Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[ribzanelli]

I thought you wanted proof that No8 said it not RFC? There hasn't been deflection, people have vouched for him and if you really want to do it search all his posts in this thread.

[Jacksgranda]

None of the other teams expressed an interest in the vacancy, no other teams applied.

You'll have proof of this ?

You want proof that other teams did not apply?

The lack of applications is all the proof you need I think.

[No8.]

And every time I ask for a link to such a comment, I get deflected time and time again.

Why ? Because there is no statement from anyone associated with Rangers Football Company, until after getting knocked back from the First Division and had nowhere else to go.

I couldn't care less what anybody at the club said and you are also talking about long after Liquidation.

I said they deserved SFL3 BEFORE liquidation and i will tell you why. I knew months before this story broke that Whyte was not paying any outside contractors. My thinking is if i knew and i am just a normal punter then many if not all the board members knew and that is simply unforgivable and for financial cheating on this scale then demotion was the only punishment suitable.

After liquidation it all changed and this was no longer an option. This was handled shamefully by all and i was very unhappy that we even applied to the SPL. To make matters worse the attempt to shoehorn Rangers into SFL 1 was disgraceful. Rangers should have had more faith in our support and should have taken the matter right out of the SPLs hands and gone directly to the SFL/SFA and applied for the available slot in the SFL 3.

[AUFC90]

It is quite unbelievable that 'enemies' of Rangers Football Club are demanding proof of their enmity

Rangers must be the only football club in Britain to have enemies rather than rival fans. Totally laughable

[Apache Don]

I couldn't care less what anybody at the club said and you are also talking about long after Liquidation.

I said they deserved SFL3 BEFORE liquidation and i will tell you why. I knew months before this story broke that Whyte was not paying any outside contractors. My thinking is if i knew and i am just a normal punter then many if not all the board members knew and that is simply unforgivable and for financial cheating on this scale then demotion was the only punishment suitable.

After liquidation it all changed and this was no longer an option. This was handled shamefully by all and i was very unhappy that we even applied to the SPL. To make matters worse the attempt to shoehorn Rangers into SFL 1 was disgraceful. Rangers should have had more faith in our support and should have taken the matter right out of the SPLs hands and gone directly to the SFL/SFA and applied for the available slot in the SFL 3.

Spot on, although it should have been as 'The Rangers of Glasgow FC' or 'Glasgow City Rangers' or the like.

[No8.]

To be fair he did, but he probably also changed his mind later on like he normally does when 'Bad 8' takes over.

Hmmmmm join date March 2013 but you can vouch for what i posted a full year before you joined. Have you just outed yourself?

[AberdeenBud]

I've said many times I lurked for years before posting, I'm no Benny!

Was an avid non-contributing reader of the best Thread in history(started by a Buddie of course).

[ribzanelli]

Associated....

Fair doos, I interpreted that word as meaning in an official capacity rather than a supporter

[youngsy]

Just seen that Rangers were awarded 0.860 co-efficient points for last season, 2012/13. That figure has been added to the previous four seasons figures, giving an overall total of 22.538, the club has dropped four places to 92 in the co-efficient table. Just saying.

Edited June 27, 2013 by youngsy

[johncolegrady]

I couldn't care less what anybody at the club said and you are also talking about long after Liquidation.

I said they deserved SFL3 BEFORE liquidation and i will tell you why. I knew months before this story broke that Whyte was not paying any outside contractors. My thinking is if i knew and i am just a normal punter then many if not all the board members knew and that is simply unforgivable and for financial cheating on this scale then demotion was the only punishment suitable.

After liquidation it all changed and this was no longer an option. This was handled shamefully by all and i was very unhappy that we even applied to the SPL. To make matters worse the attempt to shoehorn Rangers into SFL 1 was disgraceful. Rangers should have had more faith in our support and should have taken the matter right out of the SPLs hands and gone directly to the SFL/SFA and applied for the available slot in the SFL 3.

Good post,but still with the demotion delusion. Your old club died and the tribute act ENTERED division 3 as a way of avoiding mass social unrest and armagedon.

[Apache Don]

I've said many times I lurked for years before posting, I'm no Benny!

Was an avid non-contributing reader of the best Thread in history(started by a Buddie of course).

Before joining, I also researched the threads I found of interest -though not for years- In the case of the rather huge BRALT, I probably scanned through the first few days worth and the last few pages at the time. Wise to get a handle on these things before joining in. Interesting point about The BRALT is, you have to go well into double figure -pages wise- before coming across any posts from rangers fans. In shock? Denial? Heads in sand?

[AberdeenBud]

Tom English: Hearts and Rangers are no comparison

Rangers fans protest against sanctions imposed on the club by the SFA in 2012. Picture: PA

By TOM ENGLISH
Published on 27/06/2013 00:00

SINCE Hearts went into administration there has been an uprising in parts of the country where Rangers fans sit with long memories of their own horrors from last summer.

In the eyes of some of these Bears, the narrative is strangely different this time around. Barely a day goes by without some – or many – getting in touch via social networking to accuse the media and the SFA of double standards in the twin administrations. The bludgeon for Rangers a year ago but sympathy for Hearts now. What is the difference, they ask. Why hammer Rangers and then go easy on their counterparts in Edinburgh when they both fell foul of the same thing?

The aggrieved Rangers fans remember the findings of the SFA’s judicial panel. The headlines were a whopping fine of £160,000 for the club plus a 12-month transfer embargo (later over-ruled by Lord Glennie, but still in force now on account of the agreement that saw Rangers’ entry into the Third Division). There is lingering resentment over all of that among Rangers folk plus a feeling that the treatment doled out to them last year should be repeated now that Hearts are in administration, too. Time and again Rangers people ask: “What is the difference between us then and Hearts now?” Truth be told, the difference, as it stands, is stark.

Some remember the judicial panel’s bottom line in 2012 but forget the many steps the panel took to get there. It is surprising the number of Rangers fans who have it in their heads that their club was fined £160,000 and banned from signing players for a year simply because they were in administration. That is not the case. Far from it. The overall fine constituted a number of different fines for different offences that Hearts have not been charged with. Maybe the landscape will change a little once the SFA pull up the bonnet and have a look at what was gone in recent times at Tynecastle, but it is an almighty stretch to demand the same punishment for Hearts now as was handed down to Rangers then. That is what some Rangers people want. They claim that there is one rule for their put-upon club and another for Hearts. Yes, there is. Because their stories are different.

Consider what Rangers were found guilty of by the judicial panel. Apart from being guilty of an insolvency event, they were found guilty of not disclosing the fact that Craig Whyte had been disqualified from being a company director. They were found guilty of failing to comply with the rules of the PLUS Stock Exchange by not disclosing Whyte’s disqualification. They were found guilty of failing to lodge annual accounts by 31 December, 2001 as required by the Companies Act 2006. They were found guilty of failing to hold an annual general meeting by 1 January, 2012 as required by the Companies Act 2012. They were found guilty of non-payment of PAYE, VAT and National Insurance contributions in excess of £13 million. They were found guilty of failing to pay money due to Dunfermline as per the rules of the Scottish Premier League. They were found guilty of non-payment of money due to Dundee United for a Scottish Cup tie as per the rules of the SFA. They were guilty of non-payment of money to the SFA in relation to the rules of competition in the Scottish Cup.

When you bracket all of these breaches together you get to £160,000. Of that number, only £50,000 relates to the insolvency act. Most of the rest of it comes under the banner of bringing the game into disrepute. How many of these offences are Hearts guilty of and what is their rightful punishment? That’s what must be mulled over in the coming weeks.

Did they have a director who failed to declare that he’d been struck off? No. Did they publish their accounts? Yes. Did they have an annual general meeting? Yes. Did they – or do they – owe monies to other clubs? As far as we are aware, no. For sure, they need to be punished for the things they are guilty of, but you’re not comparing apples with apples when you lump Hearts’ offences in with the myriad breaches perpetrated by Whyte’s Rangers. And let’s not fall for the easy cop-out that Whyte was the only one to blame for the fall of Rangers. The jJudicial panel report collared many of the directors at Ibrox and held them accountable in varying degrees for not doing enough – or anything at all – to raise the alarm with the authorities, despite being suspicious of what Whyte was up to.

Importantly, the judicial panel’s findings were endorsed by Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie. Glennie had a major problem with the legality of the transfer embargo imposed on Rangers, which he ditched, but in no sense did he disagree with the rest of the report, nor the grave tone of it. Remember, the panel found that only match-fixing could constitute a more serious offence than the collective violations of the Whyte era.

Hearts failed to comply with HMRC and that is to their shame. But the contravention is of a different order to the brazen defiance displayed by Whyte, is it not? Hearts had come to an arrangement to pay up previous arrears with the taxman – a state of affairs that HMRC appeared to be content with. They had fallen foul again lately with a bill of about £100,000 dropping on the doorstep at Tynecastle. Around half of that has already been paid, with huge credit due to the supporters (and credit also to the Rangers fans who worked tirelessly to try to pay off the entire football debt of their club). We’ll have to wait for BDO to crunch the numbers to find out precisely how much Hearts will end up shafting HMRC for but it’s not going to be in the same ball-park – or the same country – as the £13m-plus that Whyte’s regime at Rangers stiffed them for.

All of this has to be factored into the reckoning. And it is the reason why Hearts’ administration is being reported differently. It’s not so much sympathy as an understanding of two distinct and sad stories.

Edited June 27, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[Apache Don]

Well, that's them all off to the sand pit again.

[No8.]

Well, that's them all off to the sand pit again.

I am away nowhere....In the middle of a domestic. Wee Irish Cow wants me to turn down The Corries...Well she can f**k right off!!

[Apache Don]

'12 month transfer embargo'? Remind me how that went again? Oh yes, signed more players last summer than most other Scottish teams, currently top of the signing charts this summer again.

[AberdeenBud]

I am away nowhere....In the middle of a domestic. Wee Irish Cow wants me to turn down The Corries...Well she can f**k right off!!

Rebel music IMO.

[killingfloorman]

The Jelavic contract is unambiguous in saying that the club and the company are the same thing. How do the bears square this with continuation? LNS (cherry picked) > the clumpany?

[No8.]

Rebel music IMO.

Oh i have had that argument many a time in pubs around Paisley. In my local...The Stags Head(now a fucking tapas bar) i used to insist The Corries show was put on every Saturday Night....Ye Jacobites By Name....You can beat a wee bit of Burns either

[TheLip69]

They have claimed to only have sold out 1 game in the league run in yet took 25,000 to Hampden for a cup final. That alone tells me all i need to know about Hearts and their supporters and they will get absolutely no sympathy from me

I have never quite worked out why some people see this as some sort of stigma.

The OF have the same problem, My cousin works in the Finance offices at Parkhead and according to him, Celtic could have sold 4 times the amount of tickets they were provided.

I'd bet the situation is similar at Ibrox, big European ties and Cup Finals are always vastly oversubscribed.

[Bendarroch]

Rangers must be the only football club in Britain to have enemies rather than rival fans. Totally laughable

I was at the 1980 Hampden final when the rioting took place. I was at the last Scotland Vs England match at Hampden, too.

On these (and countless others down the years) days I witnessed the battles, flying bottles and cracked heads I often thought: "It's just rivalry - you could never describe such brutal violence as the work of enemies."

Rivals? FFS