pollymac
-
Posts
3,088 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by pollymac
-
-
What the f**k is this oddball playing at?
Does he have the money to bid, or not? Is it just a means of upping his media profile? Any why does a rugby-following Stockport-based "Hibs fan" care so much?
Downright odd.
He's more a rugby man than football, and by a good distance.
He also bought the heavily in debt Stockport County FC and transferred ownership of their ground to his rugby team before handing the football club over to the fans with the debt still intact (but minus a stadium). Then his rugby club started to charge the football club rent.
He was sniffing around Edinburgh Rugby (Gunners as they were at the time) several years ago when they were up for sale.
And also wanted to bring London Scottish to Edinburgh.
I understand he wants to move into Scottish Rugby, possibly with a team from Glasgow who may or not be moving to an Athletics ground in Scotstoun for next season and who, with the right investment and a bit of shrewd running, could make a substantial impact on the European stage.
He appears to want to buy an ailing Glasgow football club with, what has to be said, rather excellent facilities, stadium and training centre both, for a very minimal sum of money.
I'm not sure if any of the above are dots that can be connected.
0 -
If the club had been relegated, they might have gone bust and left the creditors with nothing.
My intention wasn't to discuss the vagaries of the Dundee situation though, it was to point out that the current Rangers administration isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Dens last year.
Dundee paid off the following players: Paul McHale, Eric Paton, top earner Mickael Antoine-Curier, Colin McMenamin, Scott Fox, Dominic Shimmin, Charlie Grant, Brian Kerr and Njazi Kuqi.
As well as the management team. Barry Smith was recalled from his loan at Brechin to take charge of the club.
Hardly the same as the current Rangers admin.
And that's conveniently forgetting the first time they went into administration when they punted Craig Burley, Ravanelli and Nemsadze as well as half their backroom staff.
As well as Livingston in 2004 when they did likewise, punting a handful of players before some others took a pay cut.
0 -
Yes, of course. But, Im sure the administrators would argue that keeping players with a resale value is better for the creditors.
Rangers currently have 10 players who have very little or no resale value due to them being out of contract at the end of this season.
0 -
Remember that there is an extra £1m (ish) prize money for finishing 2nd rather than 3rd, and that the administrators had hoped to be allowed into Europe.
Part of that is also consistent with every other team who have entered administration in recent memory. The administrators would (or certainly should) have been aware that the other part, i.e. Europe, would not be an issue.
0 -
As for your above post. How do you know for a fact people wont be willing to invest similat amounts into a Newco. I am not for a minute suggesting they will but how do you KNOW??
Uefa FFP rules, tax rules and football (certainly SPL football in light of blatant bawbaggery) not being as glamorous as it was prevents a good portion of them (Joe Lewis, Dave King, David Murray, not paying tax, not paying tax and the NTL deal).
I suppose you can always do a merchandising deal with Sportsworld or something.
0 -
Again..What benefit would the creditors gain if there is no club in the future? Would they not lose more or less everything? This is exactly why HMRC would far rather see the club survive rather than pull the plug
Absolute pish.
HMRC are chasing a number of businesses for poorly administered EBTs - do you think it is in their interest to put out a sign to such businesses that they can simply stiff the tax authorities and then do some cosy deal?
No sir, Hector will go for the option that does not prompt businesses to turn drag their heals through the tribunals and insolvency courts.
0 -
More relevant than your above post
The point is a deal was struck that if the players took massive wage cuts no players/Staff would need to sacked
It makes no sense to release players with a re-sale value and dramatically reduce the sell on value of the club...Who would that help?
As for your above post. How do you know for a fact people wont be willing to invest similat amounts into a Newco. I am not for a minute suggesting they will but how do you KNOW??
You're almost correct that you should not release players with a re-sale value (it's more complicated than simply 'with a re-sale value')
But can you explain why Papace, Aluko et al, with absolutely no resale value have been retained?
These guys are draining money, not from the club, but from the creditors.
0 -
You could debate that, though. If they think they can save the business and sell it as a going concern then, given that the clubs only business is football, it is their job to do whats best for the football team.
I dont, necessarily, agree with the lengths theyve gone to to preserve the team mind you
Perhaps I should have lengthened my post:
It is not an administrators job to simply do what is best for the football team without consideration for the business as a whole and certainly not to the detriment of creditors.
0 -
They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released
And this is relevant how?
It is not an administrators job to do what is best for the football team.
0 -
Dunfermline deserve to be relegated since we are the worst team in the League. That would be in a "normal" situation. However, I think it is pretty clear that this administration at the helm of RFC are desperately trying to limp/lurch/run on fumes to the end of the season. The club are still running at a loss are they not? I thought that an administrator's job was to cut costs to the point that there is no longer losses being made.
I also thought that if there was a liquidation then there was to be no relegation that season.
I'm sure the goalposts will be moved (pun intended) to accomodate Rangers in the SPL, whatever the incarnation. A rose by any other name would still smell as bigoted and unpleasant.
Do the Pars deserve to go down? Yes.
Have Rangers knowingly broken rules and laws since the 90's culminating in this fustercluck of a situation they are in, costing untold millions to many and the Crown? I would think so. Rangers offer more benefit to the Scottish game financially but certainly not morally.
Div 1 for us.....
I find this notion quite interesting.
It is true that they do indeed, as big as they are and have been, offer a clear and obvious current benefit to the Scottish game. But, and it's a biggy, what would they offer to the Scottish game bereft of the numerous, erm, boosts they have received over the years?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £40m boost from Joe Lewis' ENIC?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £20m boost from Dave 'loves the SARS' King?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £100m boost from David 'duped' Murray?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received an £18m boost from JJB Sports*?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £32m boost from NTL?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £15m boost inadvertently from Hector the Collector?
What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £45m boost from not paying Tax, NIC and social costs on £48m of wages**?
Remove any one of those artificial never to be repeated again boosts and you devalue Rangers and by extension their marketability and further what they are worth to everyone else financially.
Remove them all, which is what we are talking about here - a NewCo or OldCo will not ever be able to count on any of that financial support again, and what would the current Rangers side be worth to the other clubs?
Do you believe that without all of those extra moneys, Rangers would be even close to being the shadow of a side they once were? And would they have as many fans travelling to away grounds?
Which again poses the question: what will a new Rangers, without all that money, actually offer the SPL in the future that makes them so bloody indispensable to the the league?
*They could kind of count on something like the JJB deal again, however that deal was signed at a time when Rangers were being propped up by many of the other financial boosts, and certainly at the very peak of the EBT usage - could they count on a deal of the same value?
**In order to pay the players the same 'take home' pay, they would have had to shell out almost double as gross pay.
0 -
Junior football is something I may give a try.
The standard can be quite poor at times (not too unlike the SPL), but the expectation level is much lower or rather it's different. Even when compared to SFL games, there's just an almost intangible difference in the experience despite the obvious differences in quality.
It's mibbes just about the money
0 -
I didn't realise you'd given up watching Falkirk??
I decided to miss an away game 2 and half years ago and realised I didn't miss it. I've been to 3 away games since. I then started missing home games and have realised I didn't miss it. When I have gone to games I've wondered why I bothered. Its a complete and utter waste of money.
I too can't believe I wasted so much time and money on football.
I went that way 10 years ago or so. I think my 'final' straw was when Larsson was handed that huge contract (2002??) - I seem to recall just sitting down and thinking: furfuxake, that'll be another £50 next season. When I questioned the amount the money I spent on my seat I knew the game, for me, had changed.
Of course, I still went to games, but more and more it was much less often than I did and I started watching Brechin more and more. Even that became a chore after my second was born and I now take in about three or four senior games each season.
The second division's where it's at anyway.
0 -
so you believe that a newco should not be hit with sanctions of a financial nature. you say that if transfer embargoes etc were implemented the game would be over, do you mean for you or scottish football?
in the bit about you putting thousands in to the scottish game,and the economy each year. so do most people who follow football full time, but that does not mean that the team they support should be given special treatment because someone volunteers to spend their money on a hobby, does it?
I think essentially what he was saying is that if newco are allowed back into the SPL, they should be allowed in with no penalty whatsoever (mibbes a points deduction, I think he missed that one out).
:lol: 0 -
I have said all along that if Rangers go the Newco route it would be morally wrong for them to be automatically invited back into the SPL. I thought the Other clubs would want them back in to cash in on the travelling support...sponsorship money and the TV deal. If there is a Newco then the best answer for everybody would be Newco Rangers starting from the 3rd division.
I would most certainly be following The Rangers or the Newco or whatever home and away. I am looking forward to putting all this behind us and starting again and trying to get back to where we were...if that is possible.
I , like every Rangers i have spoken to, will not support any financial penalties,Transfer embargoes or European bans( put through by spl/sfa). If the Newco was to go along with these ridiculous suggestions the game would well and truly be over. They can have my season ticket back and after reading other forums i think that is pretty well the opinion of all Rangers supporters. I put thousands of pounds a year into the Scottish game and Scottish Economy by travelling to see my team.. We have the largets travelling support in Scotland and the other clubs can kiss goodbye to that money..This utter nonsense that teams would thrive with something to play for is simply not true..What was the crowd for St Johnstone v Motherwell when they were 3rd and 4th? I believe it was under 4000
The SPL have changed rules mid season before to help stricken clubs and keep them in the league...They have even turned a blind eye at others going into Administration but this is the first time the league has put forward rule changes to try and handicap an already stricken club. I think it is best we leave now and will see you all in a 3 or 4 years. Maybe when we get back into the SPL your clubs can go full time again
What a total f*ckup of a post, even by your standards.
The best bit was this: 'this is the first time the league has put forward rule changes to try and handicap an already stricken club'
:lol: 0 -
Yeah thats true.
Most clubs would have to go part-time and slash the wages.A couple of clubs might even die.
The quality would be poor but it would be very competitive and honest.Most importantly on a saturday with 3pm kick offs.
Who knows there could be a tv deal to be made, but it would be fairly distributed.
Nah. Just get rid of der orkenkind. And then...
Clubs who are, say £6m?, in debt could look at their prospective losses over the next two or three years, tot them up and face the task of somehow covering £3m or so of shortfall.
Answer? Administration and offer a CVA of 25-50p in the pound.
Everybody could do it.
It would be f*cking ace.
0 -
I love this guy,
wrong thread (and forum)
0 -
I don't think a newco Rangers should be let straight back in. However if they do get liquidated it will be a complete
disaster for them. There is no doubt that none of the people bidding for rangers want a new co. Consider this
(assuming the new rules are brought in)
1.) At least 3 years of without European football (due to uefa rules)
2.) 2 years of -10 points ( at least two years they cant win the league)
3.) 75% loss of SPL revenue for 3 years
I just cannot see rangers getting decent crowds under these restrictions.
Although these rules are new a point to consider is that it what any club that does a new co will face in the SPL
going forward.
Making them play in the 3rd division in some ways would benefit them as they would have something to play
for and could play a young team and romp through the leagues.
European revenue is vital to Rangers/Celtic. Most years the minimum they should get is europa league.
There is no way Rangers get it easy with the newco route and I would imagine all the bidders are trying
like feck to somehow get a CVA together.
A newco rangers would be looking at 3 years of low crowds and not much to play for. Fans talking
of not going to games when rangers would be at there lowest point ever does not make much sense to me.
No, no, no and for good measure: no.
To answer your numbered points specifically (first):
1. Yes, they will not be allowed into Europe. That will hurt them. Like it hurt them when they had recently performed a debt to equity bailout of £50m and had their arses handed to them by Kaunas. Any guesses as to what they did next?
2. For sure, they won't win the league in those two seasons and most likely beyond - Celtic have a very young team which will be given breathing space to gel further. So Renegers will get 2nd place prize money (see next point) as opposed to 1st.
3. 75% of what? £2m? That probably covers the amount they'll be able to save on interest payments and is about a quarter of the amount they'll save from not being beholden to Ticketus. In essence, they'll be about £6m better off than if they stay in administration.
With negligible debt and a license to 'do as you please, SPL pyoor needs you', they could go out and spend tens of millions of pounds this summer, assuming FIFA can't apply a transfer embargo on a newco (which they can't). I've posted in this thread before regarding the numbers Renegers have received from external sources over the years - with a clean slate, what would there be to stop someone doing it again?
Their lowest point ever would not and should not ever be considered them taking a slight slap on the wrists, it should* be them liquidated and applying, not for the SPL, but for a space in the SFL, like any other club would.
*based on their appeal to the FTTT failing.
0 -
...why then is Peter Lawell so keen to protect them? Hhe has already erupted against the other clubs for wanting a more equitable voting structure. If Celtic and the businessmen that run it had shown any enthusiasm for change it would be happening - what we have is a squalid set of proposals that will in the long term 'forgive' the cheating. So until there is consistent evidence that what Celtic want and what Rangers want are clearly different don't be suprised when your squalid partnership and utterly immoral voting pact bind you togther as an 'old firm'. Either change it or live with it.
I don't like chips. Do you like chips? If you don't, does that mean that we both drive the same kind of car?
0 -
-
Will they have a choice in the matter if bigger creditors agree it?
Possibly - it would depend on what the voting for/against a CVA was excluding Rapid. Assuming it's very close, Rapid may well swing a veto.
Other than that, they can continue to protest against a CVA after the event to FIFA/Uefa/whoever deals with international transfer regs and get a transfer ban imposed on Der Orkenkind FC
0 -
My post is perfectly clear. if you are incapable of understanding it then that is hardly my problem.
Salmond has
1. Held meetings with HMRC on the subject of Rangers FC- the contents of said meeting are redacted now, on a very dubious basis, supposedly as they would "materially damage relations between the Scottish and UK government". aye, right. More likely "materially damage Salmond's electoral chances" as I strongly suspect they involve him pleading with the tax authorities on Rangers' behalf.
2. the evidence of Salmond's early involvement in the Rangers crisis- issuing a diaherretic spasm of press releases on the subject and basically calling for leniency and for some nice rich man to come and save the "Scottish institution" that is the big hoos
3. Him and Robison retreating at a rate of knots when they began to encoutner criticism from fans of the 40 non-OF clubs for falling over himself to prop up said financially incontinent institution - whereas he'd have quite happily have let any of those 40 clubs go to the wall, were they in a similar situation to Rangers.
In UEFA's eyes, all of these interventions may constitute political interference in the running (i.e. strategy and direction) of football in this country, and they will take a very dim view of it.
Not sure what exactly a) you don't understand and b) why you're jumping up and down purple faced with rage about it.
41 non-Renegers clubs
0 -
Good point. Should cut through some of the hysteria, really. Companies and individuals have technical disputes with the tax people all the time. Sometimes those companies or individuals end up with a tax bill. As far as I understand this particular matter, the club reached an agreement with the tax people. Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, if truth be told. Far from the actions of The Great Satan or whatever. Moreover, as I said, earlier, David Murray effectively gave Craig Whyte more than enough money to settle this bill. But Whyte didn't pay it over.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
By 'the club reached an agreement', you of course mean: the club were found out to have performed tax planning without the law of the land, were caught bang to rights and to prevent further penalties above interest accrued, agreed to pay exactly the amount Hector demanded with no negotiation at all?
You seem to continuously confuse 'being within the law' with 'breaking the law, but being far from the actions of some mythological entity'.
I commend you on your ignorance.
The fact remains: Rangers broke tax laws more than a decade ago - this is not in dispute. Although it was a while back. But wasn't initially when the breach was discovered. But was hidden in the uttermost inception of the scheme.
Ooh, there's just so many layers of f*ck people around.
And by people, I don't mean The People, more Joe Public et al, although I do concede that The People being shafted is quite amusing.
0 -
Just not paying the bills clearly is another matter from tax planning.
Well, yes, but in the context of the discussion, it is also clearly different from me ordering a Chinese takeaway. Which is also utterly irrelevant, like your point.
0 -
Yes.
If you're still in any doubt, I suggest you review the discussion.
Erm, no.
If you're in any doubt, I suggest you review the Administrators document.
hint: pay particular attention to the bit about paying taxes dating back to discounted share options in 2001 etc.
HTH
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
I'm guessing he wasn't in Scotland at the time.
(haven't read his quote)