Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Swello]

You'd hope the SPL chairmen are getting together in the event of Rangers no more to set some conditions around the division of money etc, it's maybe an opportunity to even the spread of cash

Not holding my breath but if the non-OF chairmen had any sort of political nous, they would use this situation to remove the absurd voting rules that give the OF a veto on the important stuff. It's always been a ridiculous setup but in light of the current farce, it looks completely indefensible.

[H_B]

Not holding my breath but if the non-OF chairmen had any sort of political nous, they would use this situation to remove the absurd voting rules that give the OF a veto on the important stuff. It's always been a ridiculous setup but in light of the current farce, it looks completely indefensible.

Agreed.

[H_B]

Other than the stadium they have nothing else in common.

Oh, and the fans. And the colours. And the fact that it's the same club.

No one differentiates between the Airdrie of Broomfield days and the current entity. It's the same club.

If Rangers buy East Stirling, relocate the franchise to Ibrox and name it "Rangers 2012" it will still be Rangers.

Edited February 16, 2012 by H_B

[A-Mac]

Can we please put the whole "diddies need the OF to visit 'cos of the money" nonsense to bed? Only once in the last five years have EITHER of the Ugly Sisters pushed attendance at TTOP over the 10k mark (while the one game we played against A*r, which was midweek and on TV, pulled in 11k+). The majority of their fans don't travel, and ours don't want to be in the same ground as those that do. Policing costs go through the roof, though, because Strathclyde's Finest know what they're capable of especially when they're out of their own middens. Let one die, and watch the other wither. Happy days, and a clean league at whatever level. It's not like ANY Scots team is going to trouble Europe anytime soon, so vote the cheats out and let their counterparts wonder where the "fans" went. The rest of us can start August with bigger ambitions than mere survival on the drippings from their slavering chops.

KTID

I actually enjoyed this article, worth a read.

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-scotland-doesnt-need-rangers/

[printer]

They're applied - but more often than not waived on appeal.

Like I said, not my experience.

[printer]

Not holding my breath but if the non-OF chairmen had any sort of political nous, they would use this situation to remove the absurd voting rules that give the OF a veto on the important stuff. It's always been a ridiculous setup but in light of the current farce, it looks completely indefensible.

or balls....

[pollymac]

Oh, and the fans. And the colours. And the fact that it's the same club.

No one differentiates between the Airdrie of Broomfield days and the current entity. It's the same club.

If Rangers buy East Stirling, relocate the franchise to Ibrox and name it "Rangers 2012" it will still be Rangers.

Yep.

And HMRC will demand deposits up front for VAT amounting to 50% for the year. They will base the amount on the old company.

And from April 6th this year, they will also be able to do the same for PAYE and NIC.

That would be £6m straight off the bat.

It should also be pointed out that a Phoenix (from a liquidated club) will start with, erm, zero players (unless they do buy out East Stirlingshire, in which case they start out with East Stirlingshire's players).

Now let's assume they've got to go out and buy some players, say 20 at £500k average. That's another £10m or so. One would also assume they would want paid. Another what £10m again? £5m?

I suppose they'll need a management team in place and everything else that entails, perhaps the Fat Paul le Guen will return for peanuts (or fat cake, whatever he prefers), but they'll need numerous others also: security staff and all manner of orc-servants.

And then they've also the general running costs of a club that, as stated here, is to pretty much everyone's eyes the same club that had just recently stiffed all their creditors - will Strathclyde polis be so accommodating that they'll extend a credit line of a hundred and fifty grand each month? Can't see it. The gas and lekky bills? All in, another £5m per season.

Sponsorship? Season Tickets? No TV money to start with. Income of circa £15-£20m and needing to shell out far above that just to get started, or at least started in a manner that would see a decent amount of STs sold, i.e. the orcs 'deserved better' when they only signed Rothen (conveniently forgetting the fact they'd spent £18m the previous summer), so I can't see them not demanding better than a load of Bosmans and £500k players.

I also wonder if any bank (a proper one, not Wonga or Lenny Murdoch) will extend a credit line to them - they've got to be considered very high risk, especially if the guy waiting in the wings is someone like Paul Murray, you know, that non-exec director that failed to put the brakes on or ask questions about the financial failings of the Moonbeamed era.

Anyone thinking a Phoenixed club will have an easy ride are mistaken. Unless more financial doping goes on, they are back to the early 80s - a solid base (i.e. the best stadium in Britain at the time) that will take years of steady management to regain former glories (as such as they were).

On that financial doping note: if the SPL had the balls, they'd bring in rules regarding this.

Of course, to help cut costs, a Phoenix can always use a tax management scheme of some sort - discounted share options or Employee Benefits Trusts perhaps.

[chico]

All great points made by Pollymac. The thing that will keep them going is potential income from home games, if the purported figure of £1 Million generated from each home game is true, a potential initial revenue of £18 to £20 million per season revenue generated. Assume another at least £5 million in from other commercial sources too.

It's a huge sum that they can create as gross turnover before salaries and tax. It can be profitable or at the very least wash its face without creating new debt.

They're on the ropes right now, question is whether HMRC can deliver the knock out and send them into liquidation. I think there's gonna be skulduggery from politicians to pull back HMRC from going all out and doing that.

A CVA will shaft them, but I think they might just and only just get away with taking the beast back out from administration

[HibeeJibee]

Wish I shared your confidence.

If some clubs are owed money, and it's not been covered through withholding of prizemonies etc., then I think clubs would try and claw-it-back in that hypothetical scenario. It'd also be a way of trying to appease that % of fans irritated by it, i.e. "look - this way we get our money back".

[pollymac]

And another thing, ffs, SPL, get the TV money and shared sponsorship deals sorted out while the vote can be pushed through: 80% to be shared equally and 20% to be stepped evenly.

Or better yet, 100% shared equally - the winners, runners up and other top places get additional moneys from participation in Uefa's gravy trains.

Edited February 16, 2012 by pollymac

[H_B]

Anyone expecting a Motherwell "oh look, you are on a hefty wedge and you are shite with no resale value" series of playing redundancies today?

[HibeeJibee]

And where's the Ticketus "upfront lump-sum" gone?

[H_B]

I think its been confirmed that there will be no redundancies today and the administrator will wait a week or so before making any.

Fairy Nuff. Just heard he had a meeting with the players today.

[Duvz]

A lot of rubbish. United have asked the administrator for assurances they'll get their money should tickets be sent to Ibrox. If not United will sell the tickets from Tannadice themselves. Woeful headline from the Record, but you don't expect anything else eh?

I know of a least 5 rangers buses from the city centre who are knocking tickets back for utd and that's just been in a couple of days,and it was planned before that c**t went to the rags

Here's hoping More rsc do the same and he gets nothing

[pozbaird]

Yep.

And HMRC will demand deposits up front for VAT amounting to 50% for the year. They will base the amount on the old company.

And from April 6th this year, they will also be able to do the same for PAYE and NIC.

That would be £6m straight off the bat.

It should also be pointed out that a Phoenix (from a liquidated club) will start with, erm, zero players (unless they do buy out East Stirlingshire, in which case they start out with East Stirlingshire's players).

Now let's assume they've got to go out and buy some players, say 20 at £500k average. That's another £10m or so. One would also assume they would want paid. Another what £10m again? £5m?

I suppose they'll need a management team in place and everything else that entails, perhaps the Fat Paul le Guen will return for peanuts (or fat cake, whatever he prefers), but they'll need numerous others also: security staff and all manner of orc-servants.

And then they've also the general running costs of a club that, as stated here, is to pretty much everyone's eyes the same club that had just recently stiffed all their creditors - will Strathclyde polis be so accommodating that they'll extend a credit line of a hundred and fifty grand each month? Can't see it. The gas and lekky bills? All in, another £5m per season.

Sponsorship? Season Tickets? No TV money to start with. Income of circa £15-£20m and needing to shell out far above that just to get started, or at least started in a manner that would see a decent amount of STs sold, i.e. the orcs 'deserved better' when they only signed Rothen (conveniently forgetting the fact they'd spent £18m the previous summer), so I can't see them not demanding better than a load of Bosmans and £500k players.

I also wonder if any bank (a proper one, not Wonga or Lenny Murdoch) will extend a credit line to them - they've got to be considered very high risk, especially if the guy waiting in the wings is someone like Paul Murray, you know, that non-exec director that failed to put the brakes on or ask questions about the financial failings of the Moonbeamed era.

Anyone thinking a Phoenixed club will have an easy ride are mistaken. Unless more financial doping goes on, they are back to the early 80s - a solid base (i.e. the best stadium in Britain at the time) that will take years of steady management to regain former glories (as such as they were).

On that financial doping note: if the SPL had the balls, they'd bring in rules regarding this.

Of course, to help cut costs, a Phoenix can always use a tax management scheme of some sort - discounted share options or Employee Benefits Trusts perhaps.

If Rangers, or 'new Rangers' rise from the ashes - a lot of what you say above could be dependent on who actually owns Rangers 'going forward'. (Incidentally, if I hear the phrase 'going forward' one more time from anyone in relation to Rangers, I think I might throw up, but I digress...) Aye, a lot of what you say sounds problematic for any new Rangers, but if they are subsequently owned by a consortium of rich businessmen or whoever, who are willing to spunk cash in resurrecting the glory days? I reckon we'll be hard pressed to tell the old Rangers from the new Rangers. I know there are difficulties ahead for them, but why does my gut tell me they'll weasel right out of this and in jig time we'll still be looking at massive Old Firm dominance of diddies who are shaking their heads and wondering how it all happened.

If however any new Rangers cannot dig up a consortium of more cash than sense owners to pick up the pieces of this whole sorry affair, then it could be really interesting. The talk at the moment seems to be centering around this Paul Murray bloke - I imagine if he's a serious player, he'll be currently putting together a whole group of sugar daddies to ride to the rescue. I fully expect to see either him, or someone else heading up the new Rangers BOD to be making the march to the main stand entrance with media and cheering fans in tow, before stopping on the steps, raising both hands in the air to quieten the hordes, before making the predictable 'going forward', 'fresh start', 'investment in the team', 'success', 'tradition', 'institution'.... insert soundbite here speech. It's all too predictable..... isn't it?

On another note - last night on STV their 'Rangers in crisis' type show at 10,30pm featured a few talking heads who were advocating that 'community ownership' was the way forward for Rangers, and indeed the Scottish Government should be looking to get involved in helping Scottish clubs go down this route...... One guy suggested Rangers could, like some German clubs, become a shining light in regard to a new model of community ownership.... as a St Mirren supporter with a very, very, keen interest in our own proposed community takeover, I know the blood sweat and tears everyone at our club has put in to try and make this happen over the last two years. I sat last night and nearly threw the coffee table through my TV screen as they talked about the Scottish Government becoming actively involved in helping Rangers possibly become a beacon of hope in the realms of community ownership of football clubs.

I haven't been that angry about something football related since the 2010 League Cup Final.

[HibeeJibee]

And another thing, ffs, SPL, get the TV money and shared sponsorship deals sorted out while the vote can be pushed through: 80% to be shared equally and 20% to be stepped evenly.

I would hope that, if clubs are so inclined, they will push for a smoothing of revenue division and a rebalancing of voting rights (if they want the latter... people forget the times that 11-1 and 10-2 helped the smaller clubs). However, lets not pretend even you're 80%-20% system will make a big difference, especially to the higher clubs expected to challenge OF.

Actual 2010-11 prizemonies... under 80%/20% system

Rangers......... £2,975,000 ...... £1,692,000

Celtic............... £2,625,000 ...... £1,648,000

Hearts............. £1,662,500 ...... £1,604,000

Dundee Utd... £1,487,500 ...... £1,561,000

Kilmarnock..... £1,400,000 ...... £1,517,000

Motherwell...... £1,312,250 ...... £1,473,000

Inverness........ £1,225,000 ...... £1,429,000

St Johnstone.. £1,137,500 ...... £1,386,000

Aberdeen........ £1,050,000 ...... £1.342,000

Hibs................. £962,500 ...... £1,290,000

St Mirren.......... £875,000 ...... £1,254,000

Hamilton......... £787,500 ...... £1,211,000

Turnover figures for 2009-10 (most recent season available) were:

Celtic................. £62M

Rangers........... £57M

Hearts............... £7.9M

Hibs................... £7.1M

Aberdeen.......... £7.1M

Killie*................. £6.2M

Dundee Utd...... £6.1M

Motherwell........ £4.4M

St Johnstone.... £4.1M

St Mirren............ £3.9M

Falkirk................ £3.9M

Hamilton............ £2.6M

Wage figures:

Celtic................. £37M

Rangers........... £29M

Hearts............... £9.2M

Hibs................... £4.8M

Aberdeen.......... £4.7M

Killie*................. £4.1M

Dundee Utd...... £4.0M

Motherwell........ £3.4M

St Mirren............ £3.0M

Falkirk................ £2.9M

St Johnstone.... £2.9M

Hamilton............ £1.6M

*Kilmarnock figures are inflated by Park Hotel turnover and staff wages

[Homer Thompson]

Why is that risky? Rangers already owe millions, a few more on top won't make any real difference.

I think Whyte's strategy is that right now HMRC doesn't own enough debt to block a CVA. If HMRC can only claim £9M before they get the big tax case heard then Rangers could be carved up before that leaving HMRC trying to get money from a company that no longer has any assets or cash flow while Rangers FC are still playing at the same stadium with the same owner.

The question is, though, where has this money gone? The employees, and customers, have paid it, but Rangers (ie Whyte) hasnt passed it on to HMRC.

But then every other creditor 76% would HAVE to agree to CVA. It depends on the FULL list of creditors, some of whom might be in cardboard boxes or in locked drawers as we type.

I reckon SFA might look to buy Murray Park.

The 76% is based on the amount of debt, not the number of creditors. Whyte will have made sure that, on paper, the debt owed to him will be sufficient that he can push through the CVA.

HMRC will not cave in. HMRC will account for enough of the debt (after Rangers are found guilty) that they can veto any CVA.

Rangers will get liquidated and HMRC won't get much of their money, but that's not the point. The point is HMRC will have taught football clubs a serious lesson and given them a major warning, and if it takes flushing the name Rangers Football Club down the drain to scare the shit out of some of the big fish in the EPL and EFL then I'm sure HMRC won't bat an eyelid.

Rangers are being used as an example by HMRC essentially.

Which is why liquidation seems a more likely scenario. That debt then disappears and the HMRC will get nothing

[Stu]

The tabloids are a disgrace. It's taken until today for a cracked crest - and a small one at that - to appear and they haven't once used the phrase "beancounters" to refer to the administrators. Shame on them.

[pozbaird]

It's a condition of the contract for a minimum of 4 Old Firm games per season to be shown

Apologies if I've missed this elsewhere, but couldn't the Sky contract state that '4 OF games must be shown' - on the presumption that OF teams are never going to be relegated, so it's safe to say they'll both always be in the league? Give that (not unreasonable) presumption - then their contract specifies that they want to show 4 OF games. Fair enough. If one of the OF sides suffers what was thought unthinkable - and isn't in the SPL, then the contract might not necessarily be null and void. Does that make sense? They aren't saying that they will walk away if one of them is relegated or is wound up, they just assumed that neither of them would be, so it was fair to specify 4 OF derbies be shown.

[HibeeJibee]

I don't really understand what you're saying. Both the BBC, and the Scotsman, have been saying the contract is dependant on both OF clubs being in the league. Any mention of "must be 4 derbies" is I would think just a form of journalistic shorthand. What the TV firms want is an OF away game each weekend and the potential (which would always occur if both were participating) of 4 OF derbies. Sky aren't thick, so they'd never leave themselves open to paying £15M p/a without 1/both the value-generating clubs participating. And presumably the clause gives that protection.