sairdy

DUFF AND PHELPS, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said today: "We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14. "As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure. "The reasons HMRC have given to us for their decision to vote against the proposal are as follows. HMRC has cited its general policy of not agreeing to a CVA where there is strong evidence of non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities. "HMRC had agreed to consider a CVA proposal along with all other options in the case of Rangers but having taken into consideration the extent of funds which will be made available to creditors through the CVA option, they have decided that it is not acceptable given The Rangers Football Club plc's level of indebtedness to HMRC. "It has also been made clear to us that other offers tendered for the Club, which took the form of a CVA, would have been treated in the same way and that the rejection is not a reflection of the Green consortium bid. "HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure. "HMRC consider that the decision will enable a liquidator to instigate a wider investigation into all of the financial affairs and management of the Club in recent years and to bring to task those they believe are responsible for its collapse. "Furthermore, HMRC believes there will be an enhanced recovery of funds for creditors by pursuing those individuals who they believe are responsible. "The consequence of the rejection of a CVA outcome is that sanctions will be applied to the Club by UEFA and that the Club will not be able to participate in Europe for three years and the new company will need the consent of the other SPL clubs to the transfer of the share in the SPL, in order for Rangers to continue playing in the SPL. "As we have always stated, administrators have a primary objective to ensure the survival of the company and in this case, this would have been achieved through a CVA. It was with HMRC's approval, that a proposal was placed before creditors for consideration. "However, it is the commercial view that the level offered within the CVA was not enough to merit departure from their normal policy of seeking a detailed investigation via a liquidator. "However, we have been left in no doubt by HMRC the fundamental reason for the rejection of the CVA proposal is the historical non-compliance with tax liabilities by the former owners and directors of the Club. "As we have stated previously, there is a binding contract between ourselves as administrators and Charles Green, who is leading a consortium to acquire the Club. "The creditors' and shareholders' meetings will take place at Ibrox on Thursday but the results of those meetings will now be entirely academic given HMRC's decision. "As soon as the CVA proposal is formally rejected, Mr Green's consortium will move towards completion of an acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc. That transaction will be completed within a few days. "The sum payable to creditors will be £5.5 million, most of which has already been paid over to us by the Green consortium. "Over the coming months, we as administrators will continue to finalise the administration of the Club and we will work in conjunction with BDO who will undertake the liquidation process. "We would like to thank the staff and supporters at Rangers for their great determination and professionalism during a very difficult period for the Club. While the Club will continue to face difficulties in the short term, it will survive and continue to play at Ibrox." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2809126

DUFF AND PHELPS, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said today: "We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14. "As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure. "The reasons HMRC have given to us for their decision to vote against the proposal are as follows. HMRC has cited its general policy of not agreeing to a CVA where there is strong evidence of non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities. "HMRC had agreed to consider a CVA proposal along with all other options in the case of Rangers but having taken into consideration the extent of funds which will be made available to creditors through the CVA option, they have decided that it is not acceptable given The Rangers Football Club plc's level of indebtedness to HMRC. "It has also been made clear to us that other offers tendered for the Club, which took the form of a CVA, would have been treated in the same way and that the rejection is not a reflection of the Green consortium bid. "HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure. "HMRC consider that the decision will enable a liquidator to instigate a wider investigation into all of the financial affairs and management of the Club in recent years and to bring to task those they believe are responsible for its collapse. "Furthermore, HMRC believes there will be an enhanced recovery of funds for creditors by pursuing those individuals who they believe are responsible. "The consequence of the rejection of a CVA outcome is that sanctions will be applied to the Club by UEFA and that the Club will not be able to participate in Europe for three years and the new company will need the consent of the other SPL clubs to the transfer of the share in the SPL, in order for Rangers to continue playing in the SPL. "As we have always stated, administrators have a primary objective to ensure the survival of the company and in this case, this would have been achieved through a CVA. It was with HMRC's approval, that a proposal was placed before creditors for consideration. "However, it is the commercial view that the level offered within the CVA was not enough to merit departure from their normal policy of seeking a detailed investigation via a liquidator. "However, we have been left in no doubt by HMRC the fundamental reason for the rejection of the CVA proposal is the historical non-compliance with tax liabilities by the former owners and directors of the Club. "As we have stated previously, there is a binding contract between ourselves as administrators and Charles Green, who is leading a consortium to acquire the Club. "The creditors' and shareholders' meetings will take place at Ibrox on Thursday but the results of those meetings will now be entirely academic given HMRC's decision. "As soon as the CVA proposal is formally rejected, Mr Green's consortium will move towards completion of an acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc. That transaction will be completed within a few days. "The sum payable to creditors will be £5.5 million, most of which has already been paid over to us by the Green consortium. "Over the coming months, we as administrators will continue to finalise the administration of the Club and we will work in conjunction with BDO who will undertake the liquidation process. "We would like to thank the staff and supporters at Rangers for their great determination and professionalism during a very difficult period for the Club. While the Club will continue to face difficulties in the short term, it will survive and continue to play at Ibrox." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2809126

CHARLES GREEN, who is leading a consortium to acquire Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. Mr Green said: "I am hugely disappointed by the decision of HMRC not to support the CVA proposal and that disappointment will be felt acutely by Rangers fans across the world. "Frankly, I do not see what benefit will be achieved by this decision. My consortium's offer for a CVA amounted to a total of £8.5 million. "Now that we will have to complete the purchase via the formation of a NewCo, the purchase price and therefore the amount available to creditors will be £5.5 million. "I can understand HMRC deciding that football clubs which do not pay their taxes need to be punished, but by effectively banning Rangers from Europe for three years all that will happen is that there will be less revenue generated by the Club and consequently less money paid over to the taxman. "Also, I do not believe that by opting to vote against the CVA proposal, HMRC will generate more cash by pursuing those they believe as responsible - but that is a matter for them. "I am particularly saddened by the fact that this decision will mean that small shareholders will lose their shares in The Rangers Football Club plc, something which we were trying to avoid happening. "We will be exploring ways for the 26,000 shareholders who have lost their shares to subscribe for shares in the new company. We expect to appoint a private client broker in due course to allow existing shareholders and fans to buy into the new company. "We will, however, examine how to address this with regard to shares in the new company. "The solemn promise I can make to Rangers fans today is that this Club will continue as Rangers Football Club and will continue to play at Ibrox Stadium. "We will be liaising with the football authorities at the earliest opportunity to establish our position regarding the SPL. "I, along with my investors who believe that Rangers can have a bright future, will fight tooth and nail to ensure the Club recovers from this catastrophic phase in its proud history. "The fans deserve better and we will work tirelessly to realise their ambitions. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2809113

CHARLES GREEN, who is leading a consortium to acquire Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. Mr Green said: "I am hugely disappointed by the decision of HMRC not to support the CVA proposal and that disappointment will be felt acutely by Rangers fans across the world. "Frankly, I do not see what benefit will be achieved by this decision. My consortium's offer for a CVA amounted to a total of £8.5 million. "Now that we will have to complete the purchase via the formation of a NewCo, the purchase price and therefore the amount available to creditors will be £5.5 million. "I can understand HMRC deciding that football clubs which do not pay their taxes need to be punished, but by effectively banning Rangers from Europe for three years all that will happen is that there will be less revenue generated by the Club and consequently less money paid over to the taxman. "Also, I do not believe that by opting to vote against the CVA proposal, HMRC will generate more cash by pursuing those they believe as responsible - but that is a matter for them. "I am particularly saddened by the fact that this decision will mean that small shareholders will lose their shares in The Rangers Football Club plc, something which we were trying to avoid happening. "We will be exploring ways for the 26,000 shareholders who have lost their shares to subscribe for shares in the new company. We expect to appoint a private client broker in due course to allow existing shareholders and fans to buy into the new company. "We will, however, examine how to address this with regard to shares in the new company. "The solemn promise I can make to Rangers fans today is that this Club will continue as Rangers Football Club and will continue to play at Ibrox Stadium. "We will be liaising with the football authorities at the earliest opportunity to establish our position regarding the SPL. "I, along with my investors who believe that Rangers can have a bright future, will fight tooth and nail to ensure the Club recovers from this catastrophic phase in its proud history. "The fans deserve better and we will work tirelessly to realise their ambitions. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2809113

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18407309

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will reject the company voluntary arrangement proposal made by Rangers' prospective owner Charles Green. Green's consortium hopes to have its CVA approved by creditors when they meet at Ibrox on Thursday so that the club can exit administration. But the club needs dominant creditors HMRC and Ticketus to vote in favour to avoid the assets being sold off. The CVA terms suggest a maximum payout of nine pence for every pound owed. BBC Scotland has learned that administrators Duff & Phelps held a meeting with HMRC on Monday and were told of their decision. The CVA requires the approval of 75% or more in value of the creditors, and more than 50% in value of the members, voting on the resolution. Rangers entered administration on 14 February and await the outcome of a First Tier Tax tribunal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh over unpaid taxes - the so-called "Big Tax Case". Under the terms of the deal struck by Green's consortium to buy Rangers, it will now proceed to purchase the business and assets of Rangers for £5.5m. More to follow...

If only I had a pound, I could have bought some lube...

Wish I had went to poundland instead...

Dave Swanton on behalf of Brian Kennedy Twitter @swannymediaman David I note you have not yet replied as promised in your email below please respond as soon as you can. Regarding your recent press announcement ..".you were advised there was not agreement within the consortium about the funding of the bid" ....please let me know who apparently advised you of this as this is wholly inaccurate and on no occasion has anyone contacted either myself or Brian to state this is a worry. Further to state that amounts were included in the offer for playing in europe next season when it can't be achieved is completely inaccurate as the actual offer is for increasing the consideration in seasons 2 and 3 if they played in europe . Further to state that the offer should be reduced by 3.5 m because these are debts due to the company is also misleading as 2.4 million of this sum is payable in the next few weeks as per Brians earlier email and will be used as cashflow for the trading losses of the club. You completely fail to state our client had agreed to fund the huge trading losses post June 1st and picked up liabilities for 3.6 m of football creditors ... tupe liabilities ...debenture holders etc making a cash payable of 9.1m. plus trading losses prior to completion and European add ons together with other liabilities. You seem to be continually comparing the quantum of my clients bid against bids such as the Miller bid which are not real . As you know I have vast experience of people making bids for insolvent football clubs ....I cannot see how any of these new parties can be making real bids when they have done no real due diligence ....proof of funds may have been provided but it does not make sense to me why investors would invest in Rangers without full due diligence by them and I would strongly recommend that full due diligence is carried out by you on these parties as there is no time to have another Miller situation . Finally regarding your comment that Brian wanted to be the last man standing. In mine and Brians view he is as we don't believe the other bidders will complete If you want to talk to find a way to save this great club Brian has said his phone will be on this evening otherwise I fear it will be too late David David Hinchliffe Partner http://www.twitlonger.com/show/hcher9 Rangers Supporters ‏ @rangersfctrust Letter sent to David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps by David Hinchcliffe a partner at Walker Morris. Brian (cont) http://tl.gd/hcher9

Rangers Supporters ‏ @rangersfctrust Kennedy hits back with a letter from his lawyers to D&P. Live on Sky Sports News now. Rangers Supporters ‏ @rangersfctrust Kennedy "At no point have Blue Knights said they would receive money from Europe next year" Rangers Supporters ‏ @rangersfctrust Kennedy "Prepared to fund trading losses throughout the summer. This was not noted by administrators." Rangers Supporters ‏ @rangersfctrust Kennedy "Still maintins Blue Knights are last ones standing. No due diligence taken place by other bids."

RANGERS administrators Duff and Phelps have released the following statement. David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: "The most important information today for Rangers supporters is that discussions with two bidding parties are at a very advanced stage and we hope to reach agreement with one at the earliest opportunity. "We have noted today the publication of reasons for the findings of the SFA's judicial panel. "We welcome the fact that the panel described the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Club at the hearing as credible and reliable but as stated previously we were very disappointed that the panel did not differentiate sufficiently between the actions of the Club compared with the actions of individuals. We look forward to the appeal being heard next week. "It is most unusual for us to comment publicly on individual bids but due to the allegations made by Mr Kennedy and Mr Murray today with the regard to our conduct as administrators we feel compelled to reveal important facts in relation to the various Blue Knights attempts to buy the Club. "For the avoidance of doubt some of the comments made at today's press conference were grossly misleading. "First I would state unequivocally, that every opportunity was afforded to these parties. "The fundamental reason we could not proceed with the Blue Knights/Ticketus combination was that we were advised there was not agreement within the consortium in relation to the funding of their bid. "Throughout the process Mr Kennedy told us repeatedly he would be the 'last man standing'. As Mr Kennedy today made a virtue of explaining publicly details of his bid we are in a position to comment on those remarks. Of the £5.5 million cash on 'day one' figure Mr Kennedy quoted, £3.5 million of that would be provided by us in any case from the Club's debtors. "The bid structure also factors in performance in Europe, and reaching the later stages of the UEFA Champions League which cannot be achieved next season for example. "We therefore find it extraordinary and very disappointing that Mr Kennedy in particular should assert that the amount being offered is irrelevant. Time and again he and others have been afforded the opportunity to become the best bid in play and it has not happened. We have a statutory duty to accept the best bid that is deliverable. "The bid should also be commercially better than the liquidation of the business. Mr Miller's bid was deliverable but he chose not to proceed. We firmly believe the best interests of the Club would be served by all involved in the process respecting the bidding process." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2769722

I am naive in financial matters, I have no idea who has the best bid. I guess that most of the fans are in the same boat. I thought it was great to see Brian Kennedy use emotive language instead of financial mumbo jumbo. I feel this man and his team have what it takes to sort this mess out. I hope he succeeds.

http://club9sports.com/uploads/Statement_from_CLUB_9_SPORTS.pdf Statement from CLUB 9 SPORTS “We can confirm that representatives of Club 9 Sports have been involved with investigating, analyzing and considering a potential purchase of Rangers Football Club, plc on behalf of a group of interested parties from the US and UK. However, at no time has Club 9 Sports itself offered a bid to acquire the club. Our role has been as a member of a proposed consortium. We can also confirm that we have not met with, spoken to or otherwise been associated with Craig Whyte in any way. Furthermore, Club 9 Sports will not be bidding for control of Rangers Football Club, plc. We understand that it has been strongly rumored that our group planned to “liquidate” the club. It should be made clear that any party that attempts to acquire the club, eliminate the debts, affect a turnaround, invest monies and put the club back on solid ground is in fact “saving” the club from liquidation and preserving its past and its future. In an asset purchase, all of the good and valuable assets (records, marks, names, trophies, players, staff, history) are preserved and separated from the bad and harmful liabilities (tax bills, bad contracts, creditors), which have put the club into administration and which act to force the entirety into liquidation. By putting all of the assets into a different corporate structure, the assets are in fact rescued from liquidation. Such a transaction would be very similar to the one that occurred at Leeds United in 2007, which simultaneously rescued that club, maintained its proud history and allowed the club to shed its debt burdens so that it could have the opportunity for future success. Finally, we would like to acknowledge that any successful bidder for Rangers will indeed need to embrace the legendary fan base of the club and communicate with openness and regularity. There is no doubt that the remarkable record of championships won by Rangers is matched only by its equally remarkable support from legions of fans, supporters and followers throughout the world.

Statement from Rangers Fans Working group: I am sure you have all seen or read the media release from Mr Regan regarding our meeting last week. As expected, their picture of events is not accurate. The meeting was attended by 6 reps from the Rangers Fans Working Group, all very experienced at these meetings and the same group have been involved in successful and positive meetings with Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan, other Senior Police officers, Messrs Doncaster and Blair from the SPL, Rangers officials, lawyers, media experts, MP’s, MSP’s and many more, and never has our conduct been called into question. We have asked tough questions in a professional manner at all times, as is expected by the Rangers fans we try to represent to the best of our ability, and most professional people we have dealt with have been able to accept why we are asking such questions and give appropriate answers, and we have had to agree to disagree on many occasions in the past without anyone taking the huff and storming out. In view of the attack on our character by Mr Regan, we have decided to make public an extract from our internal report into the meeting, which was written after the meeting from extensive notes taken at the meeting. Below is the report and we ask you to make your own mind up about Mr Regan’s conduct. EXTRACT OF REPORT FROM MEETING WITH STEWART REGAN AT SFA ON 29 MARCH 2012 The meeting was going along fine for 45 mins discussing our work in the areas of the new legislation, and while he certainly was not as complimentary on our work as other parties have been, the meeting was fairly routine and amicable. SR, on taking up the position would have preferred the UEFA approach to offensive behaviour but is happy to go along the SPL approach for now. We discussed the pros and cons of this and we agreed to take matters further in other meetings. It was in the second part of the meeting that the atmosphere noticeably changed. We asked him about the fit and proper person rules and we discussed CW's breaking of these rules. He declared that he knew that CW had broken these rules in October after BBC documentary. That very week they started communications with CW's lawyers but they really got nowhere. SR declared that the breaking of these rules were facts, as proven in the BBC documentary and in follow-up enquiries. He stated that no interview with CW was required. However rather than press charges in October, he has waited until RFC are in administration. We asked why there was a need for Nimmo Smith's enquiry when SR had already declared as fact that CW was guilty, and why there was a 5 hour meeting going on that very same day when SR had just explained why CW was guilty to us in 10 mins. He said that if that was the way we were going to go there was no point continuing the meeting and slammed his notebook shut and stood up to leave. We were stunned at this petulant outburst but we managed to calm him down and continue. We went on to ask why the SFA were holding these enquiries at this time, when the info was 5 months old, and when Rangers has no working directors in a position to defend the club. He said there was no defence needed as the facts proved we were guilty of the breaches as charged. A new owner would not change the outcome. He asked him to see the difference between CW and the club. Our club had nobody other than CW to look over these things as he had got rid of all the other Directors and was essentially a one man show. SR stated that as Rangers was a plc, they would be held responsible in law for CW’s actions. We said that this was not a court of law but a football association and there should be a clear difference in the SFA’s actions between CW and RFC. He refused to accept this. We asked if the SFA would consider putting these cases off until a new owner was in place, or at least the summer, and were told it would make no real difference and SR actually tried to reason that it would be easier to sell the club with all this out the way. We replied that Murray managed to sell the club with the BTC hanging over us, and while that is still not resolved we look like being sold again so we didn't agree with his argument that the resolution of this case would help a sale. We then asked that as Scotland’s most successful club, most famous club, the club that has provided most players to the national side and put the most money into the SFA coffers, what was the SFA doing to help us? He said he couldn't do anything to help Rangers any more than any other club. We asked again, have you done anything at all to help the club since Feb 14? He said he had taken some calls, perhaps half a dozen, from the administrators and been as helpful as he could be to them. We stated we were aghast that the CEO of the SFA had done nothing in his power to help the country's biggest club, apart from a few phone calls which were no doubt about technicalities and not assistance. He then asked us what we thought he should have done. We replied that they could have deferred all charges until after the club exited admin, that they could have offered to pay other SFA members what they were owed at this time out of the SFA's vast coffers, and agree repayment with Rangers either out of SFA/SPL prize money or the admin/new owners. Any help would not be forgotten by Rangers fans, and there could certainly have been a deal put in place with the club to guarantee repayment. He refused to consider these points and again stated that Rangers had breached articles and had to be punished accordingly. We said that there was a PERCEPTION amongst Rangers fans that the SFA were acting unsympathetically and were taking this opportunity to attack the club, and his answers to date at this meeting would not discourage those with this mindset. At this time he again got angry and stood up and said he wouldn't continue with the meeting if we were going to accuse him of bias. When it was pointed out that we were not doing this, merely pointing out that those we were representing would infer this, he sat down again, albeit temporarily. We then said that there were perhaps up to half a dozen clubs on the verge of admin/bankruptcy and we wanted the lessons of Rangers to be learned and that no fans of other clubs will have to go through what we have went through. We asked if he could confirm that if a Kilmarnock or Partick Thistle were to follow us into administration, that the SFA would immediately look to its articles to see if they had breached anything and could be charged, and would offer no help to these clubs whatsoever? SR didn't like this question and when he meekly responded that he was there to uphold the articles and take action accordingly, we said we didn't believe that answer was a viable one. He said he had had enough and stood up and started to walk towards one of our group to shake hands, and angrily remarked 'quell surprise' to nobody in particular. We were astonished and angered that he would show himself up in this way. That type of childish remark was grossly insulting and indicated that he had thought all along that we would be there to accuse him of bias, despite the fact that he had asked us directly three times if we were accusing him of bias and three times we had said we did not. That clearly was not enough. SR had clearly come into the meeting with a closed mind about what he was about to face, and in hindsight it is abundantly clear he was looking to get out of the meeting ASAP. SR was out the door and being closely followed by DB when on of our group called after him "away to report back to Lawwell?" It must be made abundantly clear that SR was already through the doorway, with DB close behind when this happened, so to say that that was the final straw is an outright lie, and we therefore call for Mr Regan to withdraw this accusation immediately and to apologise for his behaviour in storming out at a difficult question. Our member apologised to the rest of the group for this outburst but it was in sheer frustration at the indignant way SR had just conducted himself, and to the answers we got from him during the meeting which in our mind clearly state his intentions to hammer Rangers hard for CW’s lies.

Is there minutes of this meeting, and will they be put online?

Lost and worried.

Cheers Frankie, I put in £120. When it comes to it I think a lot of guys would pay an amount monthly instead of a lump sum.

Does anybody know if there is an option to donate a set amount each month? I don't have a lot of money but I would give £10 a month for the rest of my life. If there is not that option, do you think that it is a good idea? I dont know who owns/runs this site, can I ask if this site is in favour of this scheme? Thanks. Gordon.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2612340

Thanks for all the replys. I was chatting with my mates and nobody had a clue.

How much do we get if we win the SPL? I have tried http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s82 SPL website and got % but no number. Does anybody know? Thanks.

2-0. Clean sheet at Ibrox would be nice. Papac x2...

I got the links from twitter. As someone who knows nowt about the financial world this info has made me relax a bit about what may lie ahead. Well done STV.

Since the turn of the century, seven Scottish clubs have entered administration. With Rangers new owner Craig Whyte having admitted that he is working to avoid taking the Ibrox club down the same road, the spectre of insolvency still hangs over the national game. The business implications of calling in the administrators are countless and can threaten the existence of a company, or provide it with a road to recovery. The sporting implications also have to be considered, and with clubs answerable to as many as four different governing bodies for different competitions, can be wide reaching. We've put together a layman's guide to the rules and regulations regarding administration from the authorities concerned and answered some of the key questions often posed. How many points will an SPL club be deducted? The simple answer is 10 points. The only way a club can be deducted more than 10 points is if it goes into administration twice in the same season. When will they lose the points? If the "insolvency event" occurs during the season, the points are docked straight away. If it happens in the close season, the club starts the next season on minus 10 points. Can a club appeal a points deduction? Only if it can prove it did not go into administration. What happens if administration lasts over more than one season? If a club begins a season in administration, they will begin on minus 10 points. What happens if a club goes into administration twice in one season? Ten points are docked each time a club goes into administration, unless the events are linked. It is up to the SPL board to decide, this can be appealed. Will a club still be able to sign players? No. The only exception is if a team requires an emergency goalkeeper or if a club is looking to replace a player who has left the club. This means no permanent transfer and no loan signings. Clubs can still sell players. The SPL board has the final say. How many points will a First, Second or Third Division (SFL) club lose? The SFL do not have a set figure. The amount docked from clubs is decided by the board on a case-to-case basis. The SFL are also likely to impose a registration embargo. There are no fixed punishments and the SFL can set any conditions it chooses. Can an SFL team be thrown out of the league mid-season? No. Gretna and Livingston were relegated to the Third Division for being in administration but this can only happen in the close season. What can the Scottish FA do to clubs? The Scottish FA's Judicial Panel has the power to suspend or terminate the membership of any club which goes into administration. This has never happened. Alternatively, the SFA can instead choose to â??censure, fine, sanction and/or penalise the member in such manner as it considers appropriateâ?. This has nothing to do with points deductions. The SFA has never exercised this power. Another option available to the SFA is to exclude a club from the Scottish Cup. This is a new provision which first appeared in the organisationâ??s articles of association in the 2011/12 season. Can UEFA do anything to Scottish clubs in administration? If a club is playing in Europe, it needs a UEFA club licence. If a club goes into administration but has already been given permission to play, it will not lose its licence for the season. Would a club get a new licence when in administration? It is unlikely. The club would have to prove it owes no money to other clubs, to its employees, and to HM Revenue and Customs. Additionally, the club would also have to prove to the SFA it is likely to survive until the end of the season in which the licence applies to. Club licenses are valid for one season and are granted at the start of each season. What happens when a club wants to exit administration? A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is drafted for a club to try and reach an agreement with its creditors. Clubs must agree with those it owes money to over how much to pay back, and over what period of time. Everyone who is owed money is then invited to vote on the proposal. A 'yes' vote is required from creditors up to 75% of the value of the overall debt. For example, if total debt is £10 million, the company must receive the backing from creditors to the tune of £7.5 million. How long does it take before the club is out of administration? If a CVA is approved, creditors have a period of 28 days to register their opposition to the decision. If there is no opposition, the club exits administration and continues in its current form, paying back its creditors over the agreed period of time. What if a club fails to reach an agreement? A club may try again to reach a satisfactory agreement with its creditors. But, if is unable to agree a deal, the company will be dissolved and the club will cease to exist. There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277010-what-happens-when-a-football-club-goes-into-administration/ Administration has been a key concern for Scottish football clubs in recent years with seven clubs having gone through insolvency. In part one of our analysis, we looked at cases when a club goes into administration and emerges having resolved its debts. However, in rare cases, a club can go into administration and be reborn as a "phoenix" company. This has most notably happened at Leeds United in 2007. So what is a "phoenix" company? A company that is set up to replace the old football club's parent company but that wants to run the club and keep the team in competition. Can they just take over everything without the team being relegated or having to start in the Third Division? They can, but they have to get approval from all the major bodies in the game. There are licences, shares and memberships that have to be moved over to the new company and each governing body has to make a decision. For Scottish top flight clubs, two bodies have to give consent. The Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association have to rule on the new application. A place in the League Cup, run by the Scottish Football League, is automatic if the club is entered into the SPL or the SFL. How does the "phoenix" club keep its Scottish Premier League place? The SPL is jointly owned by all of the top-flight clubs, who hold an equal share in the business. The share is held by the administrator of the old, dissolved company but can be transferred to the â??phoenixâ? club. The SPL board has to approve the transfer. The SPL board can put conditions in place before they give their approval. That can mean they impose a points deduction or any other terms they think are appropriate. The conditions for entry are set by the SPL board, and not the representatives from the remaining 11 member clubs. The board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision. With the SPL rules bearing a broad similarity to the regulations of the Football League in England, a situation they dealt with can give a hint to how things may be handled in Scotland. Has it been done before? Yes. Leeds United went into administration they failed to reach a CVA in 2007. A â??phoenixâ? company, Leeds United 2007, was created and an application was made to transfer their share and membership of the English Football League. The Football League accepted the application but said that the new company, closely linked to the previous dissolved club, couldn't start without some terms being imposed, to keep the spirit of the rules. The â??phoenixâ? company was allowed to take its place in the competition but in that specific case the board only granted the transfer on the condition Leeds started on minus 15 points. There's no guarantee that the Scottish Premier League would act in the same way as their counterparts in England but the similarities between the regulations mean that the precedent may be used as a guide. So will my team be deducted 15 points or more? It should be stressed that the figure of 15 points imposed by the Football League was discretionary and was a one-off. Reports that the SPL would dock 15 points, 25 points or more are speculation. The SPL could impose any conditions, or none at all, if they allowed a share to be transferred. Does the same apply to Scottish Football League clubs? The SFLâ??s Constitution and Rules (Rule 13) give them the same powers over membership that the SPLâ??s regulations detail for their competition. If a new company is created, the League would make the decision on whether to grant a transfer of membership, imposing any terms and conditions as it sees fit. And what about the SFA, do they have to grant permission? The SFA also exercise their authority on the transfer of membership and forbids any transfer of membership without its permission. The governing body makes it clear in their Articles of Association (14.1) that when a transfer is requested, a review is undertaken by the board. The board has complete discretion to grant or reject an application for transfer but also retains the right to impose any conditions or terms on the â??phoenixâ? club. Do the SFA decide on whether the club gets into Europe, provided they qualify? No, UEFA decide that. They issue a club licence every year to sides who make the Europa League or Champions League. Clubs need to be granted a licence to take part in European competition and applications are made on a season by season basis. As stated earlier, if a club enters administration during the season then the licence is not immediately withdrawn so participation in the Europa League or Champions League can continue. If a â??phoenixâ? club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden. UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any â??phoenixâ? club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/

These links here are from the bbc and the tv licence websites, both confirming that the fee has nothing to do with equeptment only live broadcasts. http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ103/