THE KING Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Thought I'd leave this petition here as well. signed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Go and look at Rangers record from 1981 - 1986...Running Kaunus close would have been seen as a moral victory Rangers LEAGUE record during that period was indeed relatively poor with 3 clubs winning more points (despite all the help of the referees, etc) and averaging only 2 points per season more than St. Mirren. But strangely, Rangers were still the most successful cup side in Scotland during that spell and won more trophies in those years than St. Mirren have won in their entire history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 what about fans of the team that will be relegated this season, hibs/dunfermline. how will you guys feel if rangers go out the game, your club are relegated and a new rangers are fast tracked straight back in. i'd be livid. Dunfermline deserve to be relegated since we are the worst team in the League. That would be in a "normal" situation. However, I think it is pretty clear that this administration at the helm of RFC are desperately trying to limp/lurch/run on fumes to the end of the season. The club are still running at a loss are they not? I thought that an administrator's job was to cut costs to the point that there is no longer losses being made. I also thought that if there was a liquidation then there was to be no relegation that season. I'm sure the goalposts will be moved (pun intended) to accomodate Rangers in the SPL, whatever the incarnation. A rose by any other name would still smell as bigoted and unpleasant. Do the Pars deserve to go down? Yes. Have Rangers knowingly broken rules and laws since the 90's culminating in this fustercluck of a situation they are in, costing untold millions to many and the Crown? I would think so. Rangers offer more benefit to the Scottish game financially but certainly not morally. Div 1 for us..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 However, I think it is pretty clear that this administration at the helm of RFC are desperately trying to limp/lurch/run on fumes to the end of the season. The club are still running at a loss are they not? I thought that an administrator's job was to cut costs to the point that there is no longer losses being made. The Administrator at Motherwell got rid of nine players plus some staff after one day. The Administrator at Rangers believes, for example, that Rangers could not function wihout a football manager. I mean no way could the assistant step up. It all stinks. Maybe thet are only running at a loss now because of the one million pounds plus owed to the administrators !!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Rangers LEAGUE record during that period was indeed relatively poor with 3 clubs winning more points (despite all the help of the referees, etc) and averaging only 2 points per season more than St. Mirren. We have lost 0.7 of a point since you started telling this story 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The Administrator at Motherwell got rid of nine players plus some staff after one day. The Administrator at Rangers believes, for example, that Rangers could not function wihout a football manager. I mean no way could the assistant step up. It all stinks. Maybe thet are only running at a loss now because of the one million pounds plus owed to the administrators !!!!! They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Dunfermline deserve to be relegated since we are the worst team in the League. That would be in a "normal" situation. However, I think it is pretty clear that this administration at the helm of RFC are desperately trying to limp/lurch/run on fumes to the end of the season. The club are still running at a loss are they not? I thought that an administrator's job was to cut costs to the point that there is no longer losses being made. I also thought that if there was a liquidation then there was to be no relegation that season. I'm sure the goalposts will be moved (pun intended) to accomodate Rangers in the SPL, whatever the incarnation. A rose by any other name would still smell as bigoted and unpleasant. Do the Pars deserve to go down? Yes. Have Rangers knowingly broken rules and laws since the 90's culminating in this fustercluck of a situation they are in, costing untold millions to many and the Crown? I would think so. Rangers offer more benefit to the Scottish game financially but certainly not morally. Div 1 for us..... I find this notion quite interesting. It is true that they do indeed, as big as they are and have been, offer a clear and obvious current benefit to the Scottish game. But, and it's a biggy, what would they offer to the Scottish game bereft of the numerous, erm, boosts they have received over the years? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £40m boost from Joe Lewis' ENIC? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £20m boost from Dave 'loves the SARS' King? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £100m boost from David 'duped' Murray? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received an £18m boost from JJB Sports*? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £32m boost from NTL? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £15m boost inadvertently from Hector the Collector? What would Rangers have been able to offer the Scottish game had they not received a £45m boost from not paying Tax, NIC and social costs on £48m of wages**? Remove any one of those artificial never to be repeated again boosts and you devalue Rangers and by extension their marketability and further what they are worth to everyone else financially. Remove them all, which is what we are talking about here - a NewCo or OldCo will not ever be able to count on any of that financial support again, and what would the current Rangers side be worth to the other clubs? Do you believe that without all of those extra moneys, Rangers would be even close to being the shadow of a side they once were? And would they have as many fans travelling to away grounds? Which again poses the question: what will a new Rangers, without all that money, actually offer the SPL in the future that makes them so bloody indispensable to the the league? *They could kind of count on something like the JJB deal again, however that deal was signed at a time when Rangers were being propped up by many of the other financial boosts, and certainly at the very peak of the EBT usage - could they count on a deal of the same value? **In order to pay the players the same 'take home' pay, they would have had to shell out almost double as gross pay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released And this is relevant how? It is not an administrators job to do what is best for the football team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released That was obviously a balancing job between retaining players who had resell value and reducing the wage bill. But that doesnt change the fact that none of the backroom staff have been made redundant, nor any of the lesser squad players, nor any of the non-football roles, apart from a PA to a guy who'd already left and some, presumably, redundant - pun intended - director role based in London. Despite this cost cutting not being even attempted, the club is still running at a loss! It beggars belief, as do several things noted in the Administrators statement. Not scrapping season tickets, for one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 And this is relevant how? It is not an administrators job to do what is best for the football team. You could debate that, though. If they think they can save the business and sell it as a going concern then, given that the clubs only business is football, it is their job to do whats best for the football team. I dont, necessarily, agree with the lengths theyve gone to to preserve the team mind you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You could debate that, though. If they think they can save the business and sell it as a going concern then, given that the clubs only business is football, it is their job to do whats best for the football team. I dont, necessarily, agree with the lengths theyve gone to to preserve the team mind you Perhaps I should have lengthened my post: It is not an administrators job to simply do what is best for the football team without consideration for the business as a whole and certainly not to the detriment of creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 And this is relevant how? It is not an administrators job to do what is best for the football team. More relevant than your above post The point is a deal was struck that if the players took massive wage cuts no players/Staff would need to sacked It makes no sense to release players with a re-sale value and dramatically reduce the sell on value of the club...Who would that help? As for your above post. How do you know for a fact people wont be willing to invest similat amounts into a Newco. I am not for a minute suggesting they will but how do you KNOW?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goran Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released As of June their wages will revert to what they were before the cut though? The administrators have been a joke, they were always going to be though I suppose since they were hand picked by Craig Whyte. I can see why HMRC opposed their appointment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Singapore Rangers still on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Perhaps I should have lengthened my post: It is not an administrators job to simply do what is best for the football team without consideration for the business as a whole and certainly not to the detriment of creditors. Again..What benefit would the creditors gain if there is no club in the future? Would they not lose more or less everything? This is exactly why HMRC would far rather see the club survive rather than pull the plug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) Again..What benefit would the creditors gain if there is no club in the future? Would they not lose more or less everything? This is exactly why HMRC would far rather see the club survive rather than pull the plug Nope, they'd get their share of the sale of Ibrox and any other assets. Maybe that's the plan? Move centre 1 to Glasgow from East Kilbride. Edited April 12, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They got the money of the wage bill when the players took the wage cut meaning players didn't have to be released It is not there job to make sure players didn't have to be released. It is their job to cut costs. McCoist you are replaceable by your assistant and have no transfer value, you cost us thousands per week. Goodbye. Broadfoot, we've a young player who is comparitable to most in the SPL, and he costs £5,000 less than you. Goodbye. etc etc simple arithmetic Or alternatively - was McGregor's few grand a week wage 'cut' at a cost of £2,000,000 future transfer fee? And anyway they were in negotiations with the players about a wage cut - absolute nonsence. Derek Adams was told take wage cut or we'll sack you. That is what should have happend It all stinks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 It seems obvious that no one wanted to pay the 500k non refundable deposit So H&D are frantically re negotiating and using the 30th April meeting as a convenient excuse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 More relevant than your above post The point is a deal was struck that if the players took massive wage cuts no players/Staff would need to sacked It makes no sense to release players with a re-sale value and dramatically reduce the sell on value of the club...Who would that help? As for your above post. How do you know for a fact people wont be willing to invest similat amounts into a Newco. I am not for a minute suggesting they will but how do you KNOW?? You're almost correct that you should not release players with a re-sale value (it's more complicated than simply 'with a re-sale value') But can you explain why Papace, Aluko et al, with absolutely no resale value have been retained? These guys are draining money, not from the club, but from the creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Again..What benefit would the creditors gain if there is no club in the future? Would they not lose more or less everything? This is exactly why HMRC would far rather see the club survive rather than pull the plug Absolute pish. HMRC are chasing a number of businesses for poorly administered EBTs - do you think it is in their interest to put out a sign to such businesses that they can simply stiff the tax authorities and then do some cosy deal? No sir, Hector will go for the option that does not prompt businesses to turn drag their heals through the tribunals and insolvency courts. 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.