Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[AyrshireTon]

How the f**k can the SPL demand a share of their media rights????

This just gets funnier by the moment.

Maybe the SFL actually are about to negotiate a better TV deal than Doncaster has for the SPL.

[blanco]

The glass half full response is that even 9 months ago no one imagined that we'd even be arguing about/complaining about this It's progress at least.

I doubt that you'd be able to find one person (orcs excluded of course)who, if offered this very scenario back in february would've declined it, infact you'd likely have got your hand bitten off.

[Huistrinho]

I'm still trying to get my head around this latest SPL thing... there seem 3 aspects that defy expectation.

Firstly - what is it that SPL have to approve else the whole thing collapses?

I expected it'd just be a matter for SFA, OldCo + NewCo plus SFL agreeing with the embargo.

Secondly - why do SPL want more sanctions?

If they'd got their way and Rangers had gone straight into the First Division with a plan to bounce-back straight away, you doubt they'd have been gunning for more sanctions!!

Thirdly - on what grounds can SPL be demanding a share of TV rights?

Surely that's a matter for SFL itself.

I'm also baffled. I think the way to try and unravel this is not to think of it as the SPL wanting additional sporting sanctions against Rangers per say, rather they need additional income - undoubtedly coming from a cut of any TV deal that the SFL sign. I think this can only mean one of two things.

• There's something written into the settlement agreement with the SFL (or possibly a loophole) that gives the SPL some claim to this; however, I can't see why this would affect Rangers application directly.
• Or (and I'm stretching here - but this might be plausible) there's something in the regulations that does not allow a club to simultaneously hold a share in both the SPL and SFL. If Rangers SFA membership still officially holds an SPL share, the SPL would be required to agree early release of that share without Rangers serving the statutory 2 year notice period (In much the same way the SFL had to agree to let Dundee or Dunfermline resign from the SFL). Could it be this that they're holding over the newco's head? Dundee could be issued with one of the "spares", so in no way would this prevent the SPL from kicking off.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Huistrinho

[welshbairn]

Alex Thomson's even more obsessed about Govangate than we are. He was broadcasting live from Damascas tonight, went through 15 army checkpoints, listening to gun and artillary fire, and he's still twittering and blogging about Rangers..

[Huistrinho]

Well, we managed 300 @ Falkirk last season, don't imagine more - but it is 1st game EVER for Sevco at Ibrox and SevcoMedia are telling it will be a full house with everyone bringing Union Jacks to show us - hashtagloyal

Ah well - in that case you'll easily identify me as the guy waving a Saltire, about to get my head kicked in for being a "SNP loving jacobite sympathiser"

[rustyarabnuts]

I just nearly pissed myself when i read that bbc article could it be that the cockwomble has grown a set???

[HibeeJibee]

I'm also baffled. I think the way to try and unravel this is not to think of it as the SPL wanting additional sporting sanctions against Rangers per say, rather they need additional income - undoubtedly coming from a cut of any TV deal that the SFL sign. I think this can only mean one of two things.

• There's something written into the settlement agreement with the SFL (or possibly a loophole) that gives the SPL some claim to this; however, I can't see why this would affect Rangers application directly.
• Or (and I'm stretching here - but this might be plausible) there's something in the regulations that does not allow a club to simultaneously hold a share in both the SPL and SFL. If Rangers SFA membership still officially holds an SPL share, the SPL would be required to agree early release of that share without Rangers serving the statutory 2 year notice period (In much the same way the SFL had to agree to let Dundee or Dunfermline resign from the SFL). Could it be this that they're holding over the newco's head? Dundee could be issued with one of the "spares", so in no way would this prevent the SPL from kicking off.

Aye baffled is the word.

Your first bulletpoint would explain the TV rights thing, but as you note, why would it of itself affect the entry of club (and not just the income from any TV deal the SFL negotiate at any given time)... also in a way you'd be surprised if such a clause exists. Remember the Annual Settlement is actually a 'fee' allowing SPL to break in 1998 and exchange members thereafter, not direct revenue sharing.

As regards the second bulletpoint that would be a new gutter-trawl of SPL credibility: refusing to let Rangers go in an exercise to effectively hold SFA+SFL to ransom ?

[welshbairn]

Aye baffled is the word.

Your first bulletpoint would explain the TV rights thing, but as you note, why would it of itself affect the entry of club (and not just the income from any TV deal the SFL negotiate at any given time)... also in a way you'd be surprised if such a clause exists. Remember the Annual Settlement is actually a 'fee' allowing SPL to break in 1998 and exchange members thereafter, not direct revenue sharing.

As regards the second bulletpoint that would be a new gutter-trawl of SPL credibility: refusing to let Rangers go in an exercise to effectively hold SFA+SFL to ransom ?

IMG who handle the SFL media rights have a fair bit of experience in this field. I think they'll tell the SPL where to go in no uncertain terms. If the SPL have some blackmailing hold over the rest of Scottish football, then their bluff should be called. I can't see them sending Rangers into oblivion out of spite..

[hellbhoy]

It allows Rangers to keep their history which is what all their fans want, but without avoiding sanction liability. And they fulfil 1yr transfer embargo as original tribunal felt appropriate.

Reasonable outcome there for everyone.

The bit I highlighted in bold there ^,The newco are not procuring the oldco's history AT ALL.

What the newco are actually getting is the the oldco's licence that is it !.

The company that won the titles were the Rangers football club and they are just about dead,companies house will extinguish the old club from ever trading again and marked dead until all debts are paid in full.

Charles Green is asking for a transfer of the Rangers licence because if he asked for a new one he'd have to have 3 years audited accounts.By asking for the Rangers licence he gains the oldo's audited accounts bypassing having to procure a new shiny one and why he has taken it up the bum without lube from the SFA.The Rangers licence has 140 years of audited accounts as far as I'm aware although dodgy ones recently by the EBT scandal.

The newco and they are a brand new club is named SEVCO SCOTLAND,Greens team do not have the copyrights to field a team called Rangers as yet.Now this will be interesting to as which name when the newco play Brechin will use ?.

Rumour has it that the newco will play in a non trade marked strip,blue top with white shorts and black socks.No logo or sponsor as yet other than the strip manufacturer just a number on the strip.

[stonedsailor]

Aye baffled is the word.

Your first bulletpoint would explain the TV rights thing, but as you note, why would it of itself affect the entry of club (and not just the income from any TV deal the SFL negotiate at any given time)... also in a way you'd be surprised if such a clause exists. Remember the Annual Settlement is actually a 'fee' allowing SPL to break in 1998 and exchange members thereafter, not direct revenue sharing.

As regards the second bulletpoint that would be a new gutter-trawl of SPL credibility: refusing to let Rangers go in an exercise to effectively hold SFA+SFL to ransom ?

Charlie Bhoy already signed the Rangers share over to Dundee whilst acting on behalf of Duff and Duffer at the meeting on Monday.

[Huistrinho]

As regards the second bulletpoint that would be a new gutter-trawl of SPL credibility: refusing to let Rangers go in an exercise to effectively hold SFA+SFL to ransom ?

Well, I did say it was a stretch Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous, but it is the only suggestion put forward so far that accounts for the SPL having any involvement in this whatsoever. I look forward to hearing alternatives

[Huistrinho]

Charlie Bhoy already signed the Rangers share over to Dundee whilst acting on behalf of Duff and Duffer at the meeting on Monday.

Ah, I was unaware of that! I wondered if they'd been issued one of the spares in the meantime. In that case, my theory is dead in the water (which is probably just as well, as it accounted to little more than blackmail!).

[Claymores]

In all the trials an tribulations we have stepped away from the mark, lets laugh at Rangers. trolololollololloll....

Spot-on - who'd have thunk on Valentine's Day that Rangers were deid and zombie club would be in 3rd praying to even get a licence to play and with sanctions and a lot of ifs n buts to come - well done the real fan power for showing we cannot be bullied.

[The/Republic]

If it would have been one of the Diddy teams thats what would have occurred.

Erm............ NAW !

There wouldn't have been any faffing about, no votes would have taken place , there wouldn't have been any doom and gloom scenarios from any of the MSM . Done dusted and rubber fkn stamped would have been the outcome in all of 20 mins . This would have been the case for EVERY club , except Rangers* .

Hail Hail to everyone that never allowed this to happen

[hellbhoy]

I don't know what you've become, or what you were. You seem a reasonably guy/gal. I hate celtic and rangers and what they stand for. Both were founded for honourable reasons, and have mutated into what they are today. Both clubs and their attitudes embarrass me as a Scot living in a foreign land. They reflect badly upon our society.

I'll say what's really on your mind and what you really should have said in the first instant WRK.

You hate a faction of old firm supporters because they bring an undesirable element and bring the good game of football into disrepute because of it.

Like you said both teams are founded on honourable reasons but it's the fans that follow the 2 teams have brought us a sickening blight onto the face of our game.Sectarianism !.

These 2 teams are supposed to be the ambassadors of Scottish football abroad because they are the largest supported .A big big let down sometimes.

Why on God's green earth can't you separate the good old firm supporters from the bad ones ?.We are not all sectarian fuckwits !.Imagine an Ibrox and Parkhead full of P&B old firm members and how nice that would be !.

The clubs are not responsible for the behaviour of a section of bampots who continue to breed their brand of stupidity at football games.But they can barr them if caught at the stadiums spouting so called said pish.

My worst fear is a team called Rangers in name making it back into the SPL in 3 years.A section of their support is going to be more unbearable than they ever were or could have been under their old team .

[FinnesTON]

I just idolise yer pals - honest

http://forum.rangers...howtopic=232209

SOOOOO contrite and don't even know EFFC reached quarter finals when yez were pumped oot by Falkirk in the 3rd round

Love the guy with the whats the 'but we own our own ground and don't have an overdraft' statement, aye we own our ground and don't have a big overdraft either

Too right you's don't .

Some of these guys are beyond help.

[hellbhoy]

This is baffling. They probably want Rangers media rights to make up for them not being in the SPL.

The authorities in this country are scandalous.

If you think that's scandalous think about it for a second ?.

The real diddy teams in the 1st,2nd & 3rd will miss out on really cashing in for a year ! WHY !.

The SPL SKY deal will run for a year regardless of the Newco playing in the 3rd ...... if the SPL may have the cheek to cash in on the SFL TV deal this season they will get a top up from the SFL TV deal .This is unacceptable robbing the SFL of a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a cash windfall ! HONESTLY IT IS !.

It sounds like an SPL stitch up to rob 29 small teams of much needed cash flow for a year that could be spent chucking the SPL teams out the cup competitions season 2013/2014.

Edited July 21, 2012 by hellbhoy

[hellbhoy]

Not ok for provicial teams to make their mark but ok gfor the top two..

Bolt yah risable cnt.

You missed my point in my last post matey.

It is bad if the SPL for one season cash in on the SFL's good fortune.

And I am all for a more fairer more competitive league,so eff you mate if you put me in the every OF fan is a sectarian bigoted fanny section.

[Wokcomble]

Calm down son. Pretty sure that's what I said. The company committed the sins and the team benefitted. The company is now dead (formal process pendiing) and the team is carrying over related sanctions). It's silly however to suggest that the team should have been killed entirely. Should Juve have been killed following their match-fixing shenanigans? Marseille? etc (it's a long list I'm sure).

The company name problem story is more than a month old and is nonsense. There are some prohibitions on re-using trading names but there are exceptions and one of those exceptions is where the business is sold as a going concern by administrators. I explained all this about 1500 pages back if you can be arsed looking (including a link to the relevant statutory provisions, I believe).

If that's the case then am I right in thinking that if Charles Greens decided to rename 'newco' as Third Lanark rather than 'The Rangers', then Third Lanak would take over Rangers history ?

[hellbhoy]

No you deflected mine....

Cap'n sensible ^