Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Homer Thompson]

1. In the same way as people that had paid money to Fairpack lost out.

2.That is exactly what they and you are doing. Just the same way as you lend the lecky company your money if you pay by DD and you are in credit.

1. By diminishing value I took you to mean that the value of the asset would reduce but still exist. Thats not really the same thing as the company no longer being able to fulfil its obligation as part of the commercial agreement its entered into, is it? So how do you think the Board of Scottish Power, or one of Fairpacks replacements would react if I decided it was my right to have company assets transferred to me before I parted with my money?

2. I disagree. But lets assume youre right and it is a loan. The "terms" of the loan are that I continue to receive my electricity, admission to games etc. Theres no scope in that agreement for me to expect to receive additional assets of the company.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Found this blog and its interesting where the blogger polled the fans on whether they would renew their season tickets and it came up 3 to 1 in favour. http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2014/04/why-rangers-legends-should-stay-out-of.html

My point is there are a lot of 'squeaky wheels' on the internet who get the all the attention and misdirect the opinion of others.

popular opinion on this being what the majority of BRALT posters say, which isn't always right. Example, isn't Rangers supposed to be dead by now what happened there?

All that the majority of supporters want to do is watch and support their team playing football.

Not dead yet but eventually all victims of Persistent Vegetative State succumb to the inevitable.

[Jacksgranda]

Found this blog and its interesting where the blogger polled the fans on whether they would renew their season tickets and it came up 3 to 1 in favour. http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2014/04/why-rangers-legends-should-stay-out-of.html

My point is there are a lot of 'squeaky wheels' on the internet who get the all the attention and misdirect the opinion of others.

popular opinion on this being what the majority of BRALT posters say, which isn't always right. Example, isn't Rangers supposed to be dead by now what happened there?

All that the majority of supporters want to do is watch and support their team playing football stopping Celtic winning titles and cups.

[strichener]

1. By diminishing value I took you to mean that the value of the asset would reduce but still exist. Thats not really the same thing as the company no longer being able to fulfil its obligation as part of the commercial agreement its entered into, is it? So how do you think the Board of Scottish Power, or one of Fairpacks replacements would react if I decided it was my right to have company assets transferred to me before I parted with my money?

2. I disagree. But lets assume youre right and it is a loan. The "terms" of the loan are that I continue to receive my electricity, admission to games etc. Theres no scope in that agreement for me to expect to receive additional assets of the company.

I think we are speaking at cross purposes here.

The diminishing element is the security over the assets, not the assets themselves. Therefore once the Rangers fans have watched 1/4 of the games, the security would be reduced by 1/4. The security would be completely released once the season had completed.

If your electricity company relied upon you to provide it the cashflow to continue to operate then I expect that you may wish to negotiate the terms of your relationship with said company.

ETA: The Rangers supporters are not asking to receive additional assets for their money. They are asking to securitise existing club assets until the club has discharged their contracted rights (provide a seasons worth of football that the fans would normally have pre-paid with no conditions attached).

As I posted earlier, there is continual "why don't you do something about it then" or similar statements made. The supporters are now trying to do this and the general consensus appears to be that they don't have a right to do so!

Edited April 15, 2014 by strichener

[gastropod]

cant see how this plan is going to work out (1) how will giving Dave the season ticket ££ get anyone into the stadium unless they they pay at the gate- giving the club the ££ as well (2) what happens to £££ if say the club cut costs and completely ignore Dave (3) what happens if a deal of sorts happens and the fund££ is given to the club, eg- heres 3million quid - its fae Boab, Rab , wullie etc how do they then get S/Ts (4) its going to take a fair bit of ££ to administer all this , how much S/T money will be short IF/WHEN the ££ is handed over , and who will make up the shortfall , or not get a S/T. . just a few things off the top of the head , bound to be more , but you get the idea

[Maxsta]

Lolwut

McCoist is a severe hindrance to ' Rangers ' past, present and future.

Shambles that a team spending that much money couldn't even win a cup competition. Even the Diddy cup.

Your new avatar is pleasssing me

[Homer Thompson]

I think we are speaking at cross purposes here.

The diminishing element is the security over the assets, not the assets themselves. Therefore once the Rangers fans have watched 1/4 of the games, the security would be reduced by 1/4. The security would be completely released once the season had completed.

Yes, I think we were, sorry about that.

If your electricity company relied upon you to provide it the cashflow to continue to operate then I expect that you may wish to negotiate the terms of your relationship with said company.

Well, it does, doesnt it?

ETA: The Rangers supporters are not asking to receive additional assets for their money. They are asking to securitise existing club assets until the club has discharged their contracted rights (provide a seasons worth of football that the fans would normally have pre-paid with no conditions attached).

As I posted earlier, there is continual "why don't you do something about it then" or similar statements made. The supporters are now trying to do this and the general consensus appears to be that they don't have a right to do so!

Again, that makes sense. However, again, that isnt what the supporters groups are saying. Maybe its just semantics, but they talk about the assets being "in good hands" should the club go under. To me, that implies that they want their season tickets and control over the assets, not just security that the club will be able to fulfill its commitment. I would describe that as something over and above what they're entitled to as part of a season ticket purchase.

[Drooper]

I suspect that a significant number of The Rangers supporters will go ahead and purchase their STs regardless. Its in their DNA, after all....aherm.

They will be pretty much like any other supporter who has a season ticket and is hugely possessive of their seat, beside their mates, and with the view of the game they've come to expect.

The vast majority of efforts to galvanise an entire support base to demonstrate, boycott, or otherwise express a multilateral position in respect of the position/predicament of their club fall squarely on their arses.

I predict an ignominious shambles.

Again.

[GreenockRover]

Snafs,

Everytime I hear the phrase "...a club the size of Rangers/Celtic..." I laugh. Loudly and lengthily.

Why?

Because this "size" you refer to is borne of bile and bigotry and venomous hatred in the main. NOT a large group of football loving individuals who "...just want to watch the fitba...". The size of the support has relevance only in the potential for cash revenue. How that revenue is used is what makes that club "successful" or otherwise.

Being intolerant of the success of others is what, ultimately,leads (and has led) to the downfall of your former incarnation as well as breeding this utterly pathetic attitude of perceived superiority.

Every football fan outside of the Glasgow bubble understands this, but the much vaunted "size" of the fanbase of both clubs is as much to their disadvantage as it is to their financial advantage. The political and religious undertones within both supports are what give them their size and their money, but it's a price all of Scottish Football has to pay.

Wake up.

Edited April 15, 2014 by GreenockRover

[strichener]

Yes, I think we were, sorry about that.

Well, it does, doesnt it?

Again, that makes sense. However, again, that isnt what the supporters groups are saying. Maybe its just semantics, but they talk about the assets being "in good hands" should the club go under. To me, that implies that they want their season tickets and control over the assets, not just security that the club will be able to fulfill its commitment. I would describe that as something over and above what they're entitled to as part of a season ticket purchase.

Just picking up on the lecky company part, they don't rely on your payments for cashflow, these companies are cash generative with or without your payment (generating profit) and have a much greater potential customer base. Just to repeat, RFC is totally dependant on getting season ticket money in. Their recent short term financing was basically a sub until season ticket money came in.

[MikeyWellFan]

well, people need to put their money where their mouth is and not rely on the perchance that a sugar daddy might just come along and be the quick fire solution to every current financial problem the club has.

the demand for success and high standards is ingrained in the club and coupled with the rivalry with celtic the pressure is constant to return as quickly as possible to the top flight and be the top club in Scotland once again. failure is not an option.

so far football wise the train is still on the track and still on time.

Would you rather your team wen't out of business challenging Celtic or just became a mid table non-entity?

Is it really all about winning for you?

[Mark Connolly]

Would you rather your team wen't out of business challenging Celtic or just became a mid table non-entity?

Is it really all about winning for you?

This.

I would rather have a team tomorrow than a trophy today, but am I in the minority?

[Homer Thompson]

Just picking up on the lecky company part, they don't rely on your payments for cashflow, these companies are cash generative with or without your payment (generating profit) and have a much greater potential customer base. Just to repeat, RFC is totally dependant on getting season ticket money in. Their recent short term financing was basically a sub until season ticket money came in.

Pretty sure if all of Scottish Powers customers decided to withhold payments their cashflow would be significantly affected. Not as much as a football clubs, of course.

[MikeyWellFan]

that's motherwell's options,, doesn't apply to rangers.

Did you miss what happened to your old team or something?

[strichener]

Pretty sure if all of Scottish Powers customers decided to withhold payments their cashflow would be significantly affected. Not as much as a football clubs, of course.

Agreed, at least until Mrs X right hooks you cause you canna heat the hoose!. Look forward to the UoSP customers being formed

Edited April 15, 2014 by strichener

[Homer Thompson]

This is it for me, the ST money is a loan, which diminishes with each game, clubs are not allowed to declare ST money as income in their accounts until the match has taken place, it has to be detailed as deferred income until that point, so in that regard it is a loan and in that regard you could secure an asset against it with the security diminishing over time as matches are played. I also understand that this is completely legal and that it does not even need the fans to withhold ST money, so no need for the trust fund, I understand that this was put to the board and they did not even bother to reply which tells its own story.

I will not be buying a ST (I do not believe the club will honour it, they will default on this loan) nor will I be giving money to DK, I am perfectly capable of keeping it in my own bank account and paying for games match by match.

No-one is questioning the legality of it. The debate, for me anyway, is why there should be any expectation of getting this security. Your security against the loan, if you want to talk in those terms, is admission to future games. If the games arent play you're entitled to claim your money back as a creditor. Theres no scope in that arrangement to expect further securities to be handed over.

[dirty dingus]

Basically the Orcs are looking for an excuse to walk away. Shysters v Shyster part 4. The journey hasn't been as all conquering as they hoped and being a future second prize with no bragging rights at best isn't as appealing as they thought. They are reverting back to pre Murray days and they hate it. It is also good for the new firm and the rest of the diddies as the other arse cheek is lost without it's biggest fan. A&E and battered wives are having a quite drink in celebration.

[sjc]

No-one is questioning the legality of it. The debate, for me anyway, is why there should be any expectation of getting this security. Your security against the loan, if you want to talk in those terms, is admission to future games. If the games arent play you're entitled to claim your money back as a creditor. Theres no scope in that arrangement to expect further securities to be handed over.

^^^This.

[Double Jack D]

I guess it is swapping that security for a game, there are two things at stake (1) the ability of the club to deliver those 18 home league games and (2) the assets in the stadium and training facility and the statement that these would not be sold in order to raise finance.

I think the even with the ST money the club know they are going to run out of money and already know they will have reneg on that statement in order to fulfil the contract for ST`s, I also believe this was the plan all along, to strip these assets out before finally selling the PLC while still retaining an income from these essential assets.

If Rangers fans do not buy ST`s then this will just accelerate this process but It is better off happening now.

With the announcement last week that Rangers (the club, formerly Sevco Scotland) owe £16m and rising to Rangers International (the holding company), how do you see an Administration panning out? How much p in the pound do you think a CVA would need to be to ensure liquidation and a return to the bottom tier is avoided?

[John..You're Immortal]

well, people need to put their money where their mouth is and not rely on the perchance that a sugar daddy might just come along and be the quick fire solution to every current financial problem the club has.

the demand for success and high standards is ingrained in the club and coupled with the rivalry with celtic the pressure is constant to return as quickly as possible to the top flight and be the top club in Scotland once again. failure is not an option.

so far football wise the train is still on the track and still on time.

And there, in a nutshell, is the conundrum of anyone trying to straighten out the breathtaking clusterf*ck that is Rangers.

Why is failure not an option? Most would consider being liquidated; being reformed as a new club, dropping 3 divisions;struggling with a shitty manager and the worst team ever to play at ibrox as a tad of a failure.

Instead of using this time to redevelop; change 19th Century attitudes and beliefs within the club; bring on and blood young players and cut your cloth to suit where you are playing now and not in 3-5 years, bears like you insist eveyrthing must be defined on your ability to compete at Celtic's level immediately regardless of the danger of re-administration or the potential for more raping of the club's assets by the endless streams of spivs and gangsters it seems to attract.

'So far football wise the train is still on the track and still on time'. Aye ~ on ye go Casey Jones, full steam ahead, never mind that hoofing big hole in the railttrack called reality.

Edited April 15, 2014 by John..You're Immortal