Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[The DA]

Just now, Bearwithme said:

Are you saying there wasn't a vote?

Yes there was a vote but Rangers had already left by then.  The vote was to allow the new club IN.

[stonedsailor]

10 minutes ago, Bearwithme said:

Coral have a good case imo. Rangers left the SPL following a vote - and votes merely reflect opinion.

Getting the excuses in early? As the Cambridge English dictionary definition says "if a football team is relegated it is moved to a lower division"

If coral win then Rangers Football Club were not moved to a lower division.

Edited January 12, 2017 by stonedsailor

[stonedsailor]

4 minutes ago, The DA said:

Yes there was a vote but Rangers had already left by then.  The vote was to allow the new club IN.

True dat. 

 

Or, more specifically to allow the transfer of share to a new legal entity.

Edited January 12, 2017 by stonedsailor

[Bearwithme]

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

[theoriginalhedge]

10 minutes ago, Bearwithme said:

Coral have a good case imo. Rangers left the SPL following a vote - and votes merely reflect opinion.

Wow !

 

[stonedsailor]

Just now, Bearwithme said:

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

Relegation is a fact though. 

[theoriginalhedge]

1 minute ago, Bearwithme said:

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

The club were liquidated.  Wound up .  Dead .

That is the very same as Gretna who now operate under their new title Gretna 2008. 

The only reason Rangers didn't  use their new title The Rangers 2012 plc  was purely to ensure they had a reasonable fan base to enable enough money to buy their way through the divisions.  

[WhaleOilBeefHucked]

11 minutes ago, Bearwithme said:

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

https://twitter.com/Coral/status/815173793954009092/photo/1

[The DA]

10 minutes ago, Bearwithme said:

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

I find it hard to accept that Rangers fans really believe this interpretation of events.  We were all there at the time and we all know how things went down.

[sergie's no1 fan]

Jim Traynor Column: Rangers must start from scratch in Division Three

POOR Rangers. Poor, poverty-stricken Rangers.

They are being kicked mercilessly while they are down. According to their fans the 11 other top clubs are sinking the boot in for no reason other than spite and hatred.

 

 

But they aren't the only fans wailing about the injustice of it all because supporters of many clubs are equally incensed. They are also raging against the treatment of Rangers and in ever-increasing falsetto tones claim the punishment isn't tough enough. Again, a nation is divided.

Rangers' legions believe they are victims of a witch-hunt but the rest insist that instead of battering the Ibrox club with points deductions and financial penalties they should be banished to the depths of the SFL if they are liquidated.

However, only last weekend Rangers' support demonstrated their fear of liquidation with a show of red cards warning potential owners that emerging from insolvency as a newco was not an option. But it should be.

In fact, if these fans believe the other SPL clubs are determined to neuter Rangers while they are vulnerable and unable to fight back, liquidation shouldn't be a dread. It should be their preferred option.

Perhaps Rangers fans need to take a different view. The insolvency trauma, while painful and hugely embarrassing, needn't be an end. It can be a new beginning if eyes and minds could be opened up to a different and radical way.

By now it ought to be obvious to everyone that if just one of the three offers to lead Rangers out of insolvency through the CVA doorway clearly represented better value to creditors than liquidation, the administrators would have awarded that person, or group, preferred bidder status.

And this announcement would already have been made despite the unhelpful timing of the SPL's desire to bring in further sanctions against "insolvency events".

The top clubs will meet at the end of this month when more than a few at the table will hope to have new punishments rubber-stamped in time to be used against Rangers should they be born again as a newco.

And rightly so. They should be hammered if liquidation is their fate for failing to pay the taxman and other creditors and no fan in his or her right mind should be arguing against further penalties.

The game must have suitable deterrents to prevent others from escaping debts in a similar way.

Such rules should have been enshrined in the SPL's constitution long ago, perhaps when Motherwell lapsed into administration back in April 2002. But even though the dark cloud of liquidation settled over Fir Park there was no talk of meetings to bring in new rules to deal with breaches of financial fair play.

Dundee slipped into administration 19 months later but still the SPL failed to address further sanctions for liquidation. Three months after that Livingston were dragged into administration and even after Gretna closed the laws didn't change. But now, as Rangers seek a way out of their financial problems, there will be talks to lay down new rules.

About time, too. But what about the time, Rangers fans are asking.

If the SPL had introduced proper insolvency procedures at the correct point they wouldn't now be under attack from all sides with just about every fan in the country believing Rangers are being treated differently.

Rangers fans say they've been singled out unfairly and the rest are adamant that because there is no threat of expulsion from the SPL in the event of liquidation this club is receiving preferential treatment.

Hold the back page! Rangers are being treated differently.

Well of course they are. They are one half of the machine which drives Scottish football and that's why the other SPL clubs, including Celtic, stopped short of insisting Rangers be thrown out of the top division if they can't be rescued from administration.

So, come the end of the month Hampden's boardroom will be packed when the clubs discuss further sanctions. Hypocrisy and cynicism will also be jostling for space because while more than a few in that room would love to see Rangers banished to the lower reaches they also know their own survival depends on the Ibrox club remaining in the top flight.

"Let's put the boot in but be careful not to deliver a killer blow - to ourselves, of course. Remember, we have to protect our annual benefits by delivering at least four Old Firm matches to our television paymasters."

Ladies and gents, remember the place and date: Hampden, April 30. You are invited to view Scottish football at its self-serving worst.

Right now it might seem as though Rangers are defenceless and unable to do anything about their plight but it's their own fear, of liquidation, which renders them powerless. This final strop on the insolvency road holds such dread for so many people but actually it shouldn't. Certainly not in this case.

Why do Rangers fans want to avoid liquidation? They are already in so much trouble it will probably take the best part of five years to recover but the rehabilitation could be quicker and less painful through a newco after closure.

It would be a different matter, of course, if the three bidders were all pledging to chuck millions at a team rebuilding job. That is what's required but Paul Murray and his Blue Knights aren't saying they'd lavish money on a manager. And neither is Bill Ng's group from Singapore nor the American, 
Bill Miller.

They can't because they don't have that kind of cash and Rangers fans might have to get used to losing more often to Motherwell, Hearts, Aberdeen and the others while watching Celtic run off with the championship every year. They just wouldn't buy into that.

And it would be much worse if Rangers have to be reformed because of liquidation. Life in the SPL with all the new sanctions would be purgatory. It would, in fact, be virtually pointless.

But even if they avoid liquidation European football would be beyond a makeshift team for more than just next season so Rangers fans, and the three bidders, should see the sense in deciding themselves that closure, with a new beginning in the SFL's Third Division, might actually be the best way forward.

Rangers have only themselves to blame and it would be a fitting gesture if they said they deserve to be shunted all the way down to the very bottom. That rather than a rushed batch of half-baked new rules and points deductions over two or three years should be the punishment for liquidation.

Also, if Rangers fans believe they are being unfairly treated by the SPL then why wouldn't they want to get the hell out and leave the rest to get on with it. And if, as so many people appear to believe, the top flight would be able to carry on regardless without Rangers everyone would be happy.

But what if Rangers went into liquidation, were reformed and then insisted the newco suffer the ultimate penalty and remove themselves to the Third Division?

They'd be expected to win promotion back to the SPL after three years and if their fans continued to follow them the game's needy would benefit. The smallest and poorest clubs would have decent pay days and Rangers wouldn't be shelling out fortunes on players.

If their fans bought into the new Rangers they could stockpile season ticket money and by the time they made it back to the SPL they'd have much more cash for a better standard of player than they'd have for the start of next season if they remain in the top flight under new ownership.

The SPL clubs would be worse off because of restructured telly deals. Celtic wouldn't be immune and would have to play in the Champions League proper every season to get the kind of money they need.

Some Rangers fans believe the club's history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected but there is a shameful part of that history which they should want to forget and any newco should make it clear a new beginning means exactly that.

A new club open to all from the very beginning.

Can't believe Rangers made this guy their media man 

 

 

[WILLIEA]

16 minutes ago, Bearwithme said:

I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions.

I don't really visit this thread these days, it's just the same old, but I can't let this tosh go unchallenged.

Anyone who has even a smattering of knowledge of business and company law knows, 1) this is nonsense 2) what the football authorities say or define means absolutely nothing in the REAL world!

[sergie's no1 fan]

James Traynor: SPL will not be able to prosper without Rangers

 

NO more than a good John Greig clearance away from Hampden one of the world’s oldest clubs lies dying. And no one on Hampden’s sixth floor even bats an eyelid.

No one up there in the offices of the SFA and SPL said a word.

Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever but not a single person among the game’s hierarchy was open for comment.

And that just about sums it up for Rangers, the club the rest of the Scottish game came to detest.

We are still waiting for the verdicts on EBT schemes and dual contracts but the fans of every other club have passed judgment. Rangers are guilty.

Of course they are. They’re cheats and liars. Everybody knows that. They can’t help themselves, it’s in their DNA.

And of course they must be stripped of their titles, trophies and dignity. Oh, and don’t forget those five stars above their badge, Get them torn off as well.

It’s all madness rooted in jealousies and twisted logic. Rangers have a seriously bad lot but the majority of the people who support the club are decent.

Yet everywhere so many people are waiting to dance on this club’s grave.

Well, they should get their pumps and tap shoes tied up because it won’t be long now. Yesterday the CVA proposal put forward on behalf of Charles Green by administrators Duff and Phelps was rejected by HMRC.

They didn’t even wait until tomorrow’s creditors’ meeting, although that will still go ahead.

But Rangers FC won’t. They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended.

No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.

They were closed and a newco must start from scratch although their fans will insist the history will be boxed up with the strips and balls and carried into the future with the new club.

Technically that history belongs to something else, some other company but even though the governing bodies appear consumed by technicalities and protocol supporters have other priorities.

They strive for continuity and Rangers fans will never be separated from or denied their past.

The name might change slightly, there will be a new owner, new players and a new beginning. But somehow nothing will have changed for many of the people who buy the tickets.

They’ll never forget and they’ll remember yesterday, too. Even though they and everyone else knew the decision to accept or reject Green’s CVA was 50-50 this was such a momentous day in the history of Scottish football.

Yet, unbelievably neither the SPL nor the SFA had anything to say as Rangers’ death warrant was signed.

Maybe they were bored, or maybe even stupefied by the twists and turns, outlandish demands and hopes, claims and counter claims which started in May last year and then began clattering down relentlessly since February.

With the noise and the clamour it has been difficult to make sense of it, to keep track and to understand the hatred and lack of compassion. It is almost scary that so many fans cannot see how damaging Rangers’ demise is to the game in general.

Whether you like them or not they are important. Along with Celtic they are the engine that drives our game.

But the dislike hasn’t been confined to the cheap seats. Other directors and chairmen have also relished watching Rangers fail and then fall.

Yet they should have known better and despite the voices of reason saying be careful what you wish for those clubs who have sounded off about sporting integrity will now have to be true to their own word.

If they have been listening to their fans, as a number of them claim, then they won’t allow a newco into the SPL.

But let’s just see if, when the time comes to vote, enough of them keep their hands down when asked if they want a reformed Rangers back in.

And they’ll have to do this quickly because fans will need to know which teams will be in which divisions before buying season tickets. The SPL and SFL will produce their fixtures on Monday and although Rangers will be found in the top-flight schedule it remains to be seen if they’ll actually be playing there.

But can the SPL do without Rangers and their supporters? They may have been suggesting they can but it will not prosper without Rangers and this is what all the chairmen, despite their bravado, will have to consider.

It was easy, and also foolish, to be bold when Duff and Phelps suggested HMRC had hinted they might accept the CVA but now the moment of truth has arrived for these clubs. And what will force the issue? Pressure from fans or pressure from banks?

Of course, they could let them back in while insisting the new club has to accept penalties for the behaviour of the old, especially if the SPL enquiry finds Rangers guilty of issuing players dual contracts with their EBTs.

Also, the SFA have still to work out what sanction to impose on the current Rangers who succeeded in getting a 12-month signing ban overturned in the Court of Session. The SFA will demand the new sanction be inherited by the newco but it seems to me more than a few on one side of this saga are in danger of becoming a little vindictive.

Of course Rangers are guilty of shaming the game and they accept they have to be punished. But how many more times must they be kicked?

Despite the baying mob and their crazy notion that Rangers should be shunned because they are cheats the fact is this club and these fans have themselves been cheated. If there is anything in their DNA make up that’s irrational or wrong it is their love of their club and this game.

Get over the mock outrage and come down from the moral high ground.

Few fans of any club have any right to be up there in any case but now, as Scottish football arrives at a crossroads let’s try to think straight. How about cutting Rangers some slack and doing the game a turn at the same time?

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by sergie's no1 fan

[sugna]

1 hour ago, Sting777 said:

Yip, should be interesting. Can't see Corals not winning. Rangers weren't relegated, they went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier. I am sure that will be Corals stance and it will ignite the usual hatred, boycott calls, burning of effigy's etc, etc....lol

I'm not sure that would do it, as it's quite close to the same club being moved (it keeps Rangers constant over time).

I think that Coral's might have to argue, instead of "...[Rangers] went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier", simply that "...[Rangers] went out of business". Because if "Rangers" were the subject of both the first verb and the second, one might reasonably presume that they were around in the intervening time. Especially when they "started as a new club" rather than "starting a new club" - identifying the company with the (new) club.

But with all of these debates, and whichever side one is on, it always comes back to a nicety that didn't exist prior to 2012: the distinction between the club and the company. Everything else follows from that. I don't think that people are going to agree on that point so here's my tuppenceworth, which I trust is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

I think that there was never an intent for a club and company to be treated as separate concepts, before it became a big stakes game in 2012; and in that sense, Rangers "finished" in 2012.

But I also think that almost everything that is important about a club is vested not in the club itself nor in the associated company (that I reckon is just about a synonym for the club); but instead is owned by the fan base. In that sense, there is still (or if you prefer, there is again) a Rangers within Scottish football that represents the fans of Rangers from before 2012. I think that's legitimate and is how everyone behaves (whether you're a lover or a hater).

So I'm sympathetic to the link-through-the-fans aspect. But I think that it's just vested-interest marketing to claim that the club is actually the same club because of some abstruse metaphysical considerations that relate to the club-company conundrum - which reminds me of wave-particle duality, in that you get a different answer depending on how you go about evaluating it.

My aim in writing this post is not to unite through compromise, but instead to infuriate both sides by describing a middle ground. I'm quietly confident I'll manage that.

[The DA]

1 minute ago, sugna said:

I'm not sure that would do it, as it's quite close to the same club being moved (it keeps Rangers constant over time).

I think that Coral's might have to argue, instead of "...[Rangers] went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier", simply that "...[Rangers] went out of business". Because if "Rangers" were the subject of both the first verb and the second, one might reasonably presume that they were around in the intervening time. Especially when they "started as a new club" rather than "starting a new club" - identifying the company with the (new) club.

But with all of these debates, and whichever side one is on, it always comes back to a nicety that didn't exist prior to 2012: the distinction between the club and the company. Everything else follows from that. I don't think that people are going to agree on that point so here's my tuppenceworth, which I trust is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

I think that there was never an intent for a club and company to be treated as separate concepts, before it became a big stakes game in 2012; and in that sense, Rangers "finished" in 2012.

But I also think that almost everything that is important about a club is vested not in the club itself nor in the associated company (that I reckon is just about a synonym for the club); but instead is owned by the fan base. In that sense, there is still (or if you prefer, there is again) a Rangers within Scottish football that represents the fans of Rangers from before 2012. I think that's legitimate and is how everyone behaves (whether you're a lover or a hater).

So I'm sympathetic to the link-through-the-fans aspect. But I think that it's just vested-interest marketing to claim that the club is actually the same club because of some abstruse metaphysical considerations that relate to the club-company conundrum - which reminds me of wave-particle duality, in that you get a different answer depending on how you go about evaluating it.

My aim in writing this post is not to unite through compromise, but instead to infuriate both sides by describing a middle ground. I'm quietly confident I'll manage that.

That's pretty much my take on it, too.  There was no such things as 'separate club and company' in 2012 but there's now an element of continuity of support.

[WILLIEA]

6 minutes ago, sugna said:

I'm not sure that would do it, as it's quite close to the same club being moved (it keeps Rangers constant over time).

I think that Coral's might have to argue, instead of "...[Rangers] went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier", simply that "...[Rangers] went out of business". Because if "Rangers" were the subject of both the first verb and the second, one might reasonably presume that they were around in the intervening time. Especially when they "started as a new club" rather than "starting a new club" - identifying the company with the (new) club.

But with all of these debates, and whichever side one is on, it always comes back to a nicety that didn't exist prior to 2012: the distinction between the club and the company. Everything else follows from that. I don't think that people are going to agree on that point so here's my tuppenceworth, which I trust is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

I think that there was never an intent for a club and company to be treated as separate concepts, before it became a big stakes game in 2012; and in that sense, Rangers "finished" in 2012.

But I also think that almost everything that is important about a club is vested not in the club itself nor in the associated company (that I reckon is just about a synonym for the club); but instead is owned by the fan base. In that sense, there is still (or if you prefer, there is again) a Rangers within Scottish football that represents the fans of Rangers from before 2012. I think that's legitimate and is how everyone behaves (whether you're a lover or a hater).

So I'm sympathetic to the link-through-the-fans aspect. But I think that it's just vested-interest marketing to claim that the club is actually the same club because of some abstruse metaphysical considerations that relate to the club-company conundrum - which reminds me of wave-particle duality, in that you get a different answer depending on how you go about evaluating it.

My aim in writing this post is not to unite through compromise, but instead to infuriate both sides by describing a middle ground. I'm quietly confident I'll manage that.

Yep! Spiritually the same, legally different.

[stonedsailor]

9 minutes ago, sugna said:

I'm not sure that would do it, as it's quite close to the same club being moved (it keeps Rangers constant over time).

I think that Coral's might have to argue, instead of "...[Rangers] went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier", simply that "...[Rangers] went out of business". Because if "Rangers" were the subject of both the first verb and the second, one might reasonably presume that they were around in the intervening time. Especially when they "started as a new club" rather than "starting a new club" - identifying the company with the (new) club.

But with all of these debates, and whichever side one is on, it always comes back to a nicety that didn't exist prior to 2012: the distinction between the club and the company. Everything else follows from that. I don't think that people are going to agree on that point so here's my tuppenceworth, which I trust is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

I think that there was never an intent for a club and company to be treated as separate concepts, before it became a big stakes game in 2012; and in that sense, Rangers "finished" in 2012.

But I also think that almost everything that is important about a club is vested not in the club itself nor in the associated company (that I reckon is just about a synonym for the club); but instead is owned by the fan base. In that sense, there is still (or if you prefer, there is again) a Rangers within Scottish football that represents the fans of Rangers from before 2012. I think that's legitimate and is how everyone behaves (whether you're a lover or a hater).

So I'm sympathetic to the link-through-the-fans aspect. But I think that it's just vested-interest marketing to claim that the club is actually the same club because of some abstruse metaphysical considerations that relate to the club-company conundrum - which reminds me of wave-particle duality, in that you get a different answer depending on how you go about evaluating it.

My aim in writing this post is not to unite through compromise, but instead to infuriate both sides by describing a middle ground. I'm quietly confident I'll manage that.

The law works in black and white. Either it is or it isn't. Rangers Football Club were either relegated or they were not per the reported wording on the betting slip and per the definition of the word relegated.

"Court papers say that Mr Kinloch wrote: “Rangers Football Club to be relegated £100 at 2,500/1” and handed over his slip."

 

If Rangers Football Club are legally the same club then Coral must pay out. If coral are forced to pay out then I accept continuation, if not they are without doubt legally a new club.

Edited January 12, 2017 by stonedsailor

[The DA]

1 minute ago, stonedsailor said:

The law works in black and white. Either it is or it isn't. Rangers Football Club were either relegated or they were not per the reported wording on the betting slip and per the definition of the word relegated.

"Court papers say that Mr Kinloch wrote: “Rangers Football Club to be relegated £100 at 2,500/1” and handed over his slip."

 

If that argument is the basis of the court case, we're going to get a black-and-white answer and, ether way, this thread will need to be shut down.

[theoriginalhedge]

3 minutes ago, The DA said:

That's pretty much my take on it, too.  There was no such things as 'separate club and company' in 2012 but there's now an element of continuity of support.

In Rangers case however, they were not and are still not completely fan owned .  They have fans who have a very small shareholding in the club who , in the case of liquidation or administration merely lose their shareholding. Probably not enough to keep the club financially sound. 

Season ticket holders have no say as they have merely bought their seat for the season.

A club who are completely fan owned are Brechin City. Season ticket holders at the club have a say in the running of the club and have agreed on purchase of their ticket that they will be responsible for any debt incurred by the club. 

On that basis I doubt if you could call Rangers fan owned. 

[stonedsailor]

4 minutes ago, The DA said:

If that argument is the basis of the court case, we're going to get a black-and-white answer and, ether way, this thread will need to be shut down.

I have said since the beginning that this will be decided in the courts and this is the only case where the same/new club argument is the decider of the court proceedings. 

Other has been tested in FIFA rules, no transfer fees for TUPE rebels. Remember that the registrations which are transferred are held by the association and not the club. We now have a proper legal test, it's been a long time coming but, to use a footballing analogy, this is the deciding penalty in the shootout.

[sugna]

10 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

The law works in black and white. Either it is or it isn't. Rangers Football Club were either relegated or they were not per the reported wording on the betting slip and per the definition of the word relegated

 

Yes, I know and agree. I was branching out from the Coral case to describe what I think are the important aspects of the continuity question, from the perspective of Rangers fans (in whichever sense) and other fans. I think that the black-and-white logical argument for club continuity doesn't hold - for the club as a synonym for or "aspect of" the legal entity (the company); but I think it holds in the sense of what the club (or the old-and-new pair of clubs) means to Scottish football supporters.

I think that a lot of disagreement on here and elsewhere comes from conflating these two senses. Rangers fans have a point when they say, "If we're a 5-year-old club, how come everyone (still) hates us?"; and other fans have a point when they say "Rangers ended in 2012 when they went into liquidation". I don't think that it's legitimate to project from one sense in order to win a debate or score points relating to the other sense. But both sides continually do this. It's really just bickering, because the two sides are generally arguing about different domains of applicability.

Always worth a laugh, though.