HibeeJibee Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 My take on it is that the administrators have made the call any administrator would. Surrenduring or diluting a position of power/strength doesn't improve Rangers saleability as an asset, and if it leads to reorganisation of financial payments etc. then it causes even more uncertainty for potential buyers. It's not the job of administrators to consider what curries most favour for a new Rangers, if the current one goes into liquidation. It's a poker game anyway. If Rangers do fold, the rest can extract 9-3 regardless. If Rangers don't fold, discarding 11-1 would be a tactical mistake. I don't think many expected the administrators to back it, tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 As much as I hate to back up D+P on anything given their performance, I think they made the proper call here. Their job (sarky comments not needed!) is to turnaround the business as it stands or liquidate it. They have no real knowledge of Scottish football and no real concern for it's future - they shouldn't be distracted from their task by getting involved with this type of debate, if Rangers post-admin or Newco Rangers want to do it then that's entirely up to them. They're also right in saying they're trying to protect the business as the situation stands, causing further uncertainty which discourages bidders will not appeal either. A few fair point there. BUT Im convinced that they are determined to kill the club.Im not fussed if they do go bust, but these administrators just dont seem to be wanting to do what they are there for, to try and save the club.Yes, clubs have been in administration for long periods, but something stinks about all of this. there have been some weird actions from them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I don't think any club should get a vote on the SPL whilst in administration. I'm sure the SFL rules were much stricter while Dundee were in admin, the SPL seem to treat it as a minor inconvenience, 10pts ffs. I'd love it if someone found an obscure rule in the SPL Articles that stops a Rangers vote, leaving the non OF 10 free to change the rules.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=11389 Any decent fans (I'm sure even Rangers will have some) got a shred of sympathy left towards that club after this? Let's hear what Chick Young has to say about this one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 What the f**k does that mean? Why bring religion in to this in the 1st place, cretins like you are just as bad as the most bitter old firm fans. Grow up son, sh*t like that belongs in the past. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Why bring religion in to this in the 1st place, cretins like you are just as bad as the most bitter old firm fans. Grow up son, sh*t like that belongs in the past. It was nothing to do with religion. When a question is posed that has an obvious answer, "will Rangers support the retention of the existing 11-1 voting structure?" an often used response is a facetious question "Is the Pope a catholic?" Any c**t with half a brain would recognise the reference, obviously that excludes you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It was nothing to do with religion. When a question is posed that has an obvious answer, "will Rangers support the retention of the existing 11-1 voting structure?" an often used response is a facetious question "Is the Pope a catholic?" Any c**t with half a brain would recognise the reference, obviously that excludes you. As in, "Do bears shit in the woods?". Answer: No, that's why they wear baggy shellsuit bottoms with bicycle clips.. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I am passionate about football and passionate about St Mirren. But, it is not unconditional love. If St Mirren come to represent something that I have a problem with then my feelings may change. They are part of my identity and culture and I am part of their culture. But if that culture changes then my own participation may also change. If the SPL decides that commercial gain is more important than sporting integrity then I will have an issue with that. Specifically, if they decide that it is necessary to have two teams in the league regardless of what happens or has happened, then I would consider at least to some degree that the league primarily exists FOR those two teams. I don't want St Mirren to be part of something that has decided to be a vehicle for two clubs, merely because they are the most popular and generate the most cash. I think St Mirren's existence and success being officially recognized as dependent on THEIR success renders us as making up the numbers in their interests. The SPL is a collective enterprise, but it is also a competition, as part of the overall competitive structure of senior football in Scotland. There's already plenty that I don't like about it in its commercial reality and relationship with the SFL. Throwing out sporting integrity entirely would be a step too far for me. I am not going to make some knee-jerk promise that I would never do this or never do that again. But by the same token, I will not subscribe to blind loyalty. All I can do is make it clear right now - if Rangers liquidate and a new company is fast-tracked straight into the SPL via whatever mechanism merely because it will generate revenue, especially if that is regardless of any other rule breaches that are proven, then I would consider Scottish Football irreparably damaged. Spot on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A few weeks ago I could not get the tune "Singing in the Rain" out of my head as I polished up my grave dancing shoes reading this thread while it poured outside. With the weather now glorious - my internal jukebox needs a new tune - any last requests? What we need is someone with a bit of graphical skill to change the dance floor to a picture of a smoking crumbling shell of Ibrox and the two dancers decked out in Tesco uniforms. What you need for that to happen is George Lucas Studios mate! Key word "may". And as far as I know King is not part of the consortium. Do you really think Paul Murray is going to be banned because the guy he opposed made a horlicks of things after he chucked Murray off the board? Is that the same Paul Murray that said, on camera, during the BBC investigative documentary into Craig Whyte's takeover: "We have a saying around here... No Surrender"? Your right, he is fit & proper... Christ, the man even looks more like SwissToni than Craig Whyte or indeed Swiss Toni! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpudNuts Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 That was Alastair "fucktard" Johnson that said that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) How long have you supported Raith Rovers? I find it difficult to understand why someone with meaningful emotional attachments to a club would ditch it if Rangers were one way or another 'saved' - but particularly someone who supports an SFL club who probably wouldn't even have a say. I've supported the Rovers since the Frank Connor days. I watched them get promoted as runners up to Meadowbank Thistle from the old 2nd. I was there the day we got hosed 7-1 at Brockville when Frank left. I was fortunate enough to have been around during the Jimmy Nicholl era watching us win the 1st Div twice, League cup, europe....I saw with my own eyes the famous half time scoreboard in Munich. I then watched it all crumble around us as Nicholl left, several players moved on, the Janny took over, got sacked, Tommy McLean showed up for a few days... then in no particular order Iain Munro, Jocky Scott, A Jimmy Nicholl Clone, John McViegh, Peter Hetherston, Tony Calderon... Christ I even saw every Anelka game... and survived that and Dazza's near nosedive to the abyss of the 3rd! I think I qualify for a meaningful emotional attachment. I don't mind if Rangers are saved. I don't mind (well as a taxpayer I would but not as a football supporter) if they settle their debts through a CVA and come out of Admin and remain in the SPL debt free. I don't mind if they are genuinely found not guilty of all the rules they are accused of breaking. If, however they liquidise and are automatically parachuted into the SPL. Also if the SFA shrug off the alleged rule breaking as technically it wasn't the newco then it doesn't matter the emotional attachment I have for the Rovers. It doesn't even matter if the Rovers played no part in the "conspiracy" to get Rangers back in to the top flight. As others have said, this scenario would render fair competition in Scottish football non existant. I'm a huge Raith fan, I love my wee club. I've a few memories that still make me smile and I've loads more that make me cringe with despair but I love them and I love my Saturdays at the game. However, I'm no mug and I will not blindly support a set-up that blatantly has one rule for some and another for others. This may appear harsh on Rovers who may not have a say on the Rangers case. It is not about punishing Rovers though I would just see little point in continuing to watch professional Scottish football when we are blatantly just there to make up the numbers. If Rangers liquidise I feel it gives Scottish football its greatest ever opportunity to provide genuine fairness and give some of the other clubs some credibility. If it is missed by pandering to the old firm for the sake of a few bob from Sky we would be as well having a league of 2 and, I'm afraid, I have no interest in that whatsoever! Edited March 28, 2012 by Double Jack D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 When people say things like "Whyte did not buy the club with his own money", are they talking about the shares because he did use his own money for that. £1 to be exact. He used the Ticketus money to pay off the bank loan to reduce the monthly expenditure. RBS will not return the £18m. If Rangers sell season tickets as is their intention and the Ticketus deal is null and void, Ticketus will then become just another creditor to be paid 3p in the £. They must be feeling pretty stupid right now because they must realise that they were never going to be the sole trader of the season tickets. You make it sound as if the administrators can just ignore the Ticketus deal without any repercussions. They would absolutely love to do that, but I think Ticketus lawyers might have something to say about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think this £250 000 that has been raised shows the inequality between a team and its supporters and everything that is wrong with big wages and big clubs. A good effort by any standards of fund raising but it barely touches the sides. When a team gets to stage when it is so far beyond its supporters help something is very wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If they bump Ticketus, Ticketus will be owed more than 25 per cent of the debt unless the BTC goes through the roof. Given Ticketus can point out the club will be selling tickets and they could easily uphold the contract if they chose to do so, why on earth would Ticketus settle for anything short of very, very high CVA? When there is no secured creditor, they must all be treated the same in a CVA so you either appease Ticketus or you liquidate. The one card the admin guys have to play is that in liquidation Ticketus could be given less but I suspect given everything else going on, this is likely trying to bluff a game of poker with less than a pair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If they bump Ticketus, Ticketus will be owed more than 25 per cent of the debt unless the BTC goes through the roof. Given Ticketus can point out the club will be selling tickets and they could easily uphold the contract if they chose to do so, why on earth would Ticketus settle for anything short of very, very high CVA? When there is no secured creditor, they must all be treated the same in a CVA so you either appease Ticketus or you liquidate. The one card the admin guys have to play is that in liquidation Ticketus could be given less but I suspect given everything else going on, this is likely trying to bluff a game of poker with less than a pair. Ticketus, like any other company, will look after what's best for its shareholders. HMRC's duty is the same but for us as the taxpayer. Ultimately either has to judge a CVA versus the return for their share of the liquidised assets. If the BTC goes against rangers then the total debt to HMRC is around £75million and the debt to ticketus would be around £25million plus penalties should they fail to honour the contract. Rangers have 4 options as I see it 1. Fans raise enough cash to pay off debt. - not even gonna come close! 2. New Owners take over and pay off the debt - Blue Knights are only credible option here but I doubt they have the funds 3. Liquidise and sell all assets to a newco/ Property developer 4. CVA Basically Options 1 and 2 need a miracle. Option 4 is only an option (because of HMRC) if the value is greater than Option 3. Where would the money come from to pay for this? Rangers are hardly an attractive investment that by outlaying £10's of millions just now you are ever likely to see a return on that. Rangers have plenty of fans, they have plenty of thick fans but they don't appear to have any super rich thick fans! Get the liquidiser oot! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Ticketus, like any other company, will look after what's best for its shareholders. HMRC's duty is the same but for us as the taxpayer. Ultimately either has to judge a CVA versus the return for their share of the liquidised assets. If the BTC goes against rangers then the total debt to HMRC is around £75million and the debt to ticketus would be around £25million plus penalties should they fail to honour the contract. This is correct, but where HMRC are concerned they have another consideration even if a CVA gives a greater return than liquidation - does a pennies in the pound deal for that amount of debt (ie, a lot to Rangers, not really that much in the grand scheme of things to HMRC) send out the right message to other businesses, who might then see administration as a way out of meeting their own tax liabilities. I'll be honest - I have no idea how HMRC would/will approach that question. It seems from some reports they generally don't like agreeing to CVAs where they have control. In some cases they have had no choice. To me though it would seem futile to see a win in the FTT meaning Rangers owe 60-75 million quid to HMRC, only to then agree to a CVA that sees them take a tiny fraction of that. There will be political pressure on them from all sides, I imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Good point re setting a precedent for other businesses. I hadn't thought of that. In these times the political ramifications of punishing a tax cheat wouldn't be difficult to spin. I don't even think Rangers fans would blame the taxman for their demise! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 They dead yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 They dead yet? They are not dead yet! But they are in a coma, on a life support machine, (administrators) awaiting to see if it wakes with people constantly talking to it. After a while the doctors (HMRC) decide that its futile and that the machine needs to be switched off, to end any more suffering. 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.