sergie's no1 fan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm starting to think Dunfermline might win a home game before any decisions are taken at Ibrox. We visit EEP very soon. Saints are a stick on to lose that game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 First time I encountered him was after the European debacles, when it looked like Celtic and Rangers were both being humped out. (i.e. after Sion beat Celtic). English was the radio phone in guest alongside Traynor. He continually espoused the view that McCoist was under real pressure this season to win the title (despite the fact he had less money than Celtic and was in his first few games of the gig) and that Lennon's job was safe and he just needed to keep bringing the club along and be given time to get it right (despite being the manager already for a season and a half of failure, with a bigger transfer fund and with a bigger budget) I can kind of see how he could come to that conclusion and haven't the circumstances of this season shown English to be correct. Lennon with a Scottish cup in the books was given a bit of time to right his ship when they were trailing in the league by 14(?) points. If Celtic had lost at Killie maybe Lennon would've got the early boot. I don't think Rangers would have been quite as forgiving on McCoist as he is such an unproven commodity and although the fans back him he doesn't have the same cult following that Lennon does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinty62 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 They sacked players would just be added to the list of creditors that the club already has. True but...if they did add the redundancy payments to players and staff to the list of debts - Then they may be immediately make themselves "trading while insolvent" (If they are not already) which is illegal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I can kind of see how he could come to that conclusion and haven't the circumstances of this season shown English to be correct. Well, no. No they haven't. McCoist was under no pressure at all to win the league this season. Rangers are financially far inferior to Celtic and finishing second is no disgrace. Especially in your first season. If Lennon had failed for the second time to win the league, (after the European disasters) despite the enormous financial advantages Celtic have had over Rangers both times, he should have been sacked. What English should have said was that this season was a massive one for Lennon and a freebie for McCoist, with all the pressure on the ginger one. If you aren't a green bigot apologist, that is logically the only possible interpretation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 True but...if they did add the redundancy payments to players and staff to the list of debts - Then they may be immediately make themselves "trading while insolvent" (If they are not already) which is illegal? They are in administration already, nothing would happen other than the players being creditors and would have to either accept with other creditors whatever the CVA is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Well, no. No they haven't. McCoist was under no pressure at all to win the league this season. Rangers are financially far inferior to Celtic and finishing second is no disgrace. Especially in your first season. If Lennon had failed for the second time to win the league, (after the European disasters) despite the enormous financial advantages Celtic have had over Rangers both times, he should have been sacked. What English should have said was that this season was a massive one for Lennon and a freebie for McCoist, with all the pressure on the ginger one. If you aren't a green bigot apologist, that is logically the only possible interpretation. He probably understated the pressure on Lennon but this was far from a free season for McCoist. If anything McCoist is getting his reputation saved by the administration debacle. Celtic had already bridged a massive gap (credit to McCoist for creating it) before admin but the real problems came when injuries hit and it turned out almost every MccCoist signing has been a dud. Plus I don't take opinions like this on football phone-ins too seriously, some opinions are just for entertainment and exaggeration and taking strong stances is part of that. A good example is Hugh Keevins who is almost always winding people up, even in his newspaper column, but if you listen to the Daily Record podcast (15 minutes usually OF dominated) he seems twice as sensible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 What English should have said was that this season was a massive one for Lennon and a freebie for McCoist, with all the pressure on the ginger one. If you aren't a green bigot apologist, that is logically the only possible interpretation. You really come across as more of a cock every day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 i don't mind Regan, but he should have cut that question in the bud. Indeed. What a colossal own-goal that is. Either you reply to that with "No" or you don't reply at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) He probably understated the pressure on Lennon but this was far from a free season for McCoist. So you think McCoist would have been sacked for not winning the league in his first season, when your main opposition are spending 1.5 million a month more than you on wages? I don't think so. Yeah, fine. If he did a Villas-Boas and was languishing in third, he'd have to go. A decent chase for the title (they were only a couple of points behind when the 10 pt penalty struck) and he's have got another year, no problem. Celtic had already bridged a massive gap (credit to McCoist for creating it) before admin but the real problems came when injuries hit and it turned out almost every MccCoist signing has been a dud. A lot of them were panic moves late in the day just to get bodies in the door. He was promised money that never arrived from Whyte and was operating in the cheapo free market in the end. He tried to sign a few guys who they then couldn't afford, through no fault of his. But yeah, they weren't great. Plus I don't take opinions like this on football phone-ins too seriously, some opinions are just for entertainment and exaggeration and taking strong stances is part of that. Yeah, call me suspicious though when the Irishman tries to put the heat on the Rangers manager, whilst sucking the cock of the guy who has already failed miserably in his first season, and has just been papped out of Europe again humiliatingly. As I said, he's a green bigot apologist, and Lennon fluffer. Certainly not an objective viewpoint from him. What I would expect from David Leggat from the other side. I don't like it when journos display a bias. As English did. Fine if he's brought onto a programme specifically to give the "view from Parkhead" along with a Visigoth like Darryl King in a laugable BBC attempt at "balance". But to be brought on on his own as a supposedly independent voice. Mmmm.. I'm not having it. Edited March 8, 2012 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) We can't allow ourselves to get bogged down bickering over who a journalist thinks had the toughest brief - Lennon or McCoist. There is a more important issue to discuss here - one of our oldest and proudest footballing institutions is teetering on the brink, and if allowed to fold, or even to end up playing in the lower leagues, it will kill Scottish football stone dead because of the Sky TV deal and visiting Rangers supporters' money drying up. We can't allow ourselves to get bogged down bickering over who a journalist thinks had the toughest brief - Lennon or McCoist. There is a more important issue to discuss here - one of our oldest and proudest footballing institutions is teetering on the brink, because their decade or more of reckless over-spending on the never-never has finally caught up with them. When allied to possible illegal player payments, a whopping great tax bill, a dodgy take-over for a quid by a charlatan in a cheap suit, and a host of internal bickering and bun fighting, overseen by the most inept administration duo this side of the Alps, then it's quite amazing that anyone thinks the Sky TV deal and visiting supporters is enough of a reason to save their sorry, debt-ridden, cheating arses. Please delete as appropriate. Edited March 8, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeah, call me suspicious though when the Irishman tries to put the heat on the Rangers manager, whilst sucking the cock of the guy who has already failed miserably in his first season, and has just been papped out of Europe again humiliatingly. As I said, he's a green bigot apologist, and Lennon fluffer. Certainly not an objective viewpoint from him. What I would expect from David Leggat from the other side. I don't like it when journos display a bias. As English did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "I await the verdict of Lord. Nimmo. Smith." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinty62 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Should have read this before posting stupid questions - apologies... In a moratorium no one can "knock the company over" without the leave of the Court. When the Court has effectively ratified the administrator's appointment this is unlikely! The Court will want to have as much information as possible to ensure that the application for Administration is correct and appropriate. Administration sale The company can enter administration to be sold. A typical scenario would be Company isunder severe pressure, creditors circling, possibility of legal action. Directors decided to take advice from KSA or a similar firm. A decision is taken to protect the business and to stop legal actions. The company is insolvent but there is a viable business. The company meets with KSA advisors, they draw up a report on the options available looking at CVA, Administrative Receivership, Administration, trade sale etc. The board believes that a sale could be achieved but the company needs to be protected. An administrator is appointed and he / she will then run the business for a period of say 1-2 weeks. In that time he markets the business under insolvency guidelines called Statement of Insolvency Practice 13, he must be seen to market the business for sale. He will obtain valuations from a professional valuer for all of the assets, goodwill and so on. In an agreed period the directors of "oldco" can buy the business provided the valuations are met and the administrator gets the best deal for the creditors. "Newco" has no debt, no creditor pressure, it can take on leases for example. General guidiline is that TUPE applies and therefore all employees rights move across to Newco. The oldco is then liquidated Och nooooo.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You really come across as more of a cock every day I require no validation from scumbag Old Firm fans. Sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I require no validation from scumbag Old Firm fans. Sorry. Don't worry, i was just pointing out the obvious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Are they dead yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The Players Who Stopped The Deal #1 boss Group: Moderator Posted Today, 02:53 PM I'm probably breaking a confidence but trying to justify to myself that I'm really just bending the line as far as I can. This has come from the insolvency guru that has explained much to me in recent days. This is what I was told – believe it or dismiss it as you wish. Hopefully word will filter through to those that need told that there are no secrets, there are no discussions that will forever remain private if Rangers do collapse. The players did not take us to this point but the supporters have a right to know which players may be about to hit the first blow in the last nail. An agreement had been reached in principle for the 75:50:25 wage cuts. Then two of our highest paid players, both out injured just now, told the Administrators that their wage cut should only be 50% as they couldn't earn win bonuses. This despite picking up their full wages to date while on the sick and not being able to kick a ball in achieving those wins. The Administrators were angered that they were backtracking on the agreement and were ready to make them redundant and implement the agreement among the other players. Then a third, highly paid, player met with the Administrators and demanded that a £1m release clause be inserted in his contract in case "he didn't like the new owners". Clearly that was impossible for the Administrators to agree to – they would be writing £2m off an asset, all for the sake of saving about £300k in wages from that player between now and the summer. A fourth player decided that he could only now afford a 50% cut as he had cars to finance and debts to pay. It was following these discussions that the Administrators decided that an early sale may be preferable to what was beginning to look like the decimation in the value of the squad if four of our biggest assets were made redundant. Compare and contrast the attitudes of those four players, three of whom are massive Rangers fans, with two other players. It has been well documented that one highly paid player offered to play for nothing. That is correct. What isn't well known is that another senior player decided that he's made enough money from football/Rangers and that he would be prepared to walk away with nothing and probably retire. If in the next 24 hours there is no sign of a quick sale being possible, and there is no change of heart from these senior players, there will probably be massive redundancies. If Rangers do not complete their matches this season, the hypocrisy of those players will never be forgotten. Indeed their intransigence may have already engendered the sale to a newco and liquidation of the current company. I know deep down that I have broken a confidence and lost a source but I had no choice. Thought this was an interesting take on the players refusal to take a wage cut (RangersMedia) Players who stopped the deal link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Are they dead yet? No, but we're in purgatory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 Are they dead yet? There's a meeting. It was 'breaking news' earlier today on Sky Sports News. The administrators are meeting the players, to talk it over. The agents will be there, so will Super Ally, and Fraser 'birdshit on my window' Wishart. They'll get it sorted this time. No worries. Is it just me, or does anyone else picture them sitting around the table saying 'No, WE'RE the People's Popular Front of Judea... splitter'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I love this :- "It was following these discussions that the Administrators decided that an early sale may be preferable " 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.