Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[EdinburghPar1975]

The green brigades display was well done but i wonder what they'll do with their Saturdays if Rangers are away for a few seasons? I very much doubt that they'll all be at Celtic games with no OF games to look foward to...

[Captain_Sensible]

Fair play to these Celtic fans, calling for their own club to die.

[uni]

Some decent photos of it here. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse banner was pretty funny.

I know this has nothing to do with Rangers' administration (or it may) but why were the Rangers fans doing the Poznan/Huddle?

[chrismcarab]

Here's my analogy of the recent march and Sandy Jardines comments:

Anyone seen the movie Gladiator?

That's what it's like. The veiled threats and undertones in his words are from a crumbling empire who knows it's days are numbered. They think that we are all going to die at the end of this battle. Maybe so Sandy, but if our clubs do all end up following your unapologetic poisonous ruin of an an establishment into the myre, rest assured we will still consider this a victory - we will take solace in knowing we had the pleasure of watching you die first. Good riddance.

All rationale sympathy I used to have for this lot and the little folks it will affect has now long since gone.

Edited April 29, 2012 by chrismcarab

[WeeHectorPar]

Mate, my brother knows Lemmy and I can assure you he's probably never heard of them, not a big footie fan. Please explain how being a Fraser makes you connected with the rAngers. His dad was a minister does that mean he's a secret lodge member

Great song

As a Fraser I can say that the only member of my family who was a Gers fan was my maternal grandfather. Wouldn't let a catholic in the door and told his kids if they ever married one they would be disowned. My paternal grandfather cleared off to the States in the 40s so I don't know anything about any brothers or sisters he had and only my dad and I were into football, supporting the Pars.

I know my Di must be turning in his grave and if he was still alive he would be out there with a shotgun hunting down all those that have been involved in killing his darling Rangers. And he wouldn't be lapping up all the crap that the Bears are being fed on the sites.

[timomouse]

Total nonsense. If Rangers didn't exist then that £70 million the Rangers fans spend on travel wouldn't disappear. Those Rangers fans would have £70 million extra money to spend on other leisure activities.

But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

[doulikefish]

But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

Good only bigots from that live in scotland to get rid of

[Forest_Fifer]

So McCoist doesn't know what his squad will be next season but "we will all be back". How's that, then, Ally? Play them as ringers and hope nobody notices? Actually, yeah - do that, Ally. It'll be fine (pardon the pun).

Glasgow Ringers FC?

Sorry,I'll go now......

[banana]

But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

Fallacious justifications FTW!

[Captain_Sensible]

But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

Its no suprise to see a Celtic fan sticking up for Rangers. After all, Celtic have the most to lose if Rangers go under.

£70 million is less than 0.01% of GDP in Scotland. Its trival. Its a spit in the ocean. Of that, a small % is made up from people who travel from outwith Scotland. The total is negligible.

And the money isn't taken out of the economy. It doesn'y suddennly disappear. It will get spent elsewhere. For every job lost (which would be minimal, if any at all), a job elsewhere would be created.

And let's not forget that a more competitive league (which be especually so if we could also get shot of Celtic) would result on fans of diddy clubs spending more money travelling the country.

[WaffenThinMint]

Might be a repost but....

http://www.telegraph...ontroversy.html

The head of HMRC is standing down at the end of the year - the article suggests that this is due to the controversies surrounding the 'sweetheart' deals with the likes of Goldman's and Vodafone.

Interesting time with the announcement of this. This resignation will surely heighten the profile of the Rangers case down in London. There don't appear to be any potential successors mentioned at the present time but it suggests that the current HMRC team and whoever the new successor is, will be toeing a harder line on future high profile cases.

In other words, the person coming in (and who will be "shadowing" the existing head - ie. being shown the ropes and gradually taking over power de facto increasingly) will be determined to make an example to show they're tough.

In other words Rangers are even more up the creek than they were before (considerable as that already was...)

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

Really? I thought Glasgow hotels were reliant on finding ever cheaper and more exploitable foreign workers to survive.

If there's one sector of the economy never to feel sorrow for, it's the hospitality trade, who treat their staff like utter shit and pay them what isn't fit for a dog. As for "football tourism", that's about as much "tourism" as the pub crawl circuit is "tourism".

[timomouse]

Fallacious justifications FTW!

How so? You've the Glasgow Swallow on Paisley Road - 5 mins walk from Ibrox. Full every game. Without any games at Ibrox, their weekend revenue will drop like a stone and they'd have to let people go. You've got Pizza Hut and KFC 5 mins walk away as well. Again, their income would drop massively. At the end of the day, Alex Salmond and HMRC don't care about sporting integrity, they care about numbers and job losses in Glasgow (not counting those who work at Ibrox) are hardly going to help the economy.

One debate I've read on this before that I think is interesting is a Dons fan who said he felt no pity for those working for Rangers in a non-footballing capacity (cleaners, etc) as "they know the history of the club and what it represents". That's as equally a callous way of looking at it as is just looking at figures. But I wrote those three blog posts to stir debate so, at the end of the day, any opinions stated on the posts, I'm more than happy to discuss because the more the numbers are discussed, the better we can understand the decisions SPL chairmen are going to make.

[timomouse]

Its no suprise to see a Celtic fan sticking up for Rangers. After all, Celtic have the most to lose if Rangers go under.

That's very much not the case. From the last of the blog posts:

Total Cost of the admittance of Rangers NewCo to Celtic = £4.55m merchandising + £500k - £17.7m match day revenue = £12.65m loss per season (but once the European money is added, Celtic could be about £7.35 million better off over per season than they are currently)

If Celtic hold up their end of the bargain on the pitch, they win either way. Getting into the Champions League groups is worth a legitimate £20 million to the club and qualification to the Champions playoffs is all but certain. Celtic can easily survive without Rangers as long as they perform to their potential on the pitch and, if/when a NewCo got into the SPL, their revenues would rise further. Whatever happens to Rangers, if Celtic perform on the pitch, they are quids in.

[WILLIEA]

the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive.

Complete and utter bullsh*t

[WILLIEA]

How so? You've the Glasgow Swallow on Paisley Road - 5 mins walk from Ibrox. Full every game. Without any games at Ibrox, their weekend revenue will drop like a stone and they'd have to let people go.

That hotel ( dosshouse ) relies on contracts from the shipping companies.

[Disco Duck]

Getting into the Champions League groups is worth a legitimate £20 million to the club and qualification to the Champions playoffs is all but certain.

Is that certain, in the same way as they were certain to win the treble this season? Certain that the referee in the SCLC final had cost Lennon that treble?

Or certain in the sense of Celtic certainly exhibiting all the signs of hubris?

[Fife Saint]

All this heart-warming concern for large international franchises is trivial.

It's overshadowed by the statutory moral integrity of the league. Get these c***s nailed to a cross and let's move on.

[yorkshirepud]

But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.

I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.

But takings may actually go up as more people realise they won't be subjected to the bigoted bile of OF fans and decide to have a night out in Glasgow? I live in England and many people I speak to still have this image of a hard city when they talk about Glasgow. Much of that stems from their perception of Scotland as shown by Sky. I also know plenty of pubs in Scotland who refuse point blank to show any game involving either of the twisted sisters and they are the pubs who thrive at weekends as they go after different target markets. Other clients will fill the void if the marketing is right.

[Broken Algorithms]

I know the majority of the people posting on here won't be interest in Rovers finances, but some Rangers fans took it upon themselves to pass judgement on Raith given Drysdale's involvement on the commitee. In the 'New Raith Rovers Thread on the first division, Toddy just posted this he pulled from DAFC.net. I fucking love when fans of local teams look out for each other. Cheers you townie b*****ds,

FTOF!

Here`s a little bit of info that i just pulled from DAFC.NET ( Thanks to Londonparsfan ). Maybe you should pass this onto any other stupid delusional Rangers fans that you may know.

http://dafc.info/for...56920&t=1156920

seemed to have vanished just as I'd typed this epic educational piece aimed at delusional Rangers fans. Having invested that much time I'm bloody posting it!!!!!

Actually I'm going to play in the hope we can at least educate one person as to why nobody is out to get Rangers and comparisons like these are completely pointless as the scenarios are not even remotely connected. So response is as follows:

- loss for the year £162,000 (2010: loss £73,000) -

surprisingly good for Rovers tbh, we're in the process of losing more than that having just been in the SPL.

- balance sheet insolvent to the tune of £1.4m - not the greatest but not exactly the worst.

The liabilities are being serviced as best they can and hopefully they will erode the overall debt. circa £10 million better than us and about £100 million better than Rangers not to mention less than most SPL sides. Not entirely sure what a small club being in debt has to do with the judicial process?

- this excludes £201,000 of unpaid rent that the landlords have waived for the moment but retain the right to claim later.

Lucky Rovers having flexible creditors, fair play for taking the time to make an arrangement that benefits them financially.

- net current liabilities £310,000 - payroll taxes and VAT outstanding of £78,000 (2010: £118,000)

A business has outgoings? Really? Now that is a big surprise.

- was only able to pay some of its bills because other directors paid in £52,000

Well played the directors for paying the clubs bills with their own money. Now if only all clubs would do that....

going concern emphasis of matter by the auditors which cast "significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern".

This is standard auditor language and due to the way football finance runs its on just about every set of footballing returns I've ever seen including ours. What is your point here?

- disclosure that "the company does not have formal funding facilities in place that allow it to meet its liabilities as they fall due".

Most clubs don't and again this is frequent language used by auditors in football. Again completely irrelevant to anything to do with what is happening at Rangers it just means that Rovers are a small business who don't have formal funding facilities. It doesn't mean they can't fund them.

- disclosure that a group restructuring took place in 2005, the terms of which were "incorrectly documented" and an "assumed waiver of the loan ... has not in fact been made".

No idea about this and I can't be @rsed looking up what happened as it's completely irrelevant to the Rangers situation. If anyone at Raith has made any errors that require a penalty then that would be investigated and charged by whichever appropriate governing body (football or financial) was the correct one to pursue the issue. I might be wrong but as far as I know no such charge has been made.

Drysdale owned 0.0003% of the 327,400 ordinary shares and 0.5% of the 10,000 preference shares. If he has made any money in banking, it doesn't appear that he has invested it in football.

It's his money he can do what he likes with it. If the Rovers didn't want him on the board then they wouldn't have him. There is also the possibility that he has put money into the club but not for shares. It might very well be his cash that is being used to pay the bills either as a donation or a loan. You don't know from this.

Although there were payroll taxes and VAT due at the year end, these weren't necessarily overdue at that time. How £78,000 was paid in full the following month when there was only £27,000 in the bank at 30 June would be a legitimate question to ask. Likewise the year before, £118,000 taxes due but £44,000 in the bank.

It is a legitimate question to ask and can probably be found in the following in the next set of accounts. Most likely a director has had to fork out his own cash to keep the club ticking over.

In the interests of transparency, perhaps Drysdale would like to make a statement confirming that, during his directorship, Raith Rovers have never been late with any tax payments. If he is sitting in judgement of Rangers on these matters, surely that's the least we can expect?

No. Raith's taxes are nothing to do with the case. He was sitting in judgement of an independent SFA investigation which has nothing to do with Raith Rovers. To be on that panel he would have had to pass the appropriate background checks something which the owner of Ranger's failed to do. Crucially he SFA charges are nothing to do with the taxes Rangers owe. That is another issue which should be looked at separately and if any wrong doing is found, prosecuted by the appropriate body with a punishment relative to (no more and no less) any offences that Rangers are guilty of. The SFA charges were:

"Rule 1 (b): All members shall: (b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, Fifa, Uefa or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

"Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

"Rule 14 (g): Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated, or a fine may be issued, in any of the following circumstances:- (g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an insolvency event.

"Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

"Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football and shall not act in any manner which is improper."

The full sanction under 14(g) could have been invoked but wasn't.

Anything to do with B&B is even less relevant than the above but the one point I will answer is the companies file late returns all the time and pay the fine. It's not good practice but is unlikely to leave you as an unfit person under the SFA checks.

All in all you've successfully managed to highlight that Rovers are skint and a business doing pretty much nothing (if it's biggest loss was 7K and the balance was 15K) was closed down (scary term liquidated). All of which are completely irrelevant to what is going on at Rangers.

Please please copy and paste this onto whichever Rangers forum you lifted the above from so people can stop trying to make comparisons which are completely daft.

There have been numerous transfer embargo's for clubs not paying money due to other clubs across the whole of Europe. This is nothing specific to Ranger both Dundee and Livi have been here. It is unfortunate for Rangers that the timing may have an impact on their market appeal but if anyone does take them over they just have to consider that in their offer.

The plus side is that there will be little need for any complex tax structures as there won't be any new registrations. I don't want to see any club go to the wall but the hysteria around Rangers being hard done by is laughable. If the SFA had revoked their membership which would have been completely unprecedented then you would have a point but this is guff.

[timomouse]

Is that certain, in the same way as they were certain to win the treble this season? Certain that the referee in the SCLC final had cost Lennon that treble?

Or certain in the sense of Celtic certainly exhibiting all the signs of hubris?

Without Rangers in the league, it is certain that Celtic will win the title for the forseeable future and, therefore, certain they will qualify into the Champions phase of qualifying - should have made myself clearer there. They just have to perform against the opposition put in front of them and, if it's Malmo and Dinamo Zagreb (who they played after beating Rangers), Celtic are more likely than not to reach the groups, albeit even the most optimistic Celtic fan would have to admit that even then we'll screw it up somehow!

I don't think that's much of an assumption. Take Rangers out of the league and bookies would offer very skinny odds on Celtic winning the league. I'd be prepared to go with their assessment, after all, they've most to lose.