ayrshireranger 8,195 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 'By STEPHEN HALLIDAY Published on Wednesday 23 May 2012 00:03 KILMARNOCK chairman Michael Johnston believes a vote on changes to SPL rules dealing with clubs in administration is likely to be postponed for a third time next week as the ongoing crisis at Rangers unfolds.Johnston has also suggested that, if the Ibrox club fail to reach a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with creditors next month, there is a strong case for allowing a “Newco” Rangers to retain its place in the SPL without any further sanctions being imposed. The 12 SPL clubs have already called off a vote on proposed new financial fair play regulations twice and are due to meet again next Wednesday to re- assess the situation. The CVA meeting proposed by the Charles Green-led consortium, who have signed a contract with Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps to purchase the club for £8.5 million, is not scheduled to take place until 6 June.“I think the vote will probably be deferred again,” said Johnston. “I don’t think there will be any substantive decisions made on 30 May, principally because the CVA creditors meeting won’t take place until 6 June. So in advance of knowing how that is going to work out, I think it’s likely the SPL resolutions will be further adjourned. We will reconvene at a later date once there is more clarity on the CVA proposal and whether that has been accepted.“The Newco situation has never arisen before and it isn’t yet on the agenda. So there are a lot of issues yet to be resolved. If the CVA plan for Rangers doesn’t succeed and they have to go down the Newco route, then looking at it from a legal standpoint as a solicitor with some experience of these situations in the past, I’d say it’s not going to make any great difference to the creditors. The Green consortium is going to pay the same amount of money whether it’s a CVA exit or a Newco exit, whereby they buy the assets from the administrators. I believe a contract has been entered into whereby the same amount will be paid either way. So the creditors will be in no different position.”Whatever form Rangers emerge in post-administration, Johnston feels there is a strong case to suggest they have already been subjected to sufficient punishment. “The club is traditionally recognised by the football authorities as something separate and distinct from the people or corporate entity that owns it,” added Johnston. “So you better ask yourself at some point how much the club should be punished going forward for the errors of judgment of people in the past. The club suffered a 10-point penalty, the appropriate and only available penalty when it went into administration in terms of the SPL rules.“It has been refused a Uefa licence by the SFA, so although it finished second in the league it won’t take up its place in the Champions League qualifiers. They have also had a transfer or player registration embargo imposed by the SFA for a year. So they are three very significant penalties, two of which are going to have an impact on them for at least another year. Anyone who takes over the club, who has done nothing wrong but simply has good intentions towards the club and its supporters, is going to have to deal with those consequences. Whether there should be more penalties imposed, which will have a further adverse effect on the club and new owners who are blameless, is a difficult issue to balance against the desire to inflict further punishment on the club due to the sins of previous owners.'http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers-takeover-triple-penalty-punishment-enough-says-johnston-1-2311104 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Forever 179 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Sense, at last. Shame some of the other arsehole chairmen fail to grasp this though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Army Faction 28 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Lot of sense in his statement as opposed to the venomous bile that many others have spewed out. We should remember our friends as well as our enemies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 moe than enough. far more than any other club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHB 63 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 My own view .... these clowns are running scared of the financial consequences of not having Rangers in the SPL. They are dressing it up in fancy words but that is the bottom line.This represents a tremendous opportunity for Rangers supporters to flex their financial muscles and to remind the rest of Scottish football that paying customers still matter and cash is king. A really effective boycott of away grounds - even if it is for just half a season - will hurt other clubs in the pocket and serve as a powerful message that the Rangers support are not to be trifled with and that decisions - whether it be the SFA, SPL or individual clubs - do have consequences. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 2,996 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 “The club is traditionally recognised by the football authorities as something separate and distinct from the people or corporate entity that owns it,” added Johnston. Really? Can someone please inform the SFA of this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FernandoR20 2,133 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Good on him CERTAINLY will remember our friends and enemies. Does this mean, Rugby park won't be getting boycott? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvinsmarvels 13 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Good on him CERTAINLY will remember our friends and enemies. Does this mean, Rugby park won't be getting boycott?i hope not as i do love a killie pie or 2, but never 3 thats just being a fat bastard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Hardly any replies to this thread ... just shows bad news makes a bigger impression Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvinsmarvels 13 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Hardly any replies to this thread ... just shows bad news makes a bigger impression TBH i think everyone is just thinking what the guy says in the article. We have had our punishments so why should we be hit with even more, for taking away out of administration that would be fine for LOADS of other businesses and football clubs down south. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This is true he is preaching to the converted ... although we Scots are a salty lot Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 A man with some sense it will never catch on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosmhdo 1,879 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 A man with some sense it will never catch on.We can never forget that most chairmen have businesses outside football and don't make any cash from the game.Its mostly a hobby for them and that is the worrying thing for me.If it was their breadwinner then they would fight tooth and nail for their clubs future.With all the hassle they have had recently they might just walk away altogether.Think that the fact he came out with these words means he loves his club and the game.Hopefully there are a few more like him Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANMOR 17 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Someone not having a kick at us Now that is news! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.