Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[stonedsailor]

This

I remember poll after poll on FF and every one of them were showing vast support for SFL3 with much lambasting of the clubs position who were desperate for SPL and then SFL1, it was only after that these routes were closed that the club released a statement embracing SFL3 alongside admitting it was what the fans wanted....this picture does not sit well with many on this board, it is however the reality.

I remember it differently to that Tedi. If those are facts you wont mind linking to those facts. We know you have folders of boomarks predating that time it wont be too much of a hassle for you to prove the majority wrong. We all know you love appearing to do so. You would never miss an opportunity like this. You can do it can't you?

[stonedsailor]

Quite so but the vast majority of the fans wanted the SPL with no sanctions or they wanted the SFL 3rd division as GIRFUY to the SPL.

I know for certain the vast majority of Rangers fans I know in the real world knew next to nothing about the complexities of their clubs demise, what most did want was for other clubs to suffer because of the pointing and laughing at their humiliating demise. Also they did say SPL with no sanctions or fcuk the lot of them including the associations.

In saying that MOST of the Rangers support couldn't fucking handle supporting a diddy Rangers club in the SPL and the gloating at 3 back to back promotions and the possible demise of quite a few SPL clubs before they got to the top tier was for them payback.

Like you say I do not know every Rangers fans motivation but the fans I do know wanted every of cnut to suffer with them.

You're right that's how I remember things too. Sorry.

[hellbhoy]

Now back to the future,

After reading the last few days on the BRALT the general consensus of the Rangers support is to starve the spivs out of the club so as not to give them a penny more, unfortunately for the fans this will not happen seeing as the spivs will end up with the clubs assets should the club go tits up from a high height.

This means the spivs will still be fleecing the fans for rental of any new incarnation of a Rangers club, try as they might the Rangers fans won't ever get rid of the spivs. They will have to accept that any Rangers FC will in the future have to pay rental to stay at Ibrox.

[AberdeenBud]

From what i remember it was SPL clubs who were demanding that Rangers fans should be kept in the SPL, infact Rangers fans were the first to go against this. What was st Mirrens part in this again?

The main reasons for me were that we'd need to rebuild and bring in youths, which would be impossible in the SPL, while the SFL would provie time for rebuilding. Only Ally never got that memo.

Yeah fair comment on our Chairman, made a complete c**t of himself and the club.

Learned his lesson though and behaved admirably during the reconstruction debacle.

You know my feelings on McCoist.

[stonedsailor]

You want links to FF?

The SPL survey was done before liquidation was a certainty, the comments on this thread alone confirm that, it was a rigged survey SPL or nothing were the options, the comments on the survey paint a different picture that was clear, there were hundreds of other comments all published on the SPL site, the address for those comments is still on the survey so they may well still exist, go look if this will satisfy you...I care not, I am content in my own mind things were as I say.

I didn't think you could.

[No8.]

^ ^ ^

Desperate rewriting of history.

Rangers fans embraced the SFL 3rd division when it came apparent that they were not getting rid of what Tedi deemed as an illegal transfer embargo, Rangers fans unlike the Hearts fans couldn't face supporting a severely weakened squad of players in the SPL and realistically facing relegation like Hearts have suffered through admin.

Rangers fans embraced the SFL 3rd division because they thought that the SPL Armageddon was imminent without a Rangers club in the SPL, they were rubbing their hands and smiling gleefully at the peddled demise of around 5 or 6 SPL clubs and desperately wanted other clubs to suffer death by liquidation even though the stupid cnuts believed that only Rangers could survive liquidation.

And if needed I could dig up No8's rant about it's the SPL without sanctions or we are off to the SFL 3rd division and fcuk you all.

I made my position perfectly clear two days after administration .... Rangers should have been relegated to the sfl3 for the behavior of then chairman Craig Whyte.

You keep casting up a drunken rant when i had had enough of half wits like you talking utter nonsense.

I am sure you will find my original post if you look hard enough...it was posted in the 16th of February .

I might be wrong but i believe only Bendarroch has openly enjoyed Killie..Hearts and Dunfermline suffering. I take absolutely zero comfort from it and wish them all the best. I would wish what we have suffered on no other Scottish club.

[CityDave]

Yeah fair comment on our Chairman, made a complete c**t of himself and the club.

Learned his lesson though and behaved admirably during the reconstruction debacle.

You know my feelings on McCoist.

Do you remember the infiltrator on the Saints board being show the door and the rumours on a hostile take over at St. Mirren by people involved with Rangers?.

What if it had happened and Craig Whyte shifted the Rangers assets over to St. Mirren leaving the mess behind with his company and then name changed St. Mirren and moved the club to Ibrox as the oldco liquidated?

Crazy and I doubt if it would have been legal, but at the time it looked like an option when those rumours were flying about and that person who was a close associate with Craig Whyte was punted.

Crazy

[AyrshireTon]

Celtic`s wage bill is over £40M it absolutely dwarfs everything, realistically they are only competing for 3 competitions, getting beat from Raith given our budget was embarrassing, how would you describe Celtic getting beat by Morton?

Fucking glorious.

Anyway, do carry on.

[CityDave]

What's happened to Bendarroch, does he not want to post anymore?

Is he alright, in good health?

[aDONisSheep]

Ach, whilst I'm reminiscing about what everyone claims they wanted/didn't want.

I think it's good to remember that in the SPL vote it was 10 against 1 abstained and 1 voted for NewRangers (by the way it was OldRangers that voted for NewRangers.... shurely shome mishtake .

On admission to SPL1? It was a mere 25-5 against.... Way to go!

Or as all NewRangers FC fans call it...... Turnbull Hutton-tastic!

Yours

aDONis

[Florentine_Pogen]

LEST WE FORGET 1

Clyde Football Club Statement: SFL Meeting
Wed, 4th Jul 2012 12:34pm
The club sent two directors to attend the meeting of the SFL clubs yesterday and they have reported back to the Board. The meeting and conversations covered the best part of 5 hours but there were only a few overarching themes.

The clear message portrayed is that Scottish Football is in a very dark place indeed and there is simply no good solution to what is now a structural problem that has gone beyond a one dimensional issue of where Rangers should play next season. No matter what happens now there is going to be enormous fallout across the Scottish game. Whether some good can be extracted from the impending mess will depend entirely on the SPL clubs, guided by the currently absent leadership of the SFA.

Neil Doncaster wanted only one thing from the meeting, to get a steer from the SFL clubs whether they would allow Rangers into SFL1. He talked the clubs through a detailed explanation of where the SPL clubs would lose £16m next season if Rangers were not entered to the top division of the SFL. This was delivered as a matter of fact, it was a "reality". It seems that most, if not all, major sponsors of the SPL have exit clauses if either of the 'Old Firm' are not within the SPL. The total figure was not new, but the detail behind the number and its impact on individual clubs in the SPL was set out clearly. There were challenges made regarding the flip side of saving the central income from sponsors and media, the obvious impact of loss of supporters to the game who have strongly voiced their intent. Supporter reaction has not been factored in, again there are realities, the SPL clubs are waiting on their Sky cheques in August and clearly that was more important. Nowhere in the presentation was account taken on the impact to the finances of clubs, and more importantly the relevance of the game, should supporters stay at home.

The consequential impact on the SFL from the presentation was that the SFL would lose its entitlement to circa £2m per annum from the Settlement Agreement put together to compensate the SFL for the SPL breakaway, this was made very clear by Neil Doncaster. He told the clubs that if the SPL didn't have the money then they could not pay the SFL. The reality however, which was clear from the detailed figures, is that the SPL, whilst losing an enormous amount of funding, would have the cash to make payment; it is just that the SPL would not meet the legal obligation to the SFL as the cash would be used to finance the SPL teams.

The undeniable statement made on behalf of the SPL is commercially understandable. The SPL would not allow £16m to flow out of their coffers, the impact would be too catastrophic for the SPL clubs to contemplate and as such the only options are that Rangers enter SFL1 or, as a less attractive backstop, a breakaway SPL2 will be formed. There is no prospect, from an SPL point of view, that SFL3 can be allowed to happen.

Neil Doncaster was delivering a very unpalatable proposition and he did it clearly and effectively, hence the representatives of Clyde Football Club understood that the only thing that mattered was the impact on SPL clubs from the loss of money from media and sponsors.

It was to the credit of every SFL club, and probably to the surprise of Neil Doncaster, that nobody asked him to improve on the £1m offer.

The SFL clubs were given a steer for themselves by Neil Doncaster, if the SFL could not tell him how they might vote, then he would expect the SPL clubs not to vote at their meeting either.

There were a few new things learned in the meeting, not least that the rules of the SFL would allow any club accepted into the SFL, by a simple majority, to be placed in any division. The rules do not state, nor imply, that they must join at the bottom tier, only custom and practice around good governance and integrity has seen teams join in the bottom tier. In addition, the attendees at the meeting were left in absolutely no doubt whatsoever by Stewart Regan that if the SPL clubs voted to allow a Newco into the SPL then it would be blocked by the SFA refusing to transfer the SFA membership. It was however caveated well enough to make it less than an absolute statement. The meeting was full of implied actions and outcomes, the use of clever language when delivering the speeches allows anyone to defend with ‘that is not what I said'. However, nobody will have left the meeting with anything other than the very clear messages being put across. Denials of the substance of the message being delivered do not assist anyone in this absolutely dreadful situation.

There will be no winners. Any level of integrity for the sport will be lost by one outcome and financial collapse, we are told, will fall upon the SPL with the other. Sadly, the SFA and SPL have decided that whilst they say they are looking for a collaborative solution, they have very clearly made sure that by their own inaction that the blame will sit with the SFL - no matter what the outcome. The Board of the SFL are being put under intolerable pressure by the other bodies looking to avoid the implications of properly applying their own governance procedures.

In summary, the SFA implication is that there will be no entry to the SPL. The SPL implication is that it therefore has to be SFL1 with a bit of restructure, or an SPL2 with the rest of the SFL cut adrift. There were no other options. Whilst Stewart Regan said that the SFA did not favour an SPL2, there was no equivalent abhorrence of that proposal as was attached to the proposal for a Newco in the SPL, leaving the implication that the door remains wide open for the SPL to secure their £16m with or without the SFL.

The Board of the club will consider the feedback from its representatives and also the outcomes of the next few days and will keep its supporters fully appraised, but in the meantime see no reason to amend any previous comment.

[Monkey Tennis]

What's happened to Bendarroch, does he not want to post anymore?

Is he alright, in good health?

I was wondering that.

It's been quite a while, right enough. Hope he's alright.

[Florentine_Pogen]

LEST WE FORGET 2

Clyde Statement 10-07-12

The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so.

The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL.

We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality.

It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions.

In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement.

To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league.

Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs.

The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3.

We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:-

(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.

(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.

(iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.

This post has been edited by Islay: Today, 20:06

[Florentine_Pogen]

LEST WE FORGET 3 Clyde Football Club Statement: Voting Intentions

Fri, 13th Jul 2012 9:14am

The proposals to change the league structure, its governance and distribution model are indeed for the good of the game. What is not for the good of the game are the circumstances in which it has been proposed. It is only on the table for short-term financial reasons. Neil Doncaster told the SFL clubs that the SPL would not allow Rangers to join the Third Division as the loss of £16m would not be countenanced, he is also on record as having said that a 16 team league would cost £20m, therefore we can hardly have confidence that the focus on finance will allow these proposals to come to life.

What is also not for the good of the game is 30 clubs being asked to vote knowing that a vote for Resolution 1 has a very high chance of being ignored by the SFA attempting to avoid any suggestion of what they perceive to be a dereliction of their duty. Such statements undermine basic democracy. Equally, voting blind to admit an organisation who has no membership of the SFA at a time when there is no vacancy in the SFL is not for the good of the game. Almost everything about this long run process is not for the good of the game.

It would not be for the good of the game to compound the problems of a club by refusing entry to the SFL for Rangers Football Club. We will therefore take that leap of faith and vote in favour of Resolution 1 despite not a single word of reasoning having been provided to support the Resolution.

On the basis that short-term financial drivers have not been for the good of the game in the past, then we will not support Resolution 2. It has unfortunately enmeshed positive change for the game with a proposal to admit Sevco Scotland Ltd to the First Division for the purposes of shoring up the short-term financial model which has to date failed The Game.

The interests of the game will be served by decisions being made genuinely for the long-term benefit of the whole of Scottish Football, and not short term benefit for a few clubs.

Our decision has at times had to defy logic and question our own short term interests as others focus on theirs. Given that the SPL and SFA have signalled a clear intention to act against any decision that might result in Sevco Scotland Ltd being admitted to the Third Division, then the limited logic left in this process points to them as believing they have the monopoly of wisdom on what is good for the game. We can expect that, no matter what the SFL clubs decide, Sevco Scotland will not be playing in the Third Division in the coming season. How more short-termism can be for the good of the game really does defy logic.

When the dust settles on this affair, it would be good to think that we can all get back to watching football. Sadly, no matter how it turns out today, some will not return to our game.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Florentine_Pogen

[GreenockRover]

^^^^^

Timely reminder there FP.

Yet these two farts are STILL in post along with Ogilvie.....?

Much yet to be done I fear.....

Edited May 12, 2014 by GreenockRover

[aDONisSheep]

and to kick them out of the football league altogether it was 29-1 against.....common sense prevailed.

In fairness, it wasn't kicking out, it was on not admitting to the SFL.

Yours

aDONis

[hellbhoy]

I made my position perfectly clear two days after administration .... Rangers should have been relegated to the sfl3 for the behavior of then chairman Craig Whyte.

You keep casting up a drunken rant when i had had enough of half wits like you talking utter nonsense.

I am sure you will find my original post if you look hard enough...it was posted in the 16th of February .

I might be wrong but i believe only Bendarroch has openly enjoyed Killie..Hearts and Dunfermline suffering. I take absolutely zero comfort from it and wish them all the best. I would wish what we have suffered on no other Scottish club.

No matter what you post No8 it is as clear as the nose on your face that you No8 did not want to go down to the bottom division for sporting integrity reasons. You couldn't handle watching a team of youngsters in the SPL badly depleted by a transfer embargo being relegated not long after liquidation was imminent, that was the crux of your drunken rant.

Sporting integrity my fucking arsehole.

[Florentine_Pogen]

LEST WE FORGET 4

The tens of millions Rangers denied SPL clubs laid bare

Posted on 18 May, 2012 by Paul67

The SPL deadline for clubs to provide information on improper registration of players was six weeks ago today but the league has yet to report findings to clubs, while the chief executive rallies support to allow a Newco access to the league.

Time has expired on this policy of non-disclosure until it’s too late.

If the SPL chief executive ever tells us that Rangers fielded improperly registered players between 2000 and 2012, resulting in years of 3-0 defeats being awarded, there will be an enormous amount of anger, not only among supporters, but in boardrooms across the country, as they ponder money which was rightfully theirs but which went to Rangers – perhaps including Rangers prize money for finishing second this season.

We have made an attempt to quantify this money. Some of the losses were easier to calculate than others. For example, it was easy to calculate that when Rangers won the title in 2009 with improperly registered players, earning automatic qualification to the Champions League group stage, they denied Celtic £15m European earnings, plus £340k SPL prize money. Other losses are less clear, specifically when a club was denied a place in a qualifying round for the Champions League or Uefa Cup, which they may or may not have progressed from.

We have established three figures for each club in the SPL during the season just finished, to cover the period from 2000 to 2012:

Minimum loss:
The absolute minimum each club was denied from European and SPL prize money as a result of Rangers finishing above them with ineligible players.

Weighted loss:
The figure based on Scottish clubs gaining entry to Champions League/Europa League (Uefa Cup) group stages from 20% of their qualifying campaigns (which is slightly less than trend).

Maximum loss:
The maximum a club could have achieved if it qualified for the European group stage it was denied entry to.

Out estimates take no account of the subsequent effect money has on future years. For example, If Celtic earned an additional £15m from entering the Champions League group stage in 2009-10 their league challenge for that season would have been £15m stronger, and Rangers £15m weaker, potentially resulting in consequences in future years.

This multiplier effect would have benefited Celtic but it would be likely to have a greater effect on other clubs, some of whom would be denied the enormous percentage increase in budget automatic qualification to European group stages would have brought.

Hearts finished immediately behind Celtic and Rangers more often than any other club over the period and suffer the greatest potential losses, even more so than Celtic. Hibernian, Aberdeen, Dundee United and Motherwell also suffered significant losses.

Several clubs got nowhere near European football over the period, and some of the 11 spent only a few years in the SPL but each club lost over £1m.

Figures for each club are:

Hearts
Maximum: £72.3m
Weighted: £16.3m
Minimum: £6.2m

Celtic
Maximum: £46.7m
Weighted: £21.9m
Minimum: £17.4m

Hibernian
Maximum: £34.8m
Weighted: £8.4m
Minimum: £3.6m

Aberdeen
Maximum: £21.1m
Weighted: £5.5m
Minimum: £2.7m

Dundee United
Maximum: £20.8m
Weighted: £5.2m
Minimum: £2.4m

Motherwell
Maximum: £16.7m
Weighted: £4.4m
Minimum: £2.1m

Kilmarnock
Maximum: £5.1m
Weighted: £1.9m
Minimum: £1.3m

Dunfermline
Maximum: £3.4m
Weighted: £1.8m
Minimum: £1.5m

Inverness
Maximum: £1.3m
Weighted: £1.3m
Minimum: £1.3m

St Johnstone
Maximum: £1.1m
Weighted: £1.1m
Minimum: £1.1m

St Mirren
Maximum: £1.1m
Weighted: £1.1m
Minimum: £1.1m

In the event Rangers fielded ineligible players during the period under consideration, which everyone apart from Neil Doncaster knows, and even he will be unable to deny next week, we know the following:

Rangers received a minimum of £40.9m which should have gone to the 11 other clubs, assuming each clubs lost all their European group stage qualifying campaigns. This calculation does not include earnings from clubs now in the Scottish Football League, such as Hamilton Accies or Dundee.

If Scottish clubs progressed to the group stages of European competition on only 20% of their qualifying campaigns the loss would be £69.0m.

The figure for total potential losses if clubs successfully progressed to every European group stage is, as the figure for 100% failure, more illustrative than likely, but the maximum cost to the 11 SPL clubs is £224.6m.

Results will be changed, trophies can and will, be re-awarded, but these are the harsh financial consequences clubs, their lawyers and supporters, will consider when the facts are presented to them next week. The SPL executive has had six weeks to consider if there is sufficient evidence to commence disciplinary proceedings; they have failed to do so. They have failed you and every other football supporter in the land, while shamelessly pursuing an accommodation for the errant club BEFORE REVEALING THE FACTS TO YOU.

Time will be up soon, Mr Doncaster. You’ve had your chance but you have convinced no one. The people who really matter in this entire debacle are those who buy tickets for Celtic Park, Pittodrie, Easter Road, Tynecastle, Tannadice, Fir Park and the rest, they will hear the truth and read these figures. You have failed them.

You can read our calculations here. European income figures were sources from Uefa data.

[hellbhoy]

Missing the point and back to the new club old club yer deid argument, this really is all you have left.

Tedi it is you who is missing the point as usual. The vote was to allow a newco Rangers into the leagues to which the Oldco Rangers also took part in a vote.

It has fcuk all to do with new club, same club argument.

eta, Tedi do explain how a club gets to vote whether or not it is allowed to enter back into a league to which you believe it's the same club ?, remember it was the clubs in the SPL who voted.

Edited May 12, 2014 by hellbhoy

[aDONisSheep]

Missing the point and back to the new club old club yer deid argument, this really is all you have left.

Missing the point to/of what? Was the vote to kick Sevco out?

I take it the toaster is a dig at Aberdeen. It's difficult to tell these days, because as any NewRangers fan will tell you, the club has no legal personality and as such cannot own assets such as toasters.

Of course I don't believe in such nonsense, so, "Grrrrrr you scally-wag" making fun of Aberdeen Football Club and toasters!

Yours

aDONis

Edited May 12, 2014 by aDONisSheep