The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

jas72 · 1 Jun 2012 at 15:33

Metalface Mark said:
Which would never happen.

Fifa have already stated the old firm cant go into England, if they want to play in England they would have to relocate into England and start in the very bottom rung.

Indeed they can't allow it due to Dutch teams applying to the German league or Belgian teams playing in the French league etc. Well you can see the problems that would cause.

steve1873 · 1 Jun 2012 at 15:34

Metalface Mark said:
Would clubs not be able to make the same cutbacks if the TV deal was reduced? You are not talking much sense Steve!

LOL. I'm not talking much sense? Says te guy who made the ludicrous claim that St. Mirren would have more income if Morton replace Rangers in the league?

Of course clubs can make cut backs if the tv deal is reduced. Not think that might reduce the overall quality of the product on offer to the fans and the tv companies who fund the clubs?
Who in turn will offer even further reduced terms at the next juncture. And so the vicious circle and downward spiral would begin, wkth the inevitable happening - Scottish football taking on the same kind of relevance as the League of Ireland. It is already heading that way even woth Rangers as a part of it. Without Rangers that would be accelerated.

You are clearly not thinking logically. You are thinking as a fan. When the decisions are made they will be based on business and the econonomics of the league and Scottish football as a whole. Those are the stone cold facts.

JUMPURS · 1 Jun 2012 at 15:52

jas72 said:
I would hope that HMRC acts responsibly to

a) get the best result for the taxpayer

b) look to potential future income from the company in administration

taking these two points into account there can only be one answer.

Accept a CVA. Get some cash now and have income generated in the future.

YEah because taking 5p in the pound is the best result for the tax payer. You don't want the best result for the taxman, you want the best result for Rangers

Rangers CVA is worth about 5m to creditors. Now answer me this, do you think that they can get more than 5m between selling

Naismith
McGreggor
Bocanegra
Davis
Lafferty

Plus Murray Park. A Gym in Bearsden will sell for a few quid and the scrap for any metal in Ibrox. Do you think that is 5m?

Yu do also realise that the court will appoint liquidators. Do you think the court will allow D&P to be appointed given they done absolutely zero to reduce operating costs in the 108 days they have been in charge.

And finally, how many clubs will get their chequebooks out if they hammer Rangers?? Or if they set a precedent of don't pay tax for a decade then pay 5pm in the pound, how many other clubs will do it??

Surely setting an example and getting chequebooks out straight away is a better result for the country, than every football team in the UK paying 5p in the pound??

JDeeLFC · 1 Jun 2012 at 15:52

jas72 said:
Indeed they can't allow it due to Dutch teams applying to the German league or Belgian teams playing in the French league etc. Well you can see the problems that would cause.

Think thats just a wee bit different. Thats a whole parliament different.

The Welsh teams play in England so why not the Scottish ones.

JUMPURS · 1 Jun 2012 at 15:53

McMav said:
Need to find a buyer first though eh. clubs havent exactly been battering the doorsa down at most clubs to sign players eh?

So clubs in Scotland haven't managed to offload players the past few transfer windows?? :confused:

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:02

steve1873 said:
LOL. I'm not talking much sense? Says te guy who made the ludicrous claim that St. Mirren would have more income if Morton replace Rangers in the league? Who in turn will offer even further reduced terms at the next juncture. And so the vicious circle and downward spiral would begin, wkth the inevitable happening - Scottish football taking on the same kind of relevance as the League of Ireland. It is already heading that way even woth Rangers as a part of it. Without Rangers that would be accelerated.

Of course clubs can make cut backs if the tv deal is reduced. Not think that might reduce the overall quality of the product on offer to the fans and the tv companies who fund the clubs?

You are clearly not thinking logically. You are thinking as a fan. When the decisions are made they will be based on business and the econonomics of the league and Scottish football as a whole. Those are the stone cold facts.

I said we would get more money from normal footballing competitions as Morton vs St Mirren would attract a higher support than Rangers vs St Mirren, nothing to do with any TV deal.

Stone cold facts is that Rangers have bitten the hand that feeds them and will now face suspension or expulsion.

semi-pro waster · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:03

JDeeLFC said:
Think thats just a wee bit different. Thats a whole parliament different.

The Welsh teams play in England so why not the Scottish ones.

I thought about bringing up that point but since both Cardiff and Swansea have been in the English leagues for decades at this point (might be since their inception as football clubs) the precedent of having Welsh teams in the English league doesn't mean all that much to new clubs applying.

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:07

jas72 said:
Again we have someone splitting hairs.

Rangers will not be a newco in that sense they were around since 1872.

They won't be formally liquidated thus demotion to div 3 would be a possibility, they won't lose their licence to play.

I'm not a legal expert and I'm only stating what I've read on various sites.

They have over 100 years of accounts to show... again the problem with club and company.

In my opinion it would be very short sighted of HMRC NOT to accept a CVA considering the potential income in future years.

Still there are some that say that HMRC don't have any guidelines on this matter and are free to do as they please. I would harbour a guess that one of the most regulated civil services in the UK is HMRC where there would be little freedom.

I would hope that HMRC acts responsibly to

a) get the best result for the taxpayer

b) look to potential future income from the company in administration

taking these two points into account there can only be one answer.

Accept a CVA. Get some cash now and have income generated in the future.

The best result for the taxpayer is to show that this is not a way out of paying your debts and for Rangers to be made an example off. If Rangers are a newco, then whatever way you paint it, the old Rangers are dead, long live the new Rangers, but the historical links to the old company are dead, you cannot buy these.

There is no formal demotion to division 3, if Rangers are a newco they should be made to apply for status to the league along with other clubs and the club who suits the criteria (one of them being that you need 3 years of audited accounts, which Rangers wont have as a new company) would mean that it would mean a period in the amateur leagues or juniors if they would have them. As stated before, Rangers have made their position clear now, they want no favours and only want punished by the rulebook, well thats the rulebook, newco = bye bye Scottish leagues.

An a Newco will very much mean a formal liquidation, its not something you can clean up and re present.

Another result for the taxpayer would be for the assets to be seized and Murray Park used as the new national academy's training centre, at least Scotland as a whole would benefit from it in the long term, Ibrox could be owned by a company representing the creditors and loaned back to Rangers to pay off the debts over a period of years.

steve1873 · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:17

Metalface Mark said:
I said we would get more money from normal footballing competitions as Morton vs St Mirren would attract a higher support than Rangers vs St Mirren, nothing to do with any TV deal.

Stone cold facts is that Rangers have bitten the hand that feeds them and will now face suspension or expulsion.

The hand that feeds them? Rangers (and Celtic) are the hands that feed Scottish football. Accept that fact.

steve1873 · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:24

Metalface Mark said:
The best result for the taxpayer is to show that this is not a way out of paying your debts and for Rangers to be made an example off. If Rangers are a newco, then whatever way you paint it, the old Rangers are dead, long live the new Rangers, but the historical links to the old company are dead, you cannot buy these.

There is no formal demotion to division 3, if Rangers are a newco they should be made to apply for status to the league along with other clubs and the club who suits the criteria (one of them being that you need 3 years of audited accounts, which Rangers wont have as a new company) would mean that it would mean a period in the amateur leagues or juniors if they would have them. As stated before, Rangers have made their position clear now, they want no favours and only want punished by the rulebook, well thats the rulebook, newco = bye bye Scottish leagues.

An a Newco will very much mean a formal liquidation, its not something you can clean up and re present.

Another result for the taxpayer would be for the assets to be seized and Murray Park used as the new national academy's training centre, at least Scotland as a whole would benefit from it in the long term, Ibrox could be owned by a company representing the creditors and loaned back to Rangers to pay off the debts over a period of years.

So basically treat Rangers differently and more harshly than any other club that has previously entered administration?

steve1873 · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:27

JUMPURS said:
YEah because taking 5p in the pound is the best result for the tax payer. You don't want the best result for the taxman, you want the best result for Rangers

Rangers CVA is worth about 5m to creditors. Now answer me this, do you think that they can get more than 5m between selling

Naismith
McGreggor
Bocanegra
Davis
Lafferty

Plus Murray Park. A Gym in Bearsden will sell for a few quid and the scrap for any metal in Ibrox. Do you think that is 5m?

Yu do also realise that the court will appoint liquidators. Do you think the court will allow D&P to be appointed given they done absolutely zero to reduce operating costs in the 108 days they have been in charge.

And finally, how many clubs will get their chequebooks out if they hammer Rangers?? Or if they set a precedent of don't pay tax for a decade then pay 5pm in the pound, how many other clubs will do it??

Surely setting an example and getting chequebooks out straight away is a better result for the country, than every football team in the UK paying 5p in the pound??

You do realise that Naismith, McGregor etc are human beings therefore cannot be 'assets'? They are employees. The asset is their contract of employment. If the club is liquidated or in the process of being liquidated those contracts become worthless, so there is no value to creditors in them.

Mr.E. · 1 Jun 2012 at 16:34

Metalface Mark said:
I said we would get more money from normal footballing competitions as Morton vs St Mirren would attract a higher support than Rangers vs St Mirren, nothing to do with any TV deal.

Do you really think a wet, dreary, Wednesday night, mid/bottom of the league match ( 1 of 4 a season ) between Morton & St. Mirren would draw a bigger crowd than if Rangers were the visiting team ?

lordfletch · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:01

there a lot hatred here being dressed up as evenhandedness

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:05

Mr.E. said:
Do you really think a wet, dreary, Wednesday night, mid/bottom of the league match ( 1 of 4 a season ) between Morton & St. Mirren would draw a bigger crowd than if Rangers were the visiting team ?

Yes, at St Mirren park it would, Morton are a bigger draw for St Mirren fans, just as St Mirren are a bigger draw for Morton fans than either of the old firm.

The same way Dundee and Dundee United are each others biggest game rather than the old firm, and Hearts and Hibs.

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:05

steve1873 said:
The hand that feeds them? Rangers (and Celtic) are the hands that feed Scottish football. Accept that fact.

Thats what you need to get in your head, if that was the case, Rangers and Celtic would be above the law, which they are not.

lordfletch · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:15

Metalface Mark said:
Thats what you need to get in your head, if that was the case, Rangers and Celtic would be above the law, which they are not.

no ones above the law,not the spl, sfa, uefa or fifa, do you understand this ? we have had posts after post about this very fact yet you are still going round in circles.

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:33

lordfletch said:
no ones above the law,not the spl, sfa, uefa or fifa, do you understand this ? we have had posts after post about this very fact yet you are still going round in circles.

Thank you for confirming my point that Rangers and Celtic are not above the law and therefore not the hand that feeds Scottish football

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:34

steve1873 said:
So basically treat Rangers differently and more harshly than any other club that has previously entered administration?

How is that treating Rangers any differently? Rangers have had the same punishment as Gretna, 10 point penalty, so far, thats all that they have been punished for the administration, the same as Gretna.

steve1873 · 1 Jun 2012 at 17:38

Metalface Mark said:
How is that treating Rangers any differently? Rangers have had the same punishment as Gretna, 10 point penalty, so far, thats all that they have been punished for the administration, the same as Gretna.

Yet you are advocating the seizure of assets to pay creditors, as a result of that very administration!

In effect removing the possibility of a CVA and bringing about liquidation, when the administrators have demonstrated that a CVA offers the best deal for creditors.

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 18:14

steve1873 said:
Yet you are advocating the seizure of assets to pay creditors, as a result of that very administration!

In effect removing the possibility of a CVA and bringing about liquidation, when the administrators have demonstrated that a CVA offers the best deal for creditors.

Thats got nothing to do with the administration and how the SPL treat it.

The administrators have done a terrible job for the creditors, did a brilliant job for themselves mind you.