thelegendthatis Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I don't know how big Ticketus/Octopus are but you've got to think that having to write off £24m of your clients investment money is going to cause severe difficulty for any business. Given Rangers other debts/potential debts it appears a risky move, but we also don't know the details of the agreement between them and the so-called Blue Knights. Anyone see an increase in Ibrox ticket prices coming if this all goes through? If talking just about Ticketus the money they use to buy 'things' like future season tickets come from investors looking for a return. To put money on that basis into Rangers Newco shares would be a mad move. Maybe a short term loan with all the belts and braces would work. It might be cheaper just to give the investors back their investments and legally chase Mr Whyte all round Monaco. Keep the company going that was setup just for Rangers, with one asset remaining namely the money that is owed to it by Whyte. Edited March 9, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Pretty poor if Celtic don't get an invite Not really. The other 10 clubs will be looking for a better deal in terms of commercial revenues. Celtic, for obvious reasons, would not be in favour of that. Rangers and Celtic have had private meetings about SPL matters in the past, and will no doubt continue to do so should Rangers make it out the other side of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Not really. The other 10 clubs will be looking for a better deal in terms of commercial revenues. Celtic, for obvious reasons, would not be in favour of that. Rangers and Celtic have had private meetings about SPL matters in the past, and will no doubt continue to do so should Rangers make it out the other side of this. And that's fine re better deal ( I've been for that since way before I joined this site) rather than islolate Celtic, involve them in the decision, it's about moving forward not cementing old walls. The Rangers decision is still one of morality and the reputation of the league..I'd hope that whatever the other SPL chairmen push for they remember this too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parscelona Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Reducing the SPL to 11 clubs would not save the current bottom club - currently Dunfermline - from relegation.The SPL rules say the 'bottom' club - even if they are 11th - would be relegated to the First Division of the Scottish Football League. This would create an opening for both two clubs, Ross County and Falkirk - currently first and second in the SFL - to be promoted to the SPL. Where in the SPL rules does it mention this? I can't see Rangers going bust (they'll find a way out no doubt), yet if they did go bust and reformed as a new Rangers, they shouldn't be allowed to reapply to play in the SPL. The First Division winners (most likely to be Ross County) deserve to come up of course, yet i'll be pissed if the 2nd placed First Division side replaced us. Edited March 9, 2012 by Parscelona 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Another good post from http://rangerstaxcase.com/ cutting through all the jargon and nonsense being pumped at us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Another good post from http://rangerstaxcase.com/ cutting through all the jargon and nonsense being pumped at us. Add the SPL investigation into the double contracts, which the SFA are hiding from at the moment but will be pushed into 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A statement from Vanguard Bears that makes me laugh VanguardBears today issues the following statement.VanguardBears acknowledge that we were probably the last Rangers group to refuse to completely condemn Craig Whyte. A campaign of vilification, almost from the start of his tenure, from the press, the ex board and, sadly, other Rangers groups towards Mr Whyte was later accompanied by an attempt to smear the good name of VanguardBears by individuals with an agenda and ulterior motives simply because we maintained our stance of "innocent until proven guilty." Then, and now, we refused to join the bandwagon of hysteria and supposition. Mr Whyte has not been found guilty of any criminal offence, nor is it certain he will be. No one, not even those screaming from the rooftops, knows if he ever will be. What is clear is that his position as Chairman certainly now looks untenable. HMRC rejected settlement offers where, previously with other companies, they made compromises. Today, if newspaper reports are to be believed, they will now accept a settlement. Had that decision been made earlier when, we are told several offers were put to them, we need not have had the circus that ensued. As recently as yesterday, conflicting stories about the state of the Club, our finances, and our future circulated and contradicted each last report. Sir David Murray, whose policies created the mess we are in, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Murray, Mr. Bain, Mr. King et al make or have made statements or decisions which are counter productive and detrimental. Sir David, who until very recently remained silent despite being the originator of our problems, especially should use his private wealth to help if he has an ounce of decency. Influential fans cried "unity" but their interests were self seeking. The Administrators have, in our opinion, taken too long to do their job, and their exorbitant fees have added to the clubs problems. The written press and other media outlets have relished their work of recent weeks, of that there is no doubt. There has been a concerted campaign, led by certain individuals, to "do down" the club at every turn. Other clubs have lowered themselves beneath dignity with their comments and demands of excessive and precedent breaking penalties. We have, though, come to expect that sort of behaviour from Rangers haters such as Celtic and Dundee United. We urge Rangers fans to consider whether our money should fill the coffers of clubs who need our away support but treat us like dirt. Let us also mention the SFA. The conduct of Messrs. Regan, Doncaster and Liewell (in his neutral guise) has been over critical and less than supportive of a senior member club throughout. Livingston, Gretna and Dundee got support, advice and, in one case, finance to pay players from the SPL and SFL. Lastly, Mr Whyte, who has maintained the same rhetoric and statements from the beginning, may yet emerge from this as the most hated man in Rangers history (should all the accusations be proved correct) or the most loved (should he be proved an astute businessman who saved the Club from a mountain of debt that it could not pay, by using whatever means were available to him - no matter how close to the wind he sailed and no matter how many rules he bent). VanguardBears will say we were angered by the sale of the shares in Arsenal FC. Certain items are beyond monetary value. VanguardBears is sick to the back teeth of spin, counter spin, lies, innuendo, posturing to the fans and basically just taking every Rangers fan for a mug. For the sake of the Rangers fans, men, women and kids, we demand this circus stop, decisions, however painful, be made and the Club be allowed to regroup, reshape and retake its rightful place in Scottish football. Admin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugbyparker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Where in the SPL rules does it mention this? I can't see Rangers going bust (they'll find a way out no doubt), yet if they did go bust and reformed as a new Rangers, they shouldn't be allowed to reapply to play in the SPL. The First Division winners (most likely to be Ross County) deserve to come up of course, yet i'll be pissed if the 2nd placed First Division side replaced us. unless there's been a recent rule change H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; ">the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; ">be expunged and the number of relegation places from the <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; ">League shall be reduced accordingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugbyparker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 stuffed that up rule H5 states if any club ceases to play in SPL for any reason their will be one less relegation place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Add the SPL investigation into the double contracts, which the SFA are hiding from at the moment but will be pushed into Speaking of this. I know someone who might be able to give us a few answers. I believe that ex-Rangers Director of Football and SFA chief executive Gordon Smith used to be a football agent in a former life. One of his clients back then, Kenny Miller. He might just spill the beans, you never know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Where in the SPL rules does it mention this? I can't see Rangers going bust (they'll find a way out no doubt), yet if they did go bust and reformed as a new Rangers, they shouldn't be allowed to reapply to play in the SPL. The First Division winners (most likely to be Ross County) deserve to come up of course, yet i'll be pissed if the 2nd placed First Division side replaced us. The fair thing would be play off. As bottom team in the SPL, you shouldn't avoid demotion. As second team in Div 1, we shouldn't get automatic promotion. So FIGHT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 fair enough. just hate the smarmy p***k though. hes just derek johnstone with a thesaurus Outrageous comment. Spiers' tweed mafia will be on the warpath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 So, how quick do people think league reconstruction will go through if the clubs put their minds to it? If the reconstruction that saw the league reduced to 10 is anything to go by…meeting next week? Pencil it into your diary for 2027. It was a bit ironic reading the stuff about the 10 "provincial" (media speak not mine) clubs meeting to discuss voting reforms. Had such voting reforms been in place last year we'd probably have 10-team SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Be interesting if the Non Celtic SPL members who are apparently meeting next week sell their soul for some silver when it comes to letting Rangers back into the SPL(with penalties) I can appreciate they think they have Celtic by the balls and not that unhappy about "sharing the wealth" but is it not a moral decision too? You've got to laugh at a gloryhunter who supports a club whose success is based on exploiting sectarianism, bigotry, hatred and violence talking about morals! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Be interesting if the Non Celtic SPL members who are apparently meeting next week sell their soul for some silver when it comes to letting Rangers back into the SPL(with penalties) I can appreciate they think they have Celtic by the balls and not that unhappy about "sharing the wealth" but is it not a moral decision too? When the 10 meet it's hardly going to be conviviality and unity. You'll have a room filled with everyone from Petrie's and Brown's, operating well-run clubs based on balanced budgets, to whatever lacky Romanov dispatches from within the Eastern bloc... You'll have fans of 10-team SPL, fans of the status quo, fans of 14-team SPL... You'll have fans of readmitting any Rangers 2012, and (maybe) fans of not. What unites them are 3 things... [1] a desire to see a fairer distribution of money than the current % breakdown, not because it makes a massive difference, but because it makes some difference and makes things fairer from a moral perspective. Then [2] a desire to make voting slightly easier, say 9-3 - so that OF cannot veto policy BUT things like 10-team SPL are still kept away. Then [3] some exploration of a strategy if Rangers are ultimately liquidated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Shaker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 did anybody see that dickwad speirs on the telly saying that there was a certain pleasure in scotland about rangers demise and that it was led by celtic fans"? Traynor at least admitted that everyone was lapping it up. Adrian Durham on TalkSHITE insisted Rangers should get special treatment as they're 'big' and 'important', and suggested the general public were feeling more sympathetic towards them as things progress. Peter Martin told him otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You've got to laugh at a gloryhunter who supports a club whose success is based on exploiting sectarianism, bigotry, hatred and violence talking about morals! Not really, that would be the reaction of a cock. A petty, bigotted cock. He 'has' a fair point tho, unlike the original HawHaw, if its about the redistribution of the financial deals etc, if would be insane not to include Celtic. They would be the main 'headliner' if you will and if they dont concur then the remainder could be worse off. If 2 against 10 was ganging up, what about 10 v 1 ? Esp when the one holds a lot of the aces in terms of financial 'drawability'. Dumb imo.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Celtic are not being included because up until now, Celtic has been the only club to profit from the 'skewed' distribution model every season... Rangers having done so every season bar 1 - and Hearts once. Granted, all clubs agreed to the system when SPL brokeaway, but that doesn't make it right. OF may claim to be generating the income through TV interest, but it needs other clubs for them to play. If the 10 come back with a % model which skews things unfairly the other way, that's legitimate grounds for complaint. However, if they come back with a fairer % model - good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He 'has' a fair point tho, unlike the original HawHaw, if its about the redistribution of the financial deals etc, if would be insane not to include Celtic. They would be the main 'headliner' if you will and if they dont concur then the remainder could be worse off. If 2 against 10 was ganging up, what about 10 v 1 ? Esp when the one holds a lot of the aces in terms of financial 'drawability'. What a breathtakingly stupid post. Celtic are fucked: once Rangers are liquidated, Celtic will be unable to block changes to the SPL structure in any way - which will allow all the other clubs to split revenue on a more equitable basis. Celtic do not have the casting vote. They have no viable option to leave the SPL. Once Rangers go bust the Old Firm's protection racket can be dismantled and there's nothing Celtic can do about it. Once the 10 change the voting system, not even the return of Rangers 1690 will save you. Celtic fans should be hoping that Rangers survive in their current form, because if they don't then your control of Scottish football is finished. Pleasing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If the 10 come back with a % model which skews things unfairly the other way, that's legitimate grounds for complaint. However, if they come back with a fairer % model - good. Complaint to whom? As we've seen with the SPL countless times. indeed, since its creation - the clubs make the rules and no-one else can stop them. Get rid of the current voting system and there is nothing to stop the bigots being outvoted at every turn. 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.