Hmm,
Not quite that simple, but a worthy try by wee Alex.
Mitre how is it not that simple-NEWCO or CVA = THREE YEAR EURO BAN.
And if you want to reply can you use plain english please.
considering Alex, considering
"UEFA are considering" = "someone I spoke to said that this might be something that UEFA might think about sometime, maybe.
So, if UEFA decided to do it today, it would be around season 2020/21 before they could get it all agreed & in force.
Maybe
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-celtic-football-and-athletic-company
How come Celtic got to play in Europe after 1994?
aw jeez - here comes TCD & mitre
<no one mention Leeds FFS>
Various ways round it, firstly if its Millers incubator idea then the 2 companies would merge allowing the historic accounts to be published. I really dont think this method will work though, the OldCo will be allowed to liquidate once the club has safely transfered to the newco.
Most importantly is the fact that the 3 year account rule is only 1 of 37 measures used by Uefa. They can grant dispensation when they see fit, which they may well do in our case. They have used this moving of the goal posts in the past to grant teams entry. Might well choose to do it with us. I think its 50-50. Definately not a certain ban, thats for sure.
Leeds you say!
Lucky i have a deadline today mate! Ill spare it this time!
Before someone states it, the 1994 situation with celtic was not a newco. Different circumstances.
Both methods retain the history though
What about Leeds?
------------
They confirmed to Alex Thomson today that they exited administration after agreeing a CVA. Something Mitre has been denying all along. No CVA=NO History
CelticDavie,
Where was this confirmed? Its clearly wrong as KPMG clearly state that it was never agreed and that a CVL was applied instead.
Mitre- According to Thomson from Leed themselves. "@alextomo: @tagsbo well LUFC tell me they did - you wanna call Elland Rd?"
Now it's not like the painstaking work you have put in on the subject but it's Leeds saying they agreed a deal with 75% of creditors. Leeds and the other Newcos mentioned by Doncaster last night all had one thing in common; 75% of creditors agreed to a penny in £ deal before transfer of assets to Newco.
Davie,
I had a very long conversation with Gerald Krasner, who is a very nice gentleman by the way, around this very same situation. He is an insolvency expert.
He was in charge of Leeds during their troubles. He confirmed to me that a CVA was never passed. This is backed up by the official KPMG notes which i have posted many times.
Trust me, im correct on this one.
CD - I'd go with the officially and legally published record rather than the ramblings of a non football journo trying to make a name for himself.
What I've read it says they got an agreement from 75% of creditors but HMRC challenged it on the final day but then dropped that challenge. Because they had 75% agreement from creditors the FA must've allowed them to transfer under "exceptional circumstances" rather than the CVA. But why should that matter anyway? those rules don't apply in Scotland.
Just curious mitre, what did the creditors actually get in the pound compared to what was agreed on the CVA? Was it the same amount?
I'm pretty confident that with the media frenzy and what Doncaster is saying a Rangers Newco will be back in the SPL next season maybe with some sanctions. I liked the idea of how you could get round those sanctions; Newco before the last game of the season and turn up and try play the game. If the SPL doesn't stop you then you could argue you should have any sanctions because the Newco has already played in SPL.
Cooper- Thomson is "making a name for himself"? I really don't think he needs to tell stories about a club in a footballing backwater to do that.
CelticDavie,
Not sure where you have read that, but its not quite giving the full picture.
The creditors ended up getting a share of £1.7m from the CVL once the CVA was deemed as impossible to pass due to not having enough consent from the creditors.
SO why has Thomson bothered getting involved? For the good of mankind? No, he has done it to promote himself as some sort of "i'll tell the TRUE story", and come up with hee haw.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
No Euro Footy for the Bears For 3 Years
Page 1 of 1
posted on 1/5/12
Hmm,
Not quite that simple, but a worthy try by wee Alex.
posted on 1/5/12
Mitre how is it not that simple-NEWCO or CVA = THREE YEAR EURO BAN.
And if you want to reply can you use plain english please.
posted on 1/5/12
considering Alex, considering
posted on 1/5/12
"UEFA are considering" = "someone I spoke to said that this might be something that UEFA might think about sometime, maybe.
So, if UEFA decided to do it today, it would be around season 2020/21 before they could get it all agreed & in force.
Maybe
posted on 1/5/12
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-celtic-football-and-athletic-company
How come Celtic got to play in Europe after 1994?
posted on 1/5/12
aw jeez - here comes TCD & mitre
<no one mention Leeds FFS>
posted on 1/5/12
Various ways round it, firstly if its Millers incubator idea then the 2 companies would merge allowing the historic accounts to be published. I really dont think this method will work though, the OldCo will be allowed to liquidate once the club has safely transfered to the newco.
Most importantly is the fact that the 3 year account rule is only 1 of 37 measures used by Uefa. They can grant dispensation when they see fit, which they may well do in our case. They have used this moving of the goal posts in the past to grant teams entry. Might well choose to do it with us. I think its 50-50. Definately not a certain ban, thats for sure.
posted on 1/5/12
Leeds you say!
Lucky i have a deadline today mate! Ill spare it this time!
posted on 1/5/12
What about Leeds?
posted on 1/5/12
Before someone states it, the 1994 situation with celtic was not a newco. Different circumstances.
Both methods retain the history though
posted on 1/5/12
What about Leeds?
------------
They confirmed to Alex Thomson today that they exited administration after agreeing a CVA. Something Mitre has been denying all along. No CVA=NO History
posted on 1/5/12
CelticDavie,
Where was this confirmed? Its clearly wrong as KPMG clearly state that it was never agreed and that a CVL was applied instead.
posted on 1/5/12
Mitre- According to Thomson from Leed themselves. "@alextomo: @tagsbo well LUFC tell me they did - you wanna call Elland Rd?"
Now it's not like the painstaking work you have put in on the subject but it's Leeds saying they agreed a deal with 75% of creditors. Leeds and the other Newcos mentioned by Doncaster last night all had one thing in common; 75% of creditors agreed to a penny in £ deal before transfer of assets to Newco.
posted on 1/5/12
Davie,
I had a very long conversation with Gerald Krasner, who is a very nice gentleman by the way, around this very same situation. He is an insolvency expert.
He was in charge of Leeds during their troubles. He confirmed to me that a CVA was never passed. This is backed up by the official KPMG notes which i have posted many times.
Trust me, im correct on this one.
posted on 1/5/12
CD - I'd go with the officially and legally published record rather than the ramblings of a non football journo trying to make a name for himself.
posted on 1/5/12
What I've read it says they got an agreement from 75% of creditors but HMRC challenged it on the final day but then dropped that challenge. Because they had 75% agreement from creditors the FA must've allowed them to transfer under "exceptional circumstances" rather than the CVA. But why should that matter anyway? those rules don't apply in Scotland.
Just curious mitre, what did the creditors actually get in the pound compared to what was agreed on the CVA? Was it the same amount?
I'm pretty confident that with the media frenzy and what Doncaster is saying a Rangers Newco will be back in the SPL next season maybe with some sanctions. I liked the idea of how you could get round those sanctions; Newco before the last game of the season and turn up and try play the game. If the SPL doesn't stop you then you could argue you should have any sanctions because the Newco has already played in SPL.
Cooper- Thomson is "making a name for himself"? I really don't think he needs to tell stories about a club in a footballing backwater to do that.
posted on 1/5/12
CelticDavie,
Not sure where you have read that, but its not quite giving the full picture.
The creditors ended up getting a share of £1.7m from the CVL once the CVA was deemed as impossible to pass due to not having enough consent from the creditors.
posted on 1/5/12
SO why has Thomson bothered getting involved? For the good of mankind? No, he has done it to promote himself as some sort of "i'll tell the TRUE story", and come up with hee haw.
Page 1 of 1