Spfl 5 Way Agreement

08 Oct Spfl 5 Way Agreement

Well, if I`m right (in My Hypothetical…), then the agreement did not allow to appeal. of all parties….. rather a total acceptance….. OMG! In this scenario, there is no possibility that the SPL or the SFA wants to allow this document to see the light of day….. could explain his testimony after the decision. and that they do not use the terms of the 5-way agreement…….. Could this make his Achilles heel??????? An article by a Taig blogger appeared in my news feed about the famous agreement, and I decided to take a look at it. We only have Newco`s statement yesterday to indicate what the notification refers to – they propose the monitoring period, and then, only after May 6, 2011, the period during which Craig Whyte held a majority stake (although Dave King was still a director). The statement was not entirely consistent (another notice of appeal was published 8 months ago, but rejected?). It is also possible that the statement was drafted in haste and confused a written agreement with the SPL and not with the SFA. I would not put too much emphasis on that statement. Hopefully, the information below will help illustrate that Rangers Oldco`s creditors were narrowly defined in the 5Way and did not allow unlimited liability to be imposed on Newco.

The agreement itself was intended to bridge the legal gap between the two companies (Oldco and Newco) as to the conditions under which the SFA would transfer the SFA`s seniority and allow Newco`s ligaments to manage a football team in their competitions. It is simply a contract that regulates the privileges granted to a new company in exchange for the assumption of certain debts of the old company. From a legal point of view, Newco could not be held responsible for Oldco`s commitments unless it agreed to take them over. It was the pro-quo quid. In the event of a dispute over the contract, CAS is clearly competent. It is very strange that the three bodies that oversee Scottish football are coming together with a company that cannot maintain its membership in two of them and can quickly join its newly appointed successor. This agreement will then be kept secret. The “previous agreements between the club and the SFA” probably refer to the five-way agreement between Rangers, Sevco, the SFA, the SPL and the SFL.

This agreement attempted to isolate the new company from certain activities of the last majority owner of the Oldco Rangers, Craig Whyte – known as the “CW Exempt Acts”. It should hinder RFC and allow all the rewards and ££to help the dark side. The worst deal ever and the dark side would have always demanded new penalties against the Rangers. “Under the Five Way Agreement, the club is in the process of repaying football debts, both in Scotland and abroad” Tagged as 5 way agreement, Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, Arbitration, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, SPL Independent Commission, the fact is that the SFA was a very involved party in approving UEFA`s licence, which is at the heart of the dispute. Newco is not, but the SFA would try to shift the blame onto its door and match itself. After consulting the documents relating to the application for a certificate and the issue, it is clear that there is a case to be answered, both with regard to the period of issue and the period of supervision, which would have required notification to the SFA, but that the justification for the grant would most likely have meant the refusal of the authorisation during the period of supervision. Giannina`s case at CAS indicates that this would have been the case. There was also no agreement on the payment of the tax and the only possible appeal concerned interest and penalties and not taxation at the time of grant. . . .

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.