Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

As Dhen has already said - Beautiful. There's possibly a few 'journos' in Scotland, especially on the West coast, that wish they could write a piece like this but they either don't have the cerebral ability to construct it or their editor doesn't have the cojones to publish it.

Thanks WulliesTache, that was a pleasure to read over breakfast.

It's just a rant, the few valid points that he could have made are washed away in a torrent of spite and bitterness. I never realised that the history thing got to so many people so badly, it really was an eye opener. Rangers fans have already given their reasons earlier in this thread but the wannabe ref has blatantly ignored them to play to the galleries.

He nearly made a good point about the security but as usual he just couldn't help himself and tried to imitate another posters style.

Now further up the board there was a post from MacShimmy, short, straight to the point and bang on the money.

[Bookies Love Me]

It's just a rant, the few valid points that he could have made are washed away in a torrent of spite and bitterness. I never realised that the history thing got to so many people so badly, it really was an eye opener. Rangers fans have already given their reasons earlier in this thread but the wannabe ref has blatantly ignored them to play to the galleries.

He nearly made a good point about the security but as usual he just couldn't help himself and tried to imitate another posters style.

Now further up the board there was a post from MacShimmy, short, straight to the point and bang on the money.

FFS bennett, your standards are rocketing.

Legible, coherent, addresses the point, isn't on one line and isn't sarcy!

Are you off the juice or what?

A new dawn has broken, long may it last.

[BinoBalls]

I agree with this.

It's just that they've already learned to live with a far bigger dent to that pride.

They'd cope with this one more easily.

Agree it's been blown way out of proportion but thousands of fans feel this way, so what is the reason?

I'm assuming many Rangers fans don't know that several clubs already do this, they have their head in the sand when it comes to Rangers and any negative changes are greeted with far less sense of perspective than fans of other clubs.

Just witness the march on Hampden, or the way soccerball Bill was driven away, or the petulant boycott of Tannadice.

I think it all ties in with the usual sense of entitlement. Spoiled children overreact whenever they don't get their way, no matter if it's something big or small, because they do not have the mindset to cope calmly with adversity.

Now this means a sizeable amount of highly strung Bears dig their heels in and overblow the prospect of sale and leaseback, then, before you know it, there's a tidal wave of opinion and almost every Rangers fan is against it, even although they couldn't adequately articulate why it's so unpalatable.

For the more intelligent Bears, the above applies to a leaser extent, but in (e.g.) Tedi's case he may also be sick fed up of the board and this is the first really huge thing that he can finally cite as the last straw to walk away for a trial separation of fan & club.

[Happy Buddie]

Apparently the Record went with the headline - Gers Board Cave In

but the first paragraph read .... The Rangers board were on the brink of caving in last night .....

Aye .. right ye are then !!

Delaying tactics to suck the suckers in. "Get Yir Season Tickets" before the deadline, 'cos we're gonnae give ye Ibrox n Murray Pak (no' really, we're jist sayin' that tae get yir money)

[Florentine_Pogen]

It's just a rant, the few valid points that he could have made are washed away in a torrent of spite and bitterness. I never realised that the history thing got to so many people so badly, it really was an eye opener. Rangers fans have already given their reasons earlier in this thread but the wannabe ref has blatantly ignored them to play to the galleries.

He nearly made a good point about the security but as usual he just couldn't help himself and tried to imitate another posters style.

Now further up the board there was a post from MacShimmy, short, straight to the point and bang on the money.

Opinions, eh Benny ?

BTW, did you need assistance to knock that together ?

If so, your carer did a splendid job.

If it was all your own work, well done you.

[Happy Buddie]

As Dhen has already said - Beautiful. There's possibly a few 'journos' in Scotland, especially on the West coast, that wish they could write a piece like this but they either don't have the cerebral ability to construct it or their editor doesn't have the cojones to publish it.

Thanks WulliesTache, that was a pleasure to read over breakfast.

Aye, and the journos who keep saying "since the club went into administration" not liquidation, 'cos they don't want to upset their main income stream.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Aye, and the journos who keep saying "since the club went into administration" not liquidation, 'cos they don't want to upset their main income stream.

'Twas ever thus in Bigotville. From the papers to the entertainers.

Billy Connolly in 1975 - "I'm a Partick Thistle supporter."

[Happy Buddie]

Just as an aside to this.

Bearz. What if...

Some "real" sugar-daddy came along and agreed to buy out the whole package.

On the proviso that the club was to re-locate to a 70K capacity, state-of-the-art, new ground (a la Emirates/Etihad) and that ibrox was to be bulldozed, and the land sold, as part payment for the said new ground.

Could you swallow your "pride" and move on, or would you dig your heels in like a screaming 3-year-old "because of tradition"?

Would you let the uof stand in the way of progress?

Look at what's happened to my team, we moved away from our spiritual home in Love Street, albeit with financial help from Tesco Sugar-daddy, but most of us could see it was a pre 1950s shithole, requiring vast amounts of cash to bring it up to modern standards. I know we get slagged off for having a Lego stadium, but it is 21st century, if not exactly state-of-the-art, easily meeting current safety standards (compare, please, to Firhill's rabbit warren) pretty solidly built, in a low-maintenance cost design. From my understanding, Ibrox as it is, rqeuires a huge amount spent to allow a capacity crowd (whnever that's going to happen) and its mainly 1960s construction now requires very costly ongoing routine maintenance. Sometimes you just have to bite that bullet and decide what's best for the future of the team (club, company, clumpany, whatever).

[aofjays]

It is not that I am against the use of assets to raise finance, investment is not free, by its very nature you need a return, but why the need to sell? If I needed to raise money I could go to a bank and raise capital through a mortgage with the necessary security being granted on my house should I default, this route would be open to the board without having to enter into a leaseback arrangement, the terms of which are likely to be far more onerous.

Sure there are examples of other clubs renting stadiums, however it invariably ends in disagreement, Coventry for example, hell even Airdrieonians have been making noises about a move to Cliftonhill to escape the onerous facility now in place.

With regards to 'sale and leaseback' the term or idea itself has not publicly been put forward by anyone at Ibrox it has existed purely in the domain of 'east end' bloggers and their kind and picked up by those who see it as the ultimate humiliation.

To me given the mortgage finance option, a move to 'sale and leaseback' would seem a definite ploy to rape the club indefinitely, it reeks of spivery and in no way seems like a good long term option in the best interest of the club, this is one reason why I would vehemently oppose it, the other which is also why I am currently against any sort of finance raising by this board on the assets is that I believe they would virtually steal any capital raised, we have raised £70M and a blind man can see that the bulk of this money has left the club for reasons that have nothing to do with football.

What makes you think any bank would loan your club money? Ibrox isn't really worth anything without a football club attached.

[Florentine_Pogen]

What makes you think any bank would loan your club money? Ibrox isn't really worth anything without a football club attached.

Err......Chuckles reckoned The Deathstar and The Sir David Murray Academy was worth 5.5 million, didn't he ?

[Ross.]

Exactly the same argument could be used against purchase then.

Not if you were buying it with the intention of renting it to a football club, and conveniently had a contract written up with that football club at the same time as the purchase.

The mortgage wouldn't work because the bank would be lending money against the value of the ground in a worst case scenario.(Never mind the consideration of Rangers as creditworthy). The sale and lease back works because there is no security involved.

[Happy Buddie]

It requires investment yes but your suggestion that this is some form stopping it getting capacity crowds is nonsense, there have been numerous occasions over the last few seasons alone that the ground has been filled to very near capacity, there is absolutely nothing in the maintenance of the ground which is currently lowering its capacity.

No? Sorry, I've obviously been misinformed, I had heard there was a relatively small section which can't be used due to underlying structural probelms. Saying that, my point of the next capacity crowd being uncertain in timescale is that it's only going to happen when your team meets the other ugly sister.

[Happy Buddie]

It is not that I am against the use of assets to raise finance, investment is not free, by its very nature you need a return, but why the need to sell? If I needed to raise money I could go to a bank and raise capital through a mortgage with the necessary security being granted on my house should I default, this route would be open to the board without having to enter into a leaseback arrangement, the terms of which are likely to be far more onerous.

Sure there are examples of other clubs renting stadiums, however it invariably ends in disagreement, Coventry for example, hell even Airdrieonians have been making noises about a move to Cliftonhill to escape the onerous facility now in place.

With regards to 'sale and leaseback' the term or idea itself has not publicly been put forward by anyone at Ibrox it has existed purely in the domain of 'east end' bloggers and their kind and picked up by those who see it as the ultimate humiliation.

To me given the mortgage finance option, a move to 'sale and leaseback' would seem a definite ploy to rape the club indefinitely, it reeks of spivery and in no way seems like a good long term option in the best interest of the club, this is one reason why I would vehemently oppose it, the other which is also why I am currently against any sort of finance raising by this board on the assets is that I believe they would virtually steal any capital raised, we have raised £70M and a blind man can see that the bulk of this money has left the club for reasons that have nothing to do with football.

Investing in The Rangers to eventually walk away with a sale and leaseback arrangement on Ibrox in your tail pocket would be a financial wet-dream for most City boys, given a return on investment well into double figures, even better than investing in a nice central London flat, without the "property bubble bursting" threat

[aofjays]

His point was that there would be no football club.

No, it wasn't. My point was Ibrox is next to worthless without a football club. When deciding how much money they could give your club a bank would look how much they could claw back from the asset in the event the club doesn't pay. As this value is relatively small the loan would also be small or not worth the risk to the bank. In the sale and leaseback situation the stand would be worth a lot more as it has a football club attached.

[Happy Buddie]

Which means ( in a colourful way) you are agreeing with me.

SHIT!!!! (ok)

[aofjays]

Look you cannot have it both ways.

The risk is the same to a lender or purchaser, the risk of the club not being there is exactly the same, in fact with leaseback it is greater as the terms are likely to be even more onerous and there is the added risk of the club deciding to play its football elsewhere, just like Coventry did.

Anyway this is diverging...

The question was 'why are Rangers fans against 'sale and leaseback' I have supplied the reasons why I would be against it, it has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with what is best for the club in the long term.

I'm not having it both ways. The bank can only loan as much as it thinks it will get back whereas a buyer will pay what they think to be good value, these two figures have no need to be the same. My main point was really do you honestly think any bank would loan your club money? As a wise man once said, the banks will only loan you money once you prove that you don't actually need it. I do agree with you that the terms are likely to be even more onerous with a leaseback, however this is just another reason why it's more attractive to money men.

[aofjays]

You are.

As I said the risk of the club not being there is exactly the same under both circumstances, with the added risk under leaseback that the club could decide to up sticks.

This is not about what is best for the money men, the question is why are Rangers fans against sale and leaseback, the fact the it is better for the moneymen is a huge reason why Rangers fans should and are against it, so like the St.Mirren fan you are actually agreeing with me, this pride idea is looking more and more flimsy with every non Ranger fans contribution.

No, you've misunderstood my point. I agree with you entirely that sale and leaseback is a bad thing. I'm asking what makes you think you have a choice.

[cyderspaceman]

FFS bennett, your standards are rocketing.

Legible, coherent, addresses the point, isn't on one line and isn't sarcy!

Are you off the juice or what?

A new dawn has broken, long may it last.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe his account has been hacked.

[AberdeenBud]

Spivs on the run?

It certainly seems that way with last night's olive(orange) branch to the People's Front of Judea . Can't help but think those withholding their season ticket money should continue to do so. This is the first time they spivs/gangsters are not fully in control of events and they obviously don't like it.

The thing is, what's stopping another switcheroo to another set of spivs at the next insolvency event?

Interesting discussion regarding Ibrokes above, can't help but think the spivs are using the fans pride and emotional attachment to the place against them. It might help hasten their exit if the fans showed they were prepared to do a Coventry and play somewhere else rather than have their ground used as a pension fund.

The Bears certainly seem to be more organised and determined this time round(i know wouldn't be difficult) , but you can't help but feel it's a touch too little too late. They'd be too proud and possibly ignorant to admit it but there must be quite a lot of regrets with the way the fans behaved during the Whyte/Greene era.

Edited May 15, 2014 by AberdeenBud

[Apache Don]

I do not think I have misunderstood anything, it is clear you would like to see 'sale and leaseback' and are therefore arguing a case of better rewards for the moneymen, I am not disagreeing with this at all, however we both agree it is a bad thing for the club, I just happen to think that if we had a different board that were acting in the clubs best interest then finance would be able to be raised against the assets as the club would be seen as a viable business with paying customers, perhaps we may disagree on this point but that is fine by me.

At the moment anyone considering purchasing the stadium for a sale and leaseback situation would be taking a huge risk, it is perfectly clear that the tide has turned and the Rangers fans are willing to stay away in the face of blatant spivery, the purchaser would be very likely to have a stadium with no club attached because it simply will have no customers left.

But again we are diverging aren't we?

Not sure that the point in bold has been proven yet. Your club is in close season, there are no matches to ''stay away'' from. So most are holding back from buying STs but did you not say yourself, that you were going to adopt 'pay at the gate' and if most of the others do the same, how is that staying away. Also, seems an odd and hypocritical stance to take, in light of the criticism of the one follow follower on here, who has actually come out and said he will ''stay away''.