Claymores Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Cue The Blue Shytes re-entering for bid no 666 This quote from that article seemed very mysterious: "The administrators know two other bidders are ready and able to step in right away should Green's deal collapse. A third is also prepared to move." Don't tell me that Custard the Clown is finally ready to step-in too after all the Orcs donated loads of money to his PayPal following upon Sandy Jardine giving his address for the RFFFFFFFFFFFFF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorgieYaBass Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Really? I think you've made a mistake. Allow me to interject with the correction. Boils down to:- Celtic - assortment of cockwombles Rangers - dying assortment of cockwombles Just because us 'diddys' are having a laugh at Rangers along with Celtic fans, doesn't mean that we've forgotten about the shenanigans and bigotry which has seeped into our game. Even in the past couple of years we've seen Lennon throw the toys out the pram, and the referees going on strike as a direct consequence, which coincidently cost my own club one of the bigger games against the season to be played midweek against Dundee meaning we received far less money. This is just on top of the stuff about the poppys which occured. The fact is, I, and I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of others in this thread, despise Celtic just as much as Rangers. Hope that clears things up...you cockwomble.... 100% spot on. It's cringeworthy reading Celtic fans on this thread, trying to kid on that they are in with the bricks with the rest of us. The Old Firm...two cheeks of the same bigoted arse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorgieYaBass Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I wouldn't normally do this but I'll make an exception in your case. I am a Celtic supporting proddy; brought up in the west of Scotland. I went to the Church of Scotland Sunday school and even joined the Boys Brigade. I was the only Celtic supporter in a school of Rangers supporters. I have had endless grief from both sides of the divide since the very early 1960's - treated with suspicion and hatred in equal measure by fans of both clubs. I am not a bigot. Don't jump to conclusions just because you think they happen to support your own hate filled agenda. All of the above doesnt change the fact that your club has traded off the back of religion since day one. A vile vile institution. Just like Rangers. The only difference being that you play in green and they play in blue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Cue The Blue Shytes re-entering for bid no 666 The Sunday Herald article quotes Green as a "tyre-kicker". Couldn't have put it better myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 So. If HMRC lost that case, could the SFA now propose to adopt that rule into the articles on Wednesday? Dont think they need to. Its a condition of the license (I believe) and has already been enforced in this country, with Dundee. Its important not to get confused with the legal obligation to pay footballing debts, which is what HMRC challenged and lost, which only applies in England and the footballing need to pay footballing debts, which applies to everyone. Glennie says it could or could not happen. Thats not based on the law, consideration of the evidence or an informed opinion. It's simply an acknowlegment that there are two possible outcomes in that respect. He attaches no value to either outcome. The glennie verdict is soley concerned with and only relevant to the panel settìng a non speciefed punishment Indeed. So having said that, it does not preclude the Appeal panel issuing a harsher punishment. The other main thrust of Leggos "argument" was that if they were suspended, or expelled, that Rangers would be back in the CoS to appeal that. But on what grounds? As you said, the Glennie verdict was purely about setting a non specified punishment, so if the Appeal panel select a specified punishment they have no grounds to go back to the CoS - unless they want to do so and challenge the actual validity of the punishment. That would be a very different court case to the one we've just had and would, almost certainly, see them absolutely hammered by the SFA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 After years of being an abusive husband it looks like the wife will finally throw him out...........only to be told: "but think of the kids, Love?", "how will you cope without me bringing in wages?" & "we're good together" Is that an accurate analogy for Rangers & their current predicament with the SFA ? Personally: boot them out.....not cos they're Rangers but because they've broken the rules and any other Club would have been by now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't think any of us are able to offer any interpretation, as (to my knowledge at least) H&D haven't released their agreement with Green into the public domain. As I mentioned above I'm starting to think that Green's no fool. Imagine picking up Ibrox and Murray Park for less than £6million, when you know there is a ready and willing tenant with a turnover of approximately £40million per year. Even if a newco Rangers could only generate half of that then they could still afford to pay his Sevco company £1million a year rent. If any of us had the cash what would stop us from doing the following: 1 - Buy all of Rangers for £5.5million 2 - Sell off all key players, then spin off the football club into a new entity which would be fan owned. Offer shares to all and sundry for £500 each, I'm sure the bears would lap it up. 3 - With the transfer cash + the fan investment the newco RFC football club now has enough working capital to begin trading. Sevco still owns Ibrox and Murray Park 4 - Sevco leases Ibrox and Murray Park to the new RFC for £1million per year. The lease is set to run for 99 years, upon which point ownership will transfer to the RFC newco. However under the terms of the lease all maintenance to both facilities will be the responsibility of the tenant. 5 - The freeholder would retain certain revenue generating operating activities within the stadium (e.g. Corporate Hospitality), providing a nice little earner. 6 - In the even of suspension from Scottish Football for a year the first years rent is simply deferred, and split pro rata over the following five years making the rent £1.2 million per year for that period before falling back to £1million per year. After six years it's money for nothing. Not a bad return on investment if you ask me (in fact it's a lot better than loaning the club £8.5million to do the CVA). Doesn't really matter if they are in the third division or the SPL, all Rangers need to do is find £1million a year to pay the rent, which I reckon they could probably manage even down in SFL3. That sounds almost exactly like what Brian Kennedy did to Stockport County, only he inserted his egg chasers as the main tenants. Its still a risk taking on that kind of asset and then letting your only tenants run themselves. If he could find someone stupid enough to agree to take on the cost of maintenance and hand over hospitality revenue, then chances are they're not going to be capable of running a profitable football club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't think any of us are able to offer any interpretation, as (to my knowledge at least) H&D haven't released their agreement with Green into the public domain. As I mentioned above I'm starting to think that Green's no fool. Imagine picking up Ibrox and Murray Park for less than £6million, when you know there is a ready and willing tenant with a turnover of approximately £40million per year. Even if a newco Rangers could only generate half of that then they could still afford to pay his Sevco company £1million a year rent. If any of us had the cash what would stop us from doing the following: 1 - Buy all of Rangers for £5.5million 2 - Sell off all key players, then spin off the football club into a new entity which would be fan owned. Offer shares to all and sundry for £500 each, I'm sure the bears would lap it up. 3 - With the transfer cash + the fan investment the newco RFC football club now has enough working capital to begin trading. Sevco still owns Ibrox and Murray Park 4 - Sevco leases Ibrox and Murray Park to the new RFC for £1million per year. The lease is set to run for 99 years, upon which point ownership will transfer to the RFC newco. However under the terms of the lease all maintenance to both facilities will be the responsibility of the tenant. 5 - The freeholder would retain certain revenue generating operating activities within the stadium (e.g. Corporate Hospitality), providing a nice little earner. 6 - In the even of suspension from Scottish Football for a year the first years rent is simply deferred, and split pro rata over the following five years making the rent £1.2 million per year for that period before falling back to £1million per year. After six years it's money for nothing. Not a bad return on investment if you ask me (in fact it's a lot better than loaning the club £8.5million to do the CVA). Doesn't really matter if they are in the third division or the SPL, all Rangers need to do is find £1million a year to pay the rent, which I reckon they could probably manage even down in SFL3. But that cunning plan assumes a cva is agreed and liquidation is avoided, which seems pretty unlikely. Ibrox will probably be sold to the highest bidder making Green's shares worthless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Green is walking away, according to BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18314109 -11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The other main thrust of Leggos "argument" was that if they were suspended, or expelled, that Rangers would be back in the CoS to appeal that. But on what grounds? most likely because at the time of passing the punishment, the panel claimed that the crime rangers were found guilty of didnt warrant a punishment as harsh as expulsion So if the appeal panel then hand out a suspension/expulsion they are effectively handing out a punishment that they themselves have stated is too harsh for the crime committed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Green is walking away, according to BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/18314109 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jie Bie Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) That sounds almost exactly like what Brian Kennedy did to Stockport County, only he inserted his egg chasers as the main tenants. Its still a risk taking on that kind of asset and then letting your only tenants run themselves. If he could find someone stupid enough to agree to take on the cost of maintenance and hand over hospitality revenue, then chances are they're not going to be capable of running a profitable football club. Oh aye, I realise that. In fact I'd be astounded if within a few years a newco RFC being run by the RST/RFFFFFF/RM/FF/VB "alliance" wasn't being destroyed from the inside by infighting once Celtic were trouncing them season after season. What I didn't mention is that the final step in my completely theoretical plan would be to sell Sevco, whose main asset is the rent generating freeholdings of Ibrox and MP, to an investment fund for (say) £30million within a year or so of Rangers return to the SPL (assuming they'd been booted down to the third). To make the freehold more attractive to potential buyers just insert some clauses in the leasehold permitting annual increases in the rent by a maximum of 5% or RPI, which ever is the greater. Also the idea that the orcs would be swarming back to Ibrox now they were "back where they belong" would probably create a short term window of opportunity to offload Sevco before RFC started spending money they didn't have to keep pace with Celtic and went bankrupt again. There you have it, how to turn £5.5million into £30million in eight easy steps, and a small number of years. Yes there is a considerable risk involved, but I reckon the returns outweigh it. Edited June 4, 2012 by Jie Bie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 most likely because at the time of passing the punishment, the panel claimed that the crime rangers were found guilty of didnt warrant a punishment as harsh as expulsion So if the appeal panel then hand out a suspension/expulsion they are effectively handing out a punishment that they themselves have stated is too harsh for the crime committed Did they? Genuinely, I must have missed that. I thought they argued that they were willfully not taking the maximum punishment route (note, not draconian route) in order to give the benefit of the doubt to Rangers. If that's the case, what punishment is "equal to but not greater than" a season's transfer embargo on players over the age of 18, whilst taking into account Rangers going to the CoS, which is itself a punishable offence. I kind of feel this thread has been going round in circles for about a week now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitswit Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 most likely because at the time of passing the punishment, the panel claimed that the crime rangers were found guilty of didnt warrant a punishment as harsh as expulsion So if the appeal panel then hand out a suspension/expulsion they are effectively handing out a punishment that they themselves have stated is too harsh for the crime committed Aye but since last time, Rangers have broken another rule by taking it to court. Therefore they can slap that bad boy in there. 1 year suspension from all football. That is where my money is going. (Dundee promoted to SPL) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 But that cunning plan assumes a cva is agreed and liquidation is avoided, which seems pretty unlikely. Ibrox will probably be sold to the highest bidder making Green's shares worthless. Pretty sure if CVA is rejected Green gets the assets for 5.5 million 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggr Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 1338798529[/url]' post='6301194']I don't think any of us are able to offer any interpretation, as (to my knowledge at least) H&D haven't released their agreement with Green into the public domain. As I mentioned above I'm starting to think that Green's no fool. Imagine picking up Ibrox and Murray Park for less than £6million, when you know there is a ready and willing tenant with a turnover of approximately £40million per year. Even if a newco Rangers could only generate half of that then they could still afford to pay his Sevco company £1million a year rent. If any of us had the cash what would stop us from doing the following: 1 - Buy all of Rangers for £5.5million 2 - Sell off all key players, then spin off the football club into a new entity which would be fan owned. Offer shares to all and sundry for £500 each, I'm sure the bears would lap it up. 3 - With the transfer cash + the fan investment the newco RFC football club now has enough working capital to begin trading. Sevco still owns Ibrox and Murray Park 4 - Sevco leases Ibrox and Murray Park to the new RFC for £1million per year. The lease is set to run for 99 years, upon which point ownership will transfer to the RFC newco. However under the terms of the lease all maintenance to both facilities will be the responsibility of the tenant. 5 - The freeholder would retain certain revenue generating operating activities within the stadium (e.g. Corporate Hospitality), providing a nice little earner. 6 - In the even of suspension from Scottish Football for a year the first years rent is simply deferred, and split pro rata over the following five years making the rent £1.2 million per year for that period before falling back to £1million per year. After six years it's money for nothing. Not a bad return on investment if you ask me (in fact it's a lot better than loaning the club £8.5million to do the CVA). Doesn't really matter if they are in the third division or the SPL, all Rangers need to do is find £1million a year to pay the rent, which I reckon they could probably manage even down in SFL3. 7 - Green pulls off his mask and reveals himself as........Mr.Jim Watson of Hamilton! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 most likely because at the time of passing the punishment, the panel claimed that the crime rangers were found guilty of didnt warrant a punishment as harsh as expulsion So if the appeal panel then hand out a suspension/expulsion they are effectively handing out a punishment that they themselves have stated is too harsh for the crime committed But if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, there is no penalty that can be applied, as the options are too severe, yet that which stands, the fine only, is too lenient. A court would see that as the other penalties are valid, they can be applied. There's many a criminal sentence appealed on the grounds that the judge was too lenient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 maybe Professor Green has the remedy ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDFubwWNvk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Did they? Genuinely, I must have missed that. I thought they argued that they were willfully not taking the maximum punishment route (note, not draconian route) in order to give the benefit of the doubt to Rangers. If that's the case, what punishment is "equal to but not greater than" a season's transfer embargo on players over the age of 18, whilst taking into account Rangers going to the CoS, which is itself a punishable offence. I kind of feel this thread has been going round in circles for about a week now. We are but a mirror of the SFA / SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jie Bie Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 But that cunning plan assumes a cva is agreed and liquidation is avoided, which seems pretty unlikely. Ibrox will probably be sold to the highest bidder making Green's shares worthless. Green has an agreement to buy Rangers, lock, stock and barrell for £5.5million. If Green decides to go though with it the only way to prevent it will be if one of the creditors goes to court to request a fire sale of all the assets. The big question then has to be, does Green still want to buy Rangers? 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.