Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Fratton Fred

Dempsey wrote: »

Rangers appointed Administrators yesterday at ~15.30, Rangers have been deducted 10 points already.

I agree, HMRC have had football in its sights for a good while now. They suffered a setback with CVA's at Portsmouth but are determined to get everything right with Rangers so they can set a legal precedent when they go after clubs that owe alot more than Rangers. I'd say the level of tax avoidance bordering on evasion is extremely high in British Football because of the 50% tax band

"We" being Pompey. We will be going back into administration.

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

You're only concerned now for other clubs because ye are fúcked. Your only interest here is that of Rangers. You want Rangers punishment to be minimal for the benefit of Rangers. Your bleating fools nobody.

Well duh. Of course I am concerned. The argument that the Scottish Premier League will grow as a league and improve doesn't add up. I don't see any other club in Scottish football being able to compete with Celtic. So what happens when Celtic are say winning 5-6-7 titles in a row and every season winning the title by 15-20 points? The interest would be long gone.

I was listening to Hugh Keevins on Clyde radio saying the Celtic attendances had actually went down when Celtic had been in the later stages of 9 in a row.

Like I said, competition is vital to raising standards. I actually think Celtic have a bloody good wee team now and I think that is not only because you look after yourselves off the pitch but because Rangers had won the last 3 titles. You wanted to win the title back and by getting a good side together now, you could push on in the Champions League (potentially) but after 3-4-5 years, the standards would just drop because of the lack of competition to push you on.

So it doesn't surprise me to hear comments about people higher up talking about donating money to Rangers because these people are only interested in looking after the product and making TV companies wanting potentially invest in it in the future.

Without Rangers, I don't see this happening and I really do fear for the Scottish Premier League.

Dempsey

I bet you werent moping about Celtic, falling attendances, lack of competition back in the 90's. Your concerns are self serving and short sighted.

The Scottish Game is in need of an overhaul, that was known since the 90's. Maybe in the aftermath of Rangers demise, the more contentious changes can finally be put through and Scottish Football finally starts thinking long term rather than the current 'whats the best way to milk the Old Firm' SPL format.

user2011

I wonder where the fear was when Rangers were out spending Celtic by 2-1. More or less trying too do what your afraid of is going to happen now..

Also just had a look at league standing since 99-00 too 2011. Interesting finding that Celtic won the league by 17-18 points in 4 of them. Rangers winning 1 by 21 points.

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

I bet you werent moping about Celtic, falling attendances, lack of competition back in the 90's. Your concerns are self serving and short sighted.

The Scottish Game is in need of an overhaul, that was known since the 90's. Maybe in the aftermath of Rangers demise, the more contentious changes can finally be put through and Scottish Football finally starts thinking long term rather than the current 'whats the best way to milk the Old Firm' SPL format.

But this is 2012. We are in a different era now. The point still stands. The league would not survive. You can try and overhaul it anyway you want Dempsey, it will not work because the lack of competition will hurt Celtic and will not push the standards up to do better in Europe.

What good players would want to join Celtic in a one team league which they dominate every season? You would not even need *good* players to win the title. The board of Celtic could just do as little as possible to win the league every season as they don't need to push the boat out as they say. So the quality on the pitch would get worse.

Madam

I don't remember anyone saying Rangers could'nt survive without Celtic when they were in trouble;)

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

But this is 2012. We are in a different era now. The point still stands. The league would not survive. You can try and overhaul it anyway you want Dempsey, it will not work because the lack of competition will hurt Celtic and will not push the standards up to do better in Europe.

What good players would want to join Celtic in a one team league which they dominate every season? You would not even need *good* players to win the title. The board of Celtic could just do as little as possible to win the league every season as they don't need to push the boat out as they say. So the quality on the pitch would get worse.

You were just making a point on about the 60/70's when Celtic were one of the best sides in Europe, I made a counter argument about the 90's which Celtic had serious financial problems. Which era would be more relevant?

Now you are concerned for Celtic, thats very nice of you! :rolleyes:

The changes needed are in the McLeish report, it outlines how the entire Scottish game can be made more competitive, which would benefit Celtic more in the long term. I'd be more inclined to go by that than your self serving concerns.

KeithAFC

Madam wrote: »

I don't remember anyone saying Rangers could'nt survive without Celtic when they were in trouble;)

The best thing to happen to Rangers was when Celtic was saved. The problem was the people running the club at Rangers had not been running the club properly. David Murray = moron.

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

You were just making a point on about the 60/70's when Celtic were one of the best sides in Europe, I made a counter argument about the 90's which Celtic had serious financial problems. Which era would be more relevant?

Now you are concerned for Celtic, thats very nice of you! :rolleyes:

The changes needed are in the McLeish report, it outlines how the entire Scottish game can be made more competitive, which would benefit Celtic more in the long term. I'd be more inclined to go by that than your self serving concerns.

The point about the 60s and 70s was about actual interest. It wasn't my point but by Hugh Keevins.

user2011

Is there much difference between beating one good team and beating 9 other ok teams?

Lets say Celtic loss their good players then they will come closer too the rest of the league? First part of that sentence is more then likely going to happen then you will have a competitive league which in turn will drive itself forward all be that all clubs involved are run right and none of the stuff thats been found here is going on.

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

The point about the 60s and 70s was about actual interest. It wasn't my point but by Hugh Keevins.

You still brought it up like it had some relevance then tried to tell me that what happened in the 90's was irrelevant. It was a stupid thing to say.

Celtic's benchmark for investment is qualification for European Competition, not the state of Rangers and the SPL.

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

You still brought it up like it had some relevance then tried to tell me that what happened in the 90's was irrelevant. It was a stupid thing to say.

Celtic's benchmark for investment is qualification for European Competition, not the state of Rangers and the SPL.

Which will NOT happen. After 3-4-5 years in a one team league, you will not attract even the good players to help you get into the Champions League. Think long term and not short.

RoryMac

user2011 wrote: »

Is there much difference between beating one good team and beating 9 other ok teams?

Lets say Celtic loss their good players then they will come closer too the rest of the league? First part of that sentence is more then likely going to happen then you will have a competitive league which in turn will drive itself forward all be that all clubs involved are run right and none of the stuff thats been found here is going on.

Yes the gap between Celtic and the rest would close somewhat but it would be very hard for any of them to compete with Celtic on a regular basis. The difference between Celtic/Rangers and the rest in terms of turnover is huge, Hibs, Hearts etc aren't suddenly going to start to get 30 - 40k attendances at games nor will they start selling merchandising etc at the same levels.

user2011

What is their highest attendences?

RoryMac

user2011 wrote: »

What is their highest attendences?

Team Average Attendance
Celtic 49472
Rangers 45852
Hearts 13545
Hibernian 9728
Aberdeen 9477
Dundee Utd 7692
Motherwell 5397
Dunfermline 5350
Kilmarnock 5270
St Mirren 4857
Inverness CT 4140
St Johnstone 3950

Hearts had a high of almost 16k

user2011

That makes for shocking reading. Speechless

Coillte_Bhoy

KeithAFC wrote: »

What good players would want to join Celtic in a one team league which they dominate every season? You would not even need *good* players to win the title. The board of Celtic could just do as little as possible to win the league every season as they don't need to push the boat out as they say. So the quality on the pitch would get worse.

I've asked that question a few times and Dempsey hasnt even attempted an answer. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what he has to say on this

RoryMac

user2011 wrote: »

That makes for shocking reading. Speechless

Yeah there is a massive gap and obviously Celtic/Rangers other incomes in relation to merchandising and sponsorship dwarf the other clubs so the likelihood of clubs mounting a serious challenge to Celtic on their own is very slim.

Serious reform of the league setup would certainly help improve the product but I don't see how Rangers being out of the picture for a sustained period can be anything but bad for Scottish football.

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

Which will NOT happen. After 3-4-5 years in a one team league, you will not attract even the good players to help you get into the Champions League. Think long term and not short.

Your fairly desperate with your concerns for Celtic's future

I am thinking long term, Celtic have downsized before and achieved European Football. The fallout from your cheating will not affect Celtic's turnover as much as you think.

user2011

How did Murray square for every 5 Celtic spend im going to spend 10 in his head? When they have a smaller stadium or attendences then Celtic? Alarm bells should of been ringing with the fans?

@ RoryMac. Yeah i never realised it was that bad i had it my head they'd get aroud 20-25k and then with Celtic getting weaker "gloryhunters" would come running pushing it up.

KeithAFC

THE administrators of Rangers today held talks with the Scottish Government as they began the process of trying to sort the club's finances.
Officials from Duff and Phelps spoke to Scottish sports minister Shona Robison a day after being appointed by the club.
The group had already held discussions with Strathclyde Police yesterday to ensure the club's SPL home clash with Kilmarnock would go ahead after the force expressed concern over payments.
Joint administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were appointed after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs forced the issue in the Court of Session in a bid to secure payment of £9million in PAYE and VAT, accrued since Craig Whyte took control of the club in May last year.
Robison said: "In a telephone conversation this morning with the administrator, I explained that we want to see an outcome in the best interests of Rangers staff, supporters and the game of football in Scotland as a whole, whilst enabling the club to meet its obligations.
"A key concern for us is the future of those employed by the club and the potential economic impact of administration.
"The Government stands ready to offer assistance to anyone affected by implications for jobs and we will stay in contact with the administrator throughout the process to ensure we are informed of any developments."
Duff and Phelps are expected to issue a statement this afternoon.

The Establishment might just come to our rescue. Dark forces at work some would say

Dempsey

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I've asked that question a few times and Dempsey hasnt even attempted an answer. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what he has to say on this

Have you? You certainly werent directly asking me for my opinion at any stage on anything regarding this.

What havent I explained myself on?

Blatter

It's imperative for Celtic and the SPL that Rangers stay afloat and remain in the SPL.

The spokesperson or whoever from Celtic that came out the other day and said it wasn't, is a liar, and came out with the sort of claptrap that you'd expect a man in his position to come out with.

The simple fact of the matter is that the SPL will lose a lot of it's appeal without the competitive edge of the Old Firm, which will mean that less TV stations will be willing to pay to broadcast it (or will demand rights for significantly less £), which will inevitably mean that the SPL, and Celtic by extension, will become poorer and less attractive propositions.

Bad bad news for Celtic and the SPL if Rangers sink and anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. I hope Rangers can get themselves sorted somewhat and avoid going under because as a football fan it's not nice to see any club in trouble like this.

Madam

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Establishment might just come to our rescue. Dark forces at work some would say

The eternal optimist Keith?;)

blahfckingblah

KeithAFC wrote: »

THE administrators of Rangers today held talks with the Scottish Government as they began the process of trying to sort the club's finances.
Officials from Duff and Phelps spoke to Scottish sports minister Shona Robison a day after being appointed by the club.
The group had already held discussions with Strathclyde Police yesterday to ensure the club's SPL home clash with Kilmarnock would go ahead after the force expressed concern over payments.
Joint administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were appointed after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs forced the issue in the Court of Session in a bid to secure payment of £9million in PAYE and VAT, accrued since Craig Whyte took control of the club in May last year.
Robison said: "In a telephone conversation this morning with the administrator, I explained that we want to see an outcome in the best interests of Rangers staff, supporters and the game of football in Scotland as a whole, whilst enabling the club to meet its obligations.
"A key concern for us is the future of those employed by the club and the potential economic impact of administration.
"The Government stands ready to offer assistance to anyone affected by implications for jobs and we will stay in contact with the administrator throughout the process to ensure we are informed of any developments."
Duff and Phelps are expected to issue a statement this afternoon.

The Establishment might just come to our rescue. Dark forces at work some would say

Establishment F.C has a good ring to it

Blatter

Ben Smith @bensmithTimes
#Rangers administrators say: "fans can be reassured that Rangers will continue as a football club. "

Fratton Fred

Rangers fans hoping the SNP will get them out of the crapper?

Eirebear

RoryMac wrote: »

Team Average Attendance
Celtic 49472
Rangers 45852
Hearts 13545
Hibernian 9728
Aberdeen 9477
Dundee Utd 7692
Motherwell 5397
Dunfermline 5350
Kilmarnock 5270
St Mirren 4857
Inverness CT 4140
St Johnstone 3950

Hearts had a high of almost 16k

Quite interesting given the respective Stadium capacities.
(Capacities taken from Wiki, percentages rounded to the nearest 1%)
Rangers 45852 (52182) 90%
Celtic 49472 (60,832) 81%
Hearts 13545 (17,420) 78%

"Faithful Through & Through" eh?

RoryMac

Blatter wrote: »

It's imperative for Celtic and the SPL that Rangers stay afloat and remain in the SPL.

The spokesperson or whoever from Celtic that came out the other day and said it wasn't, is a liar, and came out with the sort of claptrap that you'd expect a man in his position to come out with.

The simple fact of the matter is that the SPL will lose a lot of it's appeal without the competitive edge of the Old Firm, which will mean that less TV stations will be willing to pay to broadcast it (or will demand rights for significantly less £), which will inevitably mean that the SPL, and Celtic by extension, will become poorer and less attractive propositions.

Bad bad news for Celtic and the SPL if Rangers sink and anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. I hope Rangers can get themselves sorted somewhat and avoid going under because as a football fan it's not nice to see any club in trouble like this.

The TV money means little to Celtic, they are paid a pittance and I've seen a figure of tv money accounting for 3% of Celtic's turnover so a cut there will have little impact. The same cannot be said of the other SPL clubs.

Obviously losing a high profile TV deal with SKY/ESPN would lead to drops in the sponsorship deals available to Celtic so eventually it would begin to impact on Celtic.

It would also be a lot harder for Celtic to attract the same quality of player if the league was a one horse race every year.

IMO Celtic can go 3 - 4 years without Rangers challenging before it would need to start down-sizing themselves.

But should the effect this could have on Celtic and other SPL teams mean that Rangers get off lightly for a situation they have caused themselves?

KeithAFC

But should the effect this could have on Celtic and other SPL teams mean that Rangers get off lightly for a situation they have caused themselves?

Yes.