Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

blue-army · 22-06-2012 2:09am

Dempsey wrote: »

Sevco need 8 clubs to vote yes for Rangers SPL share to be transferred to Sevco.

Is it Rangers or Sevco that is allowed to vote and if its Rangers, who controls that vote, D&P?

So Dundee Utd and Hearts are definitely voting 'No'.

...as things stand, what way are other 9 clubs voting?

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 2:25am

blue-army wrote: »

So Dundee Utd and Hearts are definitely voting 'No'.

...as things stand, what way are other 9 clubs voting?

Hibs - No
Celtic - No
Dundee United - No
Hearts - No

Aberdeen - Not officially declared AFAIK but considering their debt and new stadium status, they do not what to piss off their fans who have been very vocal about a no vote. Its all but officially a no vote tbh

Motherwell - Officially stated that they will vote whatever way their fans want. The club statement sniped abit for a yes vote but the fans are a majority no at the moment

Killmarnock - Very surprised if they dont vote Yes. Michael Johnston is a staunch yes supporter for a long while and decent ticket sales suggest that their fans want sevco to play in the SPL.

Iverness CT - Unknown, Terry Butcher wants Rangers kept for budget reasons but recently their chairman heavily criticised Rangers for going to Court over their Transfer Embargo.

St. Mirren - Unknown, although they are in the middle of a fan takeover bid. Heavily depends on whether this bid is completed before the vote or not. I think it will be the current board casting the vote though.

St. Johnstone - Unknown, although Steve Lomas wants Rangers kept for budget reasons

Ross County - Unknown

Rangers - D&P will vote Yes

EDIT

As said earlier, Jim Spence says he will announce another club that intends to vote no in the morning around 8-9am. He announced that on twitter around 11.30pm so its definitely not anyone that made a formal statement today or before that. I suspect its Aberdeen bowing to their fans demands.

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 3:40am

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4388189/Hoops-Im-20million-short-for-Rangers-bid.html

TAX-DODGING tycoon Stephen McKenna told last night how he pulled out of trying to buy Rangers because he would need an extra £20MILLION to secure the club’s future.

Rangers really need £20million to £30million to move forward — that is how bad it is.

So basically, they sounded out a bid before they did any form of due diligence and are now looking to merge with other consortium/businessmen to add they necessary weight to their plans. Sounds similar to Charles Green's tactic, no?

Jelle1880 · 22-06-2012 7:12am

Publicity stunt, as said by a Daily Record journalist on twitter.

lubo_moravcik · 22-06-2012 8:38am

Aberdeen say NO

Savage Tyrant · 22-06-2012 8:49am

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Aberdeen say NO

5 NO's ... Should be a done deal then?

_blank_ · 22-06-2012 9:02am

Is the vote secret, or are the votes of each club made public, because what people say in public can be very different to what people actually do in ballots

lubo_moravcik · 22-06-2012 9:08am

An sure the results are made public. Super Ally demands transparency

Pompey Magnus · 22-06-2012 9:13am

Des wrote: »

Is the vote secret, or are the votes of each club made public, because what people say in public can be very different to what people actually do in ballots

A secret ballot can be requested but nobody has asked for one yet. I get the impression that even a secret ballot will have repercussions should some clubs lie to the fans and vote Yes, the SPL is teetering on the brink and pissing off the support is the last thing it needs.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-06-2012 9:18am

Kilmarnock manager Shiels has said it should be a secret ballot although I don't think Kilmarnock have asked for one yet. A lot of these clubs would love to vote for Sevco if they could only hide it from their fans and the rest of the public

PauloMN · 22-06-2012 9:23am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's rather easy, because I separate the club and the company behind it.

If it's the same club, why are they having to apply for membership into the SPL, or possibly a lower league?

Surely if it was the same club they'd not be having to apply for membership? And surely they'd have paid their debts?

You support Newco Rangers - 0 titles, 0 cups and no history.

PauloMN · 22-06-2012 9:44am

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4388189/Hoops-Im-20million-short-for-Rangers-bid.html

TAX-DODGING tycoon Stephen McKenna told last night how he pulled out of trying to buy Rangers because he would need an extra £20MILLION to secure the club’s future.

So basically, they sounded out a bid before they did any form of due diligence and are now looking to merge with other consortium/businessmen to add they necessary weight to their plans. Sounds similar to Charles Green's tactic, no?

They walked away before they'd even got there!

Makes me wonder what really is Green's plan for the company though. It seems such a risk, especially when it's not even know what league the new club will be playing in. What's he up to? Obviously he's in it to make money, but was it a risk worth taking?

I think a lot of the investor details will be sorted out once the league situation is finally resolved, and once any sanctions (if any) are decided upon.

Jelle1880 · 22-06-2012 10:12am

PauloMN wrote: »

If it's the same club, why are they having to apply for membership into the SPL, or possibly a lower league?

Surely if it was the same club they'd not be having to apply for membership? And surely they'd have paid their debts?

You support Newco Rangers - 0 titles, 0 cups and no history.

Because the license is with the company.

The club already existed before the company was started and will continue, even if the company behind it is different.

Paulo: Even if he decides to sell the club on after only a few months, it'll be the quickest buck made ever.

PauloMN · 22-06-2012 11:28am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because the license is with the company.

The club already existed before the company was started and will continue, even if the company behind it is different.

So do you think that a club's public face i.e. the company - should be able to get away with what they've done, shut up shop, and the club go on as is? That's simply wrong in my view.

The club may have existed before the company, but that was the case for every football club. Once the company was formed, the club and company become intrinsically linked. You can't just throw away the bad bits and keep the good bits to suit.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Paulo: Even if he decides to sell the club on after only a few months, it'll be the quickest buck made ever.

Well that all depends. The value of the new club surely depends on where they'll be playing next season. What will he do if he ends up in Div 3? (Not that that will happen, the SPL/SFL and SFA are doing everything in their power to allow the new club to skip through divisions to Div 1).

Savage Tyrant · 22-06-2012 11:38am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because the license is with the company.

The 2 are one and the same from the moment the company was formed to run it. If they are 2 seperate entities then it's a little odd that the entity that owns the playing staff isn't the entity that uses them.
You can swerve and sidestep and claim what you like... But every man and his wife knows that the Company you supported, (in morderm day football ALL the big clubs are Companies now), it died and it's assets where sold to a new company that was set up in a different country by a man with no physical or emotional attachment to the club from which he bought the assets.

Nobody can ever erase the history of your defunct club (bar stripping a number of honours)... But nobody shall ever be able to truthfully add to it either.

Jelle1880 · 22-06-2012 11:59am

Lord Guthrie would disagree.

“Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as “Rangers”). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA”

He cleary distinguishes between the club and the company.

The perfect example is Leeds.
They got a CVA, but the company behind the club got replaced by Leeds United Football Club Limited.

Same for Boro.

The situations differ, but the issue with the company behind the club is comparable.

PauloMN · 22-06-2012 12:01pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Lord Guthrie would disagree.

He cleary distinguishes between the club and the company.

Te perfect example is Leeds.
They got a CVA, but the company behind the club got replaced by Leeds United Football Club Limited.

Same for Boro.

Did the company number change in either case?

celt262 · 22-06-2012 1:14pm

Leeds kept the same company number.

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 1:20pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Lord Guthrie would disagree.

Only last month we had 2 Lords disagreeing on the transfer embargo! Now all it takes is 1 Lord saying something to set things in stone? :rolleyes:

Rangers are a SPL club, SPL clubs are voting whether to give that share to a newco or allow another club into the SPL. The liquidation of Rangers and transferring of the share to a newco makes it a different club.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont

Lord Hodge orders inquiry into Duff and Phelps appointment as Rangers administrators

As expected, their attempt at administration was/is farcical!

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 1:30pm

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/creditors-retain-claim-on-rangers-season-ticket-cash.17946985

Ibrox season-ticket renewal money gathered by direct debit is being held in the oldco Rangers' bank account, where it can be claimed by creditors, after Charles Green's group failed to make the necessary banking arrangements.

Fair funny if true

PauloMN · 22-06-2012 1:32pm

Interesting choice of language in the BBC link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18549293

The 140-year-old club is now set to be wound up by HMRC's preferred liquidators BDO.

Mr Green has since formed a new club and is attempting to get access to the Scottish Premier League.

I'll ask again - if this was the same club, why would they need to apply for access to the SPL?

celt262 · 22-06-2012 1:34pm

Anyone that thinks it is not a new club is just clinging on to the past.

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 1:36pm

He'll dismiss the BBC as having an agenda against Rangers and that agenda continues with Sevco

TheBuilder · 22-06-2012 2:12pm

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/creditors-retain-claim-on-rangers-season-ticket-cash.17946985

Ibrox season-ticket renewal money gathered by direct debit is being held in the oldco Rangers' bank account, where it can be claimed by creditors, after Charles Green's group failed to make the necessary banking arrangements.

Fair funny if true

There's been no season ticket payments taken yet.

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 2:17pm

TheBuilder wrote: »

There's been no season ticket payments taken yet.

The RFFF was urging people to buy season tickets yesterday and the Rangers website is doing online sales. How do you know that payments havent been taken?

TheBuilder · 22-06-2012 2:28pm

Dempsey wrote: »

The RFFF was urging people to buy season tickets yesterday and the Rangers website is doing online sales. How do you know that payments havent been taken?

Yes when the time comes, and I don't think many people, even the members of these groups are doing as they're told, people are being wary and making their own choice on renewals.

From the many many season ticket holders I speak to regularly and the others I know through forums.

It's not been a secret Green hasn't got banking facilities for the club yet, every other person who tried to takeover was struggling to get banking facilities for the club as well, Paul Murray said that himself.

ColeTrain · 22-06-2012 3:10pm

PauloMN wrote: »

Interesting choice of language in the BBC link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18549293

I'll ask again - if this was the same club, why would they need to apply for access to the SPL?

Another question would be, if it is the same club after liquidation, then why the hell didn't they just liquidate straight away instead of offering CVA's and messing around with the creditiors?

Old Gill · 22-06-2012 4:34pm

ColeTrain wrote: »

Another question would be, if it is the same club after liquidation, then why the hell didn't they just liquidate straight away instead of offering CVA's and messing around with the creditiors?

From what I can gather from rangers forums their belief is that although the membership died and officially a new club has been set up with assets etc from the old club, the "spirit" of the old club lives on in the new one and thats all that matters. is this about right?

Dempsey · 22-06-2012 5:19pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18556194

Scottish Premier League clubs will meet at Hampden on Thursday to discuss the implications of their Rangers 'newco' vote on 4 July.

All clubs, except Rangers, are expected to gather for a pre-vote debate.

Expanding the league should be considered again whilst streamlining the SPL and SFL into a pyramid league structure.

jack presley · 22-06-2012 7:18pm

Old Gill wrote: »

From what I can gather from rangers forums their belief is that although the membership died and officially a new club has been set up with assets etc from the old club, the "spirit" of the old club lives on in the new one and thats all that matters. is this about right?

That's a reasonable attitude to have I think. You can go on about how it's a different corporate entity but who follows corporate entities? They'll be wearing the same gear, have the same crest, play in the same stadium. Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to say they're the same team even if technically they aren't and they are starting from scratch

I still don't think they should be allowed in the SPL though.....

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments