Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[HibeeJibee]

That makes Newco buying out an SFL club more likely.

It's referring to a new club, though, not a transfer-of-membership situation where the existing SFA membership continues but in the possession of a new company.

Also you don't have to be an SFA *Full* Member to play in SFL, you can be an Associate Member. (Infact you can join without even that - just get it within 14 days).

Gretna FC joined SFA the same time they joined SFL.

EDIT: Skyline beats me again!!

Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Fife Saint]

Is it possible that Yorkston's stance of ambivalence is because his side is about to plummet out of the SPL and the inevitable knicker-wetting would have a diminished impact on his SFL outfit?

[DensDerry80]

Looks that way to me. Worked last year for Dundee right enough.

Administration would suit them just fine. The creditors would have to take xp in the £ from the available funds - which are diminishing by the week. Meanwhile there are consortia sitting in the wings waiting with their cash ready to step into a debt free club ready to spend big signing a new team, maybe even made up of those loyal players who worked on through the present hardship.

Liquidation on the other hand would be bad news which is why they are working hard to avoid it.

but it depends on the CVA, we got lucky we dodged a bullet big time, HMRC got screwed to being only a 20% creditor i.e. no chance on the vote, but in this case they could easily become rangers main creditor here escpecially if whyte is binned completely, so they are gonna be taking the bullet right in the heed and one in the arse for luck.

[pozbaird]

SSN interviews with Yorkston, Gilmour, and Johnston. The usual public statements of 'we need a strong OF'... 'we must consider the financial implications....' , but Stewart Gilmour went on to say that there's no point jumping to decisions without knowing the facts...

I think none of them actually know any more than we do. It's a watch and wait scenario...

Over to you, Haudit & Daudit.

[chico]

It's referring to a new club, though, not a transfer-of-membership situation where the existing SFA membership continues but in the possession of a new company.

Also you don't have to be an SFA *Full* Member to play in SFL, you can be an Associate Member. (Infact you can join without even that - just get it within 14 days).

Gretna FC joined SFA the same time they joined SFL.

EDIT: Skyline beats me again!!

There surely can't be a transfer of SFA membership and I presume that would also means Rangers history and identity without SFA approval and I guess that also means SPL and SFL approval for whatever league place is being given to them.

I'm guessing it can be done, but it stinks.

[Jussy]

SSN latest - talks continuing. Fraser Wishart is there. Developments expected. No sign of Super Ally or Haudit & Daudit at Minty Moonbeams Park. Popcorn sales dipping.

Zzzzzzz.

But why is McCoist AWOL with the admin? What could they be discussing prior to meeting the players? Is Ally for the bullet? Are they taking his wages off him? Are they briefing him on which players they're about to sack? Come on SSN, what's going on?!

Is it possible that Yorkston's stance of ambivalence is because his side is about to plummet out of the SPL and the inevitable knicker-wetting would have a diminished impact on his SFL outfit?

I think if Yorkston meant Murray by his latest statement then he's simply restating his earlier comments about not wanting a newco in the SPL. If he meant Whyte then it's all a bit more dull. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into Yorkston's every word. I need some more chairman to hurry up and give me something more exciting to read about.

[MEADOWXI]

Rangers and Portsmouth are in talks regarding having a friendly to raise funds.

I thought this was a P&B joke - just seen it on BBC website. THEY'RE SERIOUS - PMSL

[Borys]

Liquidation of the company is different to 'liquidation' as a turn-of-phrase for the football club. Rangers the football entity can continue if The Rangers FC plc is liquidated.

Please give a "for dummies" type of explanation. I don't get it ...

BTW - if AFL Rangers 1690 is accepted into the SFL, I see no reason why not with Cover Rangers and Spartans - what's wrong with a 12 team, 33 game a season 3rd Division? With play-offs the "interest zone" at the top is quite broad.

Borys

[welshbairn]

Surely Yorkston's just hoping there will be no demotions from the SPL if New Rangers get punted down to Div 3?

[Jussy]

Surely Yorkston's just hoping there will be no demotions from the SPL if New Rangers get punted down to Div 3?

Well yes, that's his obvious and primary motivation for this morning's comments. Now he's got his money and he's being all cryptic even though his motivation should still be the same. As I say, I'm reading far too much into this, I'm off for a nap now.

[7-2]

SSN interviews with Yorkston, Gilmour, and Johnston. The usual public statements of 'we need a strong OF'... 'we must consider the financial implications....' ,

I know they're only sound bites, but they really just confirm our fears that there will be absolutely no change to Scottish football as we diddies continue to put short term, leaching off the OF before the long term good of the game.

Scottish football = Plus ca change.

Very depressing.

[Hedgecutter]

This is becoming like a Scottish Cup draw (if you support a pish team like me).

Getting all excited about the big online announcement in case the big one comes out but deep down you know fine well that it'll probably be the usual mediocre shite.

[pozbaird]

I thought this was a P&B joke - just seen it on BBC website. THEY'RE SERIOUS - PMSL

Could you imagine the fall-out? Rangers, Portsmouth, two sets of administrators, HMRC, Ticketus, two sets of lawyers, Dunfermline, Hearts, Dundee United, Craig Whyte, Strathclyde Police, Hampshire Police, and two sets of players all fighting over the gate money.

Could get ugly. In fact, it would get very ugly if that tattooed cnut wi' the bell and stove-pipe hat 'Mr Portsmouth' racked up alongside Rangers' very own 'the big hoose must stay open' gobshite fatboy.

Fcuk um' both.

[~~~]

Yorkston just can't stop talking today, what a guy.

Apparently he's sympathetic to rangers' situation but not the individual who caused it.

Which one Yorky? More statements please!

sounds familiar that...............

Ah, thats right, wasn't it Moonbeams who said

I feel very sorry for Airdrie and their supporters but we're running a business. We have given them repeated warnings and felt they were playing on our good nature."

I apologise to Airdrie's supporters but something had to be done about this debt. Business is business and Carnegie Sports also have wages to pay."

[the jambo-rocker]

In fairness, this anti-climax was always to be expected. Rangers won this battle and their survival was ensured the very moment Whyte managed to install his stooges as the administrators.

This was the way I saw it. But didn't the HMRC not opt to overrule Portsmouth trying to appoint their own administrator as well though?

I'd have thought if Rangers can't prove to effectively cut their costs with their own administrators, the HMRC can file to get their own to replace them?

[HibeeJibee]

This was the way I saw it. But didn't the HMRC not opt to overrule Portsmouth trying to appoint their own administrator as well though?

I'd have thought if Rangers can't prove to effectively cut their costs with their own administrators, the HMRC can file to get their own to replace them?

Administrators aren't just there to "cut costs", though - they have several functions and purposes. I'd imagine there'll be a fairly high degree of proof required for a court to kick-out administrators on the petition of a creditor. Duff & Phelps are a fairly large multi-national company, too, aren't they? It'd be pretty damaging PR for them.

[Jussy]

Did anyone catch these Regan comments elsewhere? It seems like the sort of thing he should have being saying very publicly but it passed me by if they were published before today's Evening Times article:

Gers could face a ban from SFA

By MATTHEW LINDSAY

5 Mar 2012

SFA chief executive Stewart Regan has revealed Rangers could be booted out of Scottish football if they are found guilty of giving players two contracts.

The governing body is currently conducting an independent inquiry into Craig Whyte's controversial takeover of the crisis-hit Ibrox club.

However, Regan has confirmed other issues have arisen during the course of the far-reaching investigation which will also be looked at in greater detail.

It has been speculated that Gers players had two contracts with the Glasgow club when EBTs were in use between 2001 and 2009.

And last week ex-Rangers director Hugh Adam claimed that specialist payments were being made to playing personnel as far back as the mid-1990s. Under the SFA's articles of association, clubs are only allowed to give players one contract of employment.

Regan admitted on Friday that the allegations made by Adam, who was ousted from the club board by former owner Sir David Murray, would be looked at. And he outlined the range of punishments available to the organisation if Rangers are found to have breached their strict guidelines.

He said: "If you look at our articles of association, it shows a range of powers that the judicial panel has.

"What will happen is that the matter will go to the Scottish FA main board and will then pass through to the judicial panel.

"There's a whole range of things from suspension to termination of membership at the extreme end to fines and ejection from the Scottish Cup or other such penalties the panel deem appropriate.

"It (Hugh Adam's claim) is one director's take on things, but, as a board, we have to examine it."

Regan added: "The inquiry covers primarily the Craig Whyte era, but in digging into facts it has take us into other areas.

"It's thrown up matters which are of interest to the committee. I'm there representing the board. We've got into the meat of what has been going on at Rangers and now the inquiry has gone in different directions.

"The inquiry isn't judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts.

"The board will consider the facts and if the board feels the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process."

Regan refused to dismiss the possibility of a separate inquiry being launched specifically into allegations of double contracts at Rangers in the future.

He remarked: "That will depend on the board's view of the facts and what information there is. The situation is changing daily and new information is emerging all the time.

"We've got our hands on certain pieces of information and we're exploring it and asking for further information. If it's the board's opinion that they want a fuller investigation then that will be an option."

Meanwhile, Regan has confirmed that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, whose role at Rangers during the Murray era has come under scrutiny, will not be involved in any investigation into secret payments.

He saud: "I think it's pretty obvious that he (Ogilvie) is heavily conflicted. Campbell won't play any part in any meeting, discussion or conclusion on any activities surrounding Rangers."

[MEADOWXI]

Administrators aren't just there to "cut costs", though - they have several functions and purposes. I'd imagine there'll be a fairly high degree of proof required for a court to kick-out administrators on the petition of a creditor. Duff & Phelps are a fairly large multi-national company, too, aren't they? It'd be pretty damaging PR for them.

Think the Portsmouth Administrators got the dunt as they were the mob that did it last time, and as apparently much of the debt under the previous CVA from the previous Admin remains outstanding HMRC had an easy case to make by saying 'look this mess was created by the last one they made'.

Haudit & Daudit - have yet to prove their incompetence.

[HibeeJibee]

Please give a "for dummies" type of explanation. I don't get it ...

What defines a 'football club' is its membership of footballing organisations. The memberships will be possessed by a limited company or Plc (in the case of pro clubs) but: they can be transferred between companies. This will have happened several times for most pro clubs, as the game developed, they were restructured, etc. etc. etc.

"Leeds Utd" transfered their memberships from one company to another in 2007. But 'the football club' isn't considered to have been founded in 2007, with only honours won since 2007, and so forth. A membership of footballing organisations continued unaffected. The EFL didn't suddenly have a vacancy.

EDIT: I might own, lets say, a teapot.

I could put that teapot in a box.

I could move it to another box, but it's still the same teapot.

BTW - if AFL Rangers 1690 is accepted into the SFL, I see no reason why not with Cover Rangers and Spartans - what's wrong with a 12 team, 33 game a season 3rd Division? With play-offs the "interest zone" at the top is quite broad.

It potentially costs us 2/18 home games (i.e. over 10%) and it creates an unfair schedule, playing everyone 3x.

Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Shuggie_Murray7]

So what exactly has happened to Rangers the last 3 weeks? I don't know the ins and outs of administration, but nothing seems to have happened. They have went into administration in name only, been docked 10 points, with nothing actually heppening, no cost cutting etc.