares, up until August 2007 these paid a guaranteed dividend of 4%, additional 2% if we got to the last 16 in Europe. These can now be converted to ordinary voting shares.
Hope this helps.
Stoooooo pid
A chief inspector with the Metropolitan Police has been sacked after boasting of drug-taking and wearing his uniform in an online dating advert.
The officer, who was based in central London, was dismissed for gross misconduct after a two-day hearing.
An earlier investigation by Kent Police did not find enough evidence to press criminal charges.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission was also involved in the inquiry.
Margaret McGill says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:22
Imatim and so is Neil Lennon says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:15
My “family” have twice as many as you and we’ve got squat in 10 years.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2010 Never Again
Celtic shares are an emotional investment in Celtic as I’m sure you know. I was just wondering why certain people get an annual return on their shares and the rest of us don’t.
I’m not looking for a return by the way……..I just wanted someone to explain to me why some do and some don’t.
Ex Ludo says:
10 November, 2011 at 15:13
Where’s “Treme” showing (Steve Earle fan here)
I told you this last week,don’t bother watching,Steve has been shot.
TPD
From earlier the goodest looking one.