The DA Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Calm down dear, I was only thanking you. Haven't had my first coffee yet. Getting back on track, how do you think those FFP rules would be interpreted in Rangers' case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) There is, of course, an issue and mostly it's about posters posting about posters. Dons_1988, eg, tried to have a sensible discussion about our recent finances but he had no takers even from The Ps&Ds. That's not true at all.I piped up to say he was probably correct. Obviously though, that had to be ignored for not fitting your line about how diddies all behave. Edited March 23, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Haven't had my first coffee yet. Getting back on track, how do you think those FFP rules would be interpreted in Rangers' case? It is down to UEFA at the end of the day. It is not up to the local FA to make the decision, as was seen with TimiÅŸoara. The clubs in European competition are there to represent their FA, UEFA have to make sure that all the FAs are represented fairly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 That's not true at all. I piped up to say he was probably correct. Obviously though, that had to be ignored for not fitting your line about how diddies all behave. You did. We had a mutual sadness at the fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I was sure that King had bought shares, put in loans/funding etc, tbh I'm happier with him being part of a group rather than just him calling the shots. I have no idea on that one Bennett I'll be honest. From afar though it seems like he hasn't fulfilled a lot of the bluster he came steaming in with when he had his coup of the old regime. Although potentially it is for reasons no more sinister than the idea that he may not have generated as much support from the Rangers masses had he just said we're going to come in and over the course of the next few years we're going to address our cashflow deficit while trying as hard a possible to remain competitive in where we want to be. Edited March 23, 2016 by Dons_1988 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2011 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Said this a few weeks ago but this story, for now, is dead. Rangers are not going bust anytime soon, the "good guys" inherited an almighty mess and from what I see they are slowly but surely sorting it out. So long as there isn't pressure to repay the working capital loans any time soon they will continue to borrow it until they can reasonably get back into a positive cash flow. I would imagine this will take promotion (now guaranteed) and subsequently European football (far from guaranteed). I would think it is in their interests to trim their cost base as I'm guessing sympathetic shareholders will only go so far. On promotion to the prem it will be interesting to see how hell for leather they go on challenging rasellick. That will be crucial to their recovery. For what it's worth I think they have a decent manager in place who can make them competitive at least for Europe without spending a wad of cash. In this regard they are in good stead. This is the reality of it folks, as much as I hate to say it, they are doing ok. I really do hate to say it. I also agree with this, it is obvious, we all know rangers will be back in the premier, singing from their old song book, as if nothing ever happened, apart from having an even bigger chip on their shoulder than before. But the question remains, should they be let off the hook so easily? This is pretty much where my interest lies with the whole thing, and I find the arguments, and potential implications intriguing. I presume, the big tax case aside, there are still question marks over the legal and ethical transfer of assets from the defunct company to a new company that has basically the same name, and operates in the same way as the old one? So my questions are, is there any possibility that the courts could decide that sevco/newco need to pay up for their other bills, for example the £20M or so tax bill that was ignored by CW? How about the list of smaller creditors? It also appears that CW and CG worked together to run the old club, sorry company, into the ground in order to start again, debt free. (not to mention then having the audacity to try and continue playing in the SPL after all of that, haha!). Is that takeover, and all its shadiness, still being investigated? I have not been following the court cases, so I genuinely don't know where we are at with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 There is, of course, an issue and mostly it's about posters posting about postersI like how you followed that up with this: Abysmal stuff from you. You're showing Klingy levels of amoeba-brained insight and discourse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 That's Cilla Black levels of 'really reallies' and if you regard we Bears as a joke then simply disengage. Lorra, lorra reallys? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I presume, the big tax case aside, there are still question marks over the legal and ethical transfer of assets from the defunct company to a new company that has basically the same name, and operates in the same way as the old one? If that's what you presume then you're a fud. Not a lonely fud, though. Plenty of diddies are clutching that particular straw. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 For someone who isn't following the story and genuinely doesn't know, our faux Morton friend does seem to know the script pretty well. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yeah sure nothing to see here, looking forward to green and whyte tugging the forelock and apologising to the bears for all the wrong they pure done. Certainly don't expect them to go down kicking and screaming as they dish the dirt on fucking everybody, no sireee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 If that's what you presume then you're a fud. Not a lonely fud, though. Plenty of diddies are clutching that particular straw. ^^^ insults everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion on every subject (unless My Team = Rangers) whilst lamenting lack of meaningful discussion on this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yeah sure nothing to see here, looking forward to green and whyte tugging the forelock and apologising to the bears for all the wrong they pure done. Certainly don't expect them to go down kicking and screaming as they dish the dirt on fucking everybody, no sireee. Aye I'd be awfy upset if they went " down kicking and screaming as they dish the dirt on fucking everybody", really upset. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 ^^^ insults everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion on every subject (unless My Team = Rangers) whilst lamenting lack of meaningful discussion on this thread. Yes, that's about the size of it these days. He's something of a parody of himself now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylothedog Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35884725 Wonder if it's the club or company going bust?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 ^^^ insults everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion on every subject (unless My Team = Rangers) whilst lamenting lack of meaningful discussion on this thread. ^^^gutted that he hasn't been insulted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35884725 Wonder if it's the club or company going bust?? What's the big deal? Ditch the "bad" stuff, keep the "good" stuff and pretend nothing happened! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I also agree with this, it is obvious, we all know rangers will be back in the premier, singing from their old song book, as if nothing ever happened, apart from having an even bigger chip on their shoulder than before. But the question remains, should they be let off the hook so easily? This is pretty much where my interest lies with the whole thing, and I find the arguments, and potential implications intriguing. I presume, the big tax case aside, there are still question marks over the legal and ethical transfer of assets from the defunct company to a new company that has basically the same name, and operates in the same way as the old one? So my questions are, is there any possibility that the courts could decide that sevco/newco need to pay up for their other bills, for example the £20M or so tax bill that was ignored by CW? How about the list of smaller creditors? It also appears that CW and CG worked together to run the old club, sorry company, into the ground in order to start again, debt free. (not to mention then having the audacity to try and continue playing in the SPL after all of that, haha!). Is that takeover, and all its shadiness, still being investigated? I have not been following the court cases, so I genuinely don't know where we are at with them. the answer to that is 100% no, companies do this all the time in the uk, its common practice, the new company and old company are totally seperate and legally one cannot be held responsible for the other Edited March 23, 2016 by nacho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2011 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 the answer to that is 100% no, companies do this all the time in the uk, its common practice, the new company and old company are totally seperate and legally one cannot be held responsible for the other Genuine question. If Celtic did what your club did, in the exact same way, would you be so accepting of it? It might be legal, but is it ethical? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 To answer my own question, I took a look at UEFA's website. I think the following extract is interesting and it would seem to suggest that it's going to be close-run. Have Rangers lost more than €30M over the last 3 years? Would they be allowed to discount the running costs of Murray Park? 3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses? To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation. we dont have any external debt + our current debt to rangers international is 18 million we are clearly eligble based on that and thats before you take off money for youth development etc 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.