The Bewilderedbeast Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So let's say the administrators offer the creditors 25p in the £. Do they ALL have to accept that for the CVA to go through, or if a majority of creditors accept is that enough for it to through. If one creditor refuses the offer does that scupper the CVA or is he told "well you've been made an offer and didn't take it so sod off" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 They have though. They handed out a punishment that was outwith there own rules. As has been said by the previous poster, the late Paul McBride QC said 18 months ago that you could drive a bus through the SFA rulebook and that it needed re-written. However they have continued to plow along with the same level of incompetency that allowed Neil Lennon to serve two bans at the exact same time!! It was outwith an interpretation of their rules though and another judge who was on a previous panel thought that the punishment was adequate and within the rules so I wouldn't say the SFA done anything wrong here as someone said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissiboi Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So let's say the administrators offer the creditors 25p in the £. Do they ALL have to accept that for the CVA to go through, or if a majority of creditors accept is that enough for it to through. If one creditor refuses the offer does that scupper the CVA or is he told "well you've been made an offer and didn't take it so sod off" 86% of the debt is made up from Ticketus and HMRC, so if they say yes that is a deal. I think 75% of the creditors have to agree and i take it thats on a percentage of the debt. Although if the Big tax case goes against RFC then the greatest creditor would be HMRC depending on the outcome and the amount owed would determine how large a creditor each individual is. So nothing is a certain until the outcome of the Big tax case and would that also determine how viable as a business RFC was and any further sanctions by the football authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 86% of the debt is made up from Ticketus and HMRC, so if they say yes that is a deal. I think 75% of the creditors have to agree and i take it thats on a percentage of the debt. Although if the Big tax case goes against RFC then the greatest creditor would be HMRC depending on the outcome and the amount owed would determine how large a creditor each individual is. So nothing is a certain until the outcome of the Big tax case and would that also determine how viable as a business RFC was and any further sanctions by the football authorities. I think its 75% of creditors and 50% of debt. The thing I don't understand with the ongoing tax case is that if as creditors they accept just now does that mean they are accepting that any award from this case will also be subject to the agreement or would they be entitled to it all as it isn't a confirmed existing debt? If so I can see them accepting this so they club still exists then hitting them with the big bill later when they should be able to pay it all up or make an arrangement to do it over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasta Ton Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I think its 75% of creditors and 50% of debt. The thing I don't understand with the ongoing tax case is that if as creditors they accept just now does that mean they are accepting that any award from this case will also be subject to the agreement or would they be entitled to it all as it isn't a confirmed existing debt? If so I can see them accepting this so they club still exists then hitting them with the big bill later when they should be able to pay it all up or make an arrangement to do it over time. My understanding is that if the big tax case finds against them then the offer will drop from about 8 or 9 pence in the pound to about 3 pence in the pound and that this forms part of the CVA proposal. FIRST DIVISION RUNNERS UP 2012/13 Hey Man - Enough of your Stupidness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 My understanding is that if the big tax case finds against them then the offer will drop from about 8 or 9 pence in the pound to about 3 pence in the pound and that this forms part of the CVA proposal. Surely then there are far too many uncertainties for anyone to accept it then? My head hurts thinking bout it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Sorry mate just noticed that part of your post. Suitable punishment? Anything the SFA want to hand down as long as its in their rule book. I think the bigger picture here is that the SFA have again been found to be unfit for purpose. Paul McBride was poking them for fun and showing them up. FIFA want everything to go the the CAS which is in some cases fair enough if you fancy appealing to them BUT when your own Associations rules do not allow for member clubs to take this route, what other option does a club have when it thinks its been treated wrongly or in fact illegally? Below is copied and pasted from a comment on the rangers tax case blog. I think that would be suitable just now. My main point being though that they should have accepted what they were given as suitable punishment rather than being arrogant enough to look for loopholes while possibly shooting themselves in the foot. Despite what the court ruled the original punishment was well thought out in my opinion and there were other judges who believed it to be in the rules (or their interpretation of them). ---------- 30/05/2012 at 11:22 am I expect Rangers (IA) to be suspended from membership of the SFA until further notice – no specific time limit put on the suspension. This approach puts the ball firmly back in Rangers court – they can save themselves, but only if they step back into line and recognise, amongst other things, the authority of the SFA Disciplinary panel / appeals process. I expect that a list of criteria will be drawn up which will allow Rangers to exit this suspension at any time – but they will have to want to. The SFA will be seen as being hard in FIFAs eyes, yet leaving the door open for the tax evaders to decide if they want to be a football club or not – their decision. And on the SPL front – I don’t think suspension, from a rules perspective, may prevent them from appearing in the SPL – but the SFA are contracted to provide referees for association-affiliated matches. They will not be able to do this for a suspended club – hence tacitly, if Rangers do not agree to terms to exit the suspension (before the new season), they will not be able to participate in matches in Scotland. Again, it will be their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngsa Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I wonder if the SFA will be consistent in their views of punishments that cannot be enforced by a court of law "However, with regard to the timing of the suspension we must accept that if our rules cannot be enforced in a court of law then they cannot be imposed and it is foolish to waste money defending such a point. If linky no work stick this in yer computer http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/12941685 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/12941685 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Strathblane Crescent Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I think its 75% of creditors and 50% of debt. The thing I don't understand with the ongoing tax case is that if as creditors they accept just now does that mean they are accepting that any award from this case will also be subject to the agreement or would they be entitled to it all as it isn't a confirmed existing debt? If so I can see them accepting this so they club still exists then hitting them with the big bill later when they should be able to pay it all up or make an arrangement to do it over time. As long as 75% (by debt value) of the creditors who vote agree then the CVA is accepted. All the company creditors are then bound to the terms of the proposal whether or not they voted. Basically the biggest creditors hold sway over the minor creditors. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ton5saints1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 *** MIDNIGHT TONIGHT - E-MAILS BEING RELEASED BY MARK DALY*** Mark Daly releasing e-mails between Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte Should be well worth the wait waiting up for 'Pie and Bovril' website prob best for updates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngsa Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 *** MIDNIGHT TONIGHT - E-MAILS BEING RELEASED BY MARK DALY*** Mark Daly releasing e-mails between Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte Should be well worth the wait waiting up for 'Pie and Bovril' website prob best for updates Mark Daly has been on top of this since it started so it should be interesting stuff. Can only assume that a disgruntled former employee is drip feeding him all the info. My money is on Martin Bain or Alistair Johnston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ton5saints1 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just for those who are unaware - the PIE & BOVRIL site is the place to be to watch the Rangers car crash. Seems todays 'Scotsman' carries the best article - just about to buy one. Guys, get on the P & B website - it's bloody amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.bf8ff4187ec871eb7009922bdb6487f6.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.