Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Aw diddums, a day later, sack the administrators!

Admininstation for a football club isnt extremely time sensitive, oh wait

How many missed deadlines is it now Jelle? At their rates, you'd expect a small bit of competence, no?

PauloMN wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18247735



20p in the £1 reported, of course it doesn't say reported by who.

What are the £3.5m transfer fees due?

Was there add-ons in Jelavic's deal? If there was, that might account for some of it

jack presley wrote: »

Just wondering has anyone any experience or knowledge of the admin process generally, outside of football?

D&P and Rangers are getting hammered here for being late and missing deadlines etc. but I was just wondering is that the norm for companies in admin, or putting CVAs together? I'd imagine it's a quite complex proces and everyone needs to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed so it doesn't surprise me that things get delayed.

Better to have it done proper and late than being done wrong but on time.

D&P are suppose to be the experts in the admin process and they are being paid a king's ransom for this expertise yet they are missing every deadline (They were even late for their own press conference on their 1st day), most deadlines were determined by themselves so that the club could exit administration at the earliest possible point (preferably before the end of the season) because the longer it goes on, the more punishments that Rangers will run into because they still dont have audited accounts for 2011 and they dont meet the financial criteria for an SPL or UEFA licence for 2012/13. They already wont play in Europe and now they have a grace period to file the proper paperwork before the SPL issue more punishments.

All through their administration of Rangers, they have shown a distinct lack of knowledge about the internal workings of a football club, how a league governing body and national association operate, how UEFA & FIFA operate. They arent even asking the right questions at meetings where they could find out these things.

D&P have a clear conflict of interest and evidence has come to light which shows that they should have not taken the job in the first place. They are currently under investigation and most likely will be punished and by extension Rangers will be punished because it will delays the process. Dont forget they wasted time by installed a preferred bidder by feeding him information that was "more optimistic than reality" only to see him run a mile when he started due diligence. Not forgetting that Kennedy had to warn D&P that due diligence wasnt being done correctly by Green. Its hard to remember off the top of my head all the dodgy stuff they have done in their 4 month stint.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Aw diddums, a day later, sack the administrators!

The creditors' meeting to consider the CVA proposal is on June the 14th.

And if they agree to the CVA and then to the 28 day cooling off period we could be out of administration on... the 12th of July

Eirebear wrote: »

Of course! Everyone on the internet is an expert!

(Personally, i havnt the foggiest - there's **** all i can do, and it's as simple as that)

Then you have Rangers fans trotting out this garbage when the evidence and criticism is given. Some blame the Scottish Media for not telling them that their club was be driven into the ground. Rangerstaxcase.com was dismissed out of hand by many Rangers fans because of the man providing the information. He now has the Orwell Prize for his efforts and Rangers fans have charity buckets for theirs. :P

Oh for **** sake Dempsey.

The "Evidence" is as clear as mud for the majority of people, there has been conflicting stories, conflicting statements, and conflicting reports coming from all areas for a couple of years now.
Yet you know all the answers from one blog?

Amazing.

Tell me, since you are such an expert - what, at any point, could the Rangers support do in order to stop any of this happening?
You've been on this "Told you so" trip for ages now, yet havnt offered a single solution.
So let's hear it, seeing as you're smug enough to label honesty as "garbage".

Eirebear wrote: »

Oh for **** sake Dempsey.

The "Evidence" is as clear as mud for the majority of people, there has been conflicting stories, conflicting statements, and conflicting reports coming from all areas for a couple of years now.
Yet you know all the answers from one blog?

Amazing.

Tell me, since you are such an expert - what, at any point, could the Rangers support do in order to stop any of this happening?
You've been on this "Told you so" trip for ages now, yet havnt offered a single solution.
So let's hear it, seeing as you're smug enough to label honesty as "garbage".

I think I read his blog once, it was after Rangers entered admin.

Since ye all are big fans of threatening boycotts, what was stopping ye boycotting the club in protest at the JJB deal? The outsourcing of the hospitality and catering, the outsourcing of the reserve and youth squads?? i.e. Selling revenue streams for working capital. The writing was on the wall before Lloyds merged with HBOS.

At this stage your best solution is to liquidate the club as quickly as possible. The best chances to save Rangers, reverse years of poor corporate governance has been burnt by incompetent people.

A CVA offer without a "pence in the pound" offer? Thats laughable but you rather vent your anger and frustrations at me than the people that deserve it.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

They couldn't really give a definite figure as the Big Tax Case verdict hasn't been revealed yet, it would have a big impact on how much each creditor would get.

What I don't understand is how a vote can be called which requires the approval of 75% in value of the creditors if the total debt still hasn't been discovered. When the vote comes, what is the figure they are going to use in order to determine the 75%?

Its D&P "winging" it. They are desperate at this stage.

Dempsey wrote: »

I think I read his blog once, it was after Rangers entered admin.

Since ye all are big fans of threatening boycotts, what was stopping ye boycotting the club in protest at the JJB deal? The outsourcing of the hospitality and catering, the outsourcing of the reserve and youth squads?? i.e. Selling revenue streams for working capital. The writing was on the wall before Lloyds merged with HBOS.

At this stage your best solution is to liquidate the club as quickly as possible. The best chances to save Rangers, reverse years of poor corporate governance has been burnt by incompetent people.

A CVA offer without a "pence in the pound" offer? Thats laughable but you rather vent your anger and frustrations at me than the people that deserve it.

Vent our frustrations at you?
You are the one calling our posts "garbage" Dempsey.

Now your telling me you read the BTC Blog once, yet at the same time proclaiming his words as "evidence"? How could you possibly know this? Or is it simply because people on the Huddleboard have told you so?

I'm sure you obviously missed it, but there was a big campaign among the Rangers support for "Clarity" surrounding the dealings going on around that time with the "We Deserve Better" campaign.
Given that the club was already in financial trouble at the time, a boycott would have done very little good if we were already, reportedly, in the clutches of the banks at that stage.

yes, there was a split in the Rangers support with regards to Murray which didnt help any campaign, but don't sit there and suggest that there wasnt a swell towards pushing for answers.

As for the rest, that's simply down to opinion - if the CVA works out, then it won't be "laughable", obviously there is a high chance that it won't, but that is certainly not something the fans can affect is it?

8.5m is a LOAN, advanced from SEVCO to RFC to pay creditors, payable back over 8 years.

Looks like if they come through a CVA they will still be in debt of 8.3million, Greens not even putting the money in its a loan, so basically he will get them for nothing because he will get his money back :loel:

Here is that part

The Offer Letter is confidential between Sevco and the Company, but the principal terms are as follows:
4.20.1 In addition to the £200,000 referred to in Paragraph 4.19, Sevco agrees to advance to the Company the sum of £8,300,000;
4.20.2 £8,300,000 will be available for draw down by the Company no later than 31 July 2012, but only once certain conditions (the ―Conditions‖) are satisfied;
4.20.3 The Company will repay the Loan together with interest on it on or before 31 December 2020; and
4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.

Eirebear wrote: »

Vent our frustrations at you?
You are the one calling our posts "garbage" Dempsey.

Now your telling me you read the BTC Blog once, yet at the same time proclaiming his words as "evidence"? How could you possibly know this? Or is it simply because people on the Huddleboard have told you so?

I'm sure you obviously missed it, but there was a big campaign among the Rangers support for "Clarity" surrounding the dealings going on around that time with the "We Deserve Better" campaign.
Given that the club was already in financial trouble at the time, a boycott would have done very little good if we were already, reportedly, in the clutches of the banks at that stage.

yes, there was a split in the Rangers support with regards to Murray which didnt help any campaign, but don't sit there and suggest that there wasnt a swell towards pushing for answers.

As for the rest, that's simply down to opinion - if the CVA works out, then it won't be "laughable", obviously there is a high chance that it won't, but that is certainly not something the fans can affect is it?

:mad::mad::mad: Stop venting your frustrations at the people of the huddleboard :P

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I thought there was something about there being the option to impose any punishment that the panel found appropriate? That was my understanding and why I was so surprised Rangers won today.

That's certainly what was reported in sections of the media/internet.

As i;ve said all along though - the "evidence" is clear as mud to us mere mortals.

This is it

Glennie decides:
1. No referral to CAS is appropriate. CoS is the correct j/diction. Relies on the Ashley Cole decision and SFA protocol saying no further right of appeal.

2. SFA bodies not entitled in terms of its Articles and Protocol to impose embargo. The available sanctions are detailed in those docs.

3. Embargo not suspended as requested by RFC.

4. Reduce the appeal tribunal decision and send back to the appeal tribunal to proceed again.

5. Petitioners may not get a lighter punishment. Open to the appeal tribunal to do as they please in accordance with available sanctions.

PauloMN wrote: »

I've said it before - look on the bright side, leaving the history of Rangers FC behind is probably a positive thing for the most part.

Just can't help yourselves sometimes can you?