Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

Is it just me, or is there a whiff of Duff and Duffer* not playing this with an entirely straight bat?



* © York Ham(mer)

[York Ham(mer)]

I think I missed from the timeline that on 18 June, the SPL publish their fixtures for 2012/13. Rangers(CVA) or Rangers(newco) will need to be up and running and OKed by the SPL by then (unless the SPL defers publication of the fixtures).

[Cuenca 'ammer]

What are the odds on Rangers starting next season in the SPL in some shape or form

I'd put a 100 quid on it.

[York Ham(mer)]

Apparently Duff & Duffer admits they are not able to make a p in £ offer in their proposed CVA but says it is 'best deal for creditors'.

[Wembley1966]

And 10 years after leaving Rangers, Graeme Souness received a payment from the Rangers EBT:

Ten years later Mr Souness was managing the English side Blackburn Rovers, and, just five weeks after requesting a payment from the trust, he completed the signing of Turkey international midfielder Tugay Kerimoglu from Rangers.
Mr Souness declined to respond to BBC Scotland’s allegations.

This is one of the alleged reasons that make the odds of Rangers not playing at all next season - very high!

It wasn't just Kerimoglu, he signed 5+ players from Rangers to clubs he was then managing!
From Wiki about Boumsong:

The £8 million transfer fee raised eyebrows,[1] as the player, being out of contract, had joined Rangers for free just months before, at which point Newcastle showed no interest in signing him. This transfer is one of those about which the Stevens inquiry report in June 2007 expressed concerns:

"There remains inconsistencies in evidence provided by Graeme Souness – a former manager of the club – and Freddy Shepherd – apparently acting in an undefined role but not as a club official – as to their respective roles in transfer negotiations."

The Stevens inquiry then issued a clarification:
We wish to make it clear that inconsistencies did not exist within the evidence given by Graeme Souness to Quest concerning his role in transfers covered by the Inquiry during his time as manager of Newcastle United FC and neither the Premier League nor do Quest have any concerns in this regard.

Further to the key findings from the final Quest report published on 15 June 2007 by the Premier League, Quest would like to emphasise that, in that report, it was clear that no evidence of irregular payments was found in the transfers in the inquiry period which involved the agent Willie McKay. Quest would also like to thank Mr McKay for his cooperation with the inquiry

[Cuenca 'ammer]

I read the article and it suggested that there were improprieties with Souness but they never found any further documentation to back that up. Or did I read it wrong ??

[Wembley1966]

Rangers have published their Proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA):
http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

Highlights - Charles Green will loan Rangers £8.5m (which they have to pay back) that will cover running expenses for the next month or so and pay off the £3m fees that Duff & Phelps have incurred as administrators, and the £2.5m in additional legal/professional fees they've racked up. If they make sure that everyone else that owes them money pays up and they sell some players for £2m, then there's just under £5m to be distributed to the creditors. CVA won't happen.

So he's proposing to buy Rangers with their own money and not his!

[Cuenca 'ammer]

At least Whyte did it with someone else's money. Oh wait he maybe borrowed the quid from Pinky.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

I notice there is £484.80 due to "Shred-It" in the list of unsecured creditors

[Cuenca 'ammer]

That would be for the documents that they *lost*

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/201 ... ay-either/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Channel 4′s reports are correct and Rangers directors were engaging in activities such as document shredding, it will mean that ill-will to the club will stretch back further than just the arrival of Craig Whyte. If Rangers have been involved in a decade of persistent lying to the government, it could make a deal difficult.

[Antwerp_Lad]

Rangers have won their appeal to the transfer ban, and it goes back to the SFA now.

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant
Scottish FA has power only to fine, suspend, eject from Scottish Cup, expel Rangers from game or terminate membership.

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant
FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant
FIFA undoubtedly will also look at fact court ruled Scottish FA did not give Rangers the means to appeal to CAS. Both in bother.

Seems like whatever happens, there's always 1 consistent: The SFA ****ing up in one way or another.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

Rangers have won their challenge to the transfer ban (BBC)

A judge has ruled that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) acted beyond its powers in imposing a year-long transfer ban on Rangers FC.

As if anyone will do business with them, unless it's the full amount up front.

[Antwerp_Lad]

As if anyone will do business with them, unless it's the full amount up front.

Gattuso already said he'd love to come back

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

It could be a hollow victory for Rangers, as the SFA may now look again at the sanctions available to them

"The sanction of suspending the registration of players is not available under the general disciplinary rules to the tribunal in respect of the alleged breach," he said.

"It follows in my submission that the purported additional sanction imposed by the tribunal and confirmed by the appeal tribunal was not a competent sanction," he told the court.

Aidan O'Neill QC, for the football authorities, had argued that the tribunal sought to find a sanction which would fit the breach committed.

He said it was clearly thought that the fine was "simply not enough given the gravity of the issues here".

He said that if their powers of penalty were restricted to sanctions such as suspension or expulsion then suspension would have to be looked at.

Mr O'Neill told the court that the paradox was the Dean's argument could lead to greater sanction.

(my emphasis)

[Tarbs]

Calling their bluff...cant see SFA expelling Rangers.

I think the SFA hoped the tax case would ruin Rangers by now or that they would not have hung on so long so that they wouldnt have to make a decision.

[Wembley1966]

Now Rangers have a quandary - today's Court of Session ruling means that they can take it back to the SFA and force them to reconsider - but Rangers don't have to do anything. If they don't take it back the ban stands. If they do take it back then the SFA panel could ignore the Court of Session and let the ban stand, impose suspension or termination - for the offence almost as serious as 'match-fixing' - but with Cambell Ogilvie (former Rangers director and recipient of EBT payments) in charge of the SFA that's unlikely.

What might happen if they do take it back to the SFA who revise their decision (thereby acknowledging the Court of Session jurisdiction), is that FIFA/UEFA step in as Rangers have taken action against the SFA in a civil court which is against FIFA/UEFA rules - similar to what Sion did against the Swiss FA - and the refusal of the Swiss FA to expel Sion for taking civil action meant that UEFA ruled that no Swiss club could play in Europe including the national side. The Swiss FA eventually backed down and expelled Sion. This could be what Rangers want - as they can't play in Europe (through not submitting accounts by the required date), they don't want anyone else to play in Europe either.

Although I do think UEFA may be a bit preoccupied at the moment with Italy and Ukraine!

[York Ham(mer)]

The judge upheld Rangers case on two count: (a) that the sanction of a ban on registration was not available to the disciplinary tribunal (the fact that Rangers brought the game into disrepute was not doubted, nor was the fine), and (b) the Court of Sessions did have jurisdiction as the SFA rules contained no clear provision for going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (a massive cock-up on the part of the SFA). So the case is referred back to the appeals tribunal to decide on a sanction that the disciplinary tribunal *can* levy, which are: (i) a maximum fine of £100,000; (ii) ejection from the Scottish Cup, (iii) a suspension, (iv) expulsion from participation in the game and/or (v) termination of SFA membership.

Meanwhile FIFA is quoted as saying: "At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA. In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts. As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes. FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."

It's going to end in tears.

[York Ham(mer)]

Tomorrow's Scotsman

[Swiss Pauli]

What might happen if they do take it back to the SFA who revise their decision (thereby acknowledging the Court of Session jurisdiction), is that FIFA/UEFA step in as Rangers have taken action against the SFA in a civil court which is against FIFA/UEFA rules - similar to what Sion did against the Swiss FA - and the refusal of the Swiss FA to expel Sion for taking civil action meant that UEFA ruled that no Swiss club could play in Europe including the national side. The Swiss FA eventually backed down and expelled Sion.

The stuff about Sion is not all correct. They were challenging a FIFA-imposed transfer embargo and the Swiss FA's refusal to accept the registration of players they signed during said embargo. The first court found for Sion (restraint of trade). Eventually, after FIFA's escalation, the Swiss FA imposed a massive points deduction (-36), the courts threw out Sion's case on appeal, and the club looked set to be relegated. However, in early spring, massive fraud by the Xamax owner was proven leading to Xamax having its 1st division licence withdrawn and a de facto relegation from last place. Sion, now 2nd bottom, won the relegation/promotion play-off 3-1 on aggregate and thus remain in the top division.

[Antwerp_Lad]

I won't be surprised if the SFA find something else to fine Rangers for, be done with it and then blame FIFA for not being able to punish Rangers fully.

Because there is no way that they will impose the heaviest punishment, eg. throwing Rangers out.