Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[HibeeJibee]

Do you not think the revelation of the dinner between Whyte and Regan needs investigated? improper conduct if assurances given to Whyte.

You can break-it-down into 2 aspects.

Having dinner with a club chairmen... doesn't look very good in the current circumstances, but fairly common, I'm sure.

(Also has it been clarified in what context? i.e. an awards bash v him inviting them out to wine-n-dine them?).

Giving him assurances... clearly improper, and also illogical, given they don't apply the sanctions.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Well, no, I'm not sitting here sniggering like Muttley about this news, because the SFA have tonight really not done anything much at all. I'm genuinely stunned that otherwise well-informed posters are looking at this as some kind of vindication - some kind of meaningful punishment against Rangers. A twelve-month registration embargo that would apply to a newco? Do me a favour.

It's the first of three potential punishments, which is considerably more draconian than was expected. I'm not sure why you are so grimly determined to insist that the trasnfer embargo will not apply to a newco. But, whatever.

"BM will surely "do walking away" as soon as he hears of the SFA sanctions as per last week. Looks like he spectacularly misjudged the SFA."

What I said in response was that the link indicates the exact opposite. He wanted clarification about the SFA's intentions. He claims - I don't know if he's telling the truth or not - that he'd already had confidential and preliminary discussions with the SFA. If we take that at face value (a big if, granted), it looks like he's had his answer. A non-payable fine, a non-workable embargo - oh, and a three day appeal window in case they want to try getting it down to six months.

He "claims" such talks which the SFA vigorously denied over the weekend (the SPL refused to comment so he probably talked to them). I'm not sure he's had the answer he's looking for, personally, particularly given that further sanctions may yet be applied by the SPL, to say nothing of the likely slam-dunk from HMRC in court. I do not share your very pessimistic view of the SFA's action. I think it is a pretty robust one. I'm not sure what would have satisfied you, short of the independent adjudication panel rising into the heavens like the death scene from Logan's Run and reducing Ibrox to a heap of smouldering ruins with a targeted meteor shower.

Sorry - am I to assume that the SFA have a double-secret punishment in the works?

No. why would you?

[Ivo den Bieman]

You can break-it-down into 2 aspects.

Having dinner with a club chairmen... doesn't look very good in the current circumstances, but fairly common, I'm sure.

(Also has it been clarified in what context? i.e. an awards bash v him inviting them out to wine-n-dine them?).

Giving him assurances... clearly improper, and also illogical, given they don't apply the sanctions.

The thing is, Whyte is making the allegation and he is widely held at present to be a compulsive liar.

A robust and outraged denial from Regan and Ogilvie will be enough for most, even if it is actually true.

[chico]

@SFABoycott: @RangersUnite Time to take a stand against the corruption of the SFA

@SFABoycott: @Follow_Follow_ Rangers, fans and players, to now place a 12 month embargo on all the SFA, its Members and Sponsors' products and services.

[jagfox]

Guys who posted/quoted the details should probably edit and remove them just in case it gets taken further.

Read on and appears to have been a joke. My conscience is clear

[HibeeJibee]

HJ, you mentioned earlier that the SFA have never fined a club for going into admin. Did they say why they've chosen to fine Rangers in this instance?

No detail in the statement. It (£50k) was the maximum punishment allowed.

Of course this is the first time an independent panel has looked at an administration.

Previously, I doubt the Board, Disciplinary or General Purposes Committee ever thought of fining someone for it.

As I said, IMO it's the only really excessive decision.

The thing is, Whyte is making the allegation and he is widely held at present to be a compulsive liar.

A robust and outraged denial from Regan and Ogilvie will be enough for most, even if it is actually true.

Quite true. Ogilvie also rode-out EBT business with consumate ease.

Edited April 24, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[WaffenThinMint]

Whoever would have thought the SFA would finally have the guts not merely to hammer Rangers, but quite literally drive a stake through the twitching corpse before nailing down the coffin lid, and shoving it in the cremation oven just to be sure.

Rangers now have a banned-for-life owner they can't get rid off without his consent, another massive fine they can't afford to pay, and a 12 month player signing embargo that makes them a complete non-starter to anyone wishing to take them over; with the promise that trying the Newco route will not allow them to escape those punishments.

They can thank their Good Ol' Boy Miller's arrogance demanding no more punishments guarantees if he was to take over as much as anything else for this spectacular turn of events. In doing so, he put the SFA's entire credibility (and licence) with FIFA on the line with those sort of banana republic diktats. The complete lack of humility or proportion from Rangers fans - threatening ever more ludicrous "reprisals" by the day against the entire of Scottish football - may also have made the SFA decide the Ibrox pantomime is more trouble than its worth and maybe it is time to have an end to it.

They may have allowed the Old Firm to get away with murder for decades, but if it ever came to a choice between their continued existence or a club's continued existence, no one at Hampden would ever hesitate a moment before deciding.

[chico]

You can break-it-down into 2 aspects.

Having dinner with a club chairmen... doesn't look very good in the current circumstances, but fairly common, I'm sure.

(Also has it been clarified in what context? i.e. an awards bash v him inviting them out to wine-n-dine them?).

Giving him assurances... clearly improper, and also illogical, given they don't apply the sanctions.

Needs cleared up a denial by Regan won't be enough even if Whyte is talking shyte

[Swampy]

It's the first of three potential punishments, which is considerably more draconian than was expected. I'm not sure why you are so grimly determined to insist that the trasnfer embargo will not apply to a newco. But, whatever.

I'll go one better. A twelve-month player registration embargo won't apply to any incarnation of Rangers. Charity bet?

He "claims" such talks which the SFA vigorously denied over the weekend (the SPL refused to comment so he probably talked to them). I'm not sure he's had the answer he's looking for, personally, particularly given that further sanctions may yet be applied by the SPL, to say nothing of the likely slam-dunk from HMRC in court. I do not share your very pessimistic view of the SFA's action. I think it is a pretty robust one.

Their action towards Rangers, or Whyte? Or both? Leaving the open goal of Whyte entirely aside: how much of the Rangers money do you think they'll see? The only way I think they can collect is by withholding prize money (and that could take literally years, depending on how Rangers get on in the Scottish Cup.)

I'm not sure what would have satisfied you, short of the independent adjudication panel rising into the heavens like the death scene from Logan's Run and reducing Ibrox to a heap of smouldering ruins with a targeted meteor shower.

Frankly I think the SFA should have sat on their hands - or continued to do so - until Rangers' tax dealing are clearer. I don't think today's outcome served anyone except those who want to keep the big hoose open at the cost of the game's integrity.

No. why would you?

Based on your contention that a "token one-off punishment" hasn't been applied. That is, working of all available evidence, precisely what's happened. Unless you have something beyond mewling to bring to the table about future punishments, stop typing for a while.

[Swampy]

Whoever would have thought the SFA would finally have the guts not merely to hammer Rangers, but quite literally drive a stake through the twitching corpse before nailing down the coffin lid, and shoving it in the cremation oven just to be sure.

Rangers now have a banned-for-life owner

Going to have to stop you there: what form does this banning take, exactly? What are its practical effects? How will Rangers operate differently, having an owner who's banned? What penalties does the owner himself suffer, beyond confiscation of blazer?

[HibeeJibee]

Needs cleared up a denial by Regan won't be enough even if Whyte is talking shyte

Actually, I'd predit it would.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Hold on a minute, Whyte is now officially banned from owning a Scottish football club, yet he currently, eh, owns a Scottish football club. I know if it did he'd more than likely make a legal challenge and win but does this have any bearing on his shares in Rangers? The buyer, when one is decided () will still have to pay him to get his shares, yes?

He isn't banned from owning a club, he is banned from holding any office at a club. He can't be chairman, board member, director, secretary or anything like that but the SFA have no rules or checks against ownership. Although what is the point in owning a club if you can't exercise any sort of control over it.

The transfer embargo is the big kick in the balls, not only are player contracts going up in June but they can't bring in other players. Although some forced austerity might do Rangers the world of good. My view has always been that as long as Rangers can transfer their SPL stake before any liquidation proceedings then they are entitled to continue in the SPL. If they can't, not only should they bounced out of the SPL they shouldn't get the open spot in division 3 since the SFA have clear rules about club membership and it would clearly be wrong to grant to new membership to someone not meeting the requirements.

The other aspect of a full on liquidation would be who would own the "new Rangers" and there is possibility of more than one phoenix club springing up. Several smaller teams might get "clydebanked" in the process, although there are some rules to try and prevent this.

If I was genuinely interested in owning Rangers I would be buying a small SFA member from EoS or SoS league with the intention of applying for league membership if an open spot comes up, then I change the name, strike a deal for renting Ibrox and Livi my way through the leagues. With this transfer embargo in place a new club rather than a new company might be the order of the day. The Blue Knights should be into this idea because it is cheap and they have no money.

[chico]

Actually, I'd predit it would.

Disagree.

[HibeeJibee]

Disagree.

Barely a whimper of controversy presented itself in the media over Ogilvie and his knowledge and use of EBTs. That which did lasted a day or two then dissolved in the breeze. Whyte is a habitual, and discredited, chancer and liar. It's going to be pretty difficult for anything to counter a rebuffal of "Mr Whyte is lying - let him produce evidence".

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

I'll end by saying that whether reality proves to be the Swampy school, or the people-creaming-their-pants school, is going to be a matter of time will tell. Only the ban on signing players comprises any hefty negative in terms of a buyer. Club's been fined £160k or something overall, fairly minor in the grand scheme. Whyte won't be involved going forward anyway.

It's the embargo, and whether it stands/falls/reduces on appeal, that's the biggie.

Edited April 24, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Ivo den Bieman]

I'll go one better. A twelve-month player registration embargo won't apply to any incarnation of Rangers. Charity bet?

It may be reduced on appeal. But Rangers will have to endure some length of transfer embargo.

Their action towards Rangers, or Whyte? Or both? Leaving the open goal of Whyte entirely aside: how much of the Rangers money do you think they'll see? The only way I think they can collect is by withholding prize money (and that could take literally years, depending on how Rangers get on in the Scottish Cup.)

I'm more interested in the embargo. Fines against Whyte are non-enforceable. Fines against the club will see the SFA's bill added to H&D's debit column as a creditor.

Frankly I think the SFA should have sat on their hands - or continued to do so - until Rangers' tax dealing are clearer. I don't think today's outcome served anyone except those who want to keep the big hoose open at the cost of the game's integrity.

and how exactly do you work that out?

Based on your contention that a "token one-off punishment" hasn't been applied. That is, working of all available evidence, precisely what's happened. Unless you have something beyond mewling to bring to the table about future punishments, stop typing for a while.

^^^ absolutely raging (and, as usual, pointlessly so). You're in a minority of one here- but- who knows, time may yet prove you right. there no need to be quite so peevish and unpleasant about it though.

[Swampy]

Wonder when Whyte's going to step down as chairman?

Sun's setting over the lake, I'm away for a walk. (And when I get back, I want this place spotless.)

[WaffenThinMint]

They are planning a 1pm walkout on Sunday

But I thought they said "We Don't Do Walking Away", and even bought those stupid t-shirts in HMV to show it?

[Gaz FFC]

To suggest Rangers shouldn't be fined for entering administration as nobody else was is stupid.

Several teams have been in administration and we keep tightening the punishments to stop it happening repeatedly.

It's not like every team will get 1 shot at entering administration without the points deduction, the trick with administration is to do it 1st before the rules are tightened up

I would also question the reasons behind Rangers entering administration. Dundee (the last team to be in it) had too because the man paying the bills (Melville) decided he no longer wished too.

Rangers went in because of a completely different set of circumstances and owing more money than the Man City wage bill.

[Swampy]

Oh, go on, then.

It may be reduced on appeal. But Rangers will have to endure some length of transfer embargo.

So that's a no to the charity bet, I take it?

I'm more interested in the embargo. Fines against Whyte are non-enforceable. Fines against the club will see the SFA's bill added to H&D's debit column as a creditor.

Which means they'll get even less than if they witheld prize money!

You're putting a lot of eggs in this 'embargo' basket, it has to be said.

and how exactly do you work that out?

I regard tonight's punishment as a message to potential owners about the kind of treatment they can expect - and that treatment is largely tokenism.

^^^ absolutely raging (and, as usual, pointlessly so). You're in a minority of one here- but- who knows, time may yet prove you right. there no need to be quite so peevish and unpleasant about it though.

I'm swimming to the Shore of Reason against a tide of clapping seals here - all of whom are bobbing contentedly towards Disappointment Falls.

[well fan for life]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=217745

:lol:

I particularly enjoy his rant about "diverting funds to Hearts for Lee Wallace, which could be used to keep the club afloat."

Hearts are one of many people owed money by them, so fair play to the SFA for intervening. If they didn't, would that not count as shoplifting?