Rovers_Lad Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I have thought about that as well.If you look at the likes of Dundee(twice)Livi and Well for example,it appears to have done them not a lot of harm in fact all these teams seem to be on a better and stronger footing than ourselves. Mind you,i`d much rather we were an honourable club and paid or attempted to pay our debts as opposed to shafting everyone by not paying our debts,leaving a trail of creditors getting repayments of peanuts in the £. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 To throw a body swerve and start a completely different hypothetical discussion... Would the Rovers be in a better financial situation today, if they'd taken the drastic step of going into administration at some point in the last ten years? Assuming a ten point deduction, the Rovers could've got by in any of the following seasons without dropping any lower in the league system: 2004/05 - Rovers were relegated from the First Division after the Anelka saga with 16 points. So, it'd be an almost unbeatable record for lowest points, but relegation is relegation is relegation. 2005/06 - 7th placed finish, with 42 points. Deducting ten, the Rovers would be equal with 9th placed Alloa on 32 points, but with a greater goal difference, avoiding the relegation play-off. 2006/07 - Losing ten points would drop the Rovers from third to fourth. They'd play Airdrie in the play-offs instead of Stirling and still get beat, obviously. 2007/08 - A much tighter league and a ten point deduction would take the Rovers from 3rd all the way down to 6th, but seeing as they lost out in the play-offs anyway, it's no great loss. Administration would also have allowed the club to pay off a chunk of the debt that surrounds it. I'm not entirely sure how this would work with regards to the stadium and the various ownership issues, but it's hard to see how paying off debts at 6%, 9% or 20% can be a bad thing. I'm glad that the Rovers have never been through the administration process, but I can't help but wonder if the club would be on a more stable footing than it is at the moment. I'd be interested to hear other views. However, assuming a 10 point deduction in the SFL is a dangerous one as there is no specified penalty. They could very easily deduct an extra point or 2 in some cases to make sure you get relegated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Also, there's an interview with Dave McGurn in the SFL newsletter this week. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/david-mcgurn/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightmile Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 To throw a body swerve and start a completely different hypothetical discussion... Would the Rovers be in a better financial situation today, if they'd taken the drastic step of going into administration at some point in the last ten years? Assuming a ten point deduction, the Rovers could've got by in any of the following seasons without dropping any lower in the league system: 2004/05 - Rovers were relegated from the First Division after the Anelka saga with 16 points. So, it'd be an almost unbeatable record for lowest points, but relegation is relegation is relegation. 2005/06 - 7th placed finish, with 42 points. Deducting ten, the Rovers would be equal with 9th placed Alloa on 32 points, but with a greater goal difference, avoiding the relegation play-off. 2006/07 - Losing ten points would drop the Rovers from third to fourth. They'd play Airdrie in the play-offs instead of Stirling and still get beat, obviously. 2007/08 - A much tighter league and a ten point deduction would take the Rovers from 3rd all the way down to 6th, but seeing as they lost out in the play-offs anyway, it's no great loss. Administration would also have allowed the club to pay off a chunk of the debt that surrounds it. I'm not entirely sure how this would work with regards to the stadium and the various ownership issues, but it's hard to see how paying off debts at 6%, 9% or 20% can be a bad thing. I'm glad that the Rovers have never been through the administration process, but I can't help but wonder if the club would be on a more stable footing than it is at the moment. I'd be interested to hear other views. I think the answer is yes but clubs also to balance short term gain with long term integrity - don't aspire to be a low-rent Dundee you are better than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 We didn't go into administration at the point when we were most in trouble because - unlike Livi and Dundee (second time round, anyway) - we owned the ground at that point, which the administrators would just have sold to pay the debts. We might as well have done the same thing ourselves (indeed, that's pretty much what we did). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mij Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 We didn't go into administration at the point when we were most in trouble because - unlike Livi and Dundee (second time round, anyway) - we owned the ground at that point, which the administrators would just have sold to pay the debts. i dont think owning our own ground had anything to do with us not going into administration at the point when we were in most trouble ,rangers own their own ground but are in administration and also , i also dont think the administrators would have sold off ours to pay any debt ,there duty is to make the business as attractive as possible for any potential buyer or investor not sell assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) Nah, the administrator works for creditors and his first duty is to them. (Why there hasn't been more talk of it in Rangers' case is an interesting and murky question - for one thing Ibrox is almost certainly not saleable for its nominal value; the main stand is listed, for a start, and there'd be a great deal of political pressure on the council not to allow permission for anything else on the land.) (Edited to add: both Gretna and Dundee - first time round - had to sell off the grounds, and in both cases are now leasing it back, albeit for a token sum. Different rules apply to Rangers. 'Cause, y'know, they're Rangers.) Edited April 7, 2012 by Yoss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mij Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) Nah, the administrator works for creditors and his first duty is to them. as is there duty to make the business as attractive as possible for any potential buyer or investor not sell assets. selling assets makes it unattractive to investors which then leads to potentially liquidation and creditors getting nil . the more intersting thing regarding rangers is greir whos company advised whyte on the purchase of rangers and was with him walking throught the front door of ibrox the day after whyte took control is a director of D&P the now administrators Edited April 7, 2012 by Mij 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Sorry if I wasn't clear there - it's a simple point of fact that the administrator's job is to maiximise returns for the creditors. Often the two things coincide, where that can only be done by selling the company on to someone prepared to put sufficient money in to pay a percentage. But that's not (in general) the case where there are saleable assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) Just noticed that the two best posts of the 11/12 season are side by side on the front page of the 1st div Forum..... Moron fans make me laugh so much... Edited April 8, 2012 by GreenockRover 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Season ticket juice on the OS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Seems like a very healthy thing to be doing. Hopefully it proves successful. £200 is exceptionally reasonable for this level of football, and free season tickets for primary kids is a very sensible move. For too long we've done absolutely nothing to attract kids. Hopefully that particular offer keeps going well beyond the end of April. If we could keep PATG prices for kids as low as possible too, that'd be grand. Fleecing dyed-in-the-wool fans the going rate of £17 is bad enough but £9 for a 13 year old is shocking. The board seem to be at long last coming up with pro-active ideas, rather than hand-wringing and complaining in the FFP. Credit where it's due. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Seems a great deal to me - no matter what league we're in. I'll need to find the time to go down and buy it now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pub car king Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I hate to be cynical but this seems like a. shit we need some money quick ploy in that you only get two weeks to buy it without any notice. It is a good price though and the kids thing has been looong over due 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I hate to be cynical but this seems like a. shit we need some money quick ploy in that you only get two weeks to buy it without any notice. It is a good price though and the kids thing has been looong over due Could it just be a case of looking to get a budget in so that players can be signed earlier in the summer, no matter what league we are in, giving us the better choice of players to sign (or re-sign our current players)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro Sham Bo Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Happy to see the board have finally come up with a price that offers season tickets at a decent discount. I'll definitely be buying one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This is a very good fishing session, albeit well meant. primary school pupils can pick up a season ticket absolutely free! Obviousy the Board are relying on a parent coming along to Starks Park accompanying their children, or San Starko will be the biggest creche in Kirkcaldy once a fortnight. Secondary School Pupil £ 90 £100 £145 These prices refer to being a Platinum member, how many High School pupils can afford £500.00 to become a Platinum Member? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny86 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 This is a very good fishing session, albeit well meant. primary school pupils can pick up a season ticket absolutely free! Obviousy the Board are relying on a parent coming along to Starks Park accompanying their children, or San Starko will be the biggest creche in Kirkcaldy once a fortnight. Secondary School Pupil £ 90 £100 £145 These prices refer to being a Platinum member, how many High School pupils can afford £500.00 to become a Platinum Member? It's not a platinum member it's just a member of any of the levels I believe under 16's were £70 for the silver club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/sport/football/raith-rovers/raith-board-declined-takeover-talks-1-2243624 Apparently there was interest in a takeover from the same mob who tried to buy Queens. Were the board correct to dismiss this out of hand, without so much as a meeting? It all seems a bit crooked to me but nonetheless, I'm sure a meeting wouldn't have hurt. Maybe something to do with Jimmy Lindsay's suspension though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 U http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/sport/football/raith-rovers/raith-board-declined-takeover-talks-1-2243624 Apparently there was interest in a takeover from the same mob who tried to buy Queens. Were the board correct to dismiss this out of hand, without so much as a meeting? It all seems a bit crooked to me but nonetheless, I'm sure a meeting wouldn't have hurt. Maybe something to do with Jimmy Lindsay's suspension though. Yes, they were correct to dismiss it out of hand. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.