Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[No8.]

The problem with that argument is that the administrators rather than reducing the wage bill at the start by making players redundant held onto them on the basis that at the end of May their contracts returned to normal and they were able to leave for a set fee. In that sense they have painted themselves into the corner. If they had made players redundant from the start then they may have had a case as clearly the squad would be threadbare at the moment. Currently they have a fairly large squad which in turn may or may not be depleted after the case is heard.

Not only a stupid move by Rangers (or the admin, whoever it is who gave the OK to go ahead with this), but badly timed as well.

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

[Macshimmy]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

[Bobby_F]

You would play each other an equal number of games home and away, so what's the difference it's a 50/50 split. ?

Celtic get no revenue when you are at home we get none when you come to Parkhead .. it evens out.

Oh .. I get it .. your teams don't want to take the risk .. as long the 'risk/product' is more or less guaranteed by revenues generated at Parkhead you are happy.

Just in case the viewing audience is the same as your match day crowd figures and the product doesn't quite sell the same when it's paraded on your own doorstep.

Dress it anyway you like ... the majority of the viewing audience and hence revenue generated is because of either Rangers or Celtic.

When they promote a boxing show .. do the fighter's get an equal purse ? .. think not.

Been a long time since professional boxing was a sport... ah, I see what you mean

[Ric]

Dress it anyway you like ... the majority of the viewing audience and hence revenue generated is because of either Rangers or Celtic.

Your point being? Other than utterly smug, of course.

All you do is demonstrate that the league is an odious and stagnant duopoly that even though the diddy teams fail to compete, they are not allowed to due to the weightings of both sponsorship money and voting rights.

[xbl]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

You had 40+ players as of April! Do you not have a youth system as well?

[JamboRobbo]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

Injuries and suspensions are the least of your worries. There are a hundred other reasons why they will not be fulfilling any fixtures next season.

[Spain]

Another wee thought here. This CVA with all the "unknowns" (namely the Collyer Bristow case as it's the furthest away), can it be accepted conditionally in any way? Say if Ticketus were to say "If you get all the money including the CB money, then we accept. If not, we do not accept", does this mean Rangers would have to stay in Admin while racking up more fees for H&D until October or whenever the CB case is?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Spain

[Homer Thompson]

Not how I read it. For me the SFA want the CoS to throw out the case, leaving things as they were before Rangers started the action, thus meaning no work needing done by them.

Considering the SFA guidelines state that they have the authority to hand down just about any sanction they wish to a member club and that the sanction handed down was reviewed by a very prominent QC during an appeal process, I can't see how the CoS could rule in any other way.

I agree with your first part, the SFA would rather the CoS found in their favour. However, as I said, that shouldnt preclude them from taking further action against Rangers.

Frankly, if they turn a blind eye, just because they won, then their inaction will be worse than any manoeuvring the SPL have been accused of.

Rangers argument will be that the embargo is a business restraint rather than a sporting punishment. Whether or not that will wash I don't particularly care.

The SFA should be expelling regardless.

The MSM have said Rangers case is based around the fact that the panel didnt have the authority to impose the transfer ban. I havent seen business restraint mentioned anywhere. To argue business restraint Rangers would have to, basically, ask the CoS to interfere with the decision of the SFA, which they wont do. What they are arguing, is that the SFA did not apply their own rules properly. Theres a chance the CoS might agree with that, but not, in my opinion, in this instance.

Absolutely, this is about more than just the current situation, I think. It's trying to show the SFA that RFC are still the bosses and that, when , they are back in the SPL on an even keel, they will still dictate policy. If the SFA kick 'em oot, will the Cockwomble start a breakaway movement to move the SPL to another jurisdiction, the Scottish football will end up in a situation like boxing with hunners (no pun intended) o' ruling bodies?

I'd pay to be in Doncaster's office when the call comes through that RFC have been expelled from SFA membership.

Any league that isnt under the SFA would have no European football.

[Ric]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

At the moment, I would wager they have a considerably larger squad than at least half the SPL. There is certainly a chance they will be struggling to field players if the CVA fails and many players leave if the club goes into liquidation, however that comes down to the timing of this action; currently they do have a suitably large squad.

Frankly, if they turn a blind eye, just because they won, then their inaction will be worse than any manoeuvring the SPL have been accused of.

I feel, and this may be wrong, that the SPL will consider their inaction regarding Rangers' CoS action as more of a strength than a weakness. Like the "water of a duck's back" analogy and if they were to react it would throw into question whether they have belief in their initial findings.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Ric

[madwullie]

You would play each other an equal number of games home and away, so what's the difference it's a 50/50 split. ?

Celtic get no revenue when you are at home we get none when you come to Parkhead .. it evens out.

Oh .. I get it .. your teams don't want to take the risk .. as long the 'risk/product' is more or less guaranteed by revenues generated at Parkhead you are happy.

Just in case the viewing audience is the same as your match day crowd figures and the product doesn't quite sell the same when it's paraded on your own doorstep.

Dress it anyway you like ... the majority of the viewing audience and hence revenue generated is because of either Rangers or Celtic.

When they promote a boxing show .. do the fighter's get an equal purse ? .. think not.

This is all stuff you have made up out of your head though. Home teams wouldn't have sole rights to games at their own ground in this situation because you can't play against yourself. The other team would have to be paid too.

[Homer Thompson]

Another wee thought here. This CVA with all the "unknowns" (namely the Collyer Bristow case as it's the furthest away), can it be accepted conditionally in any way? Say if Ticketus were to say "If you get all the money including the CB money, then we accept. If not, we do not accept", does this mean Rangers would have to stay in Admin while racking up more fees for H&D until October or whenever the CB case is?

That thought occurred to me too.

Two things come to mind if that was the case

1) Would the SPL see that as "coming out of admin" or would they impose another 10 point penalty for next season?

2) What happens if the conditions arent met?

[Love Child of Jumbo Muir]

If the CVA is agreed (BIG IF) on 14th June then the Orcs could come out of administration on the 12th July (28 days later) - perhaps they can then march scraping their knuckles along the streets to celebrate another "victory" for the next 322 years.

Hopefully justice will be done and Ticketus & HMRC tell them where to stuff their CVA. The fair minded football fans can the watch every year the Tennant's lager fuelled, baton twirling, flute playing, drum bashing numpties out parading on the day their club went belly up.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

So if the CVA involves all creditors are to get say, 2p in the pound, then companies like Blooms UK (Glasgow) - who are owed £40 - will get precisely 80p

That wouldn't even cover their bus fare to get to the meeting in the first place.

[weebud]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

A lot of the time you post rationally and with considered thought but your claim above is just rubbish!!

How many players do Rangers have under contract for next year?? Rangers can also re-sign players currently on their books and Greene's claims are that they will reduce the wage bill to £11m. Most clubs in the SPL don't even turn over that amount of money.

You may have to field teams that will struggle due to lack of ability and experience but that's tough luck I'm afraid!!

[stonedsailor]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

No club licence; forcing SFA to punish them in a manner which is documented (suspension or expulsion); put the Scottish game at risk ie pissed off all the chairmen who's support is required to allow a newco into the SPL; investors running when embargo is allowed to stand etc etc, there's every chance Rangers will cease to exist before next season kicks off, you should not get many injuries in that case.

[Enzo Francescoli]

Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.

You are beginning to grasp the idea of 'punishment', to suggest they won't have enough players is nonsense, there is nothing to stop Rangers bringing in numbers at some level or other.

[Claymores]

Another wee thought here. This CVA with all the "unknowns" (namely the Collyer Bristow case as it's the furthest away), can it be accepted conditionally in any way? Say if Ticketus were to say "If you get all the money including the CB money, then we accept. If not, we do not accept", does this mean Rangers would have to stay in Admin while racking up more fees for H&D until October or whenever the CB case is?

Good point - on the face of it, this CVA proposal seems as stupid as the half-baked 'bids' put forward by the Baron Knights which were conditional on all sorts of things (most humorously on Ranjurs reaching QFs of CL in 2013-14 !!!)

[No8.]

At the moment, I would wager they have a considerably larger squad than at least half the SPL. There is certainly a chance they will be struggling to field players if the CVA fails and many players leave if the club goes into liquidation, however that comes down to the timing of this action; currently they do have a suitably large squad.

There are quite a few who have left/out of contract from the list posted earlier in this thread. There are many more who will be sold due to the arrangement made by D&P.

If Rangers are playing in the SPL next season there is every chance they wont be able to fulfill fixtures. What do we do then? Punish them again for their failure to field a team?

[7-2]

I see the Daily Ranger have decided to turn onCharles Green - http://www.dailyreco...86908-23877539/

To summarise:

He's set to make a big brucey bonus if all goes toplan

He's scraped together enough cash to pay wages inJune

He disnae have the £8.5m for the CVA

Bye bye Gers!

Perfectly posted MM. There are so many links appearing now that you could treble your reading time for this thread which already takes a fair amount of time as it is. Not forgetting that you can't always use the link when you're on a phone anyway. This should be the template for posting links on here, a quick summary and the link to the article itself.

[Fife Saint]

The MSM have said Rangers case is based around the fact that the panel didnt have the authority to impose the transfer ban. I havent seen business restraint mentioned anywhere. To argue business restraint Rangers would have to, basically, ask the CoS to interfere with the decision of the SFA, which they wont do. What they are arguing, is that the SFA did not apply their own rules properly. Theres a chance the CoS might agree with that, but not, in my opinion, in this instance.

I would agree with that but it's an entirely ridiculous argument when the rules are as clear as they are. Surely not worth contesting in court.