Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Saor Alba]

No.8's description of RFC (R.I.P) as "The world's most successful football club"! literally made me laugh!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news No.8 but Liquidation (death) of a business/club, whatever you want to call the dead entity = major failure not success. Not that your bankrupt club ever was a force to be reckoned with in terms of football or business anywhere outside of the tiny minds of its own gullible naive fans. How is the supercasino and the hovercraft pitch coming along btw?

Your new club, the rangers tribute club, i suspect that if it survives, it and its gullible naive fans will continue to give the world many laughs for decades to come. Guaranteed, if the rangers tribute club does indeed survive, it will never become more than a shadow of the cheating tax dodging and creditor dodging club that it replaced. The reason for that being that times have changed, unfortunately for people such as you, you don't easily adapt to inevitable change.

[hellbhoy]

Queen of the South striker Nicky Clark on Tuesday followed Dundee United forward Jon Daly, Motherwell playmaker Nicky Law and Kilmarnock goalkeeper Cammy Bell, who had already signed pre-contract deals at Ibrox.

And further down your link,

McCoist, in mid-March, was resigned to being bottom of the Second Division by the end of August because he believed that he would be prevented from fielding his new signings in the opening fixtures.

Tedi the players signed pre contracts with Rangers when they were at their old clubs and then signed their contract proper when they were released by their old club and then the MSM told us they had signed for the club.

It would be pretty fucking stupid to sign two pre contracts with the club ! one with when they were at their old club and another when their old club released them with Rangers.

They have in fact signed their contract proper and are being paid by Rangers as employees of the club but await their registrations to compete in any competitive fixture.

The reason why McCoist has had them sign their contracts already is so no other fucking club can steal them and those wages they will receive whilst being unregistered will be seen as an investment by Rangers to secure players.

So how much are we talking they will be paid until September ? you would assume that the amount given in wages would be the sum of feck all compared to actually buying a player on the open market with the value these players will bring to the club pushing up it's capital value of the squad.

[hellbhoy]

and just to add to my other post, why would the PFA come out and publically warn the players to make sure they have injury clauses in their pre-contract deals? citing the disgraceful situation with Jaroslaw Fojut and TLB ripping up his contract?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-new-signings-warned-players-1927028

You wanted proof I give you the PFA.

As above the SPFA have confirmed they are on Pre-contracts, how much more proof do you need?

Tedi those are very good points you put across but in saying that at the very bottom of the article it states they have already SIGNED !.

“Cammy, Jon and the two Nickys have already signed but they can’t be registered within 14 days so how can that be legally binding?”

Now notice it says how can it be legally binding ?.

It would appear that Rangers have took a gamble and signed them up anyhow and we await to see which rule has been bent to make this happen !.

Or are Rangers breaking the rules again ?.

eta ! McCoist probably has them contracted to serve him his pies at thousands of pounds a week and then their contracts revert to a football contract on the 1st of September .

Edited June 18, 2013 by hellbhoy

[grumswall]

id imagine you can sign a contract, but you cannot be registered with sfa until sep 1st. this literally means they are contracted to the club, wether or not the sfa aprove them to play or not. a contract is legally binding. a pre contract doesnt apear to be that way. if they are not registered with the sfa for whatever reason, rangers will still have to pay them. thats my understanding of it.

i didnt read more than a few posts so if this has already been cleared up apologies.

[hellbhoy]

id imagine you can sign a contract, but you cannot be registered with sfa until sep 1st. this literally means they are contracted to the club, wether or not the sfa aprove them to play or not. a contract is legally binding. a pre contract doesnt apear to be that way. if they are not registered with the sfa for whatever reason, rangers will still have to pay them. thats my understanding of it.

i didnt read more than a few posts so if this has already been cleared up apologies.

That is my understanding of the situation.

Impossible for them to have signed a contract, there is a rule that says any players who signs a contract must be registered within 14 days, Rangers have a registration ban till 1st September meaning they cannot fulfil this rule.

Tedi it all depends on the type of contract these players actually signed doesn't it ?.

They could have signed an employee contract stipulating that whilst under a contractual agreement they will not or cannot sign to play football with any other club whilst under contractual agreement with The Clone Rangers but at the same time they could sign a contract stating they will or cannot break that contract to sign another contract to play football with another football club whilst under a contractual obligation.

There are ways of getting around legal laws or association laws and as you being a fucking Rangers supporter you would have at least have known and remembered that ffs.

Contracts can be written or manipulated in ways even we don't understand but will effectively be bending the rules in your favour.

Them players will be receiving wages until September and I can just about guarantee it even without proof other wise they would not have signed a flipping contract that leaves them out of pocket for up to two months.

[grumswall]

they may sign contracts that mean they are not getting a wage if it means the will be getting more in the long run. i doubt that would be the case as they could probably have went down south and been earning a good wage now. the likelyhood is they will be getting paid as they are now employees of rangers. they cannot be registered as players until sep 1st though so could in all likelyhood walk away if they wish due to employment laws rather than any rules within the sfa.

[Bendarroch]

If people think players aren't receiving an under the radar side payment, then naive simply isn't a strong enough word.

Superb. I look forward to the blog sure to follow from the plastic community.

Mibbe the author will be inspired by Mac Goebbels and repackage the blog into a book to sook money from the gullible, plastic hordes.

[Bendarroch]

Playing the new signings (and yes, we can call them signings before they actually have signed) as trialists is definitely against the spirit of the game, if not the letter of the law.

The 'spirit of the game' now is it?

f**k yer integrity!

[captain kirk]

Superb. I look forward to the blog sure to follow from the plastic community.

Mibbe the author will be inspired by Mac Goebbels and repackage the blog into a book to sook money from the gullible, plastic hordes.

Remember your soon to be owner is a plastic , a British citizen , born raised , educated in Britain , yet regularly refers to himself as Irish...ooooffff, looking forward to watching the backtracking when he owns you.

[wunfellaff]

I don't need to dig away wunf, don't worry about that. As for the RCF and money given to the PLC, it wasn't stolen and there was no deceit but if it bothers so many then i suggest they write to Rangers Charity Foundation for a full appraisal on this, nothing is hidden, the Scottish Charity Regulator inquired, found nothing and moved on. As for your question "who gave the donations" that originally would be the support and as far as i'm concerned it was no problem for me as a fan at that game for my money to be donated from the RCF to the PLC.

Youngsy, someone else cobbled together 31 points of concern .

Note how some of them state "illegal", the ones about an in administration plc giving a donation, and a charity giving an effective donation to an in administration plc.

Guilty m'lud.

1. Was there a charity game organised between Rangers Legends & AC Milan Glorie? Yes.

2. Was all of the profit from that game originally designated to go to charity? Yes.

3. Did the Rangers Charity Foundation come to an arrangement with RFCplc (IA) to divert 90% of the profit from that game (less £80-£100k) to RFC plc (IA)? Yes.

4. Was that decision made lawfully and/or in line with good practice? No.

5. Should legal advice have been taken by the Foundation over the variation to that game? Yes.

6. Was legal advice taken? No.

7. Was it illegal for The Rangers Football Club plc (In Administration) to donate money to the Rangers Charity Foundation and/or AC Milan Glorie? Yes.

8. Was it illegal for the Rangers Charity Foundation to donate money to The Rangers Football Club plc (In Administration)? Yes.

9. Did that game generate c£537,577 in income? Yes.

10. Did that game generate a net profit of £358,940? Yes.

11. Did the Rangers Charity Foundation receive any money from that game? No.

12. Did AC Milan Glorie receive any money from that game? There is no evidence they did.

13. Was there a charity game organised between Rangers Legends & MUFC Legends? Yes.

14. Was incone from that game about £418,681? Yes.

15. Were costs from that game c£178,637 thus leaving a profit of £240,044? Yes, based on reasonable precedent.

16. Was £240,044 donated to charity? No.

17. Was £75,000 donated to charity? Yes.

18. Was the remaining balance of profit (c£165,044) retained by Sevco? Yes.

19. Were there any trustee meetings of the Rangers Charity Foundation from May 2011 until January 2013? No.

20. Was the sole active trustee of the Rangers Charity Foundation an employee of The Rangers Football Club plc (IA) and then Sevco? Yes.

21. Is that a conflict of interest. Yes.

22. Did that sole trustee have power to remove other trustees? No.

23. Were other trustees removed or encouraged to resign? Yes.

24. Did Ally McCoist lead a team of fundraisers on a white water adventure to raise funds for the Rangers Charity Foundation? Yes.

25. Did they raise c£15,633? Yes, on the face of all the evidence.

26. Were total costs of the adventure about £39,000? Yes, based on available evidence & reasonable quote.

27. Did the Rangers Charity Foundation have appropriate risk management & insurance policies in place for that adventure? There is no evidence they did & without a lawfully constituted board, they could not and should not have entered into legally-binding contracts of this type.

28. Did the white water adventure coincide with the North American Rangers Supporters Association annual convention? Yes.

29. Have the two previous white water adventures undertaken by or on behalf of the Rangers Charity Foundation coincided with the North American Rangers Supporters Association annual convention? It would appear so from the evidence available.

30. Should The Rangers Charity Foundation have lodged a creditors claim with Duff & Phelps? Yes.

31. Did The Rangers Charity Foundation lodge a creditors claim with Duff & Phelps? No.

[No8.]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-wants-1532159

“So the signing ban might not be the end of the world."

Straight out of the pieman's mouth. He is the bastion of truth and dignity is he not?

Deary me. What the f**k does this even mean?

Tedi wasn't asking McCoist he was asking you....Now when did the signing ban begin?

As for not understanding...Well i am sure that surprises very few.

[AberdeenBud]

The 'spirit of the game' now is it?

f**k yer integrity!

Don't worry, we know concepts of integrity are baseless for most sevconians.

[AberdeenBud]

Belfast Bigot did have an excellent meltdown when he was put right after claiming Gary Hooper was the best striker in the SPL. By a 'million miles'.

Could Tedi & HB both be correct?

[Bendarroch]

Remember your soon to be owner is a plastic , a British citizen , born raised , educated in Britain , yet regularly refers to himself as Irish...ooooffff, looking forward to watching the backtracking when he owns you.

Mr 1% and a bawhair? Owner 'soon' you say? How soon? I couldn't give a f**k if he's from Mars - and as I've pointed out before plastic is a mindset. Your a fine example.

[Jacksgranda]

If bennett doesn't come back to the BRALT, Tedi's greenie ratio is fucked

[Bendarroch]

Don't worry, we know concepts of integrity are baseless for most sevconians.

I never worry when diddy clubbers speak out of turn about Rangers. It's the voice of angst-ridden-envy after all.

[Jacksgranda]

You seriously think i would have a breakdown over something posted by a no mark bigot?

What if he was a "high profile" bigot? Would that make you reconsider your breakdown position?

(Just for the sake of clarity/transparency you understand.)

Edited June 18, 2013 by Jacksgranda

[Magoo9uk]

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/299946-inquiry-into-rangers-charity-over-match-against-ac-milan/

It had originally been organised to raise funds for the Rangers Charity Foundation, which was going to receive 60% of all money gathered by the game on March 30.

The charity, which has donated more than £2.3m to various causes since it was set up in 2002, has reduced the amount it will take from the game to 10%, meaning the majority of the money raised will go to the club, which is currently in administration.

Seems pretty black and white to me. Thank f**k that horrible club is no longer with us.

Yeah,couldn't agree more,imagine those knuckle dragging, bigoted,Sevco Orcs raising £2.3 million for charity,complete b*****ds obviously ;-)

[cyderspaceman]

I never worry when diddy clubbers speak out of turn about Rangers. It's the voice of angst-ridden-envy after all.

[Ken Fitlike]

The next time* Zombie Rangers incur a transfer/ registration embargo, the authorities should deliberately add 12 months just to stop them playing rule-stretching silly buggers like they have done this time round.

* inevitable at some stage after the money dries up.