LovaMan Bairn Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I should add that the money Rangers are likely due for taxes in February would probably be sufficient to pay my clubs wages for this season. Falkirk have stuggled with finances this season due to spending more than we could affoard in the previous couple of years. However, we made massive cutbacks at the start of the current season to the extent that we only at 4 senior experianced players in our player pool when we faced Raith Rovers in our first game, with our squad being augmented from principally our youth acadamy. We will pay our debts though and we'd do anything to ensure that every person we owe money to will be repaid. Hopefully Rangers under admin do this so there's sufficient funds with HMRC to cover fifers dole liability! Edited February 25, 2012 by LovaMan Bairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 This is what puzzles me. As far as I can see, Rangers have got rid of 4 staff members, Bartley and McKay and Smith and Russell, since the start of admin. All 4 would be due their wages to the end of Februrary 2012 you would imagine. So Rangers administrators have done nothing to reduce February's wage liability. Rangers with Whyte in charge were put into administration because they were not paying the PAYE and NI liability on staff monthly wages. The administrators are now in charge and will pay February salarys in full to all staff. The administrators have no intention of paying PAYE and NI liability to HMRC for February 2012 staff wages. I think this is unbelievable. How can a company be put into admin for not paying their taxes and continue to operate as normal but continue to not pay their taxes!? This is just fucking disgusting. First post on this thread! If thats true then as you say it's disgusting, i assume you have proof of this as there's thousands of diffenrent stories doing the rounds just now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I should add that the money Rangers are dodging for taxes in February would be sufficient to pay my clubs wages for this season. Falkirk have stuggled with finances this season due to spending more than we could affoard in the previous couple of years. However, we made massive cutbacks at the start of the current season to the extent that we only at 4 senior experianced players in our player pool when we faced Raith Rovers in our first game, with our squad being augmented from principally our youth acadamy. We will pay our debts through and we'd do anything to ensure that every person we owe money to will be repaid. Why can't Rangers even under admin do this? Falkirk have past form for spunking cash though. Got to take the medicine some time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovaMan Bairn Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Falkirk have past form for spunking cash though. Got to take the medicine some time. True, but we do pay it back and every penny! Touch wood I understand our current situation and appreciate we only have ourselves to blame and accept our current predicament. It's actually been a really enjoyable season so sometimes good things can come from hard times. Every club will over spend to some extent. St Mirren were in debt prior to their ground move, but with that brilliant deal, their now on a strong financial footing. I'm happy with that. Every club should pay every penny of debt that's due to them or deserve severe punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovaMan Bairn Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If thats true then as you say it's disgusting, i assume you have proof of this as there's thousands of diffenrent stories doing the rounds just now. I'm going to amend my post because what I've said is suposicion rather than actual facts. Apologies for that, easy to make the mistake of stating your opinion based on what you think may happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 You seem to be of the mindset that the OF are oppressive dictators. We saw in the 10 team SPL debate clubs were far from united. Celtic and Rangers were for it due to more chances at glamour friendlies. Aberdeen, Hibs and Accies were for it; Motherwell and St Mirren were on the committee that drafted it. United were most vocally against and Killie, ICT and Hearts voted against the plan. When the topic of a 14 team league came up only 3 clubs were in favour (Killie, ICT and Hearts) so let's not go down the road of pretending that Rangers or Celtic are holding the cards when it comes to reconstruction. The simple fact is all the clubs can't agree. If the SPL chairmen "bend over" as you put it they will be doing so knowing that they can't endanger the existence of their own clubs to get one over Rangers. A good post IMO, which also demonstrates why the assumption that all the wee clubs want the 11-1 and 10-2 systems done away with may be inaccurate (for several months it looked the saviour with only 2 or 3 clubs against 10-team SPL). If we come to a scenario where transfer-of-share is requested, and it goes to a General Meeting as opposed to the Board, clubs will think in similarly disparate ways. You'd imagine Mad Vlad will do anything to stuff Rangers, as long as the resulting financial draft doesn't push them back into inability to meet their wages etc. Beyond that, it'll be a matter of chairmen balancing up the following equation: what harms my club, and secondarily the SPL, more - the financial loss of losing 'Rangers' for 3-4 years, or the controversy and impact of deciding to keep them in? That's what their decision will be. It'd be informed by, for example, what Sky-ESPN and potential sponsors are prepared to offer for Rangers-less SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 This is what puzzles me. Either someone rides to the rescue or Monday will be an interesting day, wonder if I'll have a duvet day Monday??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkYardley'sNo.1Fan Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 A good post IMO, which also demonstrates why the assumption that all the wee clubs want the 11-1 and 10-2 systems done away with may be inaccurate (for several months it looked the saviour with only 2 or 3 clubs against 10-team SPL). If we come to a scenario where transfer-of-share is requested, and it goes to a General Meeting as opposed to the Board, clubs will think in similarly disparate ways. You'd imagine Mad Vlad will do anything to stuff Rangers, as long as the resulting financial draft doesn't push them back into inability to meet their wages etc. Beyond that, it'll be a matter of chairmen balancing up the following equation: what harms my club, and secondarily the SPL, more - the financial loss of losing 'Rangers' for 3-4 years, or the controversy and impact of deciding to keep them in? That's what their decision will be. It'd be informed by, for example, what Sky-ESPN and potential sponsors are prepared to offer for Rangers-less SPL. Or the other option would be... Is a 12 team SPL minus Rangers more or less lucrative than a 16/18 team SPL with Rangers? Fans outrage at Rangers being kept in the SPL would be quickly forgotten if they were to get their wish of a 16/18 team SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I was talking about this very thing last night in my local with a Rangers "fan", you know the type that know absolutely everything(nothing) about Scottish football without ever attending a game, whilst also taking the piss out of me for supporting a shite team. He was dumbfounded when I kept saying I hope Rangers die, he actually couldn`t bring himself to believe this is what fans of other clubs think. What about the money the Rangers fans bring? What about the TV deal? It`ll be just like the Irish league, etc. Well here`s some news, it already is like the Irish league you fucking halfwit! Oh and it`s clubs like fucking Rangers that don`t pay up, will United go to the wall because they won`t receive £100k which they are due? I seriously doubt it. United have been cutting back reasonably successfully for quite a few years now, pity Rangers couldn`t be bothered doing the same. The only people in Scotland that need Rangers are their own fans, Celtic & most importantly the (west coast in the main) media. People like Keevins would be forced to talk about football for a change, shock fucking horror eh! I really hope these b*****ds go to the wall and don`t ever return, then the rest of us can concentrate on getting rid of that other shower in the east end of Glasgow. DIE FUCKING DIE! Tell us what you really think ... ...and have another greenie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I was talking about this very thing last night in my local with a Rangers "fan", you know the type that know absolutely everything(nothing) about Scottish football without ever attending a game, whilst also taking the piss out of me for supporting a shite team. He was dumbfounded when I kept saying I hope Rangers die, he actually couldn`t bring himself to believe this is what fans of other clubs think. What about the money the Rangers fans bring? What about the TV deal? It`ll be just like the Irish league, etc. Well here`s some news, it already is like the Irish league you fucking halfwit! Oh and it`s clubs like fucking Rangers that don`t pay up, will United go to the wall because they won`t receive £100k which they are due? I seriously doubt it. United have been cutting back reasonably successfully for quite a few years now, pity Rangers couldn`t be bothered doing the same. The only people in Scotland that need Rangers are their own fans, Celtic & most importantly the (west coast in the main) media. People like Keevins would be forced to talk about football for a change, shock fucking horror eh! I really hope these b*****ds go to the wall and don`t ever return, then the rest of us can concentrate on getting rid of that other shower in the east end of Glasgow. DIE FUCKING DIE! I agree entirely with that except the part about Celtic dying obviously, I think the SPL will thrive without Rangers,firstly we would rid the game of 50% of the vile bigotry and sectarianism overnight ,which I hope would be followed by a general dying off,of the bile that Celtic fans bring as they would have no excuse to use it, no excuse for paranoia and excuses if there was no rangers, There may also be an increase in attendances at other SPL clubs as second place /Europe would be a reasonable aim for 4. Or 5 teams not to mention ex rangers fans and those kids who would have been rangers fans attending other clubs. And the idea that Celtic need rangers is laughable with no rangers Celtic would have a free run at europe every year without the pressure of fighting rangers in the league not to mention the target of overtaking rangers trophy haul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I've had a few good ones so I have We've suffered more than most due to Rangers flaunting of the rules Boo-Hoo!! Usual paranoia crap.!! It just shows how blinded BOTH of you two are!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Awwwww f**k off why did no kunt tell me that we were in administration Bugger. Don't worry mun, it's cool, we're having a Liquidation thread in the next week or so. I'll PM you when we start it and you can get in on the fun straight away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthewing Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I agree entirely with that except the part about Celtic dying obviously, I think the SPL will thrive without Rangers,firstly we would rid the game of 50% of the vile bigotry and sectarianism overnight ,which I hope would be followed by a general dying off,of the bile that Celtic fans bring as they would have no excuse to use it, no excuse for paranoia and excuses if there was no rangers, There may also be an increase in attendances at other SPL clubs as second place /Europe would be a reasonable aim for 4. Or 5 teams not to mention ex rangers fans and those kids who would have been rangers fans attending other clubs. And the idea that Celtic need rangers is laughable with no rangers Celtic would have a free run at europe every year without the pressure of fighting rangers in the league not to mention the target of overtaking rangers trophy haul. I'd like to think this would be the case, but I doubt it. You'll still have some amount of fucktards giving it the whole "Up The Ra," pish, and I think the only sort of knuckledraggers we'd lose would be the ones whose main motivation to go to the games would be their hatred of Rangers. I also think that if Rangers are pushed back down to the Third Division, said cuntwits could latch on to one Div. 3 club or another in order to feed their need to spew forth their bile. Or something. If Rangers do get wiped off the face of the planet, I also reckon that some of the knuckle-scrapers from both sides would start following the junior team with the most neds who belt out their particular choice of sectarian bile, thus further pissing off genuine junior fans. I'm also unsure, should the decision go to a general vote, whether Celtic's vote would be to block an instant return to the SPL for Rangers. On the one hand, it'd be a golden opportunity to take out our main rivals by completely legitimate means, but on the other hand their thought processes may go no further than TV deals and future carve-ups. It's a fucker of a dilemma, but I think the vote would be cast to keep Rangers in the SPL, thus enraging fans of all clubs (yes, including Celtic), as it would essentially be perverting the course of justice (had Celtic actually gone to the wall in '94, there'd have been no cause for complaint (regarding the outcome, not the utterly shambolic running of the club) as justice would have been done (had the Bunnet not taken charge, that is)). As far as on the park, Rangers possible demise could lead to the SPL being similar to how the Norwegian top flight was a few years back, where we'd be akin to Rosenborg (if only we had their relative consistency in terms of Champions League qualification!). When the dust settles a few years on, a new title challenger will surface, and as we'll probably start downsizing at a quicker pace with our main rivals out of the picture, this could be the case in the next 5 or so years. Obviously this is all hypothetical, but that's my two bob worth. It has been rather interesting reading all the theories and opinions on this thread, and as others on here have mentioned, P&B has been by far the best source of information and supposition on the whole saga. I wonder how many journos and presenters actually read any of this, and am curious as to how much attention they pay to some of the ideas mooted on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 A lot of jurnos on Clyde now say its heading for liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's only Radio Clyde but still: pleasing. We need Graham Spiers to call this one, then we can bring out the party bunting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm hoping for a Thatcher-rangers double death....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's only Radio Clyde but still: pleasing. We need Graham Spiers to call this one, then we can bring out the party bunting. Even dayrl ( no surrender) king saying it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Or the other option would be... Is a 12 team SPL minus Rangers more or less lucrative than a 16/18 team SPL with Rangers? Fans outrage at Rangers being kept in the SPL would be quickly forgotten if they were to get their wish of a 16/18 team SPL. I suppose so - but that's a massively more complex thing to negotiate, in what would be a very short timeframe. There's a reason only 3 clubs wanted a 14-team SPL and no-one has ever tabled a 16/18-team SPL. Further... if you want to save Rangers due to the financial effect on your club - it's pointless to restructure in a way which doesn't achieve it? Since 18 involves 6 more mouths to feed, doesn't fulfil the TV requirements, introduces a meaningless mid-table, etc., all of which hurts income. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So what happened to the 'pre-pack' CVA that was apparently a stroke of genius by Craig Whyte that would leave Rangers stronger than ever and screw the tax case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 A lot of jurnos on Clyde now say its heading for liquidation Everyone has know for ages that they're heading for liquidation if they lose the big tax case and HMRC won't negotiate (as seems likely). Do they mean that liquidation is now imminent, or are they just saying what everyone expects to happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.