Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[chico]

I think the deal has been agreed but not signed off yet and yes there is a get out clause should Rangers and Celtic not be in the same league as Sky and ESPN penned this clause incase both clubs buggered off down to England.

DOES anyone know what the TV revenue split is between the old firm and the rest of the SPL?

Say they both get a 20% share and the other ten get 6% and the deal at the moment(not taking into account the new deal which starts next season) is worth about £20,000,000 a year then this means that non OF clubs currently receive around £1,200,000 a year. Now if Rangers go to division 3 I would sincerely hope that the rest of the clubs will demand an equal share of any TV rights resulting in a 8.33% share of any new deal so say the deal is halved then they will still get about £833,000 so only a loss of about £370,000 for most clubs with Celtic obviously taking a massive hit.

If Rangers go down I am certain that the SPL can conclude a deal worth £10,000,000 a year. Broadcasters after all have time slots to fill and most sports don't come cheap so £10,000,000 a year for 60 games is cheap TV.

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%

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

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.

Friday 23rd May 2003

[NorthBank]

Ok then perhaps not a full house but grabbing some random stats show that for example Motherwell would pull in approx 2000 more fans for a home Game vs Rangers or Celtic than other SPL teams So whilst I admit i'm a fair bit off with saying 2 full houses, It certainly is 2 bumper crowds

Toaster you seem like a reasonable Rangers supporter which is a rare thing indeed. Maybe you could explain to your fellow supporters that fans of other clubs KNOW they will take a hit if Rangers go. However we are HAPPY with that. And most fans I know do not think it will be anywhere near as dire as predicted.

On Sportsound last night some eejit mentioned no Rangers fans at Away grounds would be a drop of 10,000 paying fans per diddy club per season. WTF? St Mirren's largest crowds have been Kilmarnock - twice. NOT the OF. We only allocate 2,000 seats to the OF and Thistle or any decent First Division Club will bring half of that. We only played Rangers once this season at SMP so we lose 1,000 paying away customers. Sad but easily dealt with. But note, the Home support is DOWN when we play the OF especially the Family stand. Many home supporters wont entertain songs of hate from the travelling Rangers fans. So although Killie fans come in the same numbers os the OF the Home support increases thereby giving higher attendances.

I take the point about TV money however SKY have never mentioned once what they would do with no OF. I reckon a deal will still be in place albeit with a possible reduction.

And of course diddy clubs have the possibility of more revenue from -

1. More Home fans attending games as the League suddenly becomes more competitive.

2. More Home fans at games overall at games to compensate for less Rangers fans.

3. Greater possibility of competing in Europe.

4. Greater possibility of winning a Cup.

So yes we will probably take a hit but we are happy with that and will continue to live within our means. After one season clubs will adjust wages downwards. That does not even necessarily mean a drop in quality. No offence to Aberdeen but I am sure their wage budget is far higher than St Mirren's but we have been playing great entertaining football this season with less money than they have. The SPL will survive without Rangers. Maybe a couple of clubs in self-inflicted desperate situations like Killie will struggle but that is their own fault and no reason to keep Rangers in the League.

[craigkillie]

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.

Even if Motherwell and Celtic got to the semi-finals of next season's Champions League, we wouldn't have a 2nd spot next year. The coefficient works on a five-year cycle, and unless we have a couple of excellent years, we won't be getting the 2nd CL spot any time soon.

[Drooper]

I think the deal has been agreed but not signed off yet and yes there is a get out clause should Rangers and Celtic not be in the same league as Sky and ESPN penned this clause incase both clubs buggered off down to England.

DOES anyone know what the TV revenue split is between the old firm and the rest of the SPL?

Say they both get a 20% share and the other ten get 6% and the deal at the moment(not taking into account the new deal which starts next season) is worth about £20,000,000 a year then this means that non OF clubs currently receive around £1,200,000 a year. Now if Rangers go to division 3 I would sincerely hope that the rest of the clubs will demand an equal share of any TV rights resulting in a 8.33% share of any new deal so say the deal is halved then they will still get about £833,000 so only a loss of about £370,000 for most clubs with Celtic obviously taking a massive hit.

If Rangers go down I am certain that the SPL can conclude a deal worth £10,000,000 a year. Broadcasters after all have time slots to fill and most sports don't come cheap so £10,000,000 a year for 60 games is cheap TV.

The current deal is worth £80M over 5 years. As someone has already posted, something can be shaved off this for admin expenses and parachute payment etc. My estimate is that a club hovering in the mid-table area would lose about £600K p/a at most. A fair amount of money, but, as you say, Sky would most likely reduce the amount they pay as opposed to pulling the plug altogether. Even if they did withdraw entirely, who is to say we wouldn't get another deal, albeit at a reduced level. I reckon, all things told, clubs might have to settle with losing £300 - £400K p/a maximum. Aye, its a fair few bob, but its about time a bit of realism came into play.

[killingfloorman]

Even if Motherwell and Celtic got to the semi-finals of next season's Champions League, we wouldn't have a 2nd spot next year. The coefficient works on a five-year cycle, and unless we have a couple of excellent years, we won't be getting the 2nd CL spot any time soon.

I can just see the Sun headline now:

craigkillie promises Motherwell v Celtic CL semi final next year

[hellbhoy]

Toaster you seem like a reasonable Rangers supporter which is a rare thing indeed. Maybe you could explain to your fellow supporters that fans of other clubs KNOW they will take a hit if Rangers go. However we are HAPPY with that. And most fans I know do not think it will be anywhere near as dire as predicted.

On Sportsound last night some eejit mentioned no Rangers fans at Away grounds would be a drop of 10,000 paying fans per diddy club per season. WTF? St Mirren's largest crowds have been Kilmarnock - twice. NOT the OF. We only allocate 2,000 seats to the OF and Thistle or any decent First Division Club will bring half of that. We only played Rangers once this season at SMP so we lose 1,000 paying away customers. Sad but easily dealt with. But note, the Home support is DOWN when we play the OF especially the Family stand. Many home supporters wont entertain songs of hate from the travelling Rangers fans. So although Killie fans come in the same numbers os the OF the Home support increases thereby giving higher attendances.

I take the point about TV money however SKY have never mentioned once what they would do with no OF. I reckon a deal will still be in place albeit with a possible reduction.

And of course diddy clubs have the possibility of more revenue from -

1. More Home fans attending games as the League suddenly becomes more competitive.

2. More Home fans at games overall at games to compensate for less Rangers fans.

3. Greater possibility of competing in Europe.

4. Greater possibility of winning a Cup.

So yes we will probably take a hit but we are happy with that and will continue to live within our means. After one season clubs will adjust wages downwards. That does not even necessarily mean a drop in quality. No offence to Aberdeen but I am sure their wage budget is far higher than St Mirren's but we have been playing great entertaining football this season with less money than they have. The SPL will survive without Rangers. Maybe a couple of clubs in self-inflicted desperate situations like Killie will struggle but that is their own fault and no reason to keep Rangers in the League.

THIS ^^^^^

[flyingrodent]

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.

Don't care. If it results in my club losing a whack of income, having to get rid of expensive players, losing out on the Champions' League slot or even worse, or making us uncompetitive in whatever European competition we do manage to get, whatever. Justice has to be done and it has to be seen to be done.

If that leaves us with a Catch-22 that could damage all of Scottish football, well that's because Rangers have forced this situation on the rest of us through their own incredible financial monkey business. Rangers didn't dope the league for the benefit of the entire SPL, after all. Having diddled everyone else for more than a decade, it won't do to now demand to be allowed to screw everyone all over again because Rangers have ballsed up so badly that everyone is going to suffer as a result.

Demotion to Division 3 seems lenient to me. If that's the appropriate punishment - and going by the judgement of the last tribunal, Rangers fans should consider themselves damn lucky if it isn't a lot worse - then it should be applied sooner rather than later, and everyone else will just have to live with the damage they've done, even though it it's nobody else's fault.

[Jagsman411971]

Toaster you seem like a reasonable Rangers supporter which is a rare thing indeed. Maybe you could explain to your fellow supporters that fans of other clubs KNOW they will take a hit if Rangers go. However we are HAPPY with that. And most fans I know do not think it will be anywhere near as dire as predicted.

On Sportsound last night some eejit mentioned no Rangers fans at Away grounds would be a drop of 10,000 paying fans per diddy club per season. WTF? St Mirren's largest crowds have been Kilmarnock - twice. NOT the OF. We only allocate 2,000 seats to the OF and Thistle or any decent First Division Club will bring half of that. We only played Rangers once this season at SMP so we lose 1,000 paying away customers. Sad but easily dealt with. But note, the Home support is DOWN when we play the OF especially the Family stand. Many home supporters wont entertain songs of hate from the travelling Rangers fans. So although Killie fans come in the same numbers os the OF the Home support increases thereby giving higher attendances.

I take the point about TV money however SKY have never mentioned once what they would do with no OF. I reckon a deal will still be in place albeit with a possible reduction.

And of course diddy clubs have the possibility of more revenue from -

1. More Home fans attending games as the League suddenly becomes more competitive.

2. More Home fans at games overall at games to compensate for less Rangers fans.

3. Greater possibility of competing in Europe.

4. Greater possibility of winning a Cup.

So yes we will probably take a hit but we are happy with that and will continue to live within our means. After one season clubs will adjust wages downwards. That does not even necessarily mean a drop in quality. No offence to Aberdeen but I am sure their wage budget is far higher than St Mirren's but we have been playing great entertaining football this season with less money than they have. The SPL will survive without Rangers. Maybe a couple of clubs in self-inflicted desperate situations like Killie will struggle but that is their own fault and no reason to keep Rangers in the League.

Unfortunately, this is what will influence any vote from these clubs. Rangers, or Celtic for that matter, could fix matches, pay-off officials and do practically anything, but these clubs would only worry about how much money they could lose.

[Napolean Dynamite]

1337099068[/url]' post='6239816']

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.

That's my hope.

If rangers are liquidated or sent down to the 3rd its the best opportunity our league has of have a massive overhaul. Hopefully their end births the beginning of Scottish football.

[LiamDFC]

I’m even more confused now.

Why didn’t they sue over Dundee?

Different situation. There are various reasons we were not relegated to the 3rd, as per Livingston. Plenty of threads in the P&B archive to explain that one.

With regards to Rangers, they have so far been handled with incredible lenience in comparison to every other Scottish football administration case I can think of (with exception of Motherwell... ). Get them to the 3rd.

[ray_of_licht]

Good grief.....

I have many hopes for Rangers in the future and I'm willing to temper them to live within the means of Scottish football.

A good competitive team

A strong and passionate board

What I really hope for though, is that Charles Green is made aware we need to spend money on having a QC to haul the SFA and SPL into line. I hope for a PR team that reigns in our media and explores other avenues for getting our message to fans, through sites like these and the availability of online press conferences.

For far too long we taken the dignified silent route. But that gentleman's agreement between the Old Firm where we do not comment on each other was abandoned when Dr Death arrived on the scene.

To our clubs credit we never got involved with that, but we need to draw the line in the sand and challenge this going forward.

It's become apparent that there is a serious and organised desire to see our club crippled from within the SFA and SPL and wider media (Radio and press).

We're a majority of fans in a minority of power and we need to stand up and hold our ground.

[Ross.]

Great potential here for a club to take names on a list of fans who do not have a season book but will take one if there's no Rangers in the SPL.....

[Drooper]

The current deal is worth £65,000,000 a year. It goes up to £80,000,000 next season.

It isn't worth anything like £65M or £80M a year.

Try £15M or thereabouts.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Drooper

[thenolly]

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.

Turnover is all well and good as long as your expenditure does not exceed it as has been the case with Rangers, hence the problem they are in.

The players wage bill alone is rumoured to be close to £2,000,000 a month = £36,000,000 a year

Then your Running costs, Floodlights, maintanence, undersoil heating, TAX.

Remembering Rangers pre-souness when you were winning nothing, do you think you'll keep filling Ibrox every week at increased prices with nothing to play for?

[dorlomin]

The current deal is worth £80M over 5 years. As someone has already posted, something can be shaved off this for admin expenses and parachute payment etc. My estimate is that a club hovering in the mid-table area would lose about £600K p/a at most. A fair amount of money, but, as you say, Sky would most likely reduce the amount they pay as opposed to pulling the plug altogether. Even if they did withdraw entirely, who is to say we wouldn't get another deal, albeit at a reduced level. I reckon, all things told, clubs might have to settle with losing £300 - £400K p/a maximum. Aye, its a fair few bob, but its about time a bit of realism came into play.

The real costs are of increased cost in raising debts, the anticipation that some clubs will need to be paying for services before they are received or at least put down a big deposit and the probability that the value of their playing assets will all fall as clubs simultaneously try to reduce wage bills and liquefy assets. There is a specific name for it when a highly leveraged market simultaneously attempts to liquefy assets and deleverage: Minsky moment. And trust me when you get a deflationary event kicking off, its gutwrenchingly difficult to stop. So your costs will be going up, income coming down, assets devaluing and will need more operating cash to maintain business operations. Highly leveraged clubs like say.... Hearts... may find no willing sources to roll over their existing commercial paper (or what ever the debt structure of the club is).

The credit risks are two fold. Firstly for each club in a deflationary market with shrinking revenue streams the risks of not being able to meet existing debt and less so new debt will make the debt riskier and the yeilds you are being asked for be going towards junk levels. And the second risk is AN Other club goes pop as the season goes on and this causes a serious blow to your (and the rest of the leagues) revenue, the potential of someone blowing up so bad they cannot fulfill fixtures is there. So there exists an inherent risk of chainreacting bankruptcies.

You really think your club chairmen are all thick? You really think they dont know how pissed you will all be? You really think its for a few bob TV money all this pish and bother is over?

Scottish football is a highly leveraged market with the risk of a significant part of its income stream ceasing to exist in an unstructured fashion. Any club with a reasonable debt portfolio will look like Greece or worse to people who lend the money. Ive said this all before.

But no the little villagers cant listen. Too many big words and not enough FTOF in my posts.

The down side risks are not ‘a few less quid’. You will be trying to sell in a market already saturated by the Allan McGregors, Steve Naismiths and Sonny Alukos going for a song while every other club is trying to cut wage bills. You will be giving players away.

Good luck with it though. What have Rangers to loose? A couple of years in the lower divisions then up relatively debt free.

[Drooper]

The real costs are of increased cost in raising debts, the anticipation that some clubs will need to be paying for services before they are received or at least put down a big deposit and the probability that the value of their playing assets will all fall as clubs simultaneously try to reduce wage bills and liquefy assets. There is a specific name for it when a highly leveraged market simultaneously attempts to liquefy assets and deleverage: Minsky moment. And trust me when you get a deflationary event kicking off, its gutwrenchingly difficult to stop. So your costs will be going up, income coming down, assets devaluing and will need more operating cash to maintain business operations. Highly leveraged clubs like say.... Hearts... may find no willing sources to roll over their existing commercial paper (or what ever the debt structure of the club is).

The credit risks are two fold. Firstly for each club in a deflationary market with shrinking revenue streams the risks of not being able to meet existing debt and less so new debt will make the debt riskier and the yeilds you are being asked for be going towards junk levels. And the second risk is AN Other club goes pop as the season goes on and this causes a serious blow to your (and the rest of the leagues) revenue, the potential of someone blowing up so bad they cannot fulfill fixtures is there. So there exists an inherent risk of chainreacting bankruptcies.

You really think your club chairmen are all thick? You really think they dont know how pissed you will all be? You really think its for a few bob TV money all this pish and bother is over?

Scottish football is a highly leveraged market with the risk of a significant part of its income stream ceasing to exist in an unstructured fashion. Any club with a reasonable debt portfolio will look like Greece or worse to people who lend the money. Ive said this all before.

But no the little villagers cant listen. Too many big words and not enough FTOF in my posts.

The down side risks are not ‘a few less quid’. You will be trying to sell in a market already saturated by the Allan McGregors, Steve Naismiths and Sonny Alukos going for a song while every other club is trying to cut wage bills. You will be giving players away.

Good luck with it though. What have Rangers to loose? A couple of years in the lower divisions then up relatively debt free.

Dearie me, you should get out on your bike more and work some of that slabber out of your system

ETA: I've highlighted one choice passage as an illustration of how out of touch you are, having existed in your delusional cheats bubble for too long. Diddy clubs have always given players away, FFS - frequently to the OF

Edited May 15, 2012 by Drooper

[WeeHectorPar]

Toaster is right in terms of the hit that will need to be taken. The loss of the 'bumper' away crowds could be reasonably absorbed but the TV deal renegotiation will hurt and will take a bug chunk out of the playing budget hence why guys like Houston are out saying 'if I lost 600k' I d have nothing left'. That is about 6/7 first teamers for us. However what rangers fans don't get is that we can cut our budgets as all will be in the same boat. Utd have just lost 5 of our highest earners. If need be they simply won't be replaced and we will have a first 11 and our u19s. If that's all we can afford than that is all we ll have. A concept that (even decent) rangers fans seem to not get their heads around.

This TV deal argument is a load of bull. SKY and ESPN have made proposals and are waiting to see how this pans out before signing the contracts. The presence of Rangers or not will be of little consequence to the final outcome; what MAY make a difference is the state that Rangers find themselves in.

As has already been pointed out on this thread the number of lost customers in Scotland will be piddling and those lost in England virtually nil Their only interest in the 4 OF games is for overseas sales which must generate a tidy sum. However, even if Rangers remain in the SPL, if they have an uncompetitive team, or worse a youth team, interest abroad will drop just like it would if Rangers were no longer in the SPL. It would not surprise me if the 5-year deal becomes a running 1-year deal to see how the situation develops.

Should, however, SKY proceed with the 5-year deal, even with Rangers in a weakened condition, then it means they are not all that interested whether Rangers continue to exist or not. How many "official" spokesmen for Scottish clubs have made claims about having to have RFC in the SPL while at the same time admitting that nobody knows how the SKY deal will work out?

As I pointed out several dozen pages ago, maybe someone from the SPL should get off their fat arse and ask SKY to explain their position on all this. We're just weeks away from the start of the new season and there is still no TV deal in place and nobody knows how they will react to Rangers/no Rangers. Somebody needs their arse kicked!

[Ross.]

The down side risks are not 'a few less quid'. You will be trying to sell in a market already saturated by the Allan McGregors, Steve Naismiths and Sonny Alukos going for a song while every other club is trying to cut wage bills. You will be giving players away.

Good luck with it though. What have Rangers to loose? A couple of years in the lower divisions then up relatively debt free.

Any SPL club selling players to balance the books will not be trading in the same market as the clubs who are after the players you have mentioned. Outside of Celtic and Rangers, very few SPL players go for top dollar, only Hearts and Dundee Utd have brought in anything that can be considered a good fee for a player they were selling down south. Most players leaving for England will continue to be picked up by Championship and League 1 clubs for relatively modest fees. Rangers going bust would have little impact in that respect.

Also, it is extremely difficult to put an accurate figure on how many fans will stop attending games if a Newco is voted straight back in. Those that do leave are highly unlikely to come back, they would be money lost to the game permanently. If Rangers are relegated to the 3rd, or have to start again, you are looking at a 3-5 year drop in TV income, which might be difficult but should not be impossible to deal with. Losing a few thousand fans a week permanently would be far likelier to kill a club than losing TV money.

I do agree that the banks will have a major say in what happens, as they will want to ensure their debts are as secure as possible, but you might find they take a longer term view at getting the cash back, rather than forcing several clubs into admin or liquidation which could see a complete collapse and very little returned.

[keeps01]

1337101666[/url]' post='6239990']

Turnover is all well and good as long as your expenditure does not exceed it as has been the case with Rangers, hence the problem they are in.

The players wage bill alone is rumoured to be close to £2,000,000 a month = £36,000,000 a year

Then your Running costs, Floodlights, maintanence, undersoil heating, TAX.

Remembering Rangers pre-souness when you were winning nothing, do you think you'll keep filling Ibrox every week at increased prices with nothing to play for?

£2,000,000 a month?

So how many players are registered for Rangers?

TWO MILLION POUNDS A MONTH????????

Now Maths is not my strongest subject, ( neither is English, got that in first )

2,000,000 / say 30 players. =. £66,667 a month!!! AVERAGE!!!!!!

Yea, right.