Admin Statement on SPL rule change proposals - 11/04

[caseyjones 0]

Rangers' administrators have reacted with fury after the SPL revealed plans which would see any proposed Ibrox 'newco' face tough sporting sanctions.

 

One source described the timing of the SPL announcement as tantamount to throwing a 'hand grenade' into the takeover plans for the troubled Ibrox club.

 

It forced administrators Duff & Phelps to delay the naming of a preferred bidder from a shortlist of Paul Murray's Blue Knights, Bill Miller's Chicago group and Bill Ng's Singaporean consortium.

 

In a statement, joint administrator Paul Clark reacted to the announcement of plans to hammer 'newco' entrants to the SPL by describing the timing as 'disruptive and regrettable'.

 

The SPL revealed that the 12 top-tier clubs will meet on April 30 to consider new penalties for clubs enduring an 'insolvency transfer event'.

 

The proposal would see a 'newco' Rangers hit with a 10-point penalty for the next two campaigns, plus the slashing of SPL commercial revenue by 75 per cent for three seasons.

 

That would have savage implications for Ibrox budgets, with this season's likely television revenue of £2.4million for finishing second in the SPL slashed to just £600,000.

 

Crucially, however, it would appear to preserve their top-flight status. In rules regarding clubs going into administration, the SPL propose that in future a 15-point penalty be imposed or the loss of a third of a club's points tally from the previous season - whichever is greater.

If adopted, the new measures would take effect from May 14, but would not be imposed retrospectively. So Rangers would see no change to the existing penalty of 10 points if they are still in administration next season.

 

Wary of the time and complexity involved in completing a company volntary arrangement (CVA) with creditors, however, Duff & Phelps have asked the SPL to clarify whether the club would face a 10-point penalty if a deal was agreed in principle, but not completed before the new season.

 

To be passed, the key proposals require an 8-4 majority and would also see a transfer embargo imposed on any club which fails to make PAYE and National Insurance Contributions to HMRC and new rules governing the payment of players' wages on time.

 

Duff & Phelps have consistently expressed confidence that a preferred bidder will be appointed and a CVA reached to take the club out of administration before next season.

And, in a strongly-worded statement, Clark said: 'We had hoped to announce today the acceptance in principle of an offer for the purchase of Rangers Football Club, which would be followed by a period of exclusivity while due diligence is undertaken.

'Regrettably, this is not now possible as we were informed over the Easter holiday period that the SPL is proposing to consider at a general meeting on April 30, significant rule changes in relation to clubs which find themselves in an insolvency situation.

'The effect of such revised measures being considered at this juncture is that we, as administrators, are duty bound to inform those parties who have submitted bids of the proposed resolutions the SPL intends to consider.

 

'Failure to do so would constitute material non-disclosure on our part.

 

'Inevitably, bidders are now considering this information and will have to take a view as to whether it will affect their bids. The result is a delay in the sale process.

'We fully respect the right of the SPL to review its own rules and regulations and will not comment on the detail of what is being proposed.

 

'However, the fact that such measures are being considered at such a sensitive point in the sale process at Rangers is disruptive and regrettable.'

Prospective owners Paul Murray and Bill Miller told Sportsmail they were digesting the SPL proposals before making any comment.

Unpaid bill: Rapid Vienna are still owed money for Nikica Jelavic (centre)

 

The decision by the SPL to reveal their proposals was also criticised by Rangers fans. Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, said: 'I am appalled by the timing of this announcement.

 

'When the club entered administration, we fully expected to have the existing rules applied in a fair and proper manner. The proposed changes seek to move the goalposts at a critical time and seriously affect the plans of those seeking the buy the club.

'Our fans are extremely angry and we all seriously question the motives and timing of the proposed changes.

 

'We will be asking searching questions of the SPL and we will consider what other action may be appropriate before the SPL meet to consider the changes on 30 April.'

 

Sportsmail understands such action could include the boycotting of away grounds.

 

The SPL announcement came as Rapid Vienna, still owed money for the transfer of Nikica Jelavic in 2010, warned that they will vote against any pence in the pound offer from a CVA.

Threatening to take the matter to UEFA, the Austrian club released a statement yesterday saying: 'Rapid assumes that Rangers want to play in European competitions in the future.

 

'The quoted rate of 10-20 per cent may well apply to general creditors who are outside the boundaries of UEFA.

 

'Rapid Vienna continues to believe, however, that the outstanding amount of money will be transferred in full.

'This is necessary under the regulations outlined by UEFA'S Financial Fair Play Rules.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2128473/SPL-plans-hammer-newco-Rangers-grow-fears-scuppered-sale.html

 

If true, this bit is reassuring:

 

If adopted, the new measures would take effect from May 14, but would not be imposed retrospectively. So Rangers would see no change to the existing penalty of 10 points if they are still in administration next season.

[forlanssister 3,050]

What's the point of playing in a league which is rigged to ensure you cannot win it?

[Zappa 0]

What's the point of playing in a league which is rigged to ensure you cannot win it?

 

Exactly and if some of these resolutions are passed (certain ones), then I would support resigning from the league because the whole thing stinks to high heaven of trying to shaft Rangers.

[charltonman 19]

Does anyone know how they compare to other leagues ?

[pete 2,499]

Does anyone know how they compare to other leagues ?

 

I am sure portsmouth only had a 10 point penalty.

[BlueMazza 0]

Considering the FA have helped Portsmouth to get to the end of the season, after coming out saying they couldn't fulfill their matches, I think that shows the difference between Scottish FA/SPL small minded mentality and reasonable courses of action.

It's not surprising, they usually do their best to hinder us - UEFA cup run - still, each new piece of evidence is depressing.

 

Remind me again why we want to play in this league? I'm struggling to remember at the moment.

[Gers4Life 0]

On this vote other teams should be careful what they wish for as our club carry a huge away support and I'd like them to know exactly what it feels like to be kicked when your down and if that means staying away from away matches then so be it! Now I'm not saying a total boycott but give them a wee taste of their own medicine

 

1900 Rangers fans stayed away from the Dundee Utd match last month and it cost utd £40k in lost ticket sales!

 

One simple phrase springs to mind' don't bite the hand that feeds you!

[biggordy 0]

We entered administration under certain rules, so we should exit under the same.

 

Don't see how they can change them midway.

 

With administration being a legal process instructed by the Courts in order to protect creditors, and the Club, is it not illegal to deliberately disrupt and obstruct it ?

Not only is it assuming a negative tax case outcome, but it is preventing the Court appointed Administrators from completing their duties post haste while incurring more costs to the Club, as well as tax payers?

[caseyjones 0]

With administration being a legal process instructed by the Courts in order to protect creditors, and the Club, is it not illegal to deliberately disrupt and obstruct it ?

Not only is it assuming a negative tax case outcome, but it is preventing the Court appointed Administrators from completing their duties post haste while incurring more costs to the Club, as well as tax payers?

 

Duff & Phelps and haste in the same sentence!

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

What would they do if we told them to stick their league? The new rules are farcical at best.

 

We should now begin looking at alternatives.