Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Colin M]

I think that's perhaps the understatement of the week. Small clubs face a massive hole in their turnover, and therefore the ability to pay wages; and indebted clubs face a huge gap in what they were to use to meet their repayments.

Whether that's worth it for 3-4 years without Rangers is the debate.

It's existence is a matter of fact, though, which may inform that debate.

Again I appreciate the reality. If the realization from all of this is that Scottish Football is more a commercial enterprise than a sport then so be it.

[pozbaird]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the argument put forward in regard to keeping Rangers in the SPL no matter what, is all about one thing - money. The money we'd all lose without Rangers. The consequences of losing the money that comes with Rangers being in the SPL.

So, why don't the SPL abolish relegation? I mean, if Hibs go down - think of the money lost. Edinburgh derbies no more? No Edinburgh derbies (which are always feisty affairs in front of good crowds) on Sky or ESPN? Decent numbers of Hibernian fans coming to St Mirren Park gone? To be replaced with three men and a dug' fae' Dingwall? Shudder...

No relegation. Keep all the big clubs who generate money from suffering any nasty fate that could lose us money. Makes perfect sense... fcuk the diddies in Irn Bru land.

Rangers must be saved! Erm, and Hibs too?

[HibeeJibee]

Again I appreciate the reality. If the realization from all of this is that Scottish Football is more a commercial enterprise than a sport then so be it.

It is a sport, operating as a commercial enterprise... as it must in an era of professionalism. Almost ever decision made in Scottish football since the 1890s has been driven by that commercial reality. And they're often unhappy bedfellows.

[Emunim]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the argument put forward in regard to keeping Rangers in the SPL no matter what, is all about one thing - money. The money we'd all lose without Rangers. The consequences of losing the money that comes with Rangers being in the SPL.

So, why don't the SPL abolish relegation? I mean, if Hibs go down - think of the money lost. Edinburgh derbies no more? No Edinburgh derbies (which are always feisty affairs in front of good crowds) on Sky or ESPN? Decent numbers of Hibernian fans coming to St Mirren Park gone? To be replaced with three men and a dug' fae' Dingwall? Shudder...

No relegation. Keep all the big clubs who generate money from suffering any nasty fate that could lose us money. Makes perfect sense... fcuk the diddies in Irn Bru land.

Rangers must be saved! Erm, and Hibs too?

That's the issue. Everyone who talks about money is ignoring that the point of the league isn't supposed to be about making money, it's supposed to be a competition.

[Supras]

Hatedly's actual "way beyond the verge of tears" rant makes this situation even sweeter, and I didn't think that was possible....

Thank you Mark

At first I though "there is no way Mark Hately actually wrote this" but then I saw the phrase:

"sink the boot in when our wounds have been self inflicted"

There's no way a professional writer would write that, this is 100% Hately.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Supras

[HibeeJibee]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the argument put forward in regard to keeping Rangers in the SPL no matter what, is all about one thing - money. The money we'd all lose without Rangers. The consequences of losing the money that comes with Rangers being in the SPL.

So, why don't the SPL abolish relegation? I mean, if Hibs go down - think of the money lost. Edinburgh derbies no more? No Edinburgh derbies (which are always feisty affairs in front of good crowds) on Sky or ESPN? Decent numbers of Hibernian fans coming to St Mirren Park gone? To be replaced with three men and a dug' fae' Dingwall? Shudder...

No relegation. Keep all the big clubs who generate money from suffering any nasty fate that could lose us money. Makes perfect sense... fcuk the diddies in Irn Bru land.

Rangers must be saved! Erm, and Hibs too?

... because Edinburgh derbies and Hibs away games are frills on the TV deal and sponsorship, while OF derbies and Rangers away games are fundementals (and subject to a TV break clause).

... because relegation is guaranteed under the "Perpetual Agreement between SPL and SFL, is protected under FIFA and UEFA statute, and because the bottom of an SPL without relegation becomes stale, thus damaging its value.

... because the gates issue is a secondary factor, but even then, Rangers typically take bigger gates and attract more hospitality than Hibs do.

... because Hibs going down has a generally neglibile impact on other clubs finances compared to Rangers disappearing.

Those are the fundemental differences.

[MacWatt]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the argument put forward in regard to keeping Rangers in the SPL no matter what, is all about one thing - money. The money we'd all lose without Rangers. The consequences of losing the money that comes with Rangers being in the SPL.

So, why don't the SPL abolish relegation? I mean, if Hibs go down - think of the money lost. Edinburgh derbies no more? No Edinburgh derbies (which are always feisty affairs in front of good crowds) on Sky or ESPN? Decent numbers of Hibernian fans coming to St Mirren Park gone? To be replaced with three men and a dug' fae' Dingwall? Shudder...

No relegation. Keep all the big clubs who generate money from suffering any nasty fate that could lose us money. Makes perfect sense... fcuk the diddies in Irn Bru land.

Rangers must be saved! Erm, and Hibs too?

According to the English League Managers Association several foreign-owned English Premier League clubs wanted to scrap relegation in order to protect thier investments, It was thought that even if the required 14 clubs voted for no relegation the FA would veto it. It is likely that the SFA would do the same

[Colin M]

It is a sport, operating as a commercial enterprise... as it must in an era of professionalism. Almost ever decision made in Scottish football since the 1890s has been driven by that commercial reality. And they're often unhappy bedfellows.

Of course it's still a sport - but there's a balance to be struck. We're talking about what could be the most significant event in Scottish Football's history here - the most successful team in the country potentially being shown to have cheated during a period of winning numerous titles and trophies, part funded by ripping off the tax payer. If this is the reality, then it's absolutely scandalous and should be met with severe punishment.

Compromising said punishment for commercial gain = the game is rigged. That may balance the books, but (in my opinion, of course) it kills the game as a competitive sport. Perhaps the reality is that Scottish Football = The Old Firm and everyone else makes up the numbers. I believe the fast tracking of a new Rangers to the SPL with some token penalties just to maximize commercial income would be the game officially recognizing that The Old Firm is bigger than the game itself. I could never accept that.

It's probably melodramatic. Maybe most people will harrumph! and carry on grumbling. It should still be said, IMO.

[craigkillie]

The TV deal would be lost and would the SPL get the (£10 million?) a year from the replacement for the Clydesdale Bank sponsorship/prize money which is about to end? Irn Bru only gives £1 million to the SFL.

There would still be a TV deal. It might not be as lucrative, but there would still be a broadcaster looking to show our games.

[Colin M]

... because relegation is guaranteed under the "Perpetual Agreement between SPL and SFL, is protected under FIFA and UEFA statute, and because the bottom of an SPL without relegation becomes stale, thus damaging its value.

Yet we can't relegate Rangers because it would cost too much?

[HibeeJibee]

That's the issue. Everyone who talks about money is ignoring that the point of the league isn't supposed to be about making money, it's supposed to be a competition.

I'll stop you there. You're wrong, or else you're 120 years too late.

The league is about a balance between money and competition. A balance.

It has been since professionalism began.

I'm not saying it's right that it is...

... I'm just saying how it is.

(Leagues were actually invented for £££ reasons).

Yet we can't relegate Rangers because it would cost too much?

Entirely hypothetical. They've never been near to a relegation position.

If what you mean is that we can't expel Rangers (or decide not to permit their continuation or readmittance)... that's the entire crux of the discussion. Of course we can. We just have to face the financial consequences.

Edited February 24, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[pozbaird]

... because Edinburgh derbies and Hibs away games are frills on the TV deal and sponsorship, while OF derbies and Rangers away games are fundementals (and subject to a TV break clause).

... because relegation is guaranteed under the "Perpetual Agreement between SPL and SFL, is protected under FIFA and UEFA statute, and because the bottom of an SPL without relegation becomes stale, thus damaging its value.

... because the gates issue is a secondary factor, but even then, Rangers typically take bigger gates and attract more hospitality than Hibs do.

... because Hibs going down has a generally neglibile impact on other clubs finances compared to Rangers disappearing.

Those are the fundemental differences.

Erm, I wasn't actually seriously arguing that there should be no relegation - merely using the fact that a genuine big club in Hibs could be lost to the SPL through relegation, and nothing would be done, but another genuinely big club in Rangers could be lost to the SPL through cheating, tax avoidance, debt-dodging and mis-management...

..but there's a feeling that they might need saved because of who they are. My point being - big clubs can be lost to the SPL in different ways, NO-ONE should receive special treatment. Even if it is a scunner financially, we need to deal with it.

[Colin M]

Entirely hypothetical. They've never been near to a relegation position.

If what you mean is that we can't expel Rangers (or decide not to permit their continuation or readmittance)... that's the entire crux of the discussion. Of course we can. We just have to face the financial consequences.

The only reason it would not be described as "relegation" here is because it means leaving one body and joining another. That's another commercial anomaly! "Self Preservation League" has never been more apt.

[Nowhereman]

...or a third model is that Rangers are demoted to the third division and obliged to play their way back to the SPL over four seasons, as would happen to any other club in this position.

Outcome, not process, HJ, is the most important thing. But Scottish domestic football will lose whatever shred of dignity it has left, if it rolls over and lets Rangers continue in the SPL.

But why should they even get back into the third division of a completely different organisation. When Airdrieonians were liquidated Airdrie United were formed quickly and applied to get back in to the sfl. However that application was refused presumably because the clubs felt that they shouldn't be allowed to walk back in to the league after going bust. So if Rangers go bust and a new company are not allowed in to the spl they should have to apply to the sfl in the usual manner along with Spartans, Cove, Gala Fairydean et al

[H_B]

At first I though "there is no way Mark Hately actually wrote this" but then I saw the phrase:

"sink the boot in when our wounds have been self inflicted"

There's no way a professional writer would write that, this is 100% Hately.

Agreed. The stuff about "come on lads" in relation to the scum singing their songs of hate reeks of Hately as well.

It's top stuff giving dyed in the wool h*** a platform in the media.

Edited February 24, 2012 by H_B

[Emunim]

I'll stop you there. You're wrong, or else you're 120 years too late.

The league is about a balance between money and competition. A balance.

It has been since professionalism began.

I'm not saying it's right that it is...

... I'm just saying how it is.

Of course, but there is a vast difference between changing the rules of a competition for the sake of increasing revenue, and treating the rules of the competition as secondary to increasing revenue, which is what the post I was replying to was about. I was not saying leagues have nothing to do with making money.

[Colin M]

Of course, but there is a vast difference between changing the rules of a competition for the sake of increasing revenue, and treating the rules of the competition as secondary to increasing revenue, which is what the post I was replying to was about. I was not saying leagues have nothing to do with making money.

Pre-emtping response: They wouldn't actually be changing the rules, transfer of share, etc

The issue is that (rightly so), there was no rule put in place for the possibility: "what if it turns out one of the Old Firm rip off the tax payer for a decade and run themselves out of existence?".

[Nowhereman]

It is a sport, operating as a commercial enterprise... as it must in an era of professionalism. Almost ever decision made in Scottish football since the 1890s has been driven by that commercial reality. And they're often unhappy bedfellows.

Since the advent of the spl I would suggest that it is a commercial enterprise operating as a sport

[HibeeJibee]

..but there's a feeling that they might need saved because of who they are. My point being - big clubs can be lost to the SPL in different ways, NO-ONE should receive special treatment.

I think you've missed the point. Those who may advocate retaining Rangers on financial grounds will not do so "because of who they are". It would be "because of what they bring", or rather, the impact of the disappearance of what they bring.

Even if it is a scunner financially, we need to deal with it.

Easy for us to say. Perhaps less easy for chairman staring at balance sheets.

There is, and may turn out to be, a point at which "sporting negative of not killing Rangers" is outweighed by "financial impact of killing Rangers".

I've no desire to see other historic clubs folding. I've no desire to see the game excessively impoverished.

It's not clear-cut... there's potential grey between.

Of course, but there is a vast difference between changing the rules of a competition for the sake of increasing revenue, and treating the rules of the competition as secondary to increasing revenue, which is what the post I was replying to was about. I was not saying leagues have nothing to do with making money.

Use of the existing transfer-of-share rule would not be about increasing revenue. It would be avoiding the consequences of massively decreasing revenue, with almost no scope for transition. I haven't personally got a view on it yet... I'll see what the situation is if and when it happened... but killing Rangers isn't definetely worth it whatever the collateral damage.

Edited February 24, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[sjc]

:bairn :bairn

GIRFUY. It's not just Celtic that are pointing and laughing- it's the fans of every other Scottish club as well. The impact that decades of arrogant triumphalism, and petulant demands that the rest of Scottish football put up with a near-vertical playing field, just to accommodate the OF, seems to have completely passed this clown by.

The tantalising prospect that a future of the game without Rangers, or with a severely weakened Rangers being forced to play its way through the SFL, might actually be 100% better- putting the lie to the constant whine from bloated pissbags like Traynor that we all somehow "need a strong Rangers", will be wonderful to witness if it comes to pass.

Rangers won't disappear. But they need to be held to account properly for what has happened. The fact that loudmouth nobodies (failed football manager and part-time antiques dealer) like Hateley seem to be raging that they're going to have to face the music, as would any other club in this position, makes the necessity for severe sanction against Rangers all the more pressing.

The worst thing that can happen for Scottish football is that Rangers are simply allowed to re-form and continue as though none of this has happened.

Think of the TV deal my friend !

What could replace the World wide appreciated spectacle that is the Old Firm game ???

Edited February 24, 2012 by sjc