Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[)typically]

1. This club has brought shame upon my country throughout my life. From Barcelona's broom cupboard to the streets of Manchester, they carry violence and hatred wherever they go.

2. No, they decided to steal from the taxpayers of this country.

3. Since when was supporting bigotry and hatred compulsory?

4. who [club officials] accepts the bigotry and hatred that their club is founded upon,

5. Nope, soory if you think it's harsh, but I can see no justification for this club to continue in any shape or form.

6. Not hysterical, not over-reacting. They are cheats, thieves, liars, bigots and bullies.

You wanted an explanation for your red dot.

1. No we don't ,our reputation in that regard is exaggerated and undeserved. You point to two examples nearly 40 years apart, with a travelling support the size of Rangers our track record for arrests is not bad.

2. "They" stole the taxpayers money. Who are they? I didn't. Whether fans of other clubs are willing to accept it or not this was all Craig Whyte and David Murray's doing.

3. Its not compulsory but I dont support "bigotry and hatred" I support Rangers.

4. Rangers was not founded upon bigotry and hatred

5. and 6. NOT hysterical, NOT overreacting. Do me a favour.

[welshbairn]

So 8 clubs must say yes. Abstention or just not turning up is a no.

A mission for us then. Certain Chairmen must become inadvertently paralytic and lost before the meeting..

[HibeeJibee]

So 8 clubs must say yes. Abstention or just not turning up is a no.

Grand. So assuming the rule they passed a few weeks ago didn't change it... it would come down to whether the question was in the positive ("do we allow the transfer") or negative ("do we oppose the transfer")? And presumably in the positive.

Edited June 13, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Broken Algorithms]

Can anyone enlighten me as to how the SPL voting structure can fluctuate between issues from 11-1 to 8-4? Up until this saga kicked off, I was unaware that some votes were passed through the latter system. Are they for different issues?

[Gaz]

So the way I understand it is this:

1. The Rangers Football Club (est. 1899) will be liquidated.

2. Prior to this liquidation, Charles Green will purchase the assets of The Rangers Football Club (Ibrox, Murray Park) for roughly £5.5m and move them into a new company (let's call it FC Govan 2012).

3. FC Govan 2012 will then face a vote as to whether they can have the SPL share of TRFC.

Is that broadly correct?

[HibeeJibee]

So the way I understand it is this:

1. The Rangers Football Club (est. 1899) will be liquidated.

2. Prior to this liquidation, Charles Green will purchase the assets of The Rangers Football Club (Ibrox, Murray Park) for roughly £5.5m and move them into a new company (let's call it FC Govan 2012).

3. FC Govan 2012 will then face a vote as to whether they can have the SPL share of TRFC.

Is that broadly correct?

Yep.

EDIT: technically The Rangers FC Ltd plc was incorporated in 1899 obviously it existed prior to that as a members club in the way most non-leaguers still do. And stage 3 would need repeated at SFA.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how the SPL voting structure can fluctuate between issues from 11-1 to 8-4? Up until this saga kicked off, I was unaware that some votes were passed through the latter system. Are they for different issues?

Yep. Sometimes 8-4; sometimes 10-2; sometimes 11-1.

Edited June 13, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Grand. So assuming the rule they passed a few weeks ago didn't change it... it would come down to whether the question was in the positive ("do we allow the transfer") or negative ("do we oppose the transfer")? And presumably in the positive.

Well they need to pass a resolution to move Rangers share, so the nature of having to pass something means they need 8 votes. Phrasing something in the negative and failing to pass it doesn't make the opposite true.

[Swampy]

So the way I understand it is this:

1. The Rangers Football Club (est. 1899) will be liquidated.

2. Prior to this liquidation, Charles Green will purchase the assets of The Rangers Football Club (Ibrox, Murray Park) for roughly £5.5m and move them into a new company (let's call it FC Govan 2012).

3. FC Govan 2012 will then face a vote as to whether they can have the SPL share of TRFC.

Is that broadly correct?

Yep.

This is just a guess, not based on any insider info, but it seems to me very likely that the SPL clubs will vote yes in a secret ballot.

[Claymores]

Would that be the toilets where someone had written in shite "Jimmy Boyle"?

No, wait, that was at Bayview.

Old or new bayview?! At old my GF went to the toilet and returned saying there was no water in the womens + building brick down each pan and some unsightly 'bricks' lying on top!!!!! And I thought the male pissers were bad!

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

How can Green be getting Ibrox and Murray Park when SDM valued Ibrox alone at something like £120m a few years ago? Surely he wasn't making that up?

[MattBairn]

Yep.

This is just a guess, not based on any insider info, but it seems to me very likely that the SPL clubs will vote yes in a secret ballot.

Will it be a secret? If so then I'd guess Rangers are almost guaranteed to get back in.

[DuntoiRab]

You wanted an explanation for your red dot.

1. No we don't ,our reputation in that regard is exaggerated and undeserved. You point to two examples nearly 40 years apart, with a travelling support the size of Rangers our track record for arrests is not bad.

2. "They" stole the taxpayers money. Who are they? I didn't. Whether fans of other clubs are willing to accept it or not this was all Craig Whyte and David Murray's doing.

3. Its not compulsory but I dont support "bigotry and hatred" I support Rangers.

4. Rangers was not founded upon bigotry and hatred

5. and 6. NOT hysterical, NOT overreacting. Do me a favour.

I will give you my memories from the 70s,

I was about 14 I suppose but I remember the fear when going to a Rangers game at the old Rugby Park.

Grown men giving verbal abuse to boys, pissing against the walls outside cause they were too drunk to get to the bog, the majority of them signing the traditional FTP songs, and getting my heid kicked in at a chip shop for an innocuous comment.

THAT is my version of the Peoples history.

Pascali scoring for fun last November is the first RFC match I have attended in 35 years, got a free ticket

No violence but some of the young knobends in the Moffat reminded me of the bad old days.

I wouldn't miss you.

[Sam Leitch Loyal]

Anyone passed through Kilwinning in the last twenty-four hours?

[DuntoiRab]

So the way I understand it is this:

1. The Rangers Football Club (est. 1899) will be liquidated.

2. Prior to this liquidation, Charles Green will purchase the assets of The Rangers Football Club (Ibrox, Murray Park) for roughly £5.5m and move them into a new company (let's call it FC Govan 2012).

3. FC Govan 2012 will then face a vote as to whether they can have the SPL share of TRFC.

Is that broadly correct?

I think that's how it works, so that can't liquidate too quickly, however, BDO might have a say in it.

[DuntoiRab]

Anyone passed through Kilwinning in the last twenty-four hours?

Wish I'd thought of that one!

[Homer Thompson]

Will it be a secret? If so then I'd guess Rangers are almost guaranteed to get back in.

My money, right now, is on them being in the SPL but with sanctions imposed. How far reaching or harsh those sanctions are, Ive no idea.

The upside of that would be that the SFA can still punish them, as per the CoS case, and the SPL can still punish them for dual contracts.

[HibeeJibee]

Will it be a secret? If so then I'd guess Rangers are almost guaranteed to get back in.

Someone can trawl the rulebook but from memory of talk x00 pages back I don't think it's specified. It's either in unpublished standing orders (that can be changed anyway), or the meeting itself agree.

[WaffenThinMint]

Does anyone know (from anecdotes from parents/grandparents) the answers to the following regarding Third Lanark.....

When they went tit$ up:

1) Were they well supported in the Scottish football scheme of things?

2) Where did their fans go? Other clubs or out the game altogether?

Third Lanark's support tended to be the more fickle end of the Glasgow public. It was one of the reasons Corky Young had the team playing the by-then suicidal formation of 2-3-5 - by guaranteeing a helter skelter game with a lot of goals, it got good gates at Cathkin, if a lot of ludicrous scorelines.

Bob Crampsey (a Queens Park supporter who curiously wrote some articles for the Third Lanark annual review - their derby rivals) claimed that most transferred their allegence to Pollok, but this is more a case of wishful thinking, as Pollok never enjoyed decent gates until the 1980s upon their rise from mediocrity to domination. Most Third Lanark supporters (many of whom stayed away during the final tempestuous years anyway) were simply lost to Scottish senior football through disillusionment as the full details of events behind the scenes came out after the Board Of Trade report and the subsequent court case.

[Swampy]

My money, right now, is on them being in the SPL but with sanctions imposed. How far reaching or harsh those sanctions are, Ive no idea.

The upside of that would be that the SFA can still punish them, as per the CoS case, and the SPL can still punish them for dual contracts.

This is key. The question is: will they? I hope their pride was hurt by Rangers' taking them to the civil courts. Because otherwise I can imagine they'd be all too happy to just say "let the SPL clubs sort it out among themselves."

Plus it would just be absolutely delicious if Rangers' overreaching was what ultimately fucked them.

[MattBairn]

Someone can trawl the rulebook but from memory of talk x00 pages back I don't think it's specified. It's either in unpublished standing orders (that can be changed anyway), or the meeting itself agree.

Transparancy... Etc.