topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The more I think about it, the more I think that Duff and Phelps are basically protecting their own reputation by deferring or at least share the responsibility of difficult decisions. They've attempted to co-opt Ally McCoist into the decision process on redundancies, but he's taken a fit of pique and will not give them any leeway. Making a decision is genuinely not easy since recent history shows that administrators can get a very rough time of it from the fans. I'd say that it's not a question of deferring responsibility to McCoist. McCoist is the person to whom the responsibility falls to make the detailed choice of which players to lose and which to retain. McCoist may wish to trim the attacking players more deeply than the Defensive Players or vice versa. He may have sufficient faith in whoever their reserve goalie is to put McGregor near the top of the list of luxuries to be foregone. Overall he'll probably have a choice between a significantly weakened first Eleven with no cover or a massively weakened first eleven with some cover. All these choices are football choices and they should really fall to McCoist. The Administrators should just decide how much to cut, McCoist should decide how to do it. As A hearts supporter I'm more familiar than most with footballing decisions being trumped by business considerations and it' a bit annoying but if McCoist doesn't act soon then the administrators will have to step in and impose the decision on him by counting down the payroll in salary order until they've sacked £1m worth regardless of what kind of tactical mess that puts him in 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This really is farcical stuff. Illegal contracts, what punishment should be dished out for that? Another points deduction? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 SPL now officially investigating players payments, saying that contracts may have been hidden from them. This dates back as far as 1998, yet they only act on it now, what a fucking shambles. STV link We can start with this then, although it would deny the Buddies 33% of their patter... 29 November 1998 Rangers 2 – 1 St. Johnstone Celtic Park, Glasgow Attendance: 45,533 Referee: Hugh Dallas Guivarc'h 6' Albertz 37' Dasovic 8' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 There are numerous ways to define an entity, a concept, an idea.... I appreciate that there have been different scenarios in football. The case of Airdrie United is perfect - in everyone's eyes they are a continuation of Airdrieonians. In reality though, they are not. What I was challenging was your assertion that "most" clubs had gone through changes that could be comparable to what is being suggested with Rangers - ie that one company is run out of business and another entirely separate one comes along and takes (buys) the assets and carries on "as" the old one. I think it is very dangerous not only to assert that this is somehow "normal" but to compare it to other changes to existing clubs be that a change of badge, a stadium move or changing to a PLC, is not correct and I think that is important in addressing this potential issue. I'm not saying it isn't possible, or that "there is no precedent". I am saying that the notion that this is a normal change for a football club to go through is to my knowledge innaccurate and most certainly would be unfair IMO. Actual restructuring is not unfair. Well, you've now broadened the situation out far beyond what the original point was discussing. And introduced several emotive factors which are relatively undefinable ("run out of business", "unfair"). Citing Airdrie United is actually quite (another) good example. In the eyes of the SFA and SFL they're the club which joined in 1965? as Clydebank, after ES Clydebank fell through - the SFL website still has that as their foundation. Their teapot was bought in 2002, and moved to another box. If the transfer happens, lots of us will say "you're a new club". Rangers fans will say "no we're not". They'll be technically right; we'll be morally right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Cannot wait for 4pm Jelly and Ice Cream 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 @bbcsportsound BBC Sportsound SPL board instructs investigation into alleged non-disclosure to SPL of payments made by, or on behalf of, Rangers to players since 01/07/98 This is going to start getting quite difficult for Campbell Ogilvie, I'd imagine. We've had claims from an ex-director that such payments began before he left Ibrox, where we was CEO, and now both SFA and SPL are investigating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers should be docked 70 points for bringing the game into disrepute. I think we are clearly in unchartered waters and "we're gonna need a bigger boat" to land this fustercluck of a situation. I'm wondering what Campbell Ogilvie's punishment will be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Well, you've now broadened the situation out far beyond what the original point was discussing. And introduced several emotive factors which are relatively undefinable ("run out of business", "unfair"). Citing Airdrie United is actually quite (another) good example. In the eyes of the SFA and SFL they're the club which joined in 1965? as Clydebank, after ES Clydebank fell through - the SFL website still has that as their foundation. Their teapot was bought in 2002, and moved to another box. If the transfer happens, lots of us will say "you're a new club". Rangers fans will say "no we're not". They'll be technically right; we'll be morally right. Let's define "run out of business" then as it's not really emotive - let's define it as "liquidation". My point is quite simply that your assertion 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 So far we have Clachnacuddin having done it. Are there others in Scotland who have literally transferred assets and membership to wholly new companies, specifically having been forced to liquidate the original company? It's entirely dangerous ground to suggest that most clubs have done it - it might even be a stretch to say that any existing SPL or SFL clubs have done exactly that. I'd be keen to hear of any who have. Re the 1998 coverage of the SPL inquiry - I'd imagine the SPL can only investigate back to the beginning of their own existence. It would be up to the SFA and potentially the SFL to investigate any earlier. Edit to spell liquidation correctly! Edited March 5, 2012 by Colin M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ok, so Rangers pay off a few players to see them through to the end of the season and thus out of admin ? is that right ? Paying off those players is just so they break even. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozam76 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ok, so Rangers pay off a few players to see them through to the end of the season and thus out of admin ? is that right ? I don't want to put you on ignore wisbit, so is there any chance you could change that avatar? It's absolutely fucking repulsive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 WTF! Also suggested was the possibility of imposing more severe punishments on clubs in the bottom half of the SPL table who are not in contention for a place in Europe. It was argued clubs challenging for a spot in the Champions League or Europa League would suffer greater if they went into administration, as they would find it near-impossible to be granted a UEFA club licence to participate. As clubs not competing for a place in Europe wouldn’t suffer that handicap, it was suggested they should suffer a greater points deduction. My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ok, so Rangers pay off a few players to see them through to the end of the season and thus out of admin ? is that right ? They are currently not a going concern, the administrators need to return them to a position where they are trading in a solvent fashion or liquidate them. They then need to find someone willing to put in enough money to satisfy the creditors, or liquidate them. If HMRC win the big tax case, or Craig Whyte is found to have bought Rangers fraudulently they will have to liquidate them. Chances are they will cheat their way out of it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Of course, world's apart morally. But in a technical sense, transferring membership from Company A to Company B is exactly that. What Clachnacuddin did (IIRC) in the late 1980s, was form a new company to protect an old indebted one from the threat of winding-up. If Rangers go down the transfer route, we'll all have our own views on whether they're a new club or not. But the administrator's quote is 100% correct in an official sense. To go back to teapots. Fergus McCann fixed up the existing teapot and then made it a bigger better teapot to go back in the same box. Craig Whyte's going to shatter his old teapot and switch to using a new one out of a new box. His new one looks sort of like the old one but has a different pattern. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 When Celtic were bought-out by McCann in 1994, am I not right in saying such assets were transferred to a different company, leading to the loss of the "Athletic" part of the title? Clachnacuddin FC is one of the most historic clubs in the Highland League, but their memberships etc. are held by Clachnacuddin 1990 Ltd. Apparently not. From Companies House CompanyName CELTIC PLC CompanyNumber SC003487 RegAddress AddressLine1 CELTIC PARK AddressLine2 GLASGOW Postcode G40 3RE CompanyCategory Public Limited Company CompanyStatus Active CountryOfOrigin United Kingdom IncorporationDate 12/04/1897 The name has changed obviously but the company identity (SC0003487) seems to have been around for just shy of 105 years 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 WTF! My link What a farce. So clubs like Dunfermline who face financial difficulty after years of trying to reach, maintain and return to the SPL deserve to be treated like shit in comparison to...how shall we say....other clubs who might be hampered by their charge for the Champions League. Our system is a complete and utter joke, I'm utterly bemused as to how that can even be discussed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) That's 4pm on 'deadline Monday'. Time for a recap... Smith and Russell will be on the 18th green now. Matt McKay probably eating a nice curry and rice. Daniel Cousin - whereabouts unknown. Hurrumph. Edited March 5, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 To go back to teapots. Fergus McCann fixed up the existing teapot and then made it a bigger better teapot to go back in the same box. Craig Whyte's going to shatter his old teapot and switch to using a new one out of a new box. His new one looks sort of like the old one but has a different pattern. I appreciate this, and I hadn't realised McCann's teapot remained in the original box. However, if Whyte shatters his teapot and starts using a new one out of a new box, then [1] it won't be Rangers even technically-speaking and [2] it won't be playing in the SPL/SFL, as it won't have SFA membership. He would, more likely, try moving his (batterred and dented) teapot into a new box. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12345 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is getting like a firework that won't go off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=212985 FUCKING PLEASING :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://forum.rangers...howtopic=212985 FUCKING PLEASING :D Copy and paste please. 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.