Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

1…4748505253…150

Comments

  • #1472
    premierstone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,706 ✭✭✭premierstone


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Again the rule has been in place for a long time that rules are not changed mid season whether Rangers are guilty or not this is wrong or are you to bitter to see this if this happens we are as well throwing the rule book out of the window
    Eirebear wrote: »
    Really?
    Is that the best you've got?

    Not only is your point entirely superflous but your also missing the actual issue by about a mile.

    What we're seeing in progress is a "Kangaroo Court", changing the rules and punishments to suit is not what i expect from a governing body within any walk of life.
    Change the rules afterwards, just like they did after Motherwell - who escaped any form of punishment. Or Gretna, after which more stringent laws were put in place, like the ones which saw Livingstone relegated to Division 3.

    To change the laws during the case however, is not only immoral but also makes a mockery of any law the SPL put forward from now on.

    Now, if you'd bothered to read my post before jumping in with your oh so witty little quip, you would have seen that A) I fully expect punishment for breaking the rules.
    B) However i DO NOT expect the shambles that is the SPL to block any chance Rangers have of exiting administration before the end of the season in order to give them an opportunity to inflict further damage.

    It stinks.

    Lads lads relax to fcuk I was joking, jeez badly rattled or what, its like watching one of Kenny Daglish's latest interviews :D


  • #1473
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Nothing to do with expecting everything to stop everything to to with the fact that the "Rules" have never been changed during a season so why now
    Eirebear wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with how D&P have handled administration.

    This has everything to do with the SPL, "coincidentally" announcing a meeting at the end of the month which puts everything that has happened between Rangers and the prospective bidders for over a month to complete waste.

    The rules arent being changed for this season, they are having a meeting to change them for next season/going forward. Meetings about tweaking things happen at the end of every season. D&P could/should have picked up the phone to SPL to find out about potential meetings regarding the ramping up of financial fair play rules and set their deadlines accordingly. They didnt and I find it funny that the SPL are getting it in the neck for something that was in the pipeline for months.

    As said, if anything the SPL are trying to stop Rangers getting liquidated if anything. You should be thanking them!


  • #1474
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Madam wrote: »
    You seriously believe that the SPL somehow don't want Rangers back next season, what reason would they have for that?
    No, i believe that these rule changes are devised to make sure that Rangers (or at least the Rangers support) is alive and kicking in the SPL next season. They know that outwith Celtic the other clubs cannot afford to lose that income.

    What i believe however, is that the SPL intend to completely handicap any proposed "Newco" with such stringent sporting and financial penalties, while still milking the fans for all they have.

    Do you believe it's acceptable in any way to change the rules while the case is ongoing? Rangers should be punished by the rules that stand, wether we're talking about the current Rangers, or a "Newco".
    The SPL certainly shouldnt be standing in the way of a member club exiting Administration before the season is out.
    premierstone wrote: »
    Lads lads relax to fcuk I was joking, jeez badly rattled or what, its like watching one of Kenny Daglish's latest interviews :D

    Rattled doesnt cover it dude.
    ****ing raging is closer.


  • #1475
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    The rules arent being changed for this season, they are having a meeting to change them for next season/going forward. Meetings about tweaking things happen at the end of every season. D&P could/should have picked up the phone to SPL to find out about potential meetings regarding the ramping up of financial fair play rules and set their deadlines accordingly. They didnt and I find it funny that the SPL are getting it in the neck for something that was in the pipeline for months.

    "Something that was in the pipeline for months"
    Yet they announce it on today of all days?

    Come on now Dempsey.

    And the rules are being changed to suit the case - it's as simple as that.
    Did we see gretna, Motherwell, Dundee or Livingstone hammered by rules which were "Tweaked" during their administration?
    Or did we see new laws implimented after each of these clubs cases?


  • #1476
    RoryMac
    Registered Users Posts: 5,317 ✭✭✭RoryMac


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Really?
    Is that the best you've got?

    Not only is your point entirely superflous but your also missing the actual issue by about a mile.

    What we're seeing in progress is a "Kangaroo Court", changing the rules and punishments to suit is not what i expect from a governing body within any walk of life.
    Change the rules afterwards, just like they did after Motherwell - who escaped any form of punishment. Or Gretna, after which more stringent laws were put in place, like the ones which saw Livingstone relegated to Division 3.

    To change the laws during the case however, is not only immoral but also makes a mockery of any law the SPL put forward from now on.

    Now, if you'd bothered to read my post before jumping in with your oh so witty little quip, you would have seen that A) I fully expect punishment for breaking the rules.
    B) However i DO NOT expect the shambles that is the SPL to block any chance Rangers have of exiting administration before the end of the season in order to give them an opportunity to inflict further damage.

    It stinks.

    The timing of this is shocking even by SPL/SFA standards, to move the goal posts at this stage of the administration process is reckless at best but I think the detail of what is proposed is not really that bad for Rangers. I could be wrong but I don't see anywhere that the current penalty of 10 points deduction will be changed.

    If Rangers new owners go the liquidation/Newco route which they all say they want to avoid ;) then the penalties proposed are far less than some would want or have expected to see. But the proposals seem to be as much about ensuring Rangers travelling fans continue to fill the other teams coffers as it is about punishing Rangers.

    I don't expect many Celtic & Rangers fans to agree on how light/severe the punishments seem to be but I would imagine the vast majority would agree the timing of the announcement shows again how poorly run football is in Scotland.


  • Advertisement
  • #1477
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    RoryMac wrote: »
    The timing of this is shocking even by SPL/SFA standards, to move the goal posts at this stage of the administration process is reckless at best but I think the detail of what is proposed is not really that bad for Rangers. I could be wrong but I don't see anywhere that the current penalty of 10 points deduction will be changed.

    If Rangers new owners go the liquidation/Newco route which they all say they want to avoid ;) then the penalties proposed are far less than some would want or have expected to see. But the proposals seem to be as much about ensuring Rangers travelling fans continue to fill the other teams coffers as it is about punishing Rangers.

    I don't expect many Celtic & Rangers fans to agree on how light/severe the punishments seem to be but I would imagine the vast majority would agree the timing of the announcement shows again how poorly run football is in Scotland.

    Completely agree with what you're saying.
    The upside of it all, is that it should call the bluff of any bids which may have been considering liquidation.
    That is the only positive i can see.


  • #1478
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    "Something that was in the pipeline for months"
    Yet they announce it on today of all days?

    Come on now Dempsey.

    And the rules are being changed to suit the case - it's as simple as that.
    Did we see gretna, Motherwell, Dundee or Livingstone hammered by rules which were "Tweaked" during their administration?
    Or did we see new laws implimented after each of these clubs cases?

    Livingston and Dundee are SFL member clubs, nothing to do with rule changes to the SPL rules.

    With the shít that Hearts & Rangers were pulling this season over unpaid taxes and the impending escalation of the Financial Fair Play rules, I would have been expecting a meeting to be set about it at some stage before the end of the season, yes. Just because they only set a date over the weekend doesnt mean that it wasnt coming down the line at some stage this season. If D&P were did their job better, then this wouldnt be an issue!

    D&P have continually mucked up your administration if you ask me, its just one fúck up after another with them. You go ahead and blame the SPL, I'll be laughing at D&P.


  • #1479
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Unbelievable.

    Something in the pipeline for months, date decided at the weekend.
    Announced today.

    All one big coincidence.
    "Move along lads - nothing to see here..."


  • #1480
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Unbelievable.

    Something in the pipeline for months, date decided at the weekend.
    Announced today.

    All one big coincidence.
    "Move along lads - nothing to see here..."

    You do realise its not all about Rangers?

    How many times this season were Hearts threatened with liquidation, handed winding up petitions by HMRC over unpaid taxes? Most of the changes are to act as a harsher deterrent to other SPL clubs doing what Hearts have been doing this season.


  • #1481
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    You do realise its not all about Rangers?

    How many times this season were Hearts threatened with liquidation, handed winding up petitions by HMRC over unpaid taxes? Most of the changes are to act as a harsher deterrent to other SPL clubs doing what Hearts have been doing this season.

    Maybe so - but it affects Rangers more than any other club in the SPL right now.

    The SPL have shown a complete lack of regard for Rangers FC, the proposed bidders and the Rangers support in the timing of their announcement today.


  • Advertisement
  • #1482
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    All I get from this is that the SPL is **** scared should Rangers decide to drop down to the SFL.


  • #1483
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    All I get from this is that the SPL is **** scared should Rangers decide to drop down to the SFL.

    Why - what would happen if they did, would the world as we know it come to and end:)?


  • #1484
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Madam wrote: »
    Why - what would happen if they did, would the world as we know it come to and end:)?

    No - The SPL would lose a lot of money.


  • #1485
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Maybe so - but it affects Rangers more than any other club in the SPL right now.

    The SPL have shown a complete lack of regard for Rangers FC, the proposed bidders and the Rangers support in the timing of their announcement today.

    And Rangers have shown a lack of regard for rules of football and the law of the land for the past decade. Why should they show you any regard?


  • #1486
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Dempsey wrote: »
    And Rangers have shown a lack of regard for rules of football and the law of the land for the past decade. Why should they show you any regard?

    Because there were already rules in place to punish Rangers ?

    Changing them mid-process is a joke.


  • #1487
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Because there were already rules in place to punish Rangers ?

    Changing them mid-process is a joke.

    You arent being retrospectively punished and the rule changes apply to next season going forward which is completely fair. You seem to think there is a rule about not changing rules for next season whilst a club are in administration.

    The joke is Rangers fans thinking that everything stops for them whilst they pull themselves out of the shítter.


  • #1488
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    You arent being retrospectively punished and the rule changes apply to next season going forward which is completely fair. You seem to think there is a rule about not changing rules for next season whilst a club are in administration.

    The joke is Rangers fans thinking that everything stops for them whilst they pull themselves out of the shítter.


    Under the new proposals, if Rangers are still in administration at the end of the season they could be looking at a points deduction of between 21 and 33 points.

    It just so happenes that the SPL "propose" this in a way which delays the bidding proccess at Rangers, and puts them in serious danger of not being out of administration by the end of the season.

    It's not about things grinding to a halt, its about giving Rangers a degree of certainty and not standing in the way of us moving out of administration.
    Today the SPL stood in our way - simple as that.


  • #1489
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,269 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Rangers have been standing in everyones way for a long time though ;)


  • #1490
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Rangers have been standing in everyones way for a long time though ;)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78071792&postcount=1465
    :p


  • #1491
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Under the new proposals, if Rangers are still in administration at the end of the season they could be looking at a points deduction of between 21 and 33 points.

    It just so happenes that the SPL "propose" this in a way which delays the bidding proccess at Rangers, and puts them in serious danger of not being out of administration by the end of the season.

    It's not about things grinding to a halt, its about giving Rangers a degree of certainty and not standing in the way of us moving out of administration.
    Today the SPL stood in our way - simple as that.

    I dont believe for a second that you would have been out of administration by May 14th anyways

    a) because you need to wait for the conclusion of all the tax cases
    b) CVA's dont get concluded overnight and you would have to remain in admin until time to lodge an appeal has expired/appeals are heard.
    c) D&P are going at a snails pace and seem incompetent at every step anyways.
    d) Whyte still has his shares and the process to force them off him hasnt even started
    e) Liquidation and creating a newco takes time also.
    f) Due Diligence by the proposed buyer has to take place
    g) Audited accounts still have to be published

    Ye've all deluded yourselves into thinking that this would all be over before the end of the season even before today.


  • Advertisement
  • #1492
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    I dont believe for a second that you would have been out of administration by May 14th anyways

    a) because you need to wait for the conclusion of all the tax cases
    b) CVA's dont get concluded overnight and you would have to remain in admin until time to lodge an appeal has expired/appeals are heard.
    c) D&P are going at a snails pace and seem incompetent at every step anyways.
    d) Whyte still has his shares and the process to force them off him hasnt even started
    e) Liquidation and creating a newco takes time also.
    f) Due Diligence by the proposed buyer has to take place
    g) Audited accounts still have to be published

    Ye've all deluded yourselves into thinking that this would all be over before the end of the season even before today.


    Plain and simple - any chance we had, however slim . Has been scupered by the SPL today.
    I know it, you know it, and most importantly - they know it.


  • #1493
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Rangers have been standing in everyones way for a long time though ;)

    Well, they've sure stood in Celtic's way plenty of times :cool:

    As for D&P going 'at a snail's pace', do you really think that this would be over in a month or two ?

    Administration is ALWAYS a long process, just look at Motherwell.


  • #1494
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,213 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Not paranoia just that the rules don't get changed mid season so changing them now stinks lets face it if this happened in any other walk of life anarchy would soon be the norm

    Am I missing the point here?

    The rules being changed mid-season benefit you in the event of a liquidation, not punish you.


  • #1495
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    Am I missing the point here?

    The rules being changed mid-season benefit you in the event of a liquidation, not punish you.

    exactly.

    The only thing we learned today is clarification that the SPL are open to a newco Rangers joining the league.

    A very good outcome for ye.


  • #1496
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    And in that case they will cripple us more than when the first penalties for cases like this were in place.

    It's not a positive thing at all.


  • #1497
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    Am I missing the point here?

    The rules being changed mid-season benefit you in the event of a liquidation, not punish you.

    Obviously you are.

    Probably the 21 to 33 point reduction we face next season if not out of administration.
    Which just happens to be announced on the day that we're supposed to hear of our prospective new owners.

    Aye, that benefits us alright.


  • #1498
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Obviously you are.

    Probably the 21 to 33 point reduction we face next season if not out of administration.
    Which just happens to be announced on the day that we're supposed to hear of our prospective new owners.

    Aye, that benefits us alright.

    Where is it in the current rules that you will be deducted 21-33 points for being in administration?

    As for Duff & Phelps hitting a deadline on time, it would have been a 1st. I cant remember one deadline that wasnt pushed. They were even late by an hour for their own press conference after they were appointed administrators of Rangers! :pac:


  • #1499
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Where is it in the current rules that you will be deducted 21-33 points for being in administration?

    As for Duff & Phelps hitting a deadline on time, it would have been a 1st. I cant remember one deadline that wasnt pushed. They were even late by an hour for their own press conference after they were appointed administrators of Rangers! :pac:

    It's not in the current rules - that's kind of the point.
    1 of the proposals for this meeting will see the team in administration be deducted a third of the previous season's points tally.
    http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/303231-spl-proposes-new-financial-fair-play-rules/
    The SPL rules will also be changed to increase the penalty for a club that enters administration. Rangers were deducted 10 points after appointing Duff and Phelps in February but under the proposed changes a club would be deducted 15 points or one third of the club's total points from the previous season.

    Had that rule been in place this season for example, Rangers would have been deducted 31 points.


  • #1500
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    It's the option added in the new rule that a team can be docked 1/3 of their point total.


  • Advertisement
  • #1501
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    those rules will apply to clubs suffering an insolvency event after the date they come into effect. i.e. appointing admins after 14th may

    the fact that your insolvency event occurred under the current rules would mean that the current rules would apply for as long as its the same 'insolvency process'.

    unless the new rules specifically include any club currently in an insolvency event/process, even duff and phelps could make sure that the current rules apply for as long as you dont start a concurrent insolvency event.


Advertisement