Positions are already being adopted for the anticipated Scottish Premier League vote on whether or not to vote a Rangers Newco FC into the SPL in the event Rangers go out of business in the coming weeks. Financial self-interest may determine how votes are cast. First to show on leaving the SPL meeting yesterday was Dunfermline chairman, John Yorkston, who shopped short of saying he objected to Rangers Newco being invited into the league, but did say: “As we speak today, if [Rangers] come out of administration I personally feel it’s a clean slate job. If it’s liquidation, it’s a completely different kettle of fish.”
Dunfermline, of course, are hot favourites to be relegated from the SPL this season but if a club above them failed to pay their taxes and went out of business the Fife club would remain in the SPL. Even John Yorkston would find voting Rangers Newco into the league instead of his own team would be “an awkward one”.
Put the moral argument aside. Forget about the consequences of setting an irresponsible precedent, hard cash might be enough to have Dunfermline join Celtic and vote against Rangers Newco. The Dunfermline fans would surely never forgive their board for voting themselves to be relegated?
Issue six of CQN Magazine, the Fit and Proper edition, is set to become a landmark collectors item. You can browse the magazine online here but you can buy your own hard copy by clicking on the link below. Read with 20-20 vision…..
You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
179 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- »
See this pie in the Sky TV contract.
Would Rupert, given this efforts to try to clean up his damaged reputation due to his association with serial wrongdoing at Wapping,really want to be seen to be trying to help a Club and a league that are themselves up to their knees in wrongdoing?
Does he really need that sort of additional hassle?
Is Whytey still in his five star rubber room?
Look out for the padded walls in the background in the next interview…
KevJungle -“…no seats in the Jungle…” on 6 March, 2012 at 10:41 said:
Naw yer barking
up the same tree as usual.
Kidding mate, couldnae resist the word play.
The TV contract does not bind any decision, but potential loss of TV money will be an influencing factor.
Testing
Job waiting for Bocanegra
THE EXILED TIM on 6 March, 2012 at 10:32 said:
I’m pretty confident UEFA would have to step in as such a vote breaches their sporting integrity values.
Termination Tuesday anyone?
Or just Groundhog Day again?
KevJ….,
Pretty sure the TV deal was exposed as having no link to OF games
Rangers (in constipation) . Well, there has been a distinct lack of movement since Daff & Duffer arrived.
jj
Chris Sutton called it well.
R*angers were aided and abeted by that shower on the day they rolled over for them.
It would be nice for that title from the Seville season,to be returned to it’s rightful winners.
Also Tommy’s title,should be handed over.
Blatant cheating.
The TV contract will doubtless be worth less without a Glasgow derby.
What’s the alternative? To allow cheats who cheat their way to cheated titles to continue as though they weren’t cheats who cheat?
Either the SPL accepts the TV contract is worth less or the whole game is a bogey.
Does anyone really think that fans don’t care about the “interruption” of a clubs history that takes place at liquidation?
I heard Andy Walker say this a few weeks ago. He said a newco would still have 54…53…52…and a Cup Winners Cup accredited to them…no they won’t!
We would NEVER let them forget it! It would be a major thorn in the huns side for as long as they exist…so yes it does matter!
BIGbones8867 on 6 March, 2012 at 10:21 said:
Well,you learn something new every day,and they are shrouded
in obscurity.
hail hail
For the Celtic family in America.. I feel US justice dept would handle the Rangers situation differently??
I think their attitude to fraud , post bearings bank and maddoff, to name two scandals..would/ could lead to some interesting court proceedings?
Just a thought…
STEPHENPOLLOCK 1027
Long-held opinion of mine that the FSA,or whatever they are now called,should be investigating a wilful fraud perpetrated by one publicly-quoted company against another,as they would in any other line of business.
UEFA should be made aware of what has gone on in Scotland regarding cheating
UEFA
Route de Genève 46
Case postale
CH-1260 Nyon 2
Switzerland
KevJungle -“…no seats in the Jungle…” on 6 March, 2012 at 10:41 said:
Paul 67
Have the SPL clubs, ALL of the SPL clubs, already voted Newco into the league by agreeing the TV deal ?
SPL CEO said yesterday,
“Doncaster, though, believes that the extended contract with their broadcast partners (which is due to last until 2017) will not be affected if Rangers are not in the top flight.
“The current contract, which comes to an end this season, says Rangers and Celtic must play each other four times a season,” he said. “That’s in line with most of our large contracts – our title sponsors are the same. That’s no different from any other league with its biggest clubs.
“What will be in the next contract from the summer to be seen. You do a deal originally in a short-form agreement and then the long-form agreement follows that later on.
“That’s in process at the moment. What will happen in the future? I never predict anything in football.”
I still think the best outcome for Celtic is that Rangers survive (mind you I dont think it will happen) and that there is a payment plan drawn up by HMRC for them to pay all outstanding tax owed over say a 15 to 25 year period.That would ensure they were punished and the HMRC would get there money and Rangers would be severaly handicapped each season because of the repayments.H.H
The choice would be simple – if a newco is voted in then Celtic are out.
Guess which club has the spending power to buy players from your team to even out prop up your balance sheet.
Gordon J
Are you suggesting that we boycott any clubs who cant get by without rangers, ie if they vote for the huns money (above any sporting principle) they don’t get our money.
Cos I am if you’re not
Probably getting a bit ahead of myself again, but, if any club votes for the “I used to be RFC but now I’m okay newco” then we should do our damnedest to deter them
The Redtops proclaimed on Sunday something like
Huns get 50,000 fans, while the rest of the SPL get 20,000 together, and this is why the SPL needs the huns. I wonder if it occurred to him many of the SPL teams (if any) benefitted from the size of rangers crowd.
You know I previously believed that the Scottish journos were bigots, but increasingly I tend to think they are just eejits.
Why does listening to UB40s 1 in 10 up full blast make you want to go out & start a revolution! Molotov cocktails for breakfast…
They really don’t get it do they ? Hun attitude summed up in one sentence on a thread about possible stripping of titles on FF.
The players we had registered were the best and were able to win the league, who gives a fck how we paid them. You wouldn’t be hearing about this had we finished second in the league all these years.
The spl needs them. The sky deal depends on them. Ffs, what kind of argument is that when considering their crimes? Seriously, would that argument be touted in any other civilised country in the world?. They MUST be treated in the same way as an albion rovers, brechin or celtic would be treated. Is there one, just one credible journalist, tv or radio presenter prepared to stand up for all that is fair just and morale? Hunbelievable.
I’m Neil Lennon (tamrabam) on 6 March, 2012 at 10:53 said
…” You know I previously believed that the Scottish journos were bigots, but increasingly I tend to think they are just eejits.”
Unfortunately they are the worst possible combination of both. The collective noun for bigoted eejits is variable but among the accepted terms are a ‘Leckie’ and a ‘Traynor’.
Sixteen roads to Golgotha on 6 March, 2012 at 10:49 said:
Regardless of other play contract issues the 2003 and 2005 titles have to be reversed as the sporting advantage gained by them should, by the same sporting advantage principle behind a 10 points deduction for administration, attract a 10 point deduction.
The key matter is sporting advantage gained by illegal means and that applies to 2003 and 2005 for sure (if EBTs were misused).
We should plan a sombrero day at CP to celebrate 2003 and wee helicopers with greenn white ribbons for 2005.
pggtips2 @ 10:43,
Another thing with Leeds, didn’t they sell off their trianing ground and Stadium? They now lease Elland Road, it’s going to be sometime before they find out who Ibrox & Murray Park belong to.
Kitalba, I was chatting about the payment to Dunfermline yesterday. As far as I know there is no preferred payment status for football clubs, therefore if you were a creditor who ultimately may get 10p in the pound it would be correct to ask why Dunfermline get more and what would the impact have been if the payment was distributed across the total debt…… it might be that you get 10.00000000001p in the pound :)
Without being too exact, and just roughly assuming an 8 hour day (probably more) and a 5 day week (probably more) at £600 an hour I reckon Duff and duffer have earned between 75k and 100k since they took over on St Valentines day. They know they will liquidate. the longer they drag it out the more they make. Simples.
Latest betting on who will be first with a decision
1/3 Scottish referendum
9/4 Dignity redundancies
Boys came across this at hun rumour site.
06 Mar 2012 10:18:05
Guys, I have just typed this all in after reading it in the ET this morning. It’s not online yet.
I think you’ll find this will smash to bits any SPL investigations and other bloodlust for us to be stripped of titles etc..
Players were NEVER paid through EBT’s. Money went to the trusts, and were then drawn down as loans.
The agreements are NON-CONTRACTUAL.
These two experts are clearing up why the SPL did not need to be informed.
Get this emailed to Regan, Doncaster and all the rest of the people involved in this.
We need to start our own fightback.
EDIT: Full version from Herald now – this investigation from the SPL is a total joke.
By HUGH MacDONALD
Grey area which has become a lot darker . . .
When is a written agreement not a contract?
The answer may be: when it is an employee benefits trust.
The SPL last night announced it would investigate Rangers over its use of EBTs. It cited the following:
”SPL rules D9.3 and D1.13 impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football or participating in an activity connected with football except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL and require that all such contracts are submitted to the SPL within 14 days of being entered into.”
There is, according to experts, a valid case to be argued that EBTs do not constitute a contract. Richard Cramer, a lawyer with FrontRow Legal, a firm that specialises in sports business, believes the discretionary nature of payments under trust rules is the opposite of the normal understanding of a contract.
”Rangers could argue to any inquiry that the EBTs are a private matter between club and player because they involve a discretionary payment. They could say to the league: ”Why should we inform you of discretionary payments that do not fall under the umbrella of a normal contract?” He added: ”For example, with EBTs there is no contractual enforcement right. You are relying on the goodwill of your employer and you could advance the argument that if there was no contractual obligation to pay money then there is no binding contract.”
Cramer said: ”EBTs have always been a little bit scary from a player’s point of view precisely because it is a discretionary payment. What the player is relying on is the ability of the owner or company to honour the agreement. It is always a risk but it once may have been a risk worth taking.”He added, though, that this was not the case now. ”The taxman has put the frighteners on the clubs,” he said.
However, he believed there was room for Rangers to manoeuvre with the SPL.
”There is an argument that the club could simply say that all EBTs fall outside the normal definition of contract,” he said.Graeme Nuttall, recently appointed independent adviser on employee ownership to the government and an expert on EBTs, said payments made under the scheme were ”not a contractual right”.
”There is no obligation to pay the employee a certain amount of money,” he said. ”Typically, there would be an expression that you were part of a bonus plan and that would be paid into an employee trust. So it is not a contractual right for the player to receive a sum of money.”He conceded, however, there would be documentation on both sides.
”The player would receive some documentation and there would also be a trust deed,” he said. ”There could even be a document creating a sub-trust. You would expect letters of instruction from the club. The trustees would have issued guidance that is not strictly legally binding. It all works on a trust basis.”Nuttall, a partner for Field Fisher Waterhouse, a leading law firm, was keen to emphasise that employee trusts had useful benefits for the community,
”Employee trusts are essential to achieving employee ownership in many cases. There are a lot of good, genuine employee trusts out there,” he said.
”It has been a constant frustration to me over the years that employee trusts have been used for tax-driven purposes rather for genuine purposes,” he said. ”I do not know the details of the scheme at Rangers but I assume it was tax-driven.”
Nuttall, who was approached by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, to advise on employee trusts, said of tax-driven schemes: ”Examples like this cause terrible problems to those trying to promote schemes to give employees more say in the running of their business.
”One businessman who I had been advising phoned me up saying: ‘What are you trying to get me into? Look what has happened to Rangers’.”
He added: ”I had to explain to him that I was advising on trusts to be set up as part of a genuine ownership structure.”
Just looking through a couple of huns sites to see what they are saying. There is a google ad at the top of one site stating, and I quote:
“British Expat Switzerland. Avoid British Tax. Get your pension out of the UK now. Free advice.”
I wouldn’t wish to see Celtic resigning from the league,no matter what happens with regards to der hun.
That would be the most self-defeating course of action that the club could possibly embark upon,that would be the ultimate dream of our enemies,if Celtic were to walk away in protest.
Super Sutton:
If we threatened to pull out of the SPHell then we could give clubs the choice of what club they would prefer…they are smaller than us at the moment and will only downsize even more…on the other hand we are considerably ahead of them financially at present but we are capable of further expansion in the future…I know what team I would pick if all I was interested in was the gravy train…couldn’t we offer to pay Dundee Utd debt from der hun for them…not for political reasons…ahem ahem…but for purely altruistic motives?
Auldheid
I would imagine uefa have to step in at some point, but like everyone else they will be waiting for the FTT to deliver it’s verdict.
If they are guilty, no matter the ammount, they will have been proved to have cheated, then I imagine the gloves come off.
In other news I recieved a text earlier from my signifcantly better half. She’s watching SSN for the latest hot air from Poundland Park but the talk has been about London Ran*ers bew manager to succeed AVB. The text reads….
” He’s done ok at Barca but could Pep do it in the EPL??!!”
This is the type of ignorance and arrogance that sums up the psyche of this quite farcical channel. Jingoistic, xenophobic, conceited, arrogant, ignorant.
SSN, the ran*ers of the TV world.
Voguepunter,
these blackmen(as they are known here in the black north)
are the elite of the orange order,there were many blackmen in positions of power in government here since the formation of stormont in the early 1920s until it was toppled in1973,most senior unionist politicians
are blackmen
a day when you dont learn something is a day wasted
Hail Hail
Does anyone know the average size of the Rangers away support and to compare the average size of our away support?
Malarkey on 6 March, 2012 at 10:24 said:
As far as I know SFA changed rules after that to prevent this happening again.
Mort
I’m Neil Lennon (tamrabam),
I wasn’t suggesting anything in particular, just venting.
But if it does come to a vote to admit Newco against all of the established rules then I think every fair minded person should be doing everything they can to retain at least a shred of sporting integrity in Scottish football.
Boycotts, common cause with fans of other teams, pressure on sponsors – whatever it takes. I don’t have the answer but I wan to be part of the discussions.
The bhoy from the village. I believe the reason for dunfermline being paid was given as being that the money was never rangers’ to keep in the first place and would never show in rangers accounts. It was dunfermlines money from the point of sale and amounted to theft. Now, how that argument stacks up v all of their other l