Bearwithme Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 DUFF and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement.David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: "We have had a number of constructive and positive meetings with Strathclyde Police and we can assure fans that matches will continue to be played at Ibrox. "Agreements have been reached regarding policing games at Ibrox and payment arrangements have been put in place. "We would like to thank Strathclyde Police for its continued assistance and co-operation. "Matches will be played at Ibrox for the rest of the season so we urge all fans to keep coming along and continue their tremendous support for the Club at this difficult time." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2622370 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 used the previous example also about the Masonic Lodge, which also employs a good deal of people in Scotland. how exactly is the masonic lodge having a negative effect on scotland? considering your views on compulsory euthanasia and freedom of speech i'm not suprised you would like to limit freedom of association but why the masons in general? fed up playing on the council 9 holer? lack of secret handshakes cruelly denying you a much deserved promotion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betting competition Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 This, I imagine, is the scenario the rest of the league dreads. If they apply to transfer their league share, and it is as believed a Board issue, it can be carried by just CEO Neil Doncaster, Chairman Ralph, and 1 other club. This avoids clubs alienating their fans but would see calls for clubs to "do something" - and would render an already unpopular Doncaster a new degree of general revulsion. If it goes to a vote of clubs, you've got chairman having to 'balance' placating fan anger v massive financial loss. I know quite a few businessmen that are threatening withdrawing their business to Aberdeen FC if the SPL clubs let them back in. I've seen a few business people already sent emails to Aberdeen football club. Rangers to get back into SPL will need a 11-1 vote so i think it looks unlikely they will get back in. All clubs will have to cut cloth accordingly - we have had to do it when we lost TV deal previous and we have to do it again. The way the media are going on about saving them regardless is just terrible. The bottom line is Rangers have cheated for years from the late 80's to now and they should be punished to the max. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 considering your views on compulsory euthanasia and freedom of speech What views are these on "freedom of speech" incidentally? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I know quite a few businessmen that are threatening withdrawing their business to Aberdeen FC if the SPL clubs let them back in. I've seen a few business people already sent emails to Aberdeen football club. Rangers to get back into SPL will need a 11-1 vote so i think it looks unlikely they will get back in. All clubs will have to cut cloth accordingly - we have had to do it when we lost TV deal previous and we have to do it again. The way the media are going on about saving them regardless is just terrible. The bottom line is Rangers have cheated for years from the late 80's to now and they should be punished to the max. ^^^ This. All I want to see is fair play and transparency, should Rangers fall from grace be such a massive one. No throwing away or re-writing of rulebooks, no dodgy deals whatsoever that would simply not be entertained for any other club... bar one. The Old Firm clubs are massive clubs - none of us would deny that. Being a massive club does not mean that if you have been acting like this for a decade or more, then the rest of the nation simply rolls over and takes it up the arse. In my opinion there was a real chance of cross-club organised protest, if Doncaster and cronies had indeed shoved a ten team SPL upon us. IF Rangers, or Rangers MkII are seen to be treated as some sort of ultra-special case, I genuinely believe it would be the last straw for supporters who in so many ways already seem to be taken for mugs by the suits running our game. Edited February 24, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I know quite a few businessmen that are threatening withdrawing their business to Aberdeen FC if the SPL clubs let them back in. I've seen a few business people already sent emails to Aberdeen football club. Rangers to get back into SPL will need a 11-1 vote so i think it looks unlikely they will get back in. All clubs will have to cut cloth accordingly - we have had to do it when we lost TV deal previous and we have to do it again. Have we seen a categorical confirmation on this btw? I buy the Scotsman and its coverage throughout has been that any "transfer of share" requires SPL Board, not GM, approval. They may be wrong, but has the SPL or other sources confirmed it definetely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 how exactly is the masonic lodge having a negative effect on scotland? I meant the Orange Lodge, not the Masonic Lodge - apologies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 how exactly is the masonic lodge having a negative effect on scotland? Was going to ask the same question! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I meant the Orange Lodge, not the Masonic Lodge - apologies. Beat me to it! I actually think the Orange Lodge should stay. It provides a great point and laugh opportunity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Interesting that the Forsyth article mentions administration was a strong possibility for Rangers at least a couple of times in the last 11 or 12 years. If the press knew that, why was it kept so quiet? Because the press is full of Rangers fans and also because the press rely on getting inside info from the club and wouldn't want to jeapordise that by being objective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Have we seen a categorical confirmation on this btw? I buy the Scotsman and its coverage throughout has been that any "transfer of share" requires SPL Board, not GM, approval. They may be wrong, but has the SPL or other sources confirmed it definetely? It would be a disgrace (but not necessarily a surprise) if there was not a mechanism in the SPL's own 'rules' for any Board decision to be refered back to the main board (I assume this is the GM you mention) at their behest. It would also be a disgrace (but again not a surprise) if certain SPL representatives did not want such a referal "Dinna blame me a big boy did it and ran away". I know it's not a direct comparison but I was involved with a local authority in thae past and whilst many decisions were delegated to committees, the full Council could ask for referal back of any committee decisions. Usually this only happened with large/controversial issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I'd love it if this was the case and the match was the championship decider, it wont happen though the SPL will bail them out against their projected prize money as they did for Gretna. It was much easier to bail out Gretna. They were going to finish bottom for certain by that stage and therefore would be taking a tiny cut. The SPL is so bent that those finishing in the top two get a ludicrous cut of the loot from TV, etc. in comparison to the rest, as the whole kit and caboodle was rigged to ensure the Old Firm always got the lion's share: hence why "splitting the Old Firm" has been such an obsession for Mad Vlad. As there can be no way of knowing whether Rangers will finish two two or not, they can't forward them any projected prize money without attracting howls of protest from the rest.. In the case of Gretna, there was also still a realistic hope they might be taken over (there were supposed to be three "suitors"). In Rangers case, the debts are so massive and the club's accounts so messy - even if they survive they'd be looking at years of police and HMRC further investigations into other misdemeanours, which could mean even more fines - it would be throwing good money after bad. The chances of any "white knight" coming forward is little, as anyone doing so would be risking their own financial ruin. Rangers fans are discovering the hard way what a tiny pond their "big fish" is swimming in within the world of finance, a bottle of Buckfast with delusions of being a Cascina delle Rose Barbaresco (ie. plenty of finesse with strong aromas of orange) No-one will give them any credit facilities any more as they have no confidence in the business, and that is what ultimately put them out of business unless they get a major cash injection soon. Yes, and who in their right mind is going to buy a business which is effectively almost £100 million in hock before you even start, and will not be in Europe next year to help claw some of that money back? In the boom times, maybe, but in the middle of a global recession no venture capitalist would bother. It would be cheaper to buy out some other Scottish club and simply build it up to take advantage of the gap in the market caused by Rangers death, and you would be guaranteed a return on the investment pretty shortly, not ten years and a miracle down the line. Edited February 24, 2012 by WaffenThinMint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) It would be a disgrace (but not necessarily a surprise) if there was not a mechanism in the SPL's own 'rules' for any Board decision to be refered back to the main board (I assume this is the GM you mention) at their behest. It would also be a disgrace (but again not a surprise) if certain SPL representatives did not want such a referal "Dinna blame me a big boy did it and ran away". I know it's not a direct comparison but I was involved with a local authority in thae past and whilst many decisions were delegated to committees, the full Council could ask for referal back of any committee decisions. Usually this only happened with large/controversial issues. Oh I'm quite sure there'd be a way for the Board to say "we want this decision taken by an EGM" or "we refuse to take a decision", if it is a Board matter... As you allude to, though, my question was more whether clubs would maybe rather 3/4 bad men make the decision, and them tut-tut publically, rather than face the music themselves. Edited February 24, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Interested by this. I was a Thistle supporter back in the day, and do you mean ICT managed to shift all the "mini Bluenoses, Rangers of the North" shoit from the Caledonian part of the club? Were you a Caley man? What I mean is when there was a fresh start with ICT the fans that stayed with the new club were more interested in Inverness progressing on a footballing level than being hung up on history. I am not saying our merger was right but when all was done and dusted we were left with real football supporters, we lost a few good ones but very few of the less desirable ones followed the new club. The same will happen with the New Rangers, I'm sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 It was much easier to bail out Gretna. They were going to finish bottom for certain by that stage and therefore would be taking a tiny cut. The SPL is so bent that those finishing in the top two get a ludicrous cut of the loot from TV, etc. in comparison to the rest, as the whole kit and caboodle was rigged to ensure the Old Firm always got the lion's share: hence why "splitting the Old Firm" has been such an obsession for Mad Vlad. As there can be no way of knowing whether Rangers will finish two two or not, they can't forward them any projected prize money without attracting howls of protest from the rest.. They could forward them £1.3M today however, as Rangers are guaranteed to finish at worst 6th. Potential problem is their transfer liabilities (and sundry other debts) to other member clubs, particularly Wallace's remaining transfer installments to Hearts and gate monies to Dunfermline and Dundee Utd. Keeping prizemonies covering those sums back, which might be required, would reduce what could be advanced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 They could forward them £1.3M today however, as Rangers are guaranteed to finish at worst 6th. Potential problem is their transfer liabilities (and sundry other debts) to other member clubs, particularly Wallace's remaining transfer installments to Hearts and gate monies to Dunfermline and Dundee Utd. Keeping prizemonies covering those sums back, which might be required, would reduce what could be advanced. If they can forward 6th place prize money to rangers today, surely they can directly forward the slice of it owed to the other clubs today as well to ease up any cash flow problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If they can forward 6th place prize money to rangers today, surely they can directly forward the slice of it owed to the other clubs today as well to ease up any cash flow problems. I'd imagine so. But have those clubs formally complained, and asked for that to happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'd imagine so. But have those clubs formally complained, and asked for that to happen? Not sure but I'd like to think Dunfermline have rather than just going to the press to talk about their cash flow problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 They could forward them £1.3M today however, as Rangers are guaranteed to finish at worst 6th. Assuming no further points penalties 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Oh I'm quite sure there'd be a way for the Board to say "we want this decision taken by an EGM" or "we refuse to take a decision", if it is a Board matter... As you allude to, though, my question was more whether clubs would maybe rather 3/4 bad men make the decision, and them tut-tut publically, rather than face the music themselves. Either way SPL fans (and sponsors as per the Aberdeen fan above) should be making it clear to their club that they will not tolerate re-writing the rule book for New Rangers. At the end of the day the only thing football chairmen care about is money. We need to make it clear that clubs WILL suffer if they let Rangers back in just because they're Rangers. Rules are rules. 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.