Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[sons superhero]

Albion Rovers are in Division 2: they were close to relegated. If Sevco are in Div3 next season, Rovers may miss them as Sevco get promotion, and Rovers relegated.

This is part of the quandary for some lower league teams: I'm sure Dumbarton have a fear they could miss out of Sevco benefits (whatever thay are) if they don't meet them in Div1 next season.

We have no financial benefit playing newco, dundee and dunfermline will both bring as many fans. If you add additional stewarding and policing we would be worse off. Unless you count the fictional tv money that doesn't exist.

[Only A Game !]

Unfortunately i think They'd survive:

No debt

Only essential maintenance of ibrox and Murray park

Skeleton / no staff / no huge wages

Make money from corporate events, weddings tours of ibrox etc

You dont think its more likely that BDO will step right in there, as they should have perhaps done the last time, and take control of the assets, slice them up into little bits and making it impossible for anyone to come in who wont pay a decent price for the bits ?

If they dont play this season they'll go under AGAIN. I still think there will be a Rangers re-born, ( a business with 100,000 POTENTIAL customers a month wont disappear forever)but it wont be at Ibrox, it wont have the money to be there. It wont have the current structures and it will be a long time before we see them at any significant level. All IMO of course.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Only A Game !

[wunfellaff]

Unfortunately i think They'd survive:

No debt

Only essential maintenance of ibrox and Murray park

Skeleton / no staff / no huge wages

Make money from corporate events, weddings tours of ibrox etc

No debt? Just what Charlie wants to take back.

There won't be much maintenence required, they will have been hived off long before Xmas. If Green paid H+D £2.5 million out of the purchase price for the players contracts, then that is down the Swanney and he will need to recoup.

Staff? All non-playing staff will TUPE so he is buggered again. (or pay them off based on original wages which will cost as much) Huge wages? gotta pay the players that did TUPE.

[Beachbum]

If Sevco are not voted in to SFL1 then the SFA will refuse their registration for this season. They will not play this season and be placed straight in to the larger SPL next season.

You heard it here first.

That's easy - it gives us one year to fire Doncaster and Regan and then tell them to apply for SFL3.

[wunfellaff]

Thekiltcompany :lol: http://www.thekiltcompany.com/kilt_hire.asp

We have over 40 tartans available:

Hunting McGregor Modern Black Watch Red Hackle Scottish National Scottish National Black

Douglas Modern Flower of Scotland Spirit of Scotland Scotland Forever Hunting Stwart Modern

Stewart Black Modern Stuart of Bute Monarch of the Glen Saltire Modern Braveheart

Earl of St Andrews Holyrood Isle of Skye Black Isle McRae Ancient Hunting Ramsay Blue Ramsay Red

Highland Granite Hebridean Granite Pride of Perth Pride of Loch Leven Pride of Kinross PARS Grey

PARS Dress St Johnstone Great Scot Buchanan Modern Spirit of East Kilbride Spirit of Dundee

Pride of the Tay Pride of Fife Former Rangers Celtic Robertson Hunting Ancient Gunn Modern

Campbell Ancient Gordon Dress McKenzie Modern Royal Stewart Scottish Thistle Leslie Ancient Hunting

Stewart Highland

[cowden0]

the worst administration ever? you decide

BBC Sportsound ‏@bbcsportsound

Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F

Expand

Reply Retweet Favorite

[AyrshireTon]

So, Friday morning.......

[Only A Game !]

We have no financial benefit playing newco, dundee and dunfermline will both bring as many fans. If you add additional stewarding and policing we would be worse off. Unless you count the fictional tv money that doesn't exist.

Sorry but that just cant be right ?

[HibeeJibee]

I see the 'ever-objective' Reporting Scotland seem to be running with the "shiny 16 team top division on the way if you vote yes!!" line tonight.

Unless another statement is due, what has been released by SFA/SPL/SFL doesn't make any mention nor guarantees of division size.

[T_S_A_R]

the worst administration ever? you decide

BBC Sportsound ‏@bbcsportsound

Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F

Expand

Reply Retweet Favorite

near enough every club in the league would have lost money during that period.

there is no season ticket income or central payments in the period feb -june.

[HibeeJibee]

Sorry but that just cant be right ?

Remember their ground only holds 2,000 less any segregation.

[veteran]

Eh ?

They've just said they've been looking at reconstruction for the last TWO YEARS. There are 4 weeks or so till the start of the season. This shower have taken TWO WEEKS and still havent decided who is replacing Rangers in SPL1. There is precisely NO DANGER of an SPL 2 this season. Even if there was a possibility they could achieve it administratively, there is NO DANGER of getting a majority of the 42 club to vote in favour of it. An SPL2, under Doncaster's auspices ? NO CHANCE....and I mean NEVER.

In addition the SFL have to agree to release clubs to form an SPL 2.Either that or the clubs involved have to give 2 years notice.

Any attempt to form SPL2 without the agreement of the SFL will result no doubt in protracted litigation and intervention by FIFA/EUFA which could result in severe sanctions for any associations complicit in the matter.

[MattBairn]

Is it the SFA or SFL that allocate the European slots?

[cowden0]

near enough every club in the league would have lost money during that period.

there is no season ticket income or central payments in the period feb -june.

I know but a few redundancies that are the norm in such cases ie Portsmouth might of helped

[MFC_East_Stand_Al]

the worst administration ever? you decide

BBC Sportsound ‏@bbcsportsound

Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F

Expand

Reply Retweet Favorite

The sale of just 1 player would have covered that, or had they done what every other company in administration does slashed costs across the board including shedding staff.

There are a couple of points in the Creditors statement that when taken in isolation seem a bit conflicting

5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company.

Offer 1 – Party 1

5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required.

Offer 2 – Party 2

5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal.

Offer 3 – Party 3

5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process.

Offer 4 – Party 4

5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly.

5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin.

Yet they accepted Greens £5.5m ?

Can someone please explain?

[Gaz FFC]

If Sevco are not voted in to SFL1 then the SFA will refuse their registration for this season. They will not play this season and be placed straight in to the larger SPL next season.

You heard it here first.

You have no idea how many problems i see with that proposal.

[Dee Man]

Anybody care to guess what the headlines will be in the Red Tops on Friday morning ?

Countdown to Armageddon.

[Huistrinho]

I don't know much about the history up to 1920 but I do know that this is was a club which commercially and unashamedly exploited bigotry. I'm a fairly old chap (and went to school who's name does not begin with 'Saint') but its less than a generation ago that Rangers signed their first catholic. The club remained all its days focal point for disgusting bigots and I have no doubt whatsoever that Sevco/Newco will be the same.

I think I've covered most of what you refer to in my earlier posts today, but I'll add a couple of comments. I don't claim that there wasn't a "signing policy", but there were a good 30 or so Catholics in the Rangers team (a couple signed directly from Celtic) before MoJo. That's a matter of record.

The club has undeniably been a focal point for bigots, but this has visibly reduced in last 25 or so years I've been going to matches. Like I said, some people are morons.

You continue to support them despite these connotations which in my eyes means your morals are dubious even if you are not sectarian yourself. It just means you are prepared to put up with it.

I support the team - I despise the bigots. I hoped to see it change. If Sevco amounts to anything (I have my doubts), I'd hope to be part of the change if I decide to support them. As I said, it's not intrinsic to the club - just because you don't know much of the club's history before 1920, doesn't mean you get to ignore it in a debate. As for my morals, I have twice today discussed the conflict I feel - mark my morals as dubious if you wish.

Rangers represent what is absolutely worst about Scottish society - bigotry, 'we ur ra peeple', glory hunters - you name it. If you can't see that, you are thick. If you can see it and don't walk away, that's worse!!

You might call me thick, but bigotry isn't the product of Rangers, rather it, and other nasty characteristics such as racism and homophobia are the problems of society and will always find some way to manifest (I'll leave out glory-hunting, as any individual or team achieving success is affected by that problem). With Rangers dead, and if Sevco amounts to nothing the same people will pop up somewhere else with their bile. I hope none of them attach themselves to your club.

We both agree that bigotry was exploited by former governors of the club for commercial gain but I repeat my view that it is not intrinsic to the club, and hasn't been part of the governance in the time I've been following football.

I know not everyone respects my views, and plenty deal only in absolutes, and that's fine. I was asked some pages back to explain why I came to support Rangers and I did so. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my explanation doesn't make my explanation untrue and I'll put it to bed here so we can get back to talking about the issues at hand. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue conversing.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Huistrinho

[WaffenThinMint]

That's sort of what I meant, actually.

The field-of-play has altered again. Now club's are faced with what is effectively a deferral of the outcome - they're not being asked to vote Rangers into SFL1 in return for XYZ, but in return for a panel to go away and talk about reforms. (Unless we're all missing something).

This makes it easier to oppose - "it guarantees nothing" - but also to support - "it may lead to comprehensive changes".

You'd think only one of the more outspoken clubs, like Raith or Clyde, will be first to criticise.

How does it make it easier to support when the SFA have done SFA over McLeish's report except blow a lot of hot air out of their arses and tell everyone it's Chanel No.5?

All they've done is admit they aren't willing to do anything for the good of the game or any other club except their beloved Rangers - they want the status quo and their cushy number kept intact involving the minimal work and fuss to return.

They've just signed their own career death warrents - if they think the rest of the SFL are going to keep them bankrolled in the manner to which they are accustomed in return for empty promises after this season's pantomime, they're in for a big wake up call tomorrow.

[Homer Thompson]

Is it the SFA or SFL that allocate the European slots?

SFA

The sale of just 1 player would have covered that, or had they done what every other company in administration does slashed costs across the board including shedding staff.

There are a couple of points in the Creditors statement that when taken in isolation seem a bit conflicting

5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company.

Offer 1 – Party 1

5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required.

Offer 2 – Party 2

5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal.

Offer 3 – Party 3

5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process.

Offer 4 – Party 4

5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly.

5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin.

Yet they accepted Greens £5.5m ?

Can someone please explain?

Keep reading the document, its explained in there

So now we have 14 for 13/14 and then 16 for 14/15. In other words, if Rangers cant manage to finish in the top 4 next season or possibly even top 5 if there are playoffs too, then we'll make sure theres another couple of promotion places for the season after next. Guess the sponsors wont wait three years, but they might be convinced to wait two if the setup is rigged enough

The fact that this is being put through, simply, to propel Rangers back into the SPL as quickly as possible is absolutely abhorrent. The fact that the consequences of it not happening might be even worse, is frightening.