The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It wouldnt really do them much good to petition to change, it would cost them money, potentially more than they would stand to get in any CVA. If they were removed D&P fees wouldnt go away, they would be added to the list along with everyone else.
 
Metalface Mark said:
It wouldnt really do them much good to petition to change, it would cost them money, potentially more than they would stand to get in any CVA. If they were removed D&P fees wouldnt go away, they would be added to the list along with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Not if they were found to be guilty of any wrongdoing. The court has the power to order any and all fees abolished.

Are you just arguing about every single detail just for arguings sake?
 
Metalface Mark said:
I know fine well what transfers and registrations are, I assumed since St Johnstone for example had paraded signings which doesnt usually happen till they signed that the window was opened.

Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things is it, because I made a mistake on transfer window doesn't negate everything else I say, does it?
Click to expand...

no it certainly does not, but if you read through the thread there are occasions where the opinion you post is so ridicules you must know its pie in the sky. which leads me to believe you are just posting to antagonize others
or have a serious drug/mental problem.:)
 
Shall we make a list?

1. St. Mirren would make more money if Morton replaced Rangers in the SPL.

2. Termination of contracts worth nearly £50 million would have been beneficial to creditors.

3. Sky might continue to invest as much in the SPL without Rangers.

All off the top if my head... I'm sure others can add to it.
 
steve1873 said:
Shall we make a list?

1. St. Mirren would make more money if Morton replaced Rangers in the SPL.

2. Termination of contracts worth nearly £50 million would have been beneficial to creditors.

3. Sky might continue to invest as much in the SPL without Rangers.

All off the top if my head... I'm sure others can add to it.
Click to expand...

1. St Mirren would make more money in games vs Morton as we would get bigger crowds (we get about 6000-6500 against Rangers, we get a full house against Morton).

2. 50m in creditors at 10p in the pound is 5m, if higher value players with decent contracts were sold first it would reduce the creditor list and give more money to creditors.

3. Sky might, they have not commented, they might not, no one knows, not you, not me, we can only speculate.
 
Metalface Mark said:
1. St Mirren would make more money in games vs Morton as we would get bigger crowds (we get about 6000-6500 against Rangers, we get a full house against Morton).

2. 50m in creditors at 10p in the pound is 5m, if higher value players with decent contracts were sold first it would reduce the creditor list and give more money to creditors.

3. Sky might, they have not commented, they might not, no one knows, not you, not me, we can only speculate.
Click to expand...

2) that isn't how it works. The total is added to the creditors list. In this case £50 milliom would be added to the £54.7 million current debt, thus meaning the current creditors would see any offer of pemce in the £ halved straight away. As I have already explained selling players was not an option... Unless either Paul Clark or David Whitehouse are in possesion of a time machine!!

Not to mention that having terminated the contracts (assets) of the players no bid for the business would have been forthcoming. What part of that would be beneficial to creditors?

The rest... I'm not even going to bother arguing with as they are so ludicrous as to not even merit wasting my time over.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I didn't realise there was a specific difference between the SFA and the SPL. I always thought one was a subset of the other. Doesn't it all come under Scottish football. (not a fitba fan here). I thought that as there was a clause that said they could come up with an appropriate sanction which is why they came up what what they did?
 
steve1873 said:
2) that isn't how it works. The total is added to the creditors list. In this case £50 milliom would be added to the £54.7 million current debt, thus meaning the current creditors would see any offer of pemce in the £ halved straight away. As I have already explained selling players was not an option... Unless either Paul Clark or David Whitehouse are in possesion of a time machine!!

Not to mention that having terminated the contracts (assets) of the players no bid for the business would have been forthcoming. What part of that would be beneficial to creditors?

The rest... I'm not even going to bother arguing with as they are so ludicrous as to not even merit wasting my time over.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, bet better just to block me then and not respond to my posts.
 
Where would be the fun in that?

And besides, if i were to do that I would be unable to dispute the lies, half truths and distortions that you aim in the direction of my club. Not that it particuarly matters what 2 individuals on an internet forum think. But I would not want an outsider to the situation with a limited knowledge reading only an opinion of someone with a clear anti Rangers agenda. It is important to see both sides of the story in any 'debate'.

I may not be able to claim objectivity, given my support of the club that the discussion centres on, but I have always tried to maintain objectivity within my analysis of the financial situation amd the administration process - which this thread is fundamentally about. I do not think anyone would view your opinion as objective when you have clearly stated it is your preference to see Rangers die!!!
 
On the contrary, on the outset I didnt want to see Rangers die, I just wanted to see them punished properly.

The reaction of the manager, the fans and club 'legends' like Sandy Jardine have made me want to see the club die.
 
Metalface Mark said:
On the contrary, on the outset I didnt want to see Rangers die, I just wanted to see them punished properly.

The reaction of the manager, the fans and club 'legends' like Sandy Jardine have made me want to see the club die.
Click to expand...

Imagine them having the gallus to defend their club! :rolleyes:

I suppose they should have rolled over and allowed the club to have been attacked from all sides whilst at deaths door, including our own national association handing out unlawful punishments and instigating 'well timed' investigations into the club (with the flimsiest of evidence may I add) when it has no officials in place to defend it other than a couple of court appointed administrators with no allegiance to the club?
 
Last edited:
Metalface Mark said:
McCoist new the panel members, rangers had a representative at the hearing, the public naming was nothing more than harassment.

Jardine calling for boycotts.

And yes, when the referee nonsense was happening I was disgusted with Celtic and Lennon, it was a disgusting attempt to give a bias to Celtic which worked going by the yellow/red card and penalty stats which are swayed massively in favour of Celtic since then.
Click to expand...

Matters not a jot whether McCoist knew or not. The issue at hand was what did the SFA have to hide and why was anonymity decided upon when the whole point of the new judicial system was transparency?

They cannot have it both ways. Declare the system is transparent and then hide behind anonymity. It is either 1 or the other, do you agree?
 
The whole point of the anonymity was to protect them from the moronic minority that every club has. If some fans don't like a decison, they will go out of their way to cause trouble for the makers of said decision. The fear of reprisals is very real. I did think Mccoist was irresponsible calling for them to be named knowing full well why they were anonymous and knowing just what sort of hornets nest he was stirring up.
Sure enough, some idiots did their best to cause trouble, proving the point.
 
the panel members names were common knowledge in glasgow soon after the decision was made public, as ive said on here before ,you need to be very very naive to believe the names would stay a secret in glasgow,but then again thats exactly what the sfa are.
 
steve1873 said:
Matters not a jot whether McCoist knew or not. The issue at hand was what did the SFA have to hide and why was anonymity decided upon when the whole point of the new judicial system was transparency?

They cannot have it both ways. Declare the system is transparent and then hide behind anonymity. It is either 1 or the other, do you agree?
Click to expand...

The problem was Steve, Rangers knew who was on the board, they had no need to call for transparency, they knew! There was nothing good to come out of fans finding out who was on the panel, it was always just gonna end in intimidation and threats from the idiot fans that follow the club.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/will-the-spl-survive-without-rangers-1-2335890

Good article today on life without Rangers.
 
Metalface Mark said:
Come come Gav, you or Steve were also wrong about the transfer window, saying it opened July 1st, we were both wrong on that one.
Click to expand...


I never once said it opened in July. Your the person that is consistently getting your facts wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom