Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Guest Kincardine]

I know this is all new to Rangers fans but take a look at the rest of the SPL, there is NO money outside of the top 2 because of the 'share' agreement you and Celtic forced through........................................so if you finish 6th for example, you will be skint due to the very rules your club has helped enforce.

I may have got my numbers a little wrong - but not by that much.

The new Sky deal is worth £80 million over 5 years. Let's say £16M a year. The SPL then deduct expenses and parachute payments from that. Let's say £2M? This leaves £14M to be distributed. Let's assume, too, that the distribution formula doesn't change.

The formula is:

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%

2 - 4% + 11% = 15%

3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%

4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%

5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%

6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%

7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%

8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%

9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%

10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%

11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

So for being 1st we'd get 17% of £14M ie £2.7M.

For being 6th we'd get 7.5% of £14M ie £1.05M.

So we'd 'lose' £1.65M for being 6th rather than top. Obviously a big sum.

However our lowest income over the past 5 years has been £40M. Even if that drops to, say, £30M next season the loss of Sky money from going from 1st to 6th is about 5% of turnover.

Your club has a turnover of around £4M. Sky money matters a hell of a lot to you but less so for us.

I'm not saying this to be arrogant - but simply pointing out that we can take a big hit on fan-base and on TV revenue and still have at least 3 times the income of other SPL clubs apart from Celtic.

[hellbhoy]

There will only be one CL spot for the foreseeable future - this year was a one-off chance for a "diddy" to make it.

So it's a foregone conclusion that Motherwell will fail in the champions league ?.

It's a foregone conclusion that Celtic will fail ?

Don't write anyone off yet because any team with a good start to the season could be living the dream.

It's all about getting the co-efficient up so come on all the SCOTTISH teams in EUROPE get results FFS.

[Drooper]

The only fair solution would be a hefty punishment not involving demotion or removal from the league.

Fair to whom?

Certainly not justice for Rangers. There is absolutely nothing fair about what you're proposing, whatsoever.

Think about it this way, if I were to be found guilty of a significant crime tomorrow, do you reckon the sheriff/judge would let me return home with a slap on the wrist on the grounds that my family would suffer by me being banged up and losing my job? The answer is a very definite no. Sadly, others often take a hit by way of association with the perpetrators of misdemeanours and crimes, and allowances are very seldom made for them.

To be honest, if clubs are willing to exist, teetering at the mouth of the abyss by relying so heavily on TV revenue that losing this could send them under, then hey ho....so it goes.

[HibeeJibee]

Given the lack of tightness and clarity of the SPL and SFA constitutions and wooly rules as demonstrated over the last few months, I would amazed if Livingston don't have a very strong case.

Well could you outline it for the rest of us? Since no-one else so far seems to have much of a handle on it at all, nevermind it being "very strong".

After all they were chucked out a few years back when people like Grorge Peat () and Gordon Smith () were the head honchos, and both equally ineffective (I am being politically correct here). When they made up things as they went along, with a view that "it would be all right on the night".

What did Peat/Smith make-up in relation to Livingston?

[sjc]

hardly the travelling fans will only be a small part of any loss to clubs revenue, the biggest part will be in terms of reduced TV money.

People can bury their head in the sand all they like, if Rangers do not play in the spl then other clubs are going to be loosing money, and in the current state of Scottish football theres not many clubs that wont feel the pinch.

its a catch 22 situation, Punish Rangers as they deserve and other clubs will suffer. The only fair solution would be a hefty punishment not involving demotion or removal from the league.

If my Club were to go to the wall due to being daft enough to base their entire existence upon playing Rangers 4 times a season & a TV deal then so be it....I'll be supporting them/AFC Hearts in the East of Scotland league. However I suspect like most teams we'd just pay our players less and offload the higher earners (which we will be doing this summer anyway).

Rangers should be looking at expulsion for some of the shenanigans they've been up too........and if the SFA/SPL is too spineless to act then I'm hoping UEFA will step in akin to what happened recently in Switzerland.

[HibeeJibee]

So it's a foregone conclusion that Motherwell will fail in the champions league ?.

It's a foregone conclusion that Celtic will fail ?

Don't write anyone off yet because any team with a good start to the season could be living the dream.

It's all about getting the co-efficient up so come on all the SCOTTISH teams in EUROPE get results FFS.

It doesn't really need either to be a foregone conclusion. When it comes down to it, we're about to lose the good scoring from 2008 and it'll need several years good progression in tournaments from several clubs concurrently to get us back up to nearing 2 CL slot territory.

Short-term it's not happening. Medium-term it's unlikely.

Edited May 15, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Hipster Dufus]

This is from Nov 2011:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/21/spl-tv-deal-sky-espn?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

So, why does Doncaster keep going on about the fact that there is an unsigned TV deal on the table?

Is there a get-out clause saying the deal is null and void without 4 Rangers vs Celtic meetings a season?

[Gaspode]

Are you saying they would refuse to do a deal because Whyte (or any other name you can dream up) was funding it? Whyte is no longer disqualified as a director, nor is he disqualified from making investments. Whatever HMRC does, they have to play strictly to a set of rules.

I have no idea what the rule would be that allows then to say 'we don't like that shifty wee git'.

Can you point us at where we might see such a ruling?

From HMRC's own pages.....

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement

We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where there is evidence of:

• evasion of statutory liabilities or past association with contrived insolvency

• payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown.

• any proposal that requires sale of HMRC debt or does not provide cash dividends

• failure to meet any obligations under a prior voluntary arrangement

• exclusion of creditors who are entitled to receive the same treatment as all others within their class

• a purchaser assuming responsibility for payment of some of the debtor’s debts in consideration for the purchase of the debtor’s assets

• any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by

the organisation.

That do ya?

[thelegendthatis]

I'm even more confused now.

Why didn't they sue over Dundee?

One question at a time, unless you deliberately want to cloud things so we can enter into 2 page explanations.

Hopefully at that time they didn't realise just how incompetent were the 2 bodies referred to.

[Chazza1910]

Fair to whom?

Certainly not justice for Rangers. There is absolutely nothing fair about what you're proposing, whatsoever.

Think about it this way, if I were to be found guilty of a significant crime tomorrow, do you reckon the sheriff/judge would let me return home with a slap on the wrist on the grounds that my family would suffer by me being banged up and losing my job? The answer is a very definite no. Sadly, others often take a hit by way of association with the perpetrators of misdemeanours and crimes, and allowances are very seldom made for them.

To be honest, if clubs are willing to exist, teetering at the mouth of the abyss by relying so heavily on TV revenue that losing this could send them under, then hey ho....so it goes.

Yes, time for clubs to face up to financial facts, though wouldn't want any to go under, not even Rangers.

We had to take our medicine and were mocked when other clubs had, and still have, much bigger debts than us.

Why should it be always us, and Livingston (Kachloul cheats), who get booted all over the place?

[ginge123]

I'm even more confused now.

Why didn't they sue over Dundee?

I think we made noises at the time before realising then that we didn't have a leg to stand on. I think the big thing was that it was a mid-season admin, like Rangers' has been. Although I couldn't tell you if Dundee were out of administration before the end of the season.

[thelegendthatis]

From HMRC's own pages.....

From HMRC's own pages.....<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); ">Quote

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement

We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where there is evidence of:

• evasion of statutory liabilities or past association with contrived insolvency

• payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown.

• any proposal that requires sale of HMRC debt or does not provide cash dividends

• failure to meet any obligations under a prior voluntary arrangement

• exclusion of creditors who are entitled to receive the same treatment as all others within their class

• a purchaser assuming responsibility for payment of some of the debtor’s debts in consideration for the purchase of the debtor’s assets

• any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by

the organisation.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); ">That do ya?

That do ya?

Excellent, thanks for that.

Love the last one, which seems to kill Greens' attempt at deciding which creditors will be paid preferentially.

[Chuckinho]

Go Livi Go - they have a small point of principle but we all know that the reason for the double standard is that things here involved the Rangers.

Then again from a Profit and Loss perspective, having to pay 1.2m to Livi when sued more than cancels out the 160,000 Rangers have been fined.

[expatowner]

What I don't understand is why have other Supporters Groups not followed DST lead and released a statement. Why haven't various supporters groups got in touch with each other and released a joint statement? These kind of things would get publicity and give some coverage to what appears to be the majority view in Scottish Football.

Discussed on this thread circa page 300.

[WaffenThinMint]

I'm even more confused now.

Why didn't they sue over Dundee?

My guess is all to do with timing. Livingston were still in a precarious financial situation in 2010 and in no positiion to start flinging about expensive writs.

There's also without any doubt the matter of sympathy as well, knowing Dundee had done the same as them (and Airdrie) - flinging money around in desperation to get back into the Premier League "There but for the grace of God", and all that crap.

Rangers getting away with what they've been doing with only a transfer embargo and a 10 point penalty however puts the collective financial stupidities of Airdrie, Dundee, Gretna, Livingston, etc, etc.into very sharp relief. It would be like giving someone 500 hours community service for committing mass murder when they jailed you for 5 years for manslaughter.

As much as they've a bit of a gall, I can see to an extent where they're coming from.

[kildog]

i'm surprised prominent Gers fans haven't started putting pressure on the ECB to fund a bail out.

This has nothing to do with Cricket.

[ArabFC]

The formula is:

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%

2 - 4% + 11% = 15%

3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%

4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%

5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%

6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%

7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%

8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%

9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%

10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%

11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

Showing everything that is wrong with Scottish football. Why the drop after the 2nd team?

Sky would probably hand over less money, maybe even upto as much as 33% less, but some of that imbalance could be addressed by ripping the unequal share of the monies away from the OF that is enforced by the current 11/1 rule.

[Jagsman411971]

I get the impression that the majority of the people on here, are only really interested in how much damage can be done to Rangers, and are not thinking of what could happen later.

I mean, if Rangers are demoted to 3rd division along with all the other punishments, how long would it be before they would be back in the SPL, 3 years? maybe 5? and within that time the clubs in the SPL will have had to cut their budgets to cope with the lower income generated, so standard of player would probably be lower than now. So, when Rangers win promotion back to the SPL, you could argue that it could be an easier SPL than the one they were kicked out of.

And then we're back, to basically what we have at the moment. Income will increase due to the ugly sisters reunion, the other clubs will welcome the extra revenue, saying they can now get better players, therefore standards will improve and the media will call it the "Rebirth" of Scottish football after years of decline, telling us that it will be the start of something great. But the truth will be, everything will just have gone back to what it was before this "Rangers fiasco" happened, with the possible exception being the clubs finances will have been put in order, and Rangers will possibly be almost debt free.

This could be the best chance that Scottish football will ever get to change the game in this country. When was the last time a decision was made, within Scottish footballs ruling bodies, that was down to purely footballing reasons? I dont believe it has ever happened. If we dont act now, this opportunity could be lost to us, maybe not forever, but for the foreseeable future. Too many people have stated that Scottish football would struggle to survive without both cheeks of the Old Firm arse, but if we are given the chance to prove them wrong, then we must do everything possible to ram those words right back down their throats.

I believe that teams should only play each other twice a season

The English pyramid system should be adopted.

Fewer, larger leagues should be employed, that include play-offs

Football should be governed by 1 organization

Coaching, grass roots and youth development should be priorities.

Anyway, we wont get any of this if we dont crucify that shower of inbred, knuckle-dragging fuckwits first, so pass the nails and lets get on with it.

[Fasda]

hardly the travelling fans will only be a small part of any loss to clubs revenue, the biggest part will be in terms of reduced TV money.

People can bury their head in the sand all they like, if Rangers do not play in the spl then other clubs are going to be loosing money, and in the current state of Scottish football theres not many clubs that wont feel the pinch.

its a catch 22 situation, Punish Rangers as they deserve and other clubs will suffer. The only fair solution would be a hefty punishment not involving demotion or removal from the league.

Toaster, the point is we are all losing money season after season with the OF in the SPL. It is a failure. It disnae work. If it was a resounding success for any of us we'd be trying to find solutions but it disnae phuckin work. The myth is that we have something to lose because 50,000 fans at Ibrox every two weeks will stop putting all the money they spend into.....Ibrox. None of it goes elsewhere. Any losses will be manageable if they happen at all. Get over it.

The current SPL doesn't work for you , Celtic or the national team either but probably too far to go for now.

[hellbhoy]

And if it was Celtic that was in the same trouble as the Gers you certainly wouldn't be wanting to inflict as much pain and misery as possible and I would understand why all the other fans would react if it was Celtic as they have to ra Gers

I get the impression that the majority of the people on here, are only really interested in how much damage can be done to Rangers, and are not thinking of what could happen later.

I mean, if Rangers are demoted to 3rd division along with all the other punishments, how long would it be before they would be back in the SPL, 3 years? maybe 5? and within that time the clubs in the SPL will have had to cut their budgets to cope with the lower income generated, so standard of player would probably be lower than now. So, when Rangers win promotion back to the SPL, you could argue that it could be an easier SPL than the one they were kicked out of.

And then we're back, to basically what we have at the moment. Income will increase due to the ugly sisters reunion, the other clubs will welcome the extra revenue, saying they can now get better players, therefore standards will improve and the media will call it the "Rebirth" of Scottish football after years of decline, telling us that it will be the start of something great. But the truth will be, everything will just have gone back to what it was before this "Rangers fiasco" happened, with the possible exception being the clubs finances will have been put in order, and Rangers will possibly be almost debt free.

This could be the best chance that Scottish football will ever get to change the game in this country. When was the last time a decision was made, within Scottish footballs ruling bodies, that was down to purely footballing reasons? I dont believe it has ever happened. If we dont act now, this opportunity could be lost to us, maybe not forever, but for the foreseeable future. Too many people have stated that Scottish football would struggle to survive without both cheeks of the Old Firm arse, but if we are given the chance to prove them wrong, then we must do everything possible to ram those words right back down their throats.

I believe that teams should only play each other twice a season

The English pyramid system should be adopted.

Fewer, larger leagues should be employed, that include play-offs

Football should be governed by 1 organization

Coaching, grass roots and youth development should be priorities.

Anyway, we wont get any of this if we dont crucify that shower of inbred, knuckle-dragging fuckwits first, so pass the nails and lets get on with it.