Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Dempsey · 05-03-2012 03:40PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

'Those who could afford it' ?
We played them a while ago in a pre-season, thousands of Bears made the trip

I believe plans are in place to make it a two-game thing, one in Portsmouth, one in Glasgow.

And I don't think we have lessons to learn in dignity from 'Integrity FC'

Its that sort of thinking that has made you insolvent :pac:

KeithAFC · 05-03-2012 03:44PM

PauloMN wrote: »

The begging bowl friendly lol..... ohh the dignity:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17260613

Don't see the problem here. Unless I am missing something?

Jelle1880 · 05-03-2012 03:45PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Too right you do, in the Finance Dept. among other places.

Remind me, how big is your squad ?

PauloMN · 05-03-2012 03:56PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Remind me, how big is your squad ?

Needs to be big when we're still in three competitions.

PauloMN · 05-03-2012 03:59PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Don't see the problem here. Unless I am missing something?

There's no problem Keith. Needs must and all that. It was a bit of banter - see my earlier reply to EB.

Or do you not do banter now either, along with not walking away?

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 04:20PM

Would be a great move for RFC if they could get a one month deal with the players.

Duff and Phelps are on the record as saying that any takeovers must happen by March 16th, keeping the players on the books makes Rangers a much better proposition and will mean less investment by whomever takes them over... if they're taken over.

However, if this date passes and nobody has taken them over then liquidation beckons and nothing's really been lost in offering the extra month.

However, I wonder what HMRC are making of all this. I'd say they ain't one bit happy.

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 04:21PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Remind me, how big is your squad ?

As big as a Champions squad needs to be!

Jelle1880 · 05-03-2012 04:29PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

As big as a Champions squad needs to be!

The last 3 seasons would beg to differ.

Dempsey · 05-03-2012 04:41PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The last 3 seasons would beg to differ.

Those titles could be taken off ye yet!

Jelle1880 · 05-03-2012 04:43PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Those titles could be taken off ye yet!

You wish.

PauloMN · 05-03-2012 05:28PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Those titles could be taken off ye yet!

Let them have the titles they cheated for. They're welcome to them.

So long as they are severely punished for the future, I'm happy. We'll win back the titles we were cheated out of.

bobmalooka · 05-03-2012 05:35PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Poor work from what perspective? The administrators have to ensure that Rangers is a saleable club. They also have to save money. If they can do both without letting players go, that's bloody good work imo. Fair play to the players for accepting the cuts if true.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be wanting Celtic administrators and the players to do exactly the same thing.

They aren't actually reducing the cost base of running the club, with the proposed arrangement Rangers will not lose a million this month but they will next month and the month after etc.

This is not balancing the books which is effectively what they are required to achieve, I'm becoming very skeptical because the usual process would be to cut costs so that the outgoings match the incomings and then look for a buyer.

It would be crazy to buy a business that would cost you 1million each month to keep open, remember Rangers are still contractually obliged to pay the players full wages even if the players accept a deduction. i.e. if Lee Mc Culloch got dropped in 6 months and was pissed off he can demand the 6months wages he forego.

If new owners come in will the players still be happy to work for free?
If they aren't then it will cost the new owners £1million/month plus they have the big tax case still to come.

Not feasible.

KeithAFC · 05-03-2012 06:30PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Let them have the titles they cheated for. They're welcome to them.

So long as they are severely punished for the future, I'm happy. We'll win back the titles we were cheated out of.

Sure. Probably won't involve Rangers in the league. So won't matter really. That is the thing. The SPL title means **** all if it doesn't involve winning it instead of Celtic or Rangers. That is the only reason either club wants to win it.

Coillte_Bhoy · 05-03-2012 08:02PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Sure. Probably won't involve Rangers in the league. So won't matter really. That is the thing. The SPL title means **** all if it doesn't involve winning it instead of Celtic or Rangers. That is the only reason either club wants to win it.

Oh ffs, thats the most deluded thing you've come out with yet.:D

TheBuilder · 05-03-2012 08:07PM

Hayley McQueen ‏ @HayleyMcQueen Close
The Rangers players have agreed 2 take paycuts 2 avoid redundancies at the club Highest earners 75% cut, mid 50% & lowest 25% details on SSN

Well done those players.

Pompey Magnus · 05-03-2012 08:08PM

Eirebear wrote: »

#
Listening to people talk yesterday, there was a school of thought that Rangers are a more attractive proposition to buyers if they don't shed players - given that it will be more expensive to replace a number of players, rather than trim to fit when a new buyer comes in.

I don't see how keeping the players really makes the club more attractive to a potential buyer. I would have thought a clean slate with the potential to build a squad which at least breaks even every month would be much more attractive than keeping the current squad with the large wage bill contributing to an enormous loss every month.

Pompey Magnus · 05-03-2012 08:13PM

TheBuilder wrote: »

Well done those players.

The BBC report that the players rejected that deal. At any rate whatever deal the players presented to the Administrators will not "avoid redundancies", it will just mean redundancies will be delayed for a month and the administrators will stick around making considerable profit from doing f*ck all.

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 08:16PM

TheBuilder wrote: »

Well done those players.

So will they be signing new contracts?

How long will these contracts be for?

Will all players be free agents in the summer?

I can't see how this reaches the requirements set down by the administrators.

Leiva · 05-03-2012 08:17PM

How much would a "top earner" be on at Rangers ?

Also what's the average ?

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 08:19PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The BBC report that the players rejected that deal. At any rate whatever deal the players presented to the Administrators will not "avoid redundancies", it will just mean redundancies will be delayed for a month and the administrators will stick around making considerable profit from doing f*ck all.

All of this means nothing unless they're taken over by March 16th.

If I was a Rangers creditor I would be furious at the work of the administrators as it's costing more now to run the club than it was three weeks ago before they came in.

Yet again I wonder what HMRC are making of all this.

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 08:21PM

mixednuts wrote: »

How much would a "top earner" be on at Rangers ?

Also what's the average ?

About 5k this time tomorrow.

TheBuilder · 05-03-2012 08:22PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So will they be signing new contracts?

How long will these contracts be for?

Will all players be free agents in the summer?

I can't see how this reaches the requirements set down by the administrators.

You're the one with all the answers in this thread, you tell me.

Anyway, Hayley McQueen's a daft bint.

"We'll keep you up to date on Rangers after players proposed paycuts backed by Scottish PFA, it's still however 2 b agreed by administrators"

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 08:35PM

TheBuilder wrote: »

You're the one with all the answers in this thread, you tell me.

It's a very relevant question and one you should be asking.

If it's a temporary deal until the summer then what's the point as all the players can leave then.

If it's not a temporary deal then what's the point of it as you'll be back to square one in the summer and any new owner will have huge difficulties as a result.

Join in the debate even if it is with Timmy eh?

bobmalooka · 05-03-2012 08:38PM

TheBuilder wrote: »

Well done those players.

A fine gesture by the players but is in fact counter productive to keeping Rangers operating as a going concern, the only way the administrators should be entertaining this idea is if someone has expressed an interest in the club and is willing to pump £12million a year to keep it going or else sell a load of players in the summer.

(everybody would know Rangers need to sell and would have to accept derisory amounts)

The question needs to be asked, who benefits from this because its not Rangers.

TheBuilder · 05-03-2012 08:39PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's a very relevant question and one you should be asking.

If it's a temporary deal until the summer then what's the point as all the players can leave then.

If it's not a temporary deal then what's the point of it as you'll be back to square one in the summer and any new owner will have huge difficulties as a result.

Join in the debate even if it is with Timmy eh?

I was only posting a bit of information, that at the time seemed true from SSN. You'll notice I've stayed out of this thread because nobody actually knows anything at all, and it doesn't help people's stress levels when there is more important things to worry about.

Eirebear · 05-03-2012 09:07PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Join in the debate even if it is with Timmy eh?

Where do you get off with this pish? You've developed a chip on your shoulder lately, which is perverse given that you should be enjoying things.

As has already been discussed, it could be that not laying off players makes the club better in the eys of any interested parties.
Also it means that the squad is left intact for the upcoming games against Motherwell and Celtic, which will go a long way to deciding wether we can finish second or not.

bobbysands81 · 05-03-2012 09:55PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Where do you get off with this pish? You've developed a chip on your shoulder lately, which is perverse given that you should be enjoying things.

As has already been discussed, it could be that not laying off players makes the club better in the eys of any interested parties.
Also it means that the squad is left intact for the upcoming games against Motherwell and Celtic, which will go a long way to deciding wether we can finish second or not.

I know he's your brother mate but look back at my earlier post, I was meeting his attitude with attitude.

Eirebear · 05-03-2012 10:09PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I know he's your brother mate but look back at my earlier post, I was meeting his attitude with attitude.

Fair enough mate - he's big & ugly enough to deal with that himself, but let's knock the "Timmy told you" nonsense on the head.
You know as well as i do it's not like that.

bobbysands81 · 06-03-2012 11:22AM

Anyone know what's going to happen today?

I presume player will train as per normal and meet admins after so some announcement later today maybe???

Anyone hear what's happening?

SantryRed · 06-03-2012 11:27AM

Asking players to take a 75% pay cut is a disgrace, absolute disgrace.

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments