Resolutions to be voted on at the 30 April meeting are proposals from the Scottish Premier League executive (Neil Doncaster). They have nothing to do with the Gang of 10 nor are they a Duff and Phelps/Rangers conspiracy. The resolutions are not set in tablets of stone and have no authority in their own right. The League has form in voting down executive resolutions, in particular overthrowing plans for a 10 team league last year, so, in theory, the votes could go for or against.
Neil Doncaster, being as thorough as he is, has almost certainly shared his plan with the man along the corridor at Hamden, SFA chief exec, Stewart Regan. He is also likely to have taken guidance from the Uefa executive, specifically CEO David Taylor, formerly of this parish. It would be unnecessarily lax to leave legislative loose ends before embarking on such a radical plan, so forget about any intervention by the SFA (cough) or Uefa.
Putting preconceived notions aside (if I can), the resolutions are flawed.
Asking for 8 clubs to vote for a Newco to be allowed into the league, but requiring 11 to vote for a financial penalty to be imposed for an Insolvency Transfer, is beyond ridiculous. The former provision – the gift of continuity to a defaulter – is easy to achieve. The latter – the punishment for defaulting – is unnecessarily difficult. Duff and Phelps will need the support of only one club – let’s say Dunfermline, who are brogue-to-brogue with them anyway and due to relegation will not be affected by the financial penalty, will vote with them. Why would Doncaster put such a high bar on setting financial penalties?
Arbitrary voting thresholds smack of gerrymandering. Can anyone explain this in any other way?
There will now be a period of debate between clubs; Celtic will oppose any provision for a Newco to enter the league. Duff and Phelps will be in the opposite corner. You can expect to hear wailing and gnashing from Rangers (IA) along the same ridiculous lines they have used ahead of the SFA hearings into the behaviour of the club in advance of, and after, Craig Whyte’s purchase of the club. On that occasion, Duff and Phelps argued that the actions of Rangers’ new owner, or the failure of the old board to conduct their business correctly, should not lead to a penalty on the club.
It doesn’t matter how lax or severe the proposed penalties, Duff and Phelps will oppose them. Anything lessening of the penalty is worth money to the proposed new buyers of Rangers, so let’s view everything Duff and Phelps say in pound notes.
Rangers have unpaid bills potentially running up to £134mm that’s medicine, operations, road repairs and Help for Heroes. Allowing them to ditch their history and start afresh, where owners profit by securing a floating charge over the stadium, where fans can continue to be provided with a team in the league, creates an unprecedented moral hazard. It rewards irresponsibility and would create a queue of clubs ready to do the same.
And on the point of ditching their history… I openly mock anyone who uses phrases like Hybrid Liquidation. You don’t get Hybrid Liquidation, Partial Liquidation or Liquidation Lite. You cannot buy or sell history, as Duff and Phelps tried (and failed, I think) to convince Rangers fans. Liquidation would mean Rangers Football Club, established in 1873 (or 1872 as they now claim), incorporated in 1899, is finished.
Just pay your bills and do us all a favour.
661 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 18
- »
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on
Totally appreciate your comment. I think though we are in uncharted territory now. There are already clubs where Celtic do not handle away tickets. IF the club were to announce they would handle no away tickets at all everybody would know what was ‘on’ but CFC would not officially be condoning a bhoycott.
Despite everything, the first of the ‘Big Day Oot’ brigade inevitably raises his head.
Paul67,
Thanks for your reply. I hope Celtic rubbish these proposals in public in the most robust manner.
Paddy G
Shut it you :-))
ernie
I din’t think anyone has advocated that unless I’ve missed the post.
Paul67:
Posted this immediately prior to your new article posted and then my laptop crashed in good old CQN style we’re back:
Lennybhoy…Supporting Neil Lennon and CFC until I die on 11 April, 2012 at 20:45 said:
Vmhan Supporting Lenny! on 11 April, 2012 at 19:55:
I agree with you, we must bide our time, see what shakes out. Yes, there is understandable anger that the rules will be changed for them. However, we should look on the positives. However, we must must oppose these proposals in my view.
A newco would mean the end of the oldco, which is the big one on my list of objectives.
Any newco will be a lame duck for many years for a number of reasons e.g. lack of revenue from Europe, even with the new rules approved, which, unfortunately will inevitably happen.
Be interesting if the BTC came in before the meeting, which will be held on 14th May.
Then there is D&P’s statement today that their efforts in securing a preferred bidder are being thwarted by the SPL and their proposals. Earlier in the period of administration it was HMRC’s fault, who will be to blame tomorrow. Are they blaming anybody and everybody because there are no serious bidders.
Do they (D&P) really know what they are doing, who wrote their 65 page report, Scottish Journos aided and abetted by radio phone-ins. All their report was good enough was summarising where we are or sorry where they are, in a mess. In such a report I would not expect to read such language as the Big Tax Case, nor I’m sure would a professional interested in understanding their business.
As I say, we should take time to digest and consider the proposals and what really the consequences for rfc 2012 will really mean. However, I will stress again we need to oppose the proposals, I am certain we will and I mean the royal wee (forgive the choice of words).
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
calabam,
correct, now tell me what happened the last time serious bhoycott was threatened ??
I have to say I feel sorry for the board. They generally run the club/plc well. What have they done to have to inherit this incompetant disgrace that’s only going to get worse and worse one way or the other.A pathetic shambles that was not designed or caused in any way by tims.
If these proposals are for real then they’re indecent. Or are they just floating them to see how much will be tolerated?
It’s all too Machiavellian for me.
Here’s what will happen if a newco huns is allowed into the SPL.
The first game at Ibrox and old firm Celtic fans will be crawling all over each other to get a ticket to watch the old firm game.
People should be honest enough to admit it and stop the empty talk.
P67 / anyone
Do we have an update on the thoughts of ‘the significant number’ of rangers fans, who would be happy to go play in div 3 and suffer the penalties if it meant they could pay their dues and retain their pride (such as it is).
I heard about them on the radio.
They must be furious at tonights events.
hamiltontim on 11 April, 2012 at 21:23 said:
”I din’t think anyone has advocated that unless I’ve missed the post”
So when, and on what conditions, is the boycott called off?
The Raven on 11 April, 2012 at 20:16 said:
Welcome and a measured first post…
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
There`s something ironic about a bank sponsoring a competition whose governing body intends to restructure its rules to allow members to avoid paying debts while incurring no significant sanctions.
If a feckless bunch of illiterate drunks like the OO can march on Unholyrude then surely, we the fans, can as well?
neveralone on 11 April, 2012 at 21:20 said:
The problem is that that isn’t completely accurate. Celtic take a small amount of tickets for every away game and that includes the clubs who sell tickets directly to Celtic supporters Hearts, Hibs and St Mirren).
neveralone,
will believe it only when I see it.
would be a good start though and how would that apply to sfa competitions ?
If they get away with this the only solution I can see is for Celtic to refuse all tickets for all away games and Hunden.
But I hardly get to any games these days and know that the passion of our support, particularly with the away fans,well, this will be difficult.
UEFA are the only route and unfortunately they are one of the more corrupt organisations, even to the point of being more corrupt than Scottish Football, which is some going.
Table Tennis and Beach Voleyball for me. New set of golf clubs also.
P67- thanks for reply
Off topic wee Shaun’s goal was a beauty v Man Ure,hope he stays fit 1-0 83 min played
ernie lynch on
Your level headed, sensible & essentially correct postings still have me spitting blood ;-)
Am i the only one thats confused by all of this?
Smoke and mirrors, newcos, liquidations, rule changes, rigged voting structures,unpaid debts preffered bidder deadlines, gorillas and elephants in the same room, buy a pub team for a quid, ticketus,mbb, cheating refs…..and now hamiltontim wants a bhoycott so he can spend more time in 67 with calton tongues?
On another note, great to see Shaun Maloney scoring against United on top of his goal against Anfield.
The EPL title race still on if city beat united too?
HH
Ernie Lynch
Perpetuity – that’ll do them for a name
Glasgow Perpetuity : )
The Singing Detective, 21:13
Not the case – in fact just the opposite
Bonty Bhoy@19.25
” Creeping CQN regrets… was I too harsh SFTB. Can’t tell whether you deserved it or not.”
Don’t you worry about it shun!
Being intellectually skelped (in “your” mind) by your good self is much less devastating than you imagine it to be.
“You didn’t get my motives first time round, and I explained. You didn’t get them the second time round, and I explained again… politely. That you still don’t get them becomes your problem. I will say this slightly challenging thingy though – if you can’t grasp the occasional subtlety don’t you think this whole hoohaw with adminstration and the multitude of competing elements might be a bit much for you.”
If you are going to attempt intellectual condescension, you should be a bit more careful with the spelling.
I am used to people presenting their opinions to me and telling me, “Of course I am not in favour of it myself but it’s the only realistic option”. These words are always the rough wooing that is the prelude to a shafting. I find reality to be a bit more open to influence than some others do. I find it is a distinguishing feature of vertebrates.
Paul67
“This resolution provides for an ‘Insolvency Transfer Event’, defining what happens when a club ceases to exist and a Newco FC is formed. No provisions currently exist for such a scenario and I see no reasons to introduce any. The resolution requires the support of 8 clubs to be carried and must be opposed.”
I’m with you that there is no reason to introduce procedures for an Insolvency Transfer Event. The phrase itself suggest a transfer has already been agreed when in fact all that has happened is that an Insolvency Event (to be defined imo) will have taken place.
What are the procedures for agreeing that a Newco (and it could be any Newco) are in fact worthy of having an SPL share transferred to them?
What are the criteria? Would say Hearts get treated the same as Rangers? This needs to be clarified if it has not been already.
What I imagine would happen is that a Newco would present to the SFA the same business case that allowed it to become a Newco with projections of income and expenditure based on the penalties they know will be put upon them. There can be no question of a shoo in, it has to be clear who is being shooed in (fit and proper) and what they are bringing to the party.
There is another need for clarity because to play football a Newco will need a club license and this sits absolutely with the SFA. How do the the SFA decide if Newco can be granted a licence? Three years accounts are out of the question, there is no financial history for a Newco only a business plan with projections.
Who assesses that plan? Who decides if estimates of income are sensible and who decides just how much of that income is available for player wages. They would presumably insist on applyng the principle of the wages to income ratio demanded by UEFA FFP
(as an aside would Newco really be free of Ticketus clawback?).
So in order to accommodate the SPL proposals the SFA would need to say what changes they propose to make to their club licensing system to allow them to issue a license.
Celtic should insist that before a vote takes place the SFA reveal their thinking on the matter and what changes they propose to make to their club licensing rules in order to accommodate this new “Transfer Insolvecy Event” save Rangers more like.
That should be interesting if their rationale is different from UEFA rationale.
sorry off subject,was playing golf today,anyway waiting at first tee noticed this guys golf bag towel,was a union jack,and him with his Rankers Casual,Suppose it does not make him a bad person,it must be me
on 11 April, 2012 at 21:26 said:
The Raven on 11 April, 2012 at 20:16 said:
Welcome and a measured first post…
Keep the Faith!
Thanks lennybhoy
Paul 67
I know you have been telling us this was going to happen and would be voted through but I suppose I really thought a shred of integrity would come to the fore from some other party (excluding THEM of course)
If this is allowed to happen i fail to see how UEFA and FIFA can call themselves a governing body of “sport”!!!
Always feared that they would ‘get out of jail free ‘.having thought long and hard about my response if this was to happen,I am left feeling that it would be the end of me and Scotish football.I say this as a home and away ever present.The perverse thing is ,this would penalize our club and I know it’s not their fault but if they get away with sitting on the naughty step for a few minutes then it would be too hard for me to stomach.
we must find out the clubs who do vote for these changes and boycott them…
I really do think the cup final at hampden would be an ace card to get the message out loud and clear, that if they fancy a battle then theyve picked the wrong club.A hampden boycott and welcome the team home at paradise regardless of the result.
For Brogue to Brogue
Read Rogue to Rogue.
ernie
I’m not declaring a boycott which would run perpetually, it’s hard enough for me just to accept and admit that I would boycott.
However, an orchestrated campaign supported by the club and all the supporters may have an impact. Yes that campaign would require to have particular targets and that’s where forward planning would need to be selective and coherent.
Paul 67
The club need, for once, to mobilise the support.
As a suggestion the mobilisation needs to take in more that boycotting away matches. Many of us are involved in football at different levels, we should boycott ALL football, from boys matches to senior games; coaching, supporting and participation every facet of Scottish football.
We need a campaign of ACTION.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on
Given what exists now it would be more of a symbolic move than anything else. I wouldn’t exagerate it’s importance but nevertheless….
Don’t see what difference SFL/SFA games would make. By not handling tickets it doeas not stop supporters obtaining them. (In fact now I think about it, the impact may be greater in these games as we often get a couple of cup rounds away to small clubs where the Celtic support is more than 2/3rds of the total attendance).
@celticrumours: Hearing that the big tax case verdict has been passed to the parties concerned.
Coming out the same time as SPL rule change hmmmm.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 11 April, 2012 at 21:24 said:
This is totally different! If this mob get away with what I feel they are about to get away with as one posts states the GAME is a bogey.
Until we take a stance, not lawell’s, or any other person who makes there living from celtic we will always get hung out of.it wont make a difference what the promote or say, If we the supporters who pay for the tickets do not buy them, then we are taken action. the men at the top go only do so much. we run the club in real time
get it right into them, support our club and no other they are voting for the manky mob. let the manky mob get into debt to subsadise these clubs when they dont have our doe. They can just go bust again anyway and get voted back into the SPL.
Is it not better for a protest campaign to have multiple weapons at its disposal rather than just a boycott?
@Briandamge64: @celticrumours Ties in with @tommyinglasgow and his claims that the deals have all been done beforehand. We shall see.