Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[thelegendthatis]

I think all this wishful thinking about Ranger's demise is wide of the mark. It may be morally wrong for Rangers to be readmitted into the SPL in some form but financially I would think that it would be a dead cert.

I would tend to see Geoff Brown's sentiments as typical of how most SPL Chairmen will be feeling. He thinks that many already cash-strapped SPL sides would face serious, and in some cases fatal, consequences if the Ibrox club goes into liquidation.

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.

As HJ has said in a league without Rangers clubs are looking at a 30% fall in turnover and a 50% cut in their wages bill. Many decent SPL and First Division players are presently finding life in the Championship, First, Second and even the Conference more lucrative than here under the present financial set-up. You may find a situation where most Conference clubs are offering more in wages than many SPL clubs. Now emigration to the English Leagues may not suit every half decent player in Scotland but it will be attractive to quite a few.

No way. This would be treating Rangers Newco preferentially over others. Suspect EU law would kill that one stone dead.

Yes income would reduce for other clubs, but with a club who competed unfairly removed from the league it will allow a gradual return to normality and what is affordable and sustainable.

Obviously the Rangers business model was NOT sustainable. Given that we are finding out they stole (no better way to put it) somewhere in excess of £70million to fund their greed and over ambitions, we must make sure something similar ever happens again. If the SFA do not bring in better policing then the Scottish Government will.

While clubs may be part of SPL, SFA, SFL, UEFA or whatever they are also businesses, and subject to normal company law.

Below the top 30 companies in the UK in 1947. the ones in bold are still listed. So just accept big companies do go bust!

Associated Portland Cement Morris Motors Courtaulds MurexDistillers P&O Dunlop Patons & Baldwins EMI Pinchin Johnson General Electric Rolls-Royce Guest Keen Spillers Harrods Swan Hunter Hawker Siddeley Tate & Lyle Imperial Chemical Turner & Newall Imperial Tobacco United Steel J&P Coats Vickers Lancashire Cotton Watney Coombe Reid Leyland Motors William Cory London Brick Woolworths

Edited February 24, 2012 by thelegendthatis

[MarkYardley'sNo.1Fan]

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.

And we (St. Mirren) could deal with it. It's the teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock who couldn't. Apart from Utd's brief stint in the 1st Division in the mid 90s these teams have spent what seems like an eternity in Scotland's top flight, and they've done so by spending money they didn't have. It's true that in recent years these teams have realised their past mistakes and have tried to tighten their belts, but they want to do so with minimal sacrifice. The SPL is structured to ensure these clubs don't go down, and allowing Rangers 2012 back into the SPL will be done to ensure these clubs don't go bust. We are all paying for the mistakes these clubs made in the 90s and early 00s, and we'll be continuing to pay for quite some time. A team the size of Kilmarnock shouldn't be playing 20+ years straight in the top flight, it's not healthy for the whole of Scottish football, and the fact that it's happened tells you all you need to know about how our game is run.

I'm sure when Rangers 2012 walk straight into the SPL we'll see the usual f**k the OF nonsense being spouted on here but the real culprits will receive very little attention.

[pozbaird]

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.

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 a potential grey area between.

I haven't missed the point at all. In my personal opinion, losing Rangers would be a blow to the SPL. I also believe losing Hibs from the SPL would be a blow. However, no-one is discussing what might be done to ensure Hibs remain in the SPL at all costs. The same cannot be said about Rangers. Naturally, if hypothetically speaking both were lost in the same season - losing Rangers would be a bigger financial hit. However, Hibs would have been lost through footballing reasons, and are a club who keep their house in order by selling players to rivals - Rangers!

Rangers, if lost to the SPL would be lost because of reasons that are currently shocking and amusing us all in equal measure. I therefore would find it completely disgusting if one were saved over the other.

The financial loss is undeniable - but not (IMHO) any justification for treating them any differently from any other SPL club. If they are, given the reason for their problems, the game's a bogey.

[HibeeJibee]

No way. This would be treating Rangers Newco preferentially over others. Suspect EU law would kill that one stone dead.

Leeds Utd transferred share in 2007. Other forms of skullduggery have happened in Europe (e.g. Fiorientina).

Yes income would reduce for other clubs, but with a club who competed unfairly removed from the league it will allow a gradual return to normality and what is affordable and sustainable.

What about clubs for whom the impact might prove deadly? This is my point. I've no desire to see Rangers given an easy ride - but equally, I've no desire to see other clubs suffer or potentially fold due to the financial impact of Rangers disappearing for 4 years.

Obviously the Rangers business model was NOT sustainable. Given that we are finding out they stole (no better way to put it) somewhere in excess of £70million to fund their greed and over ambitions, we must make sure something similar ever happens again. If the SFA do not bring in better policing then the Scottish Government will.

FFP's coming in. But football-specific government intervention is dangerous territory.

[Nowhereman]

Leeds Utd transferred share in 2007. Other forms of skullduggery have happened in Europe (e.g. Fiorientina).

What about clubs for whom the impact might prove deadly? This is my point. I've no desire to see Rangers given an easy ride - but equally, I've no desire to see other clubs suffer or potentially fold due to the financial impact of Rangers disappearing for 4 years.

FFP's coming in. But football-specific government intervention is dangerous territory.

If other clubs' budget entirely on what they earn off the back of the Old Firm then that is their lookout. Clubs have gone bust before and will do so again. It is up to each individual club to ensure that they are on a sound financial footing and if they are not then they don't deserve to survive. Serves them right for hanging on the old firm's coat tails when the spl was formed

[thelegendthatis]

Leeds Utd transferred share in 2007. Other forms of skullduggery have happened in Europe (e.g. Fiorientina).

What about clubs for whom the impact might prove deadly? This is my point. I've no desire to see Rangers given an easy ride - but equally, I've no desire to see other clubs suffer or potentially fold due to the financial impact of Rangers disappearing for 4 years.

FFP's coming in. But football-specific government intervention is dangerous territory.

FFP? Presume the first is a verb staring with F, second an adjective starting with F. But what is the P for? Protestants?

[thelegendthatis]

If other clubs' budget entirely on what they earn off the back of the Old Firm then that is their lookout. Clubs have gone bust before and will do so again. It is up to each individual club to ensure that they are on a sound financial footing and if they are not then they don't deserve to survive. Serves them right for hanging on the old firm's coat tails when the spl was formed

Spot on.

[Hedgecutter]

Erm, I wasn't actually seriously arguing that there should be no relegation

Nah, do it. It would be marvellous simply to see the Falkirk fans on here raging in a 100 page thread about how the Pars will continue to be the bigger for the rest of their lives... but then Falkirk and Raith would lose money if the Pars avoided relegation as there's two full houses at both Starks & Falkirk gone. Tricky.

[vikingTON]

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

Why not? How else should cheats be punished to the degree they deserve?

If SPL clubs embrace sycophantic mewling over justice then the game's a bogey. It must by rights go to an 11-1 vote: surely Hearts would vote against, so just one club required to have the stones to block a disgraceful bailout.

I wouldn't rule out Celtic holding the knife.

Edited February 24, 2012 by vikingTON

[Drew Brees]

Why not? How else should cheats be punished to the degree they deserve?

If SPL clubs embrace sycophantic mewling over justice then the game's a bogey. It must by rights go to an 11-1 vote: surely Heats would vote against, so just one club required to have the stones to block a disgraceful bailout.

I wouldn't rule out Celtic holding the knife.

Wouldn't the team finishing last vote against them too, if they vote them back them they are going down, vote no and they stay up.

[vikingTON]

What about clubs for whom the impact might prove deadly? This is my point. I've no desire to see Rangers given an easy ride - but equally, I've no desire to see other clubs suffer or potentially fold due to the financial impact of Rangers disappearing for 4 years.

Mewling. The only clubs in danger would be those also having ran themselves into the ground by cheating. St Johnstone, St Mirren etc would weather any storm: clubs from the SFL would replace fallen cheats.

That is a more just settlement for Scottish football. You advocate a protection racket instead.

Edited February 24, 2012 by vikingTON

[Broken Algorithms]

Nah, do it. It would be marvellous simply to see the Falkirk fans on here raging in a 100 page thread about how the Pars will continue to be the bigger for the rest of their lives... but then Falkirk and Raith would lose money if the Pars avoided relegation as there's two full houses at both Starks & Falkirk gone. Tricky.

We need to avoid relegation ourselves as well. As it stands, we're on the verge of financial meltdown. Sadly, a club like Rovers barely gets a look in when compared to that of Rangers. We tried to make a long term investment by mortgaging out stadium a few years back and it has backfired in the light of the recession. Even after released 14 players in the summer, plummeting attendances have caused us a financial headache. We didn't get any dodgy chairmen through our financial greed in the last four or five years, yet still suffer as so many clubs do. Hopefully we can stay up, the Pars are relegated (and it saddens me to say that, I'd love for the Pars to do as well as possible) and Cowden and East fife are promoted to give us maximum attendances next season.

[Nowhereman]

Why not? How else should cheats be punished to the degree they deserve?

If SPL clubs embrace sycophantic mewling over justice then the game's a bogey. It must by rights go to an 11-1 vote: surely Hearts would vote against, so just one club required to have the stones to block a disgraceful bailout.

I wouldn't rule out Celtic holding the knife.

I don't understand this talk of an 11 - 1 vote. If Rangers go under there would only be 11 teams. Not sure if it would be an 11 - 0 that would be required or a 10 - 1

[Thistle_do_nicely]

Every passing day, my optimism for Rangers finally dying a death and going away for good grows and grows. It's proving almost impossible to keep my feet firmly in the ground on this one.

As HibeeJibee has said; the chairmen will have to strike a balance between pissing their fans off and the financial side. That's fine, that's what their job is...

... so if a majority (and I would wager it would need to be a sizeable majority) of the fan groups/season-ticket holders/average punters from clubs outwith Rangers were to make it clear that "If Rangers go into liquidation and are treated preferentially, then we will not be renewing our season tickets/attending games so long as they remain in the SPL as a protest since the competition is a farce" it would cause a serious headache for chairmen who would stand to lose a hefty % of their own fanbase.

In the normal run of things, clubs can get away with a fair amount of shite and only have to deal with small amounts of discontent; an issue of this scale, though, could *really* galvanise opinion in such a way that enough people take part to render fanpower a serious force.

This is working under the proviso that Rangers were given special treatment, however.

I could see it happening that a large number of supporters of non-OF clubs who have spent years supporting their teams, and the subsequent disillusionment with the game would all band together, and I could see a fair few Celtic fans being rather unhappy to see their bitter rivals given soft treatment. The % of fans/supporters groups/season ticket holders that joined such a stand (particularly Celtic given the size of their fanbase) could well be key to the success/failure of such a stand. Strength in numbers and all that.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Thistle_do_nicely

[Swello]

Why not? How else should cheats be punished to the degree they deserve?

If SPL clubs embrace sycophantic mewling over justice then the game's a bogey. It must by rights go to an 11-1 vote: surely Hearts would vote against, so just one club required to have the stones to block a disgraceful bailout.

I wouldn't rule out Celtic holding the knife.

I know it's great fun for us all to make big pronouncements like the above - but it's utterly naive to think that the SPL chairmen would willingly chuck Rangers out and lower their income where there is an option to keep them - it won't happen. The discussion about which clubs can ride it out is also an irrelevance - just because St Johnstone could for example, it doesn't mean that they would do it by choice. And the vain hope that Hearts or even more bizarrely, Celtic would do this is fucking laughable given that they probably have the most to lose for differing reasons.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Swello

[vikingTON]

And the vain hope that Hearts or even more bizarrely, Celtic would do this is fucking laughable given that they probably have the most to lose for differing reasons.

Not sure if you have kept up, but Romanov is hardly running the club in Hearts' best financial interests. Why would he approach this issue with a changed mindset?

Celtic have nothing to lose: guranteed title wins for the forseeable future and an emphatic move to back the rhetoric that they don't need Rangers. They don't. Celtic could build a record-breaking, beyond NIAR level of dominance by shafting their rivals. They are in a good financial position regardless of the TV deal and their fans will lap it up.

Edited February 24, 2012 by vikingTON

[Granny Danger]

I've been a season ticket holder at Tannadice for a number of years and have had by existing seat for over a decade. In that time I have seen other season ticket holders come and go. A few I know still attend matches more selectively, others have just decided they have better things to do with their time (and money).

It would be nice to think that SPL chairmen would use this opportunity to make changes that would have long term benefits for the game i.e. make the league more competitive and, therefore, more attractive. But I don't think they will.

Instead they'll bend over for Rangers II and, in the process, some more non OF season ticket holders will call it a day. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that I will be one of them.

[Swello]

Not sure if you have kept up, but Romanov is hardly running the club in Hearts' best financial interests. Why would he approach this issue with a changed mindset?

Celtic have nothing to lose: guranteed title wins for the forseeable future and an emphatic move to back the rhetoric that they don't need Rangers. They don't. Celtic could build a record-breaking, beyond NIAR level of dominance by shafting their rivals. They are in a good financial position regardless of the TV deal and their fans will lap it up.

On Hearts - they are struggling badly financially and I can't see Romanov (even given his erratic history) cutting of his nose to spite his face to make a point, regardless of how satisfying it would be.

On Celtic, I just find the idea of a PLC voluntarily making their trading environment markedly worse a bit far fetched. Better for them to have a badly wounded Rangers in the league, still piss all over them, qualify for the CL and retain season ticket levels, sponsorship and TV revenue, all of which would suffer without the other cheek. I would have thought that their fans would enjoy the boasting rights of pumping rangers 4 times a season for a few years rather than never playing them, but who knows....

[craigkillie]

And we (St. Mirren) could deal with it. It's the teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock who couldn't. Apart from Utd's brief stint in the 1st Division in the mid 90s these teams have spent what seems like an eternity in Scotland's top flight, and they've done so by spending money they didn't have. It's true that in recent years these teams have realised their past mistakes and have tried to tighten their belts, but they want to do so with minimal sacrifice.

The vast majority of our debt came from "off-field" spending rather than by purchasing players. Stuff like the stadium, hotel, fitness centre and USH are to blame, and while we also did overspend on the pitch, the money spent would have been recouped by now but for those other debts.

A team the size of Kilmarnock shouldn't be playing 20+ years straight in the top flight, it's not healthy for the whole of Scottish football, and the fact that it's happened tells you all you need to know about how our game is run.

We haven't spent 20+ consecutive years in the top flight - we were promoted in 1993. We'd need to avoid relegation next season to reach that landmark.

We were in the top flight for 49 years at the start of the century, and 19 years from the 50s-70s. In fact, we'd only spent 27 years out of the top flight before the SPL started.

Killie are undoubtedly one of the top 10 clubs in Scotland, so it's hardly surprising we've spent so long in the top league.

Edited February 24, 2012 by craigkillie

[jambopompey]

Not sure if you have kept up, but Romanov is hardly running the club in Hearts' best financial interests. Why would he approach this issue with a changed mindset?

Celtic have nothing to lose: guranteed title wins for the forseeable future and an emphatic move to back the rhetoric that they don't need Rangers. They don't. Celtic could build a record-breaking, beyond NIAR level of dominance by shafting their rivals. They are in a good financial position regardless of the TV deal and their fans will lap it up.

out of the 11 chairmen/owners Vlad i think will be the one that will say no to any special treatment of Rangers 1690 mk2.

Celtic not long ago released that they have reduced their debt to £7M, so i do not think they will be badly affected by the loss of Rangers

If we are to lose rangers then clubs will have to cut their cloth accordingly, even with the loss of the TV deal (which is heavily in favour of the OF), but it is also the best chance we have of making the Scottish league something that can be proud of.

for those saying we need a strong rangers should look back to pre-Souness and what the league was like with not a great deal of money being splashed around, Aberdeen and Dundee United where title challengers, Hearts had a good shot at the league title, the old firm where not seen as the odds on favourites for the league before a ball was kicked, even then the OF where never always strong at the same time, we could have a few clubs having a go, bringing the young players through (league of 16/18) , this could produce an interest in the league where we can get a TV deal that suits the league and the national team in the long run, look at other countries in europe, France and Germany have over the years restructured their leagues and have started to see a return on this