Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

those rules will apply to clubs suffering an insolvency event after the date they came 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.

I'm not sure.
I get what your saying - it would be tough for them to enforce, however from my reading of things that's exactly what they're trying to do.

And as i say, within that - the timing of their announcement today has all but ensured that we won't be out of administration. Wether any of us believe we would have been anyway, is moot.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Dempsey wrote: »

those rules will apply to clubs suffering an insolvency event after the date they came 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.

I'm not sure.
I get what your saying - it would be tough for them to enforce, however from my reading of things that's exactly what they're trying to do.

And as i say, within that - the timing of their announcement today has all but ensured that we won't be out of administration. Wether any of us believe we would have been anyway, is moot.

read a6.8 and a6.9 of the rules and regulations. hard to see how you could lose a case against the spl tbh unless they specifically include a rule that will only be used once ever, even then youd have a case imo. one rule designed to catch one club at one moment in time makes it easy to have it quashed

Eirebear

Oh look! The "Gang of ten" have delayed their meeting on voting structure's untill the 30th.
Big surprise!

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Oh look! The "Gang of ten" have delayed their meeting on voting structure's untill the 30th.
Big surprise!

Delayed because any vote today would have failed. They have caused a stalemate scenario over changes that are badly needed through their own arrogance, stupidity & sniping at people they need to include in the process. They have made a right mess of a great opportunity for Scottish Football.

I dont see anything to suggest that they'll turn this around by 30th April either.

PauloMN

Dempsey wrote: »

Delayed because any vote today would have failed. They have caused a stalemate scenario over changes that are badly needed through their own arrogance, stupidity & sniping at people they need to include in the process. They have made a right mess of a great opportunity for Scottish Football.

I dont see anything to suggest that they'll turn this around by 30th April either.

+1000000

Completely messed up, I don't know what they expected to gain by giving out about "the old firm" when any major change needs 11-1 in favour.

Dempsey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-premier

One of the three bidders for Rangers has told BBC Scotland that his offer stands, despite proposed changes to sanctions for insolvent clubs.

Surely D&P could get bidders to waiver objections to the new proposals? I really dont see why the bidding process needs to ground to a halt until the 30th April

A Dub in Glasgo

Nice daily rate for the administrators?

Dempsey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Nice daily rate for the administrators?

They've big paid over £1m so far :eek:

bobbysands81

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-premier

I really dont see why the bidding process needs to ground to a halt until the 30th April

I do, it's because no matter what is blustered out of the mouths of the D&P and/or the 3 bidders publicly, the most likely scenario is a Newco Rangers after the current Rangers are liquidated.

shankespony

I don't think much can happen till everyone knows what agent Whyte has in mind, the mumblings seem to be that he needs to be paid handsomely for his shares in the club and as much as he is vilified by the narcoleptic scottish media he calls the shots. Still no sign of what HMRC want to happen so a huge amount is up in the air and it looks like small disasters keep occuring and side shows are prolonging the agony. Such as fellow directors suing whyte, spl disciplinary issues, small and large tax cases, £135m of debt, Ticketus etc, its going to be a long show im afraid.

bobbysands81

shankespony wrote: »

I don't think much can happen till everyone knows what agent Whyte has in mind, the mumblings seem to be that he needs to be paid handsomely for his shares in the club and as much as he is vilified by the narcoleptic scottish media he calls the shots. Still no sign of what HMRC want to happen so a huge amount is up in the air and it looks like small disasters keep occuring and side shows are prolonging the agony. Such as fellow directors suing whyte, spl disciplinary issues, small and large tax cases, £135m of debt, Ticketus etc, its going to be a long show im afraid.

Whyte has 85% of the shares in RFC, nothing will happen without his say so and without him being paid millions of £££s.

shankespony

Bobbysands81, I agree, he holds all the cards and i think the more embarrassing it is for the rangers the more he hopes to flush out an investor who will pay him to go away.

Dempsey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17700729

European football's governing body is confident the Scottish authorities will deal with Rangers' current plight.

UEFA have been sniffing around, roll out the dignity for them! :pac:

shankespony

What about the following for your comment:

If Rangers are seen to have broken the rules then what if they were put in Division 2, that would have a massive boost to the coffers of the clubs in the division (each one getting what would be 2 cup games guaranteed) and then presuming they won the league into Division 1 and the same there. What a shot in the arm it would be for smaller clubs and scottish football at the lower levels, Rangers bring a big support and more of these small clubs will see locals and season tickets soar and pay off debts get more people interested in following their local club.

With the 3rd Division allow any spl clubs to run a reserve team, so its competitive, more crowds for these clubs again to see curent and up and coming stars and make sure the highest placed existing club wins promotion etc so no reserve team can be promoted.

Finally with Rangers (who cannot compete in Europe anyway) in Division 2, this will enable all the other clubs in spl to spend less (for many years its been spend spend spend) so they can concentrate on paying off debts and another 4/5 clubs apart from celtic get european qualification. (i know that the spl will miss rangers revenue but it will be short term pain for longer term gain!!!

What do u think?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

shankespony wrote: »

What about the following for your comment:

If Rangers are seen to have broken the rules then what if they were put in Division 2, that would have a massive boost to the coffers of the clubs in the division (each one getting what would be 2 cup games guaranteed) and then presuming they won the league into Division 1 and the same there. What a shot in the arm it would be for smaller clubs and scottish football at the lower levels, Rangers bring a big support and more of these small clubs will see locals and season tickets soar and pay off debts get more people interested in following their local club.

With the 3rd Division allow any spl clubs to run a reserve team, so its competitive, more crowds for these clubs again to see curent and up and coming stars and make sure the highest placed existing club wins promotion etc so no reserve team can be promoted.

Finally with Rangers (who cannot compete in Europe anyway) in Division 2, this will enable all the other clubs in spl to spend less (for many years its been spend spend spend) so they can concentrate on paying off debts and another 4/5 clubs apart from celtic get european qualification. (i know that the spl will miss rangers revenue but it will be short term pain for longer term gain!!!

What do u think?

Pity in your assumptions you forget the SKY deal would either be renegotiated or discarded altogether which would probably leave the BBC who would pay a pittance advertising revenue would also drop. So teams would have no choice but to spend less this would include Celtic who would have carte blanche in the SPL but of course would struggle to bring in players to be able to compete in Europe

shankespony

I agree Broxi the sky deal could be affected by Rangers in division 3 but a move to summer football should soften it somewhat as there is no other football in the summer in uk. However its a one off opportunity to benefit the small clubs on the way back up, by the time u get back to the spl you will have been vindicated, serving the time to do the crime so to speak. Celtic will have downsized there is no way lawwell will allow the opportunity to go by so celtic will be much weaker when ur back in the spl.

What do you think of summer football?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

shankespony wrote: »

I agree Broxi the sky deal could be affected by Rangers in division 3 but a move to summer football should soften it somewhat as there is no other football in the summer in uk. However its a one off opportunity to benefit the small clubs on the way back up, by the time u get back to the spl you will have been vindicated, serving the time to do the crime so to speak. Celtic will have downsized there is no way lawwell will allow the opportunity to go by so celtic will be much weaker when ur back in the spl.

What do you think of summer football?

I agree with all your saying mate personally I would like to see it but I doubt it will ever happen

the realpigiron

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/04/13/jim-traynor-column-rangers-must-start-from-scratch-in-division-three-86908-23823231/

Wouldn't agree with everything he says but Traynor is correct about this bit that I've quoted here:

Some Rangers fans believe the club's history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected but there is a shameful part of that history which they should want to forget and any newco should make it clear a new beginning means exactly that.

A new club open to all from the very beginning.

It is certainly the case that there is deep deep shame attached to Rangers history. A newco and a new beginning starting at the bottom again would be an opportunity for Rangers to divest themselves of their shameful past. There would be a poetic justice to it as well.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

the realpigiron wrote: »

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/04/13/jim-traynor-column-rangers-must-start-from-scratch-in-division-three-86908-23823231/

Wouldn't agree with everything he says but Traynor is correct about this bit that I've quoted here:


It is certainly the case that there is deep deep shame attached to Rangers history. A newco and a new beginning starting at the bottom again would be an opportunity for Rangers to divest themselves of their shameful past. There would be a poetic justice to it as well.

Oh here we go yes there's shame attached to our club some fifty years worth though even in that period the club signed RC's but then if all clubs that had shame attached to them had to go into liquidation then I suppose you would want Celtic to volunteer.
The club should accept punishment if they are found guilty and move on from there as we have moved on from this shame

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Oh here we go yes there's shame attached to our club some fifty years worth though even in that period the club signed RC's but then if all clubs that had shame attached to them had to go into liquidation then I suppose you would want Celtic to volunteer.
The club should accept punishment if they are found guilty and move on from there as we have moved on from this shame

Why would Celtic volunteer to go into admin? This has nothing to do with Celtic, it's a matter that pertains to Glasgow Rangers. There are plenty of good people attached to Rangers down the years, McCoist appears to be a good football man for example and there are lots of decent people who have supported them too. If the opportunity arose that they could create a new beginning devoid of the historical baggage of a sectarian policy, wouldn't that in itself be a good thing for the new Rangers FC?

Within 3 years Rangers would probably be back in the SPL and the rivalry with Celtic could start again but without the sectarian baggage this time around. I think this would be, as Traynor suggests, an opportunity for a real re-birth of Rangers without the shameful baggage of the past. Would you not agree?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

the realpigiron wrote: »

Why would Celtic volunteer to go into admin? This has nothing to do with Celtic, it's a matter that pertains to Glasgow Rangers. There are plenty of good people attached to Rangers down the years, McCoist appears to be a good football man for example and there are lots of decent people who have supported them too. If the opportunity arose that they could create a new beginning devoid of the baggage of a sectarian policy, wouldn't that in itself be a good thing for the new Rangers FC?

Within 3 years Rangers would probably be back in the SPL and the rivalry with Celtic could start again but without the sectarian baggage this time around. I think this would be, as Traynor suggests, an opportunity for a real re-birth of Rangers without the shameful baggage of the past. Would you not agree?

No I wouldn't agree as I said in my post we put that part of our history behind us years ago. Why should Rangers or the clubs fans listen to what Traynor says lets face it he admits to being a regular at Parkhead in his younger days so we know where his loyalty lies.

Without the sectarian baggage so Celtic fans will stop calling me an Orange Bastard or a Hun aye right.

I will agree to that when Celtic admit to there shameful history and come out and apologise to everyone involved in that shameful period. You say this is about Rangers I have just pointed out why it would involve the Tic as well I really can't believe the bull**** that your implying that the sectarian crap that goes on is all one sided

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

No I wouldn't agree as I said in my post we put that part of our history behind us years ago. Why should Rangers or the clubs fans listen to what Traynor says lets face it he admits to being a regular at Parkhead in his younger days so we know where his loyalty lies.

Without the sectarian baggage so Celtic fans will stop calling me an Orange Bastard or a Hun aye right.

I will agree to that when Celtic admit to there shameful history and come out and apologise to everyone involved in that shameful period. You say this is about Rangers I have just pointed out why it would involve the Tic as well I really can't believe the bull**** that your implying that the sectarian crap that goes on is all one sided

Celtic FC never had an official sectarian policy in terms of employing staff. Celtic have a large support base and there's bound to be a few neds as well as lots of decent supporters in their number, ditto for Rangers.

We are talking about an official sectarian policy which Rangers administered in the past, and that the formation of a newco starting from scratch would be an opportunity for Rangers to wipe the slate clean, and divest themselves of that murky part of their history.

If a newco was formed it certainly would provide an opportunity for Rangers to be reborn without official historical sectarian baggage. In the event of liquidation and the formation of a newco, I would view that as a positive development for Rangers and for Scottish football as a whole. Perhaps some Rangers fans would see it that way too.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

the realpigiron wrote: »

Celtic FC never had an official sectarian policy in terms of employing staff. Celtic have a large support base and there's bound to be a few neds as well as lots of decent supporters in their number, ditto for Rangers.

We are talking about an official sectarian policy which Rangers administered in the past, and that the formation of a newco starting from scratch would be an opportunity for Rangers to wipe the slate clean, and divest themselves of that murky part of their history.

If a newco was formed it certainly would provide an opportunity for Rangers to be reborn without official historical sectarian baggage. In the event of liquidation and the formation of a newco, I would view that as a positive development for Rangers and for Scottish football as a whole. Perhaps some Rangers fans would see it that way too.

Good for you but I doubt many Bears would agree with you I don't think many will want through choice give up there history so people could say well done for something that was over many years ago.
I never said Celtic did have a sectarian history but I love how you say they never had an official sectarian policy. You do know that neither did Rangers

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Good for you but I doubt many Bears would agree with you I don't think many will want through choice give up there history so people could say well done for something that was over many years ago.
I never said Celtic did have a sectarian history

Well they're not going to go into liquidation by choice, if that happens it will be through financial necessity.

The point being made; is that a positive aspect to liquidation and a newco starting from scratch for Rangers means they could start again with a clean slate and no historical official sectarian baggage. I think it's a fair point, and a potentially positive aspect in the event of a newco being formed.

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Good for you but I doubt many Bears would agree with you I don't think many will want through choice give up there history so people could say well done for something that was over many years ago.
I never said Celtic did have a sectarian history but I love how you say they never had an official sectarian policy. You do know that neither did Rangers

Now you are just being disingenuous.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

the realpigiron wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Good for you but I doubt many Bears would agree with you I don't think many will want through choice give up there history so people could say well done for something that was over many years ago.
I never said Celtic did have a sectarian history but I love how you say they never had an official sectarian policy. You do know that neither did Rangers

Now you are just being disingenuous.

Oh big words but it doesn't change the fact
Of and you are of course entitled to your opinion regarding the club just don't expect many if any Gers fans to agree with you as I said we all have skeletons in our cupboards we have buried ours now so we can move on and hopefully we will take our punishment and not need to go into liquidation

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Oh big words but it doesn't change the fact

The fact is Rangers had a sectarian policy in relation to employing people for many years.

Clearly your failure to even acknowledge that, means you will also fail to see the positive sideline affect that liquidation could bring, in the sense that a newco Rangers could be reborn without remnants of official historical sectarian baggage.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

the realpigiron wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Oh big words but it doesn't change the fact

The fact is Rangers had a sectarian policy in relation to employing people for many years.

Clearly your failure to even acknowledge that, means you will also fail to see the positive sideline affect that liquidation could bring, in the sense that a newco Rangers could be reborn without remnants of official historical sectarian baggage.

Not acknowledge it you clearly are reading what you want I have never denied it I just said it was not official. I also said we had both had skeletons in our cupboards the difference is we as fans admit to many of you deny it now we are never going to agree on this

Jelle1880

As if any Celtic fan would ever make Rangers fans forget about that.

blahfckingblah

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Not acknowledge it you clearly are reading what you want I have never denied it I just said it was not official. I also said we had both had skeletons in our cupboards the difference is we as fans admit to many of you deny it now we are never going to agree on this

yes but maybe we could confirm or deny if you told us what we should be denouncing exactly rather than a vague statement