Mark Connolly Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Need some figures around the total debt. If offering 1p in the £, how much is that in total (Are Duff & Duffer trousering the rest) How much would they get in the £ if Rangers liquidated and sold everything off to the highest bidder (that's the alternative) By giving away players at knockdown prices, Duff & Duffer definitely haven;t put creditors interests to the forefront. These all could have been sold off to give a higher return When looking back on all of this, the main villains of the piece will be David Murray, Craig Whyte, Duff & Duffer and Charles Green. Quite a rogues gallery . The supporting cast is a cracker too (with many such as Walter & Ally waiting in the wings) Maybe some of the journalists in line to lose their jobs can write an objective article for a change once it is all done & dusted. A "whodunnit". Mind you Leggo can always help out there Was the total debt including the various tax cases not over £100m? Surely then 1p in the £ means there is only £1m in the pot? Even if the debt was £50m, that's only a £500k pot Edited for terrible sums! Edited May 29, 2012 by Mark Connolly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 A senior tv executive, who shall remain anonymous , has stated that such a contract is illegal. What will be in the tv contract is a reduction in payment by Sky should there not be 4 league bigotfests. This is of course totally different from what we are constantly told by Cockwomble and The Succulent Lambs as it doesn't suit their agenda. In other words, we are being lied to. Surprise, surprise. Not a bad name for a flute band. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calidad Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 You don't get it do you The TV deal is reliant on FOUR Old Firm fixtures...If Rangers are in the bottom 6 then there will be only THREE!! I don't want to have the God given right to finish in the top 6 but the clubs in the SPL agreed to this deal with Sky TV....Not me. Do you get the point now? All clubs will lose out financially if this were to happen. Hold on lets walk this through logicaly. What would of happend if in the past Rangers had bad season and did not make it into the top six? Would Sky turned round and said errr no cash. Would the SPL have bent over and let Rangers in the top six. Dont think so. Until someone publishs the actually Sky contract lets not peddle the idea that this is the case. I suspect that Sky contract is based in the idea that Sky would like to see 4 old firm derbies but not there is no must have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) That's over-egging the pudding somewhat. If they somehow agree a CVA, it's just going to be the same as Dundee and any other club who merely went into admin. None of those crimes, which Rangers have unquestionably committed, would be punishable by relegation. The only crime which would see them relegated to the third division would be a risk of not being able to fulfill their fixtures, which despite no.8's defence, will not happen. Rangers will be in the SPL next season. They may be full of pizza faced kids from the Gorbals and Lee McCulloch, and a certainty for relegation, but they'll be there. Maybe that pudding is short of an egg or two. I am in a position to appreciate the regulatory framework and the politics of football, as I have been involved in several appeals before CAS since May 2010, on the same matter and I have also advised four clubs in Greece, one in Spain, one in Holland and one in South Africa, on the very same issues under analysis............ .....FIFA rules do not allow clubs to seek remedies before national courts and when clubs decide to seek such remedies before national courts, the national federations are obliged to impose sanctions. Similarly, UEFA Statutes also prohibit clubs from seeking redress before national courts, or any other courts of arbitration. One could appreciate, therefore, that the Rangers decision to file an application before a national court, against a decision of a purely sporting nature, is, to say the least, brave and, at the same time, quite dangerous. Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 Things may now get worse for RFC given that in the absence of a transfer embargo, you only have expulsion and suspension as possible sanct's Edited May 29, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No. 8 is normally one of the more decent rangers fans on here, but his constant toeing of the party line, willingness to spout so many cliches used in this saga (ie the sky deal that nobody from sky or any reliable source has ever confirmed) and general non acceptance of any fitting and substantial punishment (a couple of closed door games as punishment for a decade of institutionalized cheating for Christ sakes ) has been totally cringeworthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Is this quote from QC Richard Keen not utter bollocks:- Mr Keen said an appeal tribunal held to review the original SFA decision had heard the suggestion that Rangers had a squad of more than 40 players. However, he said 25 of those players were aged 18 or under. Pretty sure Rangers have more than just 15 players over the age of 18 surely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
False Light Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I still don't understand how HMRC can vote on a CVA when they don't know how much they are owed? Surely Rangers have to wait for the court's decision on the tax case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It will be around £3.2m, how the fcuk you work when you're sleeping I don't know. Quite easily in this case. Dreamland is where D&P form their Rangers administration strategy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I like the phrase "discriminatory punishment". What other kind of punishment is there? It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The Rangers appeal today is based on the fact that a transfer ban does not appear in the SFA rulebook as a stated sanction for bringing the game into disrepute. Never mind that the rules allow the SFA to impose any sanction they see fit, if by some miracle Rangers win the appeal, then the SFA will be forced to impose the only sanction that is clearly written in the rules, namely expulsion or suspension from the SFA membership. FIFA don't even have to get involved. This is why I'm praying for a Rangers victory today.. WATP! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Whatever the CVA works out to be best case xxx pence in the pound. Surely that is going to be a worse offer to the creditors than if the administrators had liquidated on day one. They clearly had debtors and working capital at that point. Their decision to go down the wage cuts route and change contracts etc was on the basis that creditors would get a better deal. I just dont see it. Are admins ever taken to task after the event over decision making during an admin period ? Clearly also they themselves benefit massivly by taking the route they did. Surely their fees should have been negotiated down 75% until June 1st 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 That's over-egging the pudding somewhat. If they somehow agree a CVA, it's just going to be the same as Dundee and any other club who merely went into admin. None of those crimes, which Rangers have unquestionably committed, would be punishable by relegation. The only crime which would see them relegated to the third division would be a risk of not being able to fulfill their fixtures, which despite no.8's defence, will not happen. Rangers will be in the SPL next season. They may be full of pizza faced kids from the Gorbals and Lee McCulloch, and a certainty for relegation, but they'll be there. Really? You dont think that further punishment will come if they are found guilty of dual contracts? You dont think that might include expulsion or relegation? You dont think illegally avoiding millions and millions of pounds of tax over a period of years is worse than what Dundee did? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal You know, for once I agree with you. Rangers should have the terms of their transfer embargo changed so that they cannot sign anybody, even if they are 18 or under! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Francescoli Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No. 8 is normally one of the more decent rangers fans on here, but his constant toeing of the party line, willingness to spout so many cliches used in this saga (ie the sky deal that nobody from sky or any reliable source has ever confirmed) and general non acceptance of any fitting and substantial punishment (a couple of closed door games as punishment for a decade of institutionalized cheating for Christ sakes ) has been totally cringeworthy. He smells of Gordon Dalziel 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebud Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal Not sure about that, tell me who is discriminated against?? The player can sign for any other club offering him a deal, it is Rangers the sanctions are against and not the player!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal Oh dear. Under which law, pray tell? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal In that case we should immediately do away with age restrictions for having sex, smoking, drinking, driving, voting, joining the armed forces, gambling etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal L O FUCKING L 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The Rangers appeal today is based on the fact that a transfer ban does not appear in the SFA rulebook as a stated sanction for bringing the game into disrepute. Never mind that the rules allow the SFA to impose any sanction they see fit, if by some miracle Rangers win the appeal, then the SFA will be forced to impose the only sanction that is clearly written in the rules, namely expulsion or suspension from the SFA membership. FIFA don't even have to get involved. This is why I'm praying for a Rangers victory today.. WATP! Too many cocks being sucked for that outcome I'm afraid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It discriminates against people due to their age...which is illegal Best wind up all the U21 and U19 teams in the world then too - idiot ! 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.