Duff and Phelps and any prospective Rangers buyer quoted have been making confident noises about a CVA being agree with creditors, we’ve even heard the club could be out of administration next week.
The mood changed yesterday when the SPL announced potential sanctions for a Newco to be admitted to the league following liquidation and increased sanctions for clubs in administration, which would only affect Rangers were they to remain under court protection until the start of next season.
Duff and Phelps now say, “the fact that such measures are being considered at such a sensitive point in the sale process at Rangers is disruptive and regrettable”.
It’s time for Duff and Phelps to follow through with all those confident noises and agree a CVA with creditors. If HMRC are open to the idea, conclude a deal, there is no need to wait for the FTT verdict. If HMRC will not agree to a CVA, which is my understanding, drop the pretence and tell us how you plan to proceed.
Is it too late to suggest they just pay their bills and save everyone all this trouble?
Pay your bills and stop complaining!
More later.
Can you write an article for CQN Magazine? Give me a shout, celticquicknews@gmail.com
Pay your bills!
240 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- »
I suppose one way to send a huge GIRFUY to the SPL & newco would be to go out this summer and buy 3 world class players, announce plans for the South Stand to be rebuilt. Show our might to these filthy cheats. absolutely hammer the lot of them on the field. There’s obviously no harm in debt these days
ibleedgreenandwhite1, it’s just a suggestion!
Celtic Mac, yes, Mr Doncaster has overlooked that idea.
medtim, interesting. Would need to think that through.
ulysses mcghee, yes, D&P are served well by the long game.
TheCelticOne, I’ve something on their history coming up this afternoon.
Celticbhoy, oh yes, no matter what happens in the coming months, the future is a very green place.
TheCelticOne on 12 April, 2012 at 12:16 said:
”Paul67
So do they or do they not keep the history or is it down to individual perception?”
This is a club that’s never won the European Cup or Champions League and whose shirt has five stars on it.
What do you think?
Hi Paul,
“If HMRC will not agree to a CVA, which is my understanding, drop the pretence and tell us how you plan to proceed.”
Agreed! Considering what a cluster… the RFC in administration’s financial, legal and regulatory situation is what does the difference does the proposed changes make? It wasn’t as if the SPL had made [up] the penalties the club faced clear anyhooo.
The only material difference I can see is it makes Craig Whyte’s Ger’s assets more precious and my understanding is he still awaits a bid…………………:-)
Patient man oor Craig.
ernie
Fair enough, and sorry for incorrect post (five lashes for me). Craig Whyte was subject to disqualification – doesn’t that render him inelgible? Also, in light of how he’s behaved this time round, what’s to stop him being the subject of yet another disqualification ruling?
How would this affect his ability to sell the club?
The Law:
Under paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the VAT Act 1994, HMRC may require any taxable entity, to give security or further security for the payment of VAT that is or may become due in future.
Circumstances where HMRC will require a deposit are where it sees a risk of non payment of future VAT, where a person is or has been actively involved in an existing or previous business that has failed to comply with VAT obligations.
Everyone knows the moral arguments and the immorality of rangers position. The Rangers fans are desperate to (a.)Separate CW’s action from RFC. But if he had put in a warchest and won the league would the say it had nothing to do with RFC or their fans?
(b.)That they are innocent until the BTC finds them guilty, this means they have no wiggle room on both a.&b. It will mean they are both guilty and it just wasn’t Just CW at fault but institutional cheating and superiority complex syndrome.
The STV take on things.
The Scottish Premier League’s member clubs are to consider a raft of proposed rule changes, which include a clear pathway for a team to form a newco, transfer its league share and walk away from its debt.
In total, there are eight resolutions which representatives will vote upon to add to the SPL’s rules and articles. Here’s a look at what each proposal means.
Resolution 1 proposes an increase in the sporting sanction (points deduction) on any club which suffers or is subject to an “Insolvency Event”. This increase from the current penalty of ten points to either 15 points OR 1/3 of the club’s SPL points in the preceding season – whichever is greater.
At present, clubs are automatically deducted ten points when they suffer an Insolvency Event, for example going into administration. If a club remains in administration going into a new season, they are forced to begin the campaign on minus ten points.
Under the new proposals, a club would either lose 15 points or a figure comparative to a third of their tally from their previous season.
Assuming the new rules were in place at the start of the current campaign, Rangers would have been deducted 31 points for going into administration. This is because their points tally in 2010/11 was 93.
A club which finished on 45 points or fewer in the previous season which then goes into administration would lose 15 points.
If a club remains in administration going into a new season, they will only be forced to start on minus ten points. No greater sanction will apply unless they are subject to a new Insolvency Event.
Resolution One requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 2A proposes further sporting sanctions in the event that any club undergoes an “Insolvency Transfer Event”. This is transferring its share in the SPL to a new company where this occurs because of the insolvency of the transferrer. The penalty incurred would be ten points in each of two consecutive seasons following the Insolvency Transfer Event.
Although the term Insolvency Transfer Event is new, there is already provision in the current SPL articles for a club to transfer its member share in the league to a new company.
The league is owned wholly by the 12 clubs, who each have one share, meaning they all own an equal 8.33% of the SPL.
If a club is unable to exit administration with the agreement of its creditors (what is known as a CVA), they can make an application to the SPL board to transfer their share to a new company, widely referred to as a “newco”.
At present, there is provision in the Articles of Association for a share transfer to take place at the discretion of the SPL board. Under the new proposal, this would not change.
Crucially, their previous position set out no clear penalty for this. Instead it would be at the discretion of the SPL board to impose any sanction it saw fit, such as a points deduction.
The SPL board consists of six members: Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone).
A majority vote of four to two is required for a motion to carry. In the event of a tie, the chairman has the casting vote.
Under the new proposals, if a club is relegated at the end of the first season it is in newco form, the points deduction is not suspended awaiting their return to the SPL. Any promotion back to the top flight would see them start with a clean slate.
Similarly, any newco points penalty would not be picked up and imposed by the Scottish Football League.
It is also important to note that, in the SPL’s eyes, “a club” would not cease to exist if a share is transferred. If Rangers’ share is transferred from oldco to newco, they would not be required to have a new club name, new badge or new colours and their SPL record would be preserved.
A club must already be subject to an Insolvency Event in order to make a request to transfer its share. It is not possible for a club to avoid debts by asking for a share transfer without having first been subject to an insolvency process, and to the league’s points penalty.
Resolution 2A requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 2B proposes revisions to the fee payment arrangements ie SPL fees to any club which has undergone an Insolvency Transfer Event will be reduced by 75% in each of three consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.
This resolution proposes a further punishment to any club which uses the newco route.
Put simply, 75% of all money the SPL pays to a club in any given season would not be received. This includes all commercial revenues, including TV money.
All of the money generated by the SPL through TV and commercial contracts is divided between clubs, after running costs and parachute payments are deducted from the total.
All teams receive a standard 4% of that pot. The rest is then divided up based on league position, ranging from 13% and 11% for first and second place, down to 1% for 11th and 0.5% for 12th.
It is clear then that the SPL is providing two clear options to clubs looking to exit administration. Either they successfully come out of the process via a CVA, or they ask for a share transfer having failed to secure agreement with their creditors.
The SPL believe both resolution 2A and 2B combined not only bring clarity to the situation where a club is looking to go down the newco route, but also make it significantly more desirable for clubs to attempt to agree a CVA.
Clubs which successfully come out of administration via a CVA are not hit with any further sanctions, both under the current and new proposed rules.
Resolution 2B requires the approval of 11 of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 3 proposes extending sporting sanctions where an Insolvency Event is suffered by a Group Undertaking of a Member Club of the SPL (Group Undertaking is defined in Section 1161(5) of the Companies Act 2006).
If a club is owned by another company, at present there is no provision for a club being punished if the parent company goes into administration.
The new proposal opens up the possibility of imposing sanctions in such an eventuality, even if the club itself isn’t subject to an Insolvency Event.
There has been precedent in England for such an occurrence. Southampton were docked ten points by the Football League when their parent company went into administration in 2009, despite the club itself continuing to trade as normal.
In that case, it was argued by the league that the parent company and the club were “inextricably linked as one economic entity”. A points penalty was subsequently applied.
Resolution Three requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 4 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Rules.
This will see the wording of what an Insolvency Event is in the regulations brought into line with modifications to its definition in insolvency law.
Resolution Four requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.
The first part of this resolution again simply sees a tightening up in the wording of what constitutes an Insolvency Event under SPL rules.
The second part is designed to bring absolute clarity to what is required for a share transfer to take place.
Resolution Five requires the approval of 11 of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 6 proposes a specific requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs must pay their Players in terms of their Contracts of Service on due dates and places a duty on any Club to report any failure to pay its Players in a timely manner to the SPL. Failure to pay Players and / or to notify such failure to the SPL would be a breach of SPL Rules.
This season, Hearts have repeatedly failed to pay their players on time, eventually leading to an SPL investigation but only after the squad made a formal complaint.
Under the proposed rule, the league would have the power to act if a club fails to meet its obligations.
Resolution Six requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Resolution 7 proposes a requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs report to the SPL any failure to make payments to HMRC in respect of PAYE and NIC (a Default Event). Any Club suffering such a Default Event will be subject to a Player Registration Embargo. Any failure to report a Default Event shall be a breach of the SPL Rules.
Rangers went into administration having deducted PAYE and National Insurance contributions from their employees, but subsequently failed to pay it to HM Revenue and Customs since May 2011.
There is currently no provision in the SPL rules to ensure clubs meet their tax obligations. The proposal then would see clubs prevented from signing players if they fail to pay tax.
There are punishments in place beyond the SPL at present for failing to pay tax, namely the possibility of failing to be granted approval by the Scottish FA to gain a UEFA licence to play European football.
Resolution Seven requires the approval of eight of the 12 member clubs.
Has anyone worked out yet whether it would be the Association of member clubs (11-1 vote) that would allow RFC Newco entry or the 6 man SPL board?
@edwardrice1: The thing about proposed rule changes are that they are brought in before SPL reveal findings of inquiry into EBT contracts #somethingstinks
30th of April is going to be a huge day for Scottish Football.
The Scottish Premier League has delayed a decision on voting reform until April 30.
Representatives of each of the 12 member clubs met at Hampden on Thursday morning and were expected to vote on proposals that would see the SPL rules changed. That vote has now been rescheduled.
The SPL Articles of Association currently require an 11-1 vote in favour of major change but many clubs feel this favours Rangers and Celtic and want a 9-3 voting structure introduced.
Some clubs have argued that this would be “more democratic” but Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell had criticised the challenge to the existing procedure as being potentially divisive.
A decision on the reform, which would have to be approved by an 11-1 vote, will now be taken on April 30, the same day that the clubs will consider proposed new rules on sanctions for insolvent clubs and new Financial Fair Play measures.
Afternoon Gents
I have it on fairly dependable authority that duff and Duffer have had the valuation boys in at Ipox and Murray Park.
Valuation based upon distressed state of company no more than 17 million the lot.
thats the value of the MBB’s floating charge today bhoys
HH
Mike
Paul Smith@pauls_1888Reply
@pmacgiollabhain speak to banks. If spl charter adopted they will up interest rates and call debt due to risk from liquidation for clubs
Retweeted by Phil MacGiollaBhain
an interesting angle on proposals, what would happen if banks called in debt?
We all know that whatever happens the creditors will get stiffed. There is no way that £134M of debts will ever be paid off. That’s a given.
The game at work here is to square a Newco circle. The Newco must still look like RFC and play in the SPL. But legally it must be an entirely different corporate person to avoid having liability for the oldco’s debts and actions.
The invention of the Insolvency Transfer Event under the proposed Cheats’ Charter allows exactly that to happen.
Whatever footballing or financial penalties are imposed will be small beer compared to the debts that they will never pay. But the benefits they accrued from years of financial mismanagement, tax dodging and reckless spending will remain.
Let them feel the “Wrath of The Green Pound”
Really like that we phrase
Paddy T offski again
Paul67,
any news on when we will get a respose from Celtic
to the new proposals
Just saw this on Facebook,,,i know its nonsense but if only it were true :D
Celtic and Guinness gossip
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has struck a secret multi-million pound deal with Guinness to rename Celtic Park.
The deal, which will come into effect from the start of the 2012-13 season, will bring more than £400 million into the club coffers over the next 10 years, a source close to the deal exclusively revealed to The Irish Times this week.
Celtic’s home stadium since 1892 will be renamed ‘The Guinness Arena’ from August 2012, according to documents seen by The Irish Times, and then as ‘Guinness Glas (Gaelic for ‘green’) Arena’ from 2015.
The deal does not initially include shirt sponsorship, although Guinness are believed to have an option to take over shirt sponsorship from Tennents, when Celtic’s deal with the rival brewery firm concludes in 2013, or when the deal is voided by Rangers entering a liquidation process.
It could push the total value of the deal to more than £60 million per season. The historic deal, brokered by Diageo’s Dublin-based commercial team and Celtic’s financial big-hitters headed by Eric Riley, will be greeted with delight by Celtic’s bean counters, while it will likely draw anger from those supporters opposed to changing more than 100 years of Celtic history. Secret talks with beverages industry giant Diageo, the parent company of the Dublin-based Irish brewers, which turned over more than £13.32 billion in 2011, have been taking place for more than six months the source told The Irish Times. Guinness is said to have day-to-day responsibility for the groundbreaking sponsorship, although Diageo’s London-based senior management were required to sign off on the deal, which is believed to be the biggest of its kind in football.
“Make no mistake this is a done deal, the source, who did not want to be named, told us. “The Celtic board are obviously delighted with the deal, although they know that it will bring an angry reaction from some fans’ groups. But as Rangers face financial meltdown, Peter Lawwell knows that as long as Neil Lennon keeps delivering results on the pitch, commercial activity will be unaffected by fans’ complaints. “Guinness is one of the most recognisable brands in the world, but rarely gets involved in football. This is a strategic move for the company to build a strong tie between two massive worldwide brands and to get involved in the higher echelons of football, whilst also helping in keeping with their Irish identity and roots. Celtic has been tracking this deal for months, perhaps even years. Mr Riley and Mr Lawwell pulled out all the stops to seal it.
Hail hail
Paul67 writes
SPL announced potential sanctions for a Newco to be admitted to the league following liquidation
Are they any previous statutes that even allows for a NEWco to be admitted to the SPL never mind sanctions for that action ?
Hail Hail
Can anyone give a confident guess as to how long this will last
Days
Weeks
Months
Years
I hope it’s months, I’m sick of them.
Afternoon Celts,
………
!!Bada Bing!! on 12 April, 2012 at 12:07 said:
Why don’t Celtic issue the SPL the 2 year notice period ,of resigning from the league.
………..
Why bother with that their changing policy at a whim to support Scotlands shame, I would tell them we’re off and they can all wallow in their own mire.
We need our club to be strong, think strategic, in fact if they were, then it would be more apparent, the incorrect registration of players should have already hit the fan….
Tic toc
V
Canny wait till next season….
up @ 5:00am to travel to….
I/ness, Dingwall, A/deen, D/utd
on a sunday morn!
Anybody read this article?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/just-a-top-flight-of-fancy.17290674
If the number of comments are anything to go by then not very many people have. Unless, of course, only comments broadly in agreement with the piece are getting past the moderator.
Does DD have shares in Diageo
I hope Broonie is fit for Sunday as it will be a battle.
Celtic winger James Forrest could be ruled out for the remainder of the campaign.
The 20-year-old hasn’t appeared since limping out of the League Cup final defeat to Kilmarnock last month with severe bruising to both calf and ankle.
He was instantly despatched to hospital for scans and has since missed the last three games. The club are currently awaiting the results of further scans but there are concerns his season may already be over.
Meanwhile, skipper Scott Brown is still battling to be fit to face Hearts in this weekend’s Scottish Cup semi-final at Hampden Park.
Guinness 12 days and counting.
KevJungle
Spare a thought for the Highlanders & Irish who have to do alot worse every home game.
Paul67 writes: Duff and Phelps now say, “the fact that such measures are being considered at such a sensitive point in the sale process at Rangers is disruptive and regrettable”.
What possesses D&P to opine that rules and regulations appertaining to ensuring sporting and commercial integrity should not be discussed and implemented whilst their client is in its current self-inflicted predicament? Are they oblivious to the fact that it is indeed their client’s flouting of the basic ethos of sporting and commercial integrity that has both put their client into this position and effected the proposed implementation of the new rules?
They need to wake up and smell the coffee!
Rather than complaining about the current discussions in the corridors of power, they should be thanking their lucky stars that their client’s punishment for potentially as many as 15 years of unfair advantage over the rest of Scottish football will ultimately cost them no more than three SPL titles (should they fail to make up the imposed points deficit in the next two seasons) and a corporate re-branding of their client.
All the tainted trophies that were accumulated throughout the many years of impropriety will no doubt remain in Rangers’ trophy cabinet, and the huge debts run up in so doing will simply disappear, as if they had never existed in the first place.
The alternative punishment would be to strip Rangers of all trophies won whilst they were operating dual contracts and robbing HMRC, and forcing them to pay their debts to others in full… every last penny. This would not only rob them of up to 9 league titles and umpteen cups, but it would seriously impact upon their playing squad for many years to come.
Perhaps D&P would be better simply shutting up and taking it on the chin…
I would think that any Newco would be looking at hefty bonds having to be posted to HMRC and other creditors before they could get operational.
What if Strathclyde Police decide that as they got shafted by oldco they have no interest in working with newco.
The ole SPL inquiry into the alleged double contracts…… given the time it is taking, is it being conducted by Duff & Phelps??
jackie mac on 12 April, 2012 at 12:45 said:
/////////////////////
I remember seeing Tom English on the telly talking about
the huns situation and he said “this will drag on for some time as, CW will take this through ‘every’ court in the land!”
Like your ghood self, I’m sick of all this hun stuff because, I know full well that, there will be no more than a slap on the wrist for the FOD.
Thats the way of it in this country. Big Jock was well aware of how the landscape was and, I have to be honest and say that, all the honest mistakes of, recent seasons are NOTHING, compared to what BJS’s teams had to put up with! IMO!
Hail Hail
ibleedgreenandwhite1
Pretty sure when naming the stadium was mentioned before the board stated it would consult the supporters first.
I think someone is just having a laugh with that piece.
musters,
The moderation on the Herald is pretty light.
If you create a new account, which is needed to post, your first few posts will be read by a moderator before appearing. After a while you become trusted and posts appear immediately, as mine has just dome on the article you linked to.
To anyone I owe money to. As of tomorrow I will be known as Yhorkbhoy and therefore I have decided to walk away from my debts, obviously I’ll keep my house and expect electricity and gas but newco Yhorkbhoy will not be liable for anything that pesky Yorkbhoy did.
JohnnyClash on 12 April, 2012 at 12:54 said:
The ole SPL inquiry into the alleged double contracts…… given the time it is taking, is it being conducted by Duff & Phelps??
///////////////
If it isny them then, it will be some other apron-wearing hun sympathiser! IMO! :o)
Hail Hail
Bhoy67 on 12 April, 2012 at 12:32 said:
”I have it on fairly dependable authority that duff and Duffer have had the valuation boys in at Ipox and Murray Park.
Valuation based upon distressed state of company no more than 17 million the lot.”
If that’s correct questions have to be asked about how long the huns have been trading whilst insolvent.
Paul67.
Re my “filibuster” notion.
I posted at 22.59pm last night with some thoughts around why it may be an idea to run with in conjunction with others.
I also describe precedence at both the sfa and spl re.timescales taken to investigate/resolve relatively much less complex/contentious issues than the one at hand.
Remember it’s not just money rangers are short of,they are also short of time.
It would be a real shame if the Cheats Charter wasn’t ratified until it was too late eh?
Serge on 12 April, 2012 at 12:52 said:
KevJungle
Spare a thought for the Highlanders & Irish who have to do alot worse every home game.
/////////////
Yes, too true m8.
3:00 pm on a saturday and, to hell with the tv-deal!
We pay our captain more than we get from tv!
Hail Hail
Paul 67 / Bhoys
Sorry if this has been asked and answered previously.
What would happen if Celtic refused to allow TV cameras into Parkhead and refused to cooperate with SKY / ESPN if a Newco are readmitted into the SPL. Wouldn’t Celtic’s refusal to allow TV coverage of their domestic home games render any TV deal unworkable?