Neil Doncaster is a man with very little back bone. When he came to Scotland his intentions may have been good and honest. Rangers been Rangers "double contracted him" and so he became like so many others who have held positions of power in Scottish football Rangers lap dog. Poor Neil knew he was going down the wrong road but things became twice as bad when the First Minister warned him that whatever happens Rangers must remain strong. Scotland needs a strong Rangers no matter what. How can poor Neil do his job fairly, his debt to Rangers and the threat from the First Minister has Neil all stitched up.
Mr Doncaster is a former solicitor. He moved from the law into running sporting organisations, including a stint as Chief Executive at Norwich City (where he also predicted doom and disaster, earning the nickname, I am told, of âDoomcasterâ from the Canariesâ fans). You can read about that here. He therefore will be well aware of the law on these matters and his football experience will have informed him as to the strength of opinions amongst football supporters. If he finds himself baffled by the distinction between a CVA and a newco, then it would appear that he is either being disingenuous or has forgotten what he learned in Insolvency Law for Beginners. I will try to put it simply. In a CVA, creditors of a company receive payment, by agreement of a sufficient majority, to satisfy their debts, even though these are not paid in full. The primary purpose of administration is to rescue a company as a going concern, in the interests of the creditors. If that cannot be achieved, the second purpose of administration is to get a better result for creditors by administration than by liquidation. The second purpose is what a ânewcoâ idea seeks to fulfil. The assets of the company are transferred to a new entity, or at least an entity which did not own the assets previously. In the case of a successful CVA, the company continues. Therefore the âRangersâ formerly owned by Mr Marlboroughâs companies passed on to Murray International and thence to Wavetower (Mr Whyteâs company) and would, in turn, go to Mr Greenâs consortium. The existing football team continues, and would retain its history, whilst having to answer fore the alleged misdeeds of the former owners. There will not be a successful CVA. Mr Greenâs colleague, Mr McDonald, committed a PR own goal by talking about the warchest stuffed with money which would be given to the manager to buy new players once a CVA takes place. Whilst that might have gone down well with the fans, as I am sure it was meant to, it can only have hardened the view of HMRC to reject any CVA. I wonât analyse why in detail just now but will simply say that the funds talked about would mean that HMRC would only receive a fraction of the £13 million unpaid by Mr Whyte since he took over and this being money Rangers has since spent on things other than tax. HMRC would get nothing from the Big Tax Case, nor indeed from the Wee Tax Case. Whilst a Green Rangers would not be a phoenix in strict legal terms, the insistence that this is in fact the same old âGers would render it disastrous for HMRC to be seen to accede to a CVA at the levels of funding being talked about. Maybe Mr Green would like to do a CVA but, as with Bill Millerâs plan, the only one that makes business sense is to buy the assets and leave the debt behind. Therefore we come to a newco. The clue is in the title. This is not just a change of ownership, as in Marlborough to Murray to Whyte. This is a new entity. The SPL Rules require a Club to own its own ground, or have it owned by a related company, or otherwise have a binding legal right to play there. At present, we think, Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration) owns Ibrox. That therefore by SPL Rules, is the Football Club. If the assets of that Club are sold to an unrelated company âGreen Rangers Ltdâ then that company will become the owner of âthe teamâ. The SPL Rules make clear that the Company = the Football Club. Ergo newco is not âRangersâ as presently existing. It could be a new âRangersâ but would not, either in law or in the SPL Rules, be a continuation of the present club. To recap, a distinction is being drawn because there is in fact a huge difference between a CVA and a newco. In any event, once a newco acquires the assets, the oldco will be wound up or liquidated. It will cease to be. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...as-newco-accepts-oldcos-punishment/#more-1186
Superpoops - are you seriously saying that Rangers 'pay' Neil Doncaster? When did Salmond warn him? Do you have proof or are you talking ****e?
Liquidation = game over, no more credits CVA = found 20p on the floor, 1 continue. No doubt rangers have got some cheat up there sleeve (up,down,left,right A+start)
liquidation, the secured creditors get paid first if any money is left after that it is shared amongst the unsecured creditors.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/...n-says-no-to-rangers-newco-without-sanctions/ Sorry ST, posted this before i saw you had posted already.
so celtic, st johnstone, hibs are all against a newco with no sanctions. will be interesting to see if anyone else jumps on board. i would be surprised if aberdeen didnt vote against a newco with no snactions. not sure about the rest of them i think that almost certainly there will be a rangers team of some description in the spl next season. with or without sanctions they are in for some extremely lean years
Tonights tv program could finish them off , teams sitting on the fence at the moment will surely vote against them after more crucial evidence showing what they've been up to .
The knives are out http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/23/rangers-in-crisis-the-downfall-of-sir-david-murray-by-former-chairman-and-ally-alastair-johnston-86908-23870056/ I think rangers fans will have to concede now that the SFA was right about the embargo, in that your board didn't do enough to stop Mr Whyte. If Mr Johnston new all about Whyte then why didn't he tell the SFA?
when johnston raised his concerns i seem to remember rangers fans saying it was only because he was ousted by whyte and pure sour grapes. i think the old board probably did all they could, murray was intent on getting rid of them and whyte was the first person who agreed to buy it. if greig and mclellan (sp?) had came out too then maybe the rangers fans would have asked a few more questions. It was also all too easy to ignore everything that was said about whyte by celtic fans and bbc film makers
