Analysis: Three years before European football if Rangers liquidated By NEIL PATEY Published on Wednesday 15 February 2012 00:00 THE law gives the secured creditor the power to appoint its own administrator, so it was no great surprise that the courts allowed the company to appoint Duff & Phelps, despite HMRC's challenge. I think HMRC could have had two motives for the action it took in the Court of Session yesterday. Firstly, Craig Whyte had said he wanted to negotiate with HMRC. Clearly, it did do not want to negotiate with him. Rather, the Revenue wanted to proceed down the administration route and not waste any more time. Secondly, looking at the submissions to court, it seems HMRC was concerned about whether Duff & Phelps could have been perceived as having a conflict of interest due to its existing relationship with Mr Whyte, and therefore not be seen as truly independent. This would have been a difficult position for HMRC to persuade the court of, but I think it achieved its secondary objective - forcing Rangers to get on with the administration. After the hearing, we saw Strathclyde Police raise concerns about future payments. Again, this was not a surprise and I think we will see a lot of this. The administrators will have to decide who are the priority suppliers - the ones critical to getting the team on the park on match day, and pay those people as first priority. They are also going to have to cut costs, including backroom staff, and maybe even within the squad itself, to ensure that weekly outlays are covered. There is also a danger that Rangers could go into liquidation, depending on whether the administrator can reach an agreement with creditors. They need 75 per cent of creditors to agree in order to secure a company voluntary arrangement (CVA); if they can't get that agreement, the only option left will be to start selling the club's assets through a liquidation process - that's the worst-case scenario. One implication of that is that Rangers - as we know it - would lose its Scottish Premier League membership, because it is the company that belongs. However, many people will say you can't have an SPL without Rangers, not least because of the Sky TV contract, which requires four Old Firm matches a season. A likely scenario is that a new company would be formed and membership of the SPL would be transferred to this NewCo. But that would have to be with the express permission of the SPL and the SFA, and they could impose penalties. Another consequence arises: to get a Uefa licence to play in Europe, a club has to be a member of its domestic league for at least three seasons. So, if Rangers do go into liquidation, they would not be able to play in Europe for the following three seasons. Based on the figures publicly available, it appears likely that the administrator will need HMRC's approval to obtain the CVA, due to tax liabilities. Even where the ultimate decision of the Tier 1 tax tribunal is not yet known, the administrator and Mr Whyte will want the issue settled to avoid a scenario where the company comes back out of administration with the tax tribunal still hanging over it. HMRC will take a robust stance in negotiations; due to requiring to be seen to get maximum tax collection on behalf of the taxpayer, and also due to a perception that football clubs have been persistent offenders. Neil Patey is a partner at Ernst & Young and a football finance expert.