Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[pozbaird]

It's obviously a conspiracy by the authorities - they'll be accused of kicking a club when they're down. Someone give me a shout when the first case of 'kicking us when we're down' pops up.

My money is on Rangers Media.

On a more serious note - what an absolute embarrasment of a football club, and what a sordid cast of characters - Moonbeams, Del Boy Whyte, Honest Dave King, and Hugh 'whistleblower' Adam...

Hammer this mob, enough of their nonsense!

[Benjamin_Nevis]

It's obviously a conspiracy by the authorities - they'll be accused of kicking a club when they're down. Someone give me a shout when the first case of 'kicking us when we're down' pops up.

My money is on Rangers Media.

On a more serious note - what an absolute embarrasment of a football club, and what a sordid cast of characters - Moonbeams, Del Boy Whyte, Honest Dave King, and Hugh 'whistleblower' Adam...

Hammer this mob, enough of their nonsense!

Ask and ye shall receive

[Guest Kincardine]

For this fella to write the above, given that he was around when the Rangers' hierarchy were arguably at their high point of anti-Catholicism, really underlines the cushy relationship that has pretty much always existed between the two. 'Us' and 'them' writ large

Shoddy work by your standards. Kelly was appointed to the Celtic board in 1990.

[Fife Saint]

'stamp of Lawwell all over it'

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

This SFA nonsense will not cause Rangers any problems..

I can see the outcome as this...

Craig Whyte...Guilty as sin on all charges.

Sanctions... A humungous fine and a lifetime ban from Scottish football for a man the SFA will call The Anti-Christ

Rangers F.C...A wee bit guilty but frankly " It was all the Anti-Christs fault" and nobody else at the club ever did anything dodgy, knew about any dodgy stuff or is in the least bit dodgy themselves..

Sanctions....( well they will have to be seen to be doing something) A £50,000 fine, suspended for pretty much ever, the deduction of 10 more points, suspended for pretty much ever and a nod and a wink...

I suspect this will not be too far from the result..

Edited March 15, 2012 by The ghost of Jim Morton

[wunfellaff]

Is tomorrow going to be a 'good' day with offers etc?

If I read it right, any interested parties would have to have a shuftie at the books, sooooooooooo, no offers?????????

[orco]

But, it would be ludicrous to condemn any reconstituted Rangers to the third division just because that rule happened to be applied to Livingston. Change the rule.

What rule? The clown obviously hasn't a clue why Livi were relegated to the third. But what does it matter anyway when it happens to the little people!!.

[alimci]

What rule? The clown obviously hasn't a clue why Livi were relegated to the third. But what does it matter anyway when it happens to the little people!!.

Not disagreeing with your point, but I'm sure it wasn't Mr Custard's fault.

[~~~]

What rule? The clown obviously hasn't a clue why Livi were relegated to the third. But what does it matter anyway when it happens to the little people!!.

Why did they get relegated to the third? I always thought they got away with it because it wasnt during the season

[WeeHectorPar]

Ask and ye shall receive

"We should resign from next seasons Scottish Cup and let these halfwits explain that to the sponsors and TV.Could do without Cup for a year or two but they couldn't do without us"

Somebody should tell the silly b*gger they can't resign if they're already banned for not paying DU.

[Jussy]

"We should resign from next seasons Scottish Cup and let these halfwits explain that to the sponsors and TV.Could do without Cup for a year or two but they couldn't do without us"

Somebody should tell the silly b*gger they can't resign if they're already banned for not paying DU.

If only working for the sponsors and loving nothing more than the idea of them resigning/being banned from the competition was enough to make it a goer. I shall have to write to the bossman, except he's maybe a bit busy with his other job to write back at the mo

[Stu]

@clazbloomfield: Rangers have sold the stadium naming rights to married dating site AshleyMadison.. - I wonder if divorce rates in Glasgow go up?

I hope this isn't a pisstake.

Be fantastic if true!

Edit to remove link

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2012/03/15/rangers-arent-tickled-pink-ashley-madison-sponsorship-offer

Can someone explain to me the purpose of this fighting fund bollocks aside from to fund a bunch of clowns (pun intended)? The administrators say the wage cuts mean the club will see out the end of the season. The administrators also reckon they'll have the club sold pretty sharpish and new investors on board. They've proven such a pair of stand up guys so far I've no reason to doubt what they say so what will the cash be used for? Buying the shares from Craig Whyte?

And can someone please translate the charges against Rangers from SFA speak to ordinary English? Ta.

[HibeeJibee]

And can someone please translate the charges against Rangers from SFA speak to ordinary English? Ta.

Basically:

Rule 1 (b): All members shall:

(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

There are many rules you have to obey, other than this Book of Rules, and you might have broken this rule by breaking those rules.

That is bad.

Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

You might have failed to stop your people breaking those many other rules that made you break Rule 1.

That is bad.

Rule 14 (g): Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated, or a fine may be issued, in any of the following circumstances:-

(g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an insolvency event.

You have gone into administration.

That is bad.

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

You're not allowed to do something which reflects badly on football. You might have.

That is bad.

Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football and shall not act in any manner which is improper.

You're not allowed to be naughty or behave in way which could be bad for football. You might have.

That is bad.

EDIT:

Essentially the first 2 and last 2 are fairly wishy-washy general things about "being nice", with fairly catch-all definitions.

The middle one - "you've gone into administration" - is fairly clear-cut.

Edited March 15, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Stu]

Basically:

EDIT:

Essentially the first 2 and last 2 are fairly wishy-washy general things about "being nice", with fairly catch-all definitions.

The middle one - "you've gone into administration" - is fairly clear-cut.

Cheers - you have brought things down to my level and your explanation reminds me of this:

Edited March 15, 2012 by Stu

[pollymac]

re Craig Whyte - there's an excellent court pastiche post on CQN today regarding Whyte defending the Ticketus deal. It's actually quite insightful on a number of counts.

It's quite a lengthy piece, but I think it is genuinely worth your time. Anyway, here it is.

Court of Session, Edinburgh, Monday 19th March, 2012.

Mr Whyte, you appear here today to object to the ratification of Duff and Phelps as Administrators.

That’s right.

Mr Whyte, are we to take you seriously? You have been deemed not a fit and proper person to be involved in a football club.

That’s right, it was deemed that my previous directorship suspension disbarred me under SFA rules. I contend that the actual decision to suspend me was well outwith the 5 years, the SFA deem that the end of the period must be greater than 5 years, a technical point. Generically I am not barred from being a company director.

Mr Whyte, a number of allegations have been made regarding your tenure at Rangers.

Yes, there has. And I have been subject to a smear campaign by past and current directors and a scapegoat for the malaise of the previous regime.

Mr Whyte, come on, let me ask you about the buy-out. You used the companies own money to fund the buy out?

Well let me address that. Funds were realised from future income streams of the club and the bank debt due to Lloyds was paid off, yes. But I did not and could not profit from that. I paid off a debt that the previous regime refused to pay down, instead paying salaries and transfer fees that it could not afford. I have applied the club’s income in a responsible way.

But Mr Whyte, you base your argument to have the administrators removed on their denial of you having a security over the assets for a debt to Lloyds that no longer exists.

Not quite right, I have a security over the assets as I am personally liable for the funds due to Ticketus. I have ensured that a debt that the previous regime had run up and could not sustain has been paid off. I did it with income streams, not more, or toxic, debt. I have assumed personal liability for this. I will relinquish the security entirely when Ticketus have received their return, a return from an income stream that can be reasonably guaranteed.

Mr Whyte, you sold off Arsenal shares in the club.

I did indeed, a company should liquidise non earning assets to fund its operation and pay down debt in times of austerity. Something the previous regime were not prepared to do. I am not implicated in any way over the goings on at the stockbrokers who hold the funds.

Mr Whyte, you promised investment in the stadium.

Correct, and indeed we upgraded all the kitchens in a deal that will see Azure provide top class catering for years to come.

Now Mr Whyte, that was not your money.

I own more than 80% of the Club, I have invested all the proceeds of the deal back into the company and not profited a penny. Can I ask you perhaps to consider the security, stewarding and previous catering arrangements and to check who profited from them? I’m sure a Mr Murray’s name may well crop up.

Mr Whyte, we are here to address your case, not Mr Murray’s, you are selling off assets of the Club.

Well I’m afraid we do again have to look at the previous regime for a comparison. Media rights were sold for a 10 year period and no debt was paid down. Merchandising was sold for a 10 year period and no debt was paid down. Ticketus were used, and introduced to me by the previous regime. Ticketus are the funders of the only semi serious bid to buy the club from the administrators, and over a longer period and for a larger amount. Catering was sold too, but I inherited a stadium with serious dilapidations. I, however, used the future income streams mortgaged against catering to upgrade the stadium and to pay down debt, not chase a moonbeam. The costs of asbestos removal alone have had a serious impact on funds. The place is a wreck.

Now, now, Mr Whyte, let’s keep to the point. You promised investment and working capital in the playing squad.

I did indeed and was prepared to invest. We made offers for David Goodwillie, Neil Danns, Carlos Cuellar, Craig Conway, among others. We offered transfer fees and wages that were affordable. Something the previous regime failed to do and ran up unmanageable debt. Everyone screamed ‘spend’, as that is all they know. We signed players that were more in line with what the club can afford from Australia and Scottish prospects like Lee Wallace. We released high earning diddies like James Beattie.

Mr Whyte, you have not paid PAYE or VAT since you took over.

Not true, we have paid VAT on the Ticketus deal.

You have paid the VAT on the Ticketus deal?

Yes, HMRC had seized funds because of the malaise of the previous regime and what is known as the ‘wee tax case’. These were applied to VAT on the Ticketus deal. The HMRC debt outstanding of around £14m includes £4m of the wee tax case, a debt run up by the previous regime in its dodgy EBT dealings, something I was not and am not party to, and ultimately the real story of debt.

OK Mr Whyte, but that means you have not paid £10m in PAYE and VAT.

I’m afraid that’s right, I inherited a payroll that was simply unsustainable. The budget I inherited was based around Champions League Qualification and not paying PAYE by using EBTs.

Surely it was folly, Mr Whyte, to budget on Champions League participation.

It was feckin’ Malmo.

Mr Whyte, I concur. Malmo. FFS. But we digress, surely budget should have been trimmed?

Well, yes, but we did anticipate at least a Europa League group and a run in the league cup.

I can stop you there, Mr Whyte. Maribor and Falkirk, yes, I know. I admit I laughed. But this is serious business, you should not have allowed these debts to spiral.

Well we did plan on realising cash in the winter transfer window for Lafferty, Naismith and Whittaker, all top earners but they were all injured. We did sell top earner Jelavic, and when that was not enough I called administrators in, that is responsible corporate governance, and to date I have not taken any money and am personally liable for millions of pounds for which Duff and Phelps are trying to stiff Ticketus!

OK Mr Whyte, but Duff and Duffer (copyright acknowledged) have been trying to maintain the value in the business with a view to a sell on.

Yes indeed, and in so doing have utterly destroyed the value for me by writing in release clauses to amended contracts for players should the club emerge from administration with me in charge. This is the crux of my complaint. The previous regime did not lower the wage structure, the administrators did not lower structural wage levels, only a temporary moratorium, the only person stiffed so far is me!

But Mr Whyte by your own admission you have run up £10m in debt in just 9 months even if we accept that the wee tax case element of the current HMRC debt was not of your doing.

Yes, and I paid down £18m! Ticketus is not a debt, they do not do loans, the net debt position is less than when I took over! Bloody hell, just because I have been prepared to make tough and innovative decisions to realise cash when no bank would touch us with a defecated-upon stick and address decades of overspend I get crucified!

Mr Whyte, what do you say about the Big Tax case, why would you take on such an undertaking with this looming.

Well, it is in my agreement that an insolvency event within 90 days of a judgement on the big tax case renders Rangers liable for the £18m, not me.

But Mr Whyte the judgement has not been passed.

No, but I imagine it will be within 90 days of the insolvency event.

Mr Whyte, surely the agreement is for the Big Case causing the insolvency event?

And who says it hasn’t, we can perhaps defer that argument on semantics of before or after the event, and agree for now the financial malaise is not of my doing at all, is it, M’Lord?

So Mr Whyte, if you are to win that argument then in fact the £18m debt reverts back to Rangers and you would still be liable to Ticketus personally were Duff and Phelps to, as you put it, stiff them?

Now we’re getting the idea M’Lord. Perhaps you and I will have another conversation when I come looking for the £18m debt that reverts back to Rangers that I have in fact paid down at Lloyds and assumed personal liability for with Ticketus.

Mr Whyte, this has been an extraordinary mythical conversation.

Indeed it has. Indeed it has. Emm urr, in in indeed it has.

Uefa to get involved next week, btw. Complaints made by Porto and Werder Bremen.

[chico]

Uefa to get involved next week, btw. Complaints made by Porto and Werder Bremen.

euro popcorn?

[JRS LEFT PEG]

I have been reading this Alex Thompson of Channel 4's blog . He seems determined to come up here and expose the cosy relationship of the SFA and Rangers . Its only outside reporters like this that can make a difference . After all , there is no resistance or awkward questioning of the old firm by the Scottish media . They know they must not rock the boat and dirty their ticket ( or future employment ). As in the subject of sectarian singing , the league authorities only took interest when UEFA started watching closely . The same could happen with outside ( Scotland) journalistic expose putting on pressure to be seen to be doing the right thing

[statts1976uk]

What are Porto's and Werder Bremen's complaints?

[TheTaxMan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9146999/Rangers-braced-for-SFA-sanctions.html

[pollymac]

What are Porto's and Werder Bremen's complaints?

I think it might be to do with the two contract thing and the eligibility of players in European competition.

Werder were knocked out by the orcs in their Manchester riot run in 2008.

Not sure what Porto's gripe is, although I recall them being in the same CL group a while back.