Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[davidkennedyshand]

If Iain King had wrote FACT at the end of all of those rumours I d have believed him.

He didn't though so none of it can be true.

[Huistrinho]

Good. The whole point of football is to entertain the fans and if you don't give them what they want then clubs won't and don't deserve to be in business any more. The problem is that club bosses and players see football as being any other job or business where all they're interested in is keeping money coming in to pay their salary, forgetting that they're there they're to entertain.

and for years we, as supporters, have said "this is crap, here, take my money". It's difficult to apportion blame fully to clubs for resting on their laurels when we're arguably just as complicit in allowing the status quo to continue. If nothing else, this summer has highlighted this point.

I remember reading a story about Alex Ferguson's time in charge of St Mirren where he drove round the streets trying to encourage more people to come to the games. What are clubs actively doing these days to try and get more punters through the doors? (a genuine question, not an implied accusation).

Edited July 11, 2012 by Huistrinho

[mylothedog]

and for years we, as supporters, have said "this is crap, here, take my money". It's difficult to fully apportion blame fully to clubs for resting on their laurels when we're arguably just as complicit in allowing the status quo to continue. If nothing else, this summer has highlighted this point.

I remember reading a story about Alex Ferguson's time in charge of St Mirren where he drove round the streets trying to encourage more people to come to the games. What are clubs actively doing these days to try and get more punters through the doors? (a genuine question, not an implied accusation).

Trying to get sporting Integrity back in to the game by dealing with Sevco.

( a genuine answer not an implied accusation)

[Florentine_Pogen]

The 2 statements that have come from Clyde FC ( the minutes from Doncaster's 4th July "presentation" and yesterday's proposed amendment document) have been a revelation and lift the lid on what those scheming, conniving, cheating incompetents Doncaster and Regan are up to. This is a bit of a repost but should be seen by as many folk as possible :-

This is from the Clyde minutes of Doncaster's presentation last week 4th July :-

The consequential impact on the SFL from the presentation was that the SFL would lose its entitlement to circa £2m per annum from the Settlement Agreement put together to compensate the SFL for the SPL breakaway, this was made very clear by Neil Doncaster. He told the clubs that if the SPL didn't have the money then they could not pay the SFL. The reality however, which was clear from the detailed figures, is that the SPL, whilst losing an enormous amount of funding, would have the cash to make payment; it is just that the SPL would not meet the legal obligation to the SFL as the cash would be used to finance the SPL teams.

And this is from the Clyde statement today 10th July :-

We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement.

How the hell Doncaster and Regan can remain in-situ is beyond me. They deliberately lied and dissembled to the SFL clubs last week to try and scare the bejeesus out of them in order to further the Spivco case.

"Without fear or favour" ? I don't think so.

The second Clyde statement is a de facto vote of "No Confidence" in Regan and Doncaster IMHO.

Interesting to see what happens at Friday's meeting.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen

[veteran]

Iain King says "Scottish football will lose £80m if Rangers are in the 3rd'

It must be true because he also says "this is neither scaremongering or rumour" must've read p&b for that soundbite.

You couldn't make it up - unless of course you are the sports editor of a publication that has spent it's whole existence trying to publish something true - and failing abysmally in the process.

Edited July 11, 2012 by veteran

[Booker_d]

Apologies if already been posted. It's Duff and Phelps' interim report to creditors.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf

My favourite parts are, how much Duff and Phelps have charged (at 6 minute intervals mind), how much Duff and Phelps owe our old pals Media House for "media consultancy" and the trading loss of £4million quid since they went into administration.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Booker_d

[el Gringo]

I've been treated to a new term from my Sevco Supporting Client today...

SSC: Scottish Football will die if Rangers go to the third.

Me: No it won't.

SSC: You're pure Stuart Cosgrove'd oot yer nut.

[Granny Danger]

If Sun 'journalist' Iain King had any decency, integrity or journalistic principles he may have chosen to write a piece like this instead:

"SunSport can reveal that it is no getting more and more desperate in its attempts to con Scottish football fans into giving their backing for newco Rangers to be admitted to the Scottish first division.

Hacks like me are desperate in our need to be back on SPL duties as soon as possible and this will be made much more difficult if newco end up starting in division three where they belong.

We have no idea what the Scottish football commercial sponsors are going to do but rather than present a clear and balanced picture of possible outcomes we think it is better tabloid journalism to present the most outrageous scare stories. This will not only help sell newspapers it will also help us achieve our personal, self-interested objectives.

Furthermore we have not considered actually approaching any of the sponsors and pressing them to make public statements on their commitments. Had we done so we could have offered fair and balanced criticism if they had confirmed potential withdrawal of support and offered even more scathing criticism if they had refused to publically state their positions. We realise these options would have been deemed as proper journalism but we are not in that game.

We have also deliberately ignored the views of ordinary football supporters, including those of ‘Rangers’. These views, expressed through various opinion polls (including one of our own), social media threads, blogs and fans surveys show overwhelming support for newco to be given admittance to the third division. We know that ignoring these views shows a total contempt for our readers but so long as you keep buying the Sun we are not too bothered.

We feel that the issue of ‘sporting integrity’ has gained too much importance in this debate. This is about money. It is also about Rangers. Most importantly it is about journalists like me who may actually have to work for a living if one of our main suppliers of succulent lamb stops feeding us pap that we can expand to a two page spread every day then spend the rest of the time in the pub.

As we get closer to decision day we are finding it more and more difficult to ignore the growing resolve amongst the SFL clubs and the stand that any journalist worth their salt would describe as admirable, of the club chairmen. So it is best to ignore this or to denigrate these people in the most unflattering terms. It matters not that many of them carry out great work for little or no personal gain simply because of their love for the game.

We will also ignore the completely unethical, underhanded and bully boy tactics, not to mention the blatant lying, of senior figures within the sport’s governing bodies. Of course in a few month when they are doing something we do not like we will be quick to call for their heads.

Anyway, will Friday 13th of July 2012 proof to be the day of Armageddon, unfortunately for tabloid hacks it is beginning to look this way."

Edited July 11, 2012 by Granny Danger

[veteran]

An official of Erededivisie Live , who televise Dutch Football , describes the much vaunted Sky deal as "paltry".

Maybe instead of trying to gerrymander Newco into Div 1 to save Scottish Football , Messrs Doncaster,Regan and Longmuir might do better to enrol for a course offering an SVQ in negotiating proper TV deals.

[Huistrinho]

Trying to get sporting Integrity back in to the game by dealing with Sevco.

( a genuine answer not an implied accusation)

I'd argue that that's an initiative to keep existing fans, not get new ones. However, I think you picked me up wrong - I was aware my question might have been interpreted as me stating "clubs aren't doing anything", which is why I added the clarification.

To expand: what initiatives are clubs already employing that aren't supporter driven? Free tickets for kids? Community events outside of football games? Supporters days with discount tickets?

Edited July 11, 2012 by Huistrinho

[fraser_smfc]

Would anyone be able to post the full herald article this morning which a few folk on Twitter are talking about? It's asking to enable cookies, but my packet of Maryland in the cupboard isn't helping matters. Cheers in advance.

[The Poker King]

Would anyone be able to post the full herald article this morning which a few folk on Twitter are talking about? It's asking to enable cookies, but my packet of Maryland in the cupboard isn't helping matters. Cheers in advance.

Here you are;

THE possible consequences for the Scottish Premier League's broadcasting arrangement should a Rangers newco be made to start life in the Irn-Bru Third Division were last week made public by Stenhousemuir.

It made for dire reading.

According to Stewart Regan, chief executive of the Scottish Football Assocation, and Neil Doncaster, his SPL counterpart, the existing deal, worth circa £15m per season, would disappear to be replaced with one worth just £3m. The fall off is staggering.

While Rangers are a key player as far as the television companies are concerned, they are not the be all and end all of Scottish football. In the 2010/11 season the average viewing figure on Sky was 247,000 per game. Even if all broadcast matches including Rangers are discounted, there would still have been on average a viewership of 180,000 per game. Rangers contributed 27% of the viewing figures, so why should a subsequent TV agreeement without them decrease by 500%?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that this is a terrible deal. The SPL is the 11th most-attended league in Europe, ahead of Switzerland, Austria and Norway, all of whom can command higher television revenue. Even without Rangers, the SPL would still have had higher attendances than the three aforementioned leagues. The Greek league, which has attendances half of our own, has a television deal worth three times as much, while the Norwegians pull in similar numbers.

Are attendances the key indicator here? Can they translate into viewing figures when the Barclays Premier League is on our doorstep and on our screens? Let's look at some leagues in a similar situation, namely the Austrian, Swiss and Norwegian leagues.

The former has a deal with Sky Austria worth £13.5m a season, an arrangement similar to our own. However, while the SPL goes out to 645,000 subscribers in Scotland alone, the Austrian league is broadcast to just 240,000 local subscribers, three times fewer. Like Scotland, Austria is in the shadow of its neighbour and Sky also has the rights to all games in Germany's Bundesliga.

Over the border in Switzerland, they have just signed a deal worth £20m, with a further £4m coming from domestic channels. Swisscom, the cable company with the rights, has 608,000 subscribers and is the biggest cable operator in Switzerland, giving it similar reach to that of the SPL yet generating 33% more revenue.

In Norway, they have an even better deal, with a contract signed with TV2 Norway worth a reported £44m a year revenue despite viewing figures which are lower than Sky's figures for the SPL. According to a report from TNS-Gallup, the most viewed domestic Norwegian match in 2011 was Lillestrom versus Brann, which attracted 196,000 viewers. As a comparison, a fixture between St Mirren and Hibernian attracted 392,000 viewers on February 20 last year, while the SPL's average viewership on Sky is just shy of 250,000 per match. Even if we discounted all matches with Rangers, the viewership would still be around 180,000 per match.

So, Scotland gets less money than the Norweigans, the Swiss and the same as the Austrians, but on all counts boasts higher viewerships and match attendances. So why is the deal so poor in comparison? There is a suggestion that it is to do with the popularity of the English league, but Norway attracts Premier League viewerships five times those generated by their domestic matches; a similar ratio to Scotland, given that the average English game attracts 1m viewers.

Likewise, Austrian and Swiss football is overshadowed by the Bundesliga, which attracts more viewers than domestic matches – yet they still have deals either similar to or better than the SPL.

Another issue is the perceived lack of competition for SPL rights. Since the collapse of Setanta, Sky have had a monopoly and have, therefore, dictated the figures. Indeed, a Nordiccom report into the current Norwegian deal highlighted the situtation in the UK, saying "if former rivals decide to join forces instead of continuing to compete, this may have dramatic consequences for the competition, and hence also for prices. The fewer broadcasters that originally were present, the closer a reduction can move the market towards a monopsony [one single buyer]. This, in turn, will transfer market power from the sellers to the buyers".

So the above lack of competition maybe explains the current deal being less than those of other European countries, but still cannot explain Doncaster's £3m figure. To put that prediction into perspective again, it would rank Scottish football on par with Hungary, who sell their rights domestically for £2.8m. That league gets 2900 fans per game on average.

Is that all Sky are really offering for a league which would generate viewing figures of 180,000 a game more than Norway, even without Rangers? The Barclays Premier League generates average figures of around 1m for Sky, yet receives £1bn a year in revenue. Even with their monopoly, £3m is a derisory figure. But, assuming the figures are accurate, what alternatives do we have?

There is ESPN, but they appear to be building their interests in alliance with Sky. There is BT vision, who just invested £750m to show 38 Barclays Premier League games a season. With their model, which allows users to watch via mobile devices and the internet as well as conventional TV, this may be the way forward. There is also the long-mooted SPL TV option, modelled on the successful Eredivisie TV platform in the Netherlands.

At £6 per month, or £50 for the season, the platform allows you to watch all the Eredivisie matches live, wherever you are in the world. Just to put this in perspective, if a similar deal was set up in Scotland, 37,500 subscribers would be required worldwide to match Doncaster's figure of £3m. If the numbers without Rangers remained at 180,000 a match, just short of £15m would be generated for the Scottish game, which looks surprisingly similar to what Sky are currently paying.

Is the current deal underpriced? Possibly, but with the lack of competition and the unwillingness of the SPL to take a step into the unknown, it is at least understandable. Could the proposed £3m figure by Doncaster be undervalued? Absolutely, and for that comment alone there should be a vote of no confidence heading in his direction.

Steven Burns runs the A Saint In Asia blog. You can read him at saintinasia.wordpress.com

[somner`s love child]

As I've pointed out before, they haven't robbed every Scottish taxpayer of £20 each, only £2. The taxpayers in the rest of the UK have had to share the pain!

If Scotland was independent, then you'd be right. But since the country would then be governed by the same sort of numpties who run the football, that might be the least fo your worries ....

And the mob at Westminster are so much better, are`nt they.

[Happy Buddie]

FROM TODAY'S DAILY RANGER

Rangers in crisis: SFL chief to reveal details of reform plans ahead of vote on newco

Jul 11 2012 Exclusive by Gordon Parks

SFL chief executive David Longmuir will tonight deliver the historic proposals for change to all league clubs ahead of Friday’s vote on newco Rangers.Record Sport understands all SFL clubs will receive details of the radical plans to revolutionise Scottish football.

This will allow them to digest the finer points before gathering in two days at Hampden.

Reconstruction of the game as well as financial carrots will all be on the agenda as the SFL board attempts to convince clubs to vote Rangers into the First Division.

Clubs are warming to the idea of merging the leagues into one governing body but Berwick last night confirmed they will vote no to the newco going into the First Division.

Longmuir, meanwhile, confirmed he hoped to give clubs a look at what’s on offer on Friday by “Wednesday night”.

Does FINANCIAL CARROT not read the same as BRIBE?

[Dublinarab]

Feck me - their running costs without a penny spent on any salaries are 15 mill a year based on a quick look at that document. Good luck sevco - a massive bond required to guarantee fulfilling any fixtures in any league I think.

[Amjam]

The problem (well one of them) with what Doncaster and his merry men are doing, is that it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. They've talked the game down so much that any tv company or sponsor is going to give the game close to f**k all. They'll just cite what Doncaster and his cronies have been saying about the worth of our game with out Sevco and that's pretty much that.

So, basically not only did he get us an appalling tv deal in the first place, he's been talking us out of any chance of a decent one in the near future. He has to go. Now. Sacked, resigned, I don't care. Just get him gone.

[Broccoli Dog]

WE GOT THEM BY THE BALLS

[Iain]

Sad thing is that's the exact message that Doncaster and Regan are sending out.

[MEADOWXI]

Listen - on this thread we have discussed philosophy, literature, Greek mythology and the psychology of the Andy Gorams. If your going to introduce early 20th century political intrigue it will come under scrutiny.

The appendix to this thread covering its references and analogues would be bigger than half the other threads on here.

I am stunned that a bunch of 14year old internet rabblerousers who only ever leave their lofts to visit the bathroom and steal food from their parents fridges have such a wealth of knowledge.

Image what could be discussed, discovered and revealed if we were intelligent adults with the backing of major news organisations as resources. We could be as well informed as a Traynor, Jackson and even as intellectual as a Burley.

[Sam Leitch Loyal]

What about Makepeace?

Bugger. I'm hungry now.