Newco Rangers could avoid sanctions from SPL

[ian1964 10,861]

Rangers could start next season as a new company in the Scottish Premier League without incurring any sanctions - such as a points deduction or fine.

 

A vote will take place next week to decide what should happen to clubs who come out of administration in this way as "a new company".

Continue reading the main story

 

â??I am not entirely sure why a distinction is made between the two routes out of administrationâ?

 

Neil Doncaster SPL chief executive

 

Fans of other clubs have been demanding tough sanctions.

 

But SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster said: "Newcos have been allowed within UK football for many years."

 

Rangers hope to exit administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement under the consortium led by Charles Green.

 

But the former Sheffield United chief executive and his group may seek a "newco" route if such a proposal is rejected by creditors.

 

"There is certainly a distinction between a CVA and a newco, without any doubt," Doncaster told BBC Scotland.

 

"But Newco is typically the way businesses in general escape from administration. It's far more common than a CVA.

 

"So I am not entirely sure why a distinction is made between the two routes out of administration.

 

"You achieve a sporting advantage over other clubs by going into administration, therefore you should receive a sporting penalty for going into administration in the first place. That seems to me to be entirely logical."

 

By definition, though, creditors must agree for a CVA to be successful, whereas a newco gives them no say.

 

SPL clubs will meet at Hampden Park on 30 May to debate new financial fair play rules, having twice delayed voting on the proposals.

 

Among the proposals on the table to deal with a newco are 10-point deductions over two seasons and 75% reductions in SPL revenue over three seasons.

 

A minimum of eight clubs must vote in favour of the point deductions for that resolution to be carried, while 11 votes are required for the imposition of the financial penalty.

 

If approved, the rule changes will take effect immediately but will not be retrospective.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18148989

[ian1964 10,861]

Scottish Premier League chief executive Neil Doncaster fails to understand why a huge distinction is being made between a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) and 'newco' exit from administration for Rangers.

 

The SPL clubs are due to meet next Wednesday to discuss financial fair play rules and vote, at the third time of asking after two postponements, on increased sanctions for newcos and clubs going into administration.

 

New rules would see clubs in administration lose at least 10 points - cut from the original proposal of 15 - or a third of their previous season's tally, whichever is greater.

 

The proposed rule changes would also see clubs who undergo an "insolvency transfer" docked 10 points for two seasons and lose 75% of their income for three years.

 

Rangers' prospective owner Charles Green and his consortium plan to push for a newco if the CVA is rejected but many non-Gers fans oppose an Ibrox newco being allowed to remain in the SPL or favour more swingeing penalties if that is to happen - which puzzles Doncaster.

 

Speaking at Hampden he said: "There is certainly a distinction between a CVA and a newco, without any doubt.

 

"But newcos have been allowed within UK football for many years, newco is typically the way that businesses in general escape from administration, it is far more common than a CVA route.

 

"So I am not entirely sure why such a distinction is drawn between the two routes out of administration.

 

"You achieve a sporting advantage over other clubs by going into administration, therefore you should receive a sporting penalty for going into administration in the first place, that seems to me to be entirely logical."

 

Doncaster summarised what the SPL clubs will be discussing and voting on at the national stadium next week.

 

He said: "There is a number of financial fair play resolutions to be considered, one of those will potentially increase the sanctions on any club going into administration in the future.

 

"There are two resolutions that deal with newco and what might be a penalty for a club escaping administration via a newco route.

 

"There are new resolutions that would make it an offence not to pay the players or the tax man on time and there are various tidying-up resolutions that will be considered.

 

"Separately, there will also be a members requisite resolution which is an attempt to change the voting rules in the SPL.

 

"The vast majority of votes in the SPL are carried on an 8-4 basis but there are some resolutions require 11 votes and the resolution that has been put forward by some clubs would be to change that to 75% in all cases.

 

"Finally, there is a resolution which would change the decision on a newco which is currently taken by the SPL board, to be taken by the members."

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/scottishpremier/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/12/05/21/SOCCER_SPL_Nightlead.html&TEAMHD=scotspremiership&BID=425

[GovanAllan 0]

Did he not say this last week or are the Rhags just running old stories waiting for tomorrows Panorama programme.

[der Berliner 4,137]

Fair play rules are fine and well, as long as it is actually fair play. The SFA verdict, e.g. punishes the club and its support for the failings of essentialy one person. Hence one malcontent chap has the potential to ruin 140 years of history. If some measures need to be taken to avoid this at club level and association level, fair enough. But levelling out what comes down to be utterly draconian measures which are far too excessive and go without backing in the rules as well as any precedence ... well.

[UCF2008 0]

What I don't get is where he says clubs entering administration achieve a sporting advantage over other clubs. Most clubs who enter administration lose players. Even we lost players and would have lost a lot more had it not been for them taking huge pay cuts. Despite that reprieve we still could lose half our squad. Where's the sporting advantage?

[Bluedell 6,067]

What I don't get is where he says clubs entering administration achieve a sporting advantage over other clubs. Most clubs who enter administration lose players. Even we lost players and would have lost a lot more had it not been for them taking huge pay cuts. Despite that reprieve we still could lose half our squad. Where's the sporting advantage?

 

You have been paying players that you can't afford.

You are getting rid of your debts going forward and don't need to keep aside some of your income to pay them.

 

It's quite right that teams going into administration lose 10 points as has been done in the past. Where it is unfair is that they can pick just one team and decide they have brought the game into disrepute and put additional punishments onto them.

[Tannochsidebear 2,511]

The truth is of course that there is no sporting advantage, and neither should there be.

 

Most clubs entering administration get an automatic points deduction which could see them relegated or in our case removed our title ambitions. We lost players and would have lost a lot more if it were not for the generosity of high-earning players in taking huge pay cuts.

 

It would also be normal for the aftershocks of administration to be still with that club for at least a couple of years afterwards with financial difficulties affecting the clubs ability to retain/recruit players at a level capable of even staying still, never mind growing.

 

In our case, we lost a title that was in the balance. We lost our ability to play in Europe in 12-13. We lost 2 players. We will probably lose more players this summer. In what conceivable way is thie getting a sporting advantage?

 

I can understand that Doncaster means that we can come out of the CVA without any debt, therefore he sees that as getting an advantage over clubs that have debt. My counter-argument to that is that if clubs are running with debt, they are just about as guilty as we were for running our clubs beyond our means. Instead of pushing the argument that Rangers can get a hypothetical advantage, he should be ensuring other clubs also do not spend more than they bring in, therefore creating a level playing field.

[der Berliner 4,137]

Maybe they start a ruling that also states that a club cannot have more than say a 10m debt for a period longer of say 6 month. Else they gain an unfair advantage of teams that live within their means, e.g. St. Johnstone. But IMHO this will go the same route as Lafferty's Law. Once we are done for, they are satisfied and it won't be used ever again.

[Darthter 542]

set the allowed debt level as a percentage of company turnover - similar to a bank overdraft.

[Bluedell 6,067]

set the allowed debt level as a percentage of company turnover - similar to a bank overdraft.

 

Part of the problem with this is how you define turnover. Celtic may make £3m from £20m of turnover and we make £3m from £3m of turnover under the JJB deal. Why should Celtic be able to have a greater debt when we are generating the same profit?