Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[JeMeSouviens]

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

Who are these 3 three people, Mark? Well, that'll be 3 from 100(+?) that YOUR team (along with the rest of the SPL members) agreed should form independant enquiries. Just like this one.

Fanny. Cany these idiots not think for 5 minutes before writing that trash. And for the editors to let it get pubished.... ffs.

[Hank Schrader]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

Speechless

[down-the-slope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Remember how Neil Doncaster & Chick Young told us NewHuns couldn't join the SFL in Div3? Amazingly, that turns out to be a load of old bollocks, who'dve thought it?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23837719/

Now there is a prospect - however remote - that i'd never thought of....NewCo Gers apply to SFL 3 only to be pipped for the spot by Cove RANGERS.....



Imagiene the possible headline....'Rangers Win SFL spot'....'but its the Rangers with History.....

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now there is a prospect - however remote - that i'd never thought of....NewCo Gers apply to SFL 3 only to be pipped for the spot by Cove RANGERS.....



Imagiene the possible headline....'Rangers Win SFL spot'....'but its the Rangers with History.....

WHAT!?... when I voted I thought that was their new name...... oh well..........

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

Mark Hately has got a some brass neck! That's the biggest load of lying, mendacious tripe I have read in a long time.

What a tool.

[Hibrandenburg]

Can we not threaten to organise a boycott of SPL/SFA/SFL sponsors if they don't deal with Rankers severly enough. Surely the combined buying power of all other Scottish clubs would by far outweigh that of the currents? While we're at it why don't we throw in a boycott of the ****** as well?

[stokesmessiah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

Rangers seem up in arms about how this process works yet they were one of the clubs that voted it in unanimously last year..hmm.

[Captain Trips]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15109851

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23452024/

2 articles found from the probable loads of this type over the years, not interested in Scottish football are they but now it suits them they are vital. Quite prepared to leave without a thought, so they deserve 100% full punishment.

[Sergio sledge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

That rubbish got published?! What an atrocious article.

ERIC DRYSDALE, Gary Allan and Alistair Murning. Or as I prefer to call them - Moe, Larry and Curly.

The SFA's "Three Stooges" who decided this week, in their wisdom, to hammer Rangers and threaten their existence by imposing a transfer ban on them.

A ruling that endangers the bidding process for one of Scotland's biggest clubs, which finds itself engulfed in a financial crisis. So much for the SFA servicing the Scottish game, eh?

So the SFA aren't there to punish clubs that have broken the rules then Mark?

What I want to know is, what qualifications do Drysdale, Allan and Murning have to sit on a judicial panel and dish out sanctions?

Do they have any sort of background at the top level of football?

These men have just had a major say on the future of the Scottish game. They've been asked to rule on one of the biggest decisions in the last 50 years.
Who do they think they are - and how did they get into this position of power?

Do you not read the paper you write for? There's an article detailing who they are.

Ally McCoist came out and said this SFA ban could kill Rangers. How can a judgment like that be put in the hands of three individuals who don't even work for the SFA?

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "Independent Judiciary Panel?"

Any decision should surely come from the governing body. It should be people within the game, who understand the ramifications of the punishments they're handing out.

Clearly, none of them have given a thought to the effect it would have on the game's future in Scotland.
I'm astonished the SFA get other people in to make their decisions.
I'm absolutely stunned by that.

The member clubs voted for this disciplinary process, including Rangers FC. Do you know what "Independent" means?

If you want to run a successful business or organisation, I accept you will have independent consultants who advise you on some matters. But when you have monumental decisions to make, which could be detrimental to the game you're trying to improve, surely it has to come from within Hampden?

You'd think the SFA would have at least three men working for them with the knowledge and qualifications to make judgments like that.

People aware of the structure of Scottish football wouldn't have imposed these sanctions on Rangers.

Ah yes, people aware of the magnificent Glasgow Rangers and their place in the fabric of Scottish Football wouldn't have punished Rangers. Tell you what, we should have just got Campbell Ogilvie to make the decision.

To me this is the crux of your argument Mark, you wanted "Rangers men" to make the decision so that The Rangers weren't given the punishment they were due.

And it disturbs me when I hear that it's lawyers, QCs and journalists who are part of these judicial panels. That's incredible. We're talking about football business here, which is run completely differently to any other. These people don't know the game.

But they do know law, and they are independent. Lawyers and QC's are well trained and used to setting aside personal opinion to do their job, the same cannot be said for people who "know the game." whatever that means. Are you just jealous that you didn't get asked to be on the panel. I suppose you "Know the game?"

I just can't understand it. Since Stewart Regan was appointed chief executive at Hampden, he's been banging on about getting their house in order. But this typifies what everyone is battling against. This ruling has taken the SFA back two decades.

Why?

They've made a balls-up of a relatively simple decision. Of course, Rangers and Craig Whyte deserved to be punished. But the timing of it - and the failure to recognise the repercussions which would follow - is staggering.

When would have been the right time to hand out punishment? Should they have waited till after the sale had been completed? Or maybe they should have waited till after the next transfer window to allow Rangers to put together a decent squad for next season?

I'm sure they do recognise the repercussions which would follow. But if someone is guilty of drink driving should the police not charge them because it might mean they lose their job as a lorry driver? If someone is caught looking at child porn should they be let off because it would mean they couldn't work in a nursery any more? Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not comparing what Rangers have done to either of these crimes, but I have taken Mark's logic to the extreme here to highlight how silly it is. The punishment should fit the crime, not be changed to suit the criminal.

They've opened up a huge can of worms and I'm not sure they're aware of the backlash that could follow.

If they weren't aware, they are now after receiving threats. Articles like this are sure to help calm the Rangers fans down though.....

I've heard Murning's last involvement on an SFA panel was ruling on a red-card appeal by an Albion Rovers player.

He managed to rescind the sending off from a game against Brechin. Now, I'm sorry, but how can he go from making decisions on a Second Division game to ruling on the potential future of Rangers FC? It's unbelievable.

What possible relevance does this have?

That's what the Three Stooges did.

After all, it was announced on the day the club's administrators wanted to name a preferred bidder and that process has now stalled as a result.

But nothing surprises me about the SFA any more. They talk of taking the game forward. Well, God help us.
Everything Regan has said since he took the job has been about improving the game. But this decision, if it means killing off Rangers, will completely knock the stuffing out of Scottish football.

After everything they've been working on in the last few years, they've managed to score another own goal. They take two steps forward then 10 back with some of their decisions.

Same old "Scottish football needs Rangers" rubbish. Becuase we've been doing so well with Rangers over the last wee while Mark haven't we?

Ally was right in demanding to know who was on the panel. Drysdale, Allan and Murning must be accountable, surely?

Nope, Ally was wrong. He knows the Rangers support and he knows the stuff an element of the support get up to, threats, bombs in the post etc. So he should have been more sensible in what he said. Instead of calming the situation down and urging restraint until the justification for the decision is published and the appeal process is through, he questions the independence of the panel, asks for the panel to be named and urges the Rangers fans that it is time to "fight back." Completely irresponsible.

They're supposed to be anonymous - but that's why the SFA should have made the decision themselves, instead of getting others to do it for them.

This type of thing just wouldn't happen in England. You have to ask, what are we getting from the SFA, what are clubs paying for?

The same process exists in England actually. But you are right, this sort of thing wouldn't happen in England as the media in England do not have the same love in with two clubs that we have here, so much so that when one of these clubs is properly punished we get hundreds of articles criticising our governing body for having the audacity to use the proper (agreed upon by member clubs) disciplinary process to punish said club.

If they can't make a ruling on the biggest story to hit Scottish football what chance do we have? They are the game's governing body.

I would like to think Regan and Co will back down after an appeal. They should be big enough to hold their hands up and admit their mistake.

Haha. Maybe they will be big enough to stand up to the media bullying and admit their decision was correct?

Because if they think they can attract sponsors for their tournaments, when they're making decisions which could liquidate one of their top clubs, they're having a laugh.

Already, Rangers fans are planning to boycott some of the SFA's big commercial partners. These deals are huge earners for them.
And if they under-estimate fan power, they'll be in an even bigger mess than they currently find themselves in.

I'm sure Vauxhall are quaking in their boots at the thought of Rangers fans not buying their cars......

[hibs0666]

This is exactly the sort of behaviour that you see with organisations that have a monopoly. It's quite sickening to watch actually.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A new low even for the Record? It just might be ...

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/markh...ple-outsi.html

It's astounding, well, it shouldn't be, given that rags form, but still.

Totally whitewashing over the facts:

1. A Rangers rep was there, they know fine who the three where.

2. These panels are in the rule book THEY signed up to.

3. These three guys were on an approved list. Approved by the clubs, Rangers included.


Hateley and McCoist need hung out to dry for this one.

[Andy74]

Just the usual - focusing on how the punishment is doing the damage, not the crimes that led to the process in the first place.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That rubbish got published?! What an atrocious article.

Rangers existence is threatened, not by the SFA, but by the dishonest, illegal, immoral and unsporting actions of Rangers Football Club and its greedy, selfish employees.

[Dalkeith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's astounding, well, it shouldn't be, given that rags form, but still.

Totally whitewashing over the facts:

1. A Rangers rep was there, they know fine who the three where.

2. These panels are in the rule book THEY signed up to.

3. These three guys were on an approved list. Approved by the clubs, Rangers included.


Hateley and McCoist need hung out to dry for this one.

McCoist should do the decent thing and resign
and whoever allowed Hateleys comments should resign

[BarneyK]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15109851

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23452024/

2 articles found from the probable loads of this type over the years, not interested in Scottish football are they but now it suits them they are vital. Quite prepared to leave without a thought, so they deserve 100% full punishment.

Agree 100%

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15109851

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23452024/

2 articles found from the probable loads of this type over the years, not interested in Scottish football are they but now it suits them they are vital. Quite prepared to leave without a thought, so they deserve 100% full punishment.

I hope the English are paying to attention to how both these clubs managers, and by extension the clubs they represent, conduct themselves when the waters get a bit choppy.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

McCoist should do the decent thing and resign
and whoever allowed Hateleys comments should resign

In reality, just about every sports 'journalist' in the country should be tendering their resignation.

The Rangers fans seem not to have realised their part in this mess, presumably why the press is doing its best to blame all and sundry for it.

For years, the press in Scotland has went blindly along for the ride, printing Rangers PR as if it was solid journalism, anything from the current 'Three Stooges' nonsense, to Whyte's 'untold, off the radar billions' or any other of the hundreds of pure fabricated nonsense that has poured out of the Glasgow media over the years. This willingness to take the succulent lamb and carry on has caused a failure that has played as big a role in this saga as anyone else. A press that functioned normally would have been asking questions about Whyte from day one, it would have been all over the EBT scandal like a rash, it would have questioned Murray's spending practices, it wouldn't be currently doing its level best to whip the fans up against the governing body...

Eventually, when the dust settles, people calm down and start to really think about this, surely the likes of Traynor, Young, Jackson and the rest's positions will be basically untenable?

[Littlest Hobo]

I love it when they start to squeal, well squeal away bum boys of the Rangers order.

Feel the pain that all other supporters have felt while paying their honest hard earned cash to watch their honest wage paying football club get pumped season after season after season from a bunch of sectarian, knuckle dragging, cheating horrible ****s

[Dan Sarf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In reality, just about every sports 'journalist' in the country should be tendering their resignation.

The Rangers fans seem not to have realised their part in this mess, presumably why the press is doing its best to blame all and sundry for it.

For years, the press in Scotland has went blindly along for the ride, printing Rangers PR as if it was solid journalism, anything from the current 'Three Stooges' nonsense, to Whyte's 'untold, off the radar billions' or any other of the hundreds of pure fabricated nonsense that has poured out of the Glasgow media over the years. This willingness to take the succulent lamb and carry on has caused a failure that has played as big a role in this saga as anyone else. A press that functioned normally would have been asking questions about Whyte from day one, it would have been all over the EBT scandal like a rash, it would have questioned Murray's spending practices, it wouldn't be currently doing its level best to whip the fans up against the governing body...

Eventually, when the dust settles, people calm down and start to really think about this, surely the likes of Traynor, Young, Jackson and the rest's positions will be basically untenable?

(Not that anything will change, of course.)

[Wat Dabney]

A bit of light relief.....

[Littlest Hobo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A bit of light relief.....

Did they ever manage to sign Cousin?

[Peevemor]

I just seen this in the Scotsman re. the Lafferty thing.

McCoist explained: “He was in the squad to travel [to Edinburgh] and we were due to leave on Friday to go through to Tynecastle. But there was a failure to show for the travelling party.

Why are the administrators spending money on hotels for a match that's an hour from Ibrox?

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I just seen this in the Scotsman re. the Lafferty thing.



Why are the administrators spending money on hotels for a match that's an hour from Ibrox?

Because it's quite clear that they, from day 1, have not been operating in the best interests of the creditors but doing all they can to retain a business as usual approach for the football team.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hope the English are paying to attention to how both these clubs managers, and by extension the clubs they represent, conduct themselves when the waters get a bit choppy.

I hope the potential buyers of this club do the right thing and walk away in very public disgust at the behaviour of the people who attach themselves to the name of rangers football club. What self respecting buisnessman could possibly want to be associated with an institution that cannot and will not distance iteself from this poisonous, disgusting and criminal behaviour.

And at the same time maybe it is time for the dafties that attach themselves to most senior clubs in Scotland, regretfully includung our own, to take a long hard look at themselves and the damage they have done and continue to do to Scotland and Scottish footbll

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because it's quite clear that they, from day 1, have not been operating in the best interests of the creditors but doing all they can to retain a business as usual approach for the football team.

Have to disagree.

The best interests for creditors and shareholders, as at day 1, were served by maintaining a "business as usual" approach and trying to sell the club as a going concern.

It's all very well to say, in hindsight, that such an approach was not the best. However, let's not forget that, as at Day 1, no-one outside of CW knew the extent of the losses, the exact nature of the Ticketus deal, the amount of the creditors, and the number of law-suits that would be required.

In most administration cases, the interests of creditors and shareholders ARE best served by maintaining the business as it is, and safeguarding some sort of future for the business, its staff and its trading partners.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have to disagree.

The best interests for creditors and shareholders, as at day 1, were served by maintaining a "business as usual" approach and trying to sell the club as a going concern.

It's all very well to say, in hindsight, that such an approach was not the best. However, let's not forget that, as at Day 1, no-one outside of CW knew the extent of the losses, the exact nature of the Ticketus deal, the amount of the creditors, and the number of law-suits that would be required.

In most administration cases, the interests of creditors and shareholders ARE best served by maintaining the business as it is, and safeguarding some sort of future for the business, its staff and its trading partners.

Travelling from Glasgow to Edinburgh the day before the match would have cost a few grand of creditors' money that could easily have been saved. I'd imagine most SPL clubs travelling to play a game 50 miles or so away from home will travel the same day. Why should the creditors pay for the huns to do otherwise?

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Travelling from Glasgow to Edinburgh the day before the match would have cost a few grand of creditors' money that could easily have been saved. I'd imagine most SPL clubs travelling to play a game 50 miles or so away from home will travel the same day. Why should the creditors pay for the huns to do otherwise?

Sounds like marriage divorce and settlements.
You've got to keep the bitch in the manner to which she's accustomed.

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The figures for fixed assets in a balance sheet don't usually reflect their resale value- ER is valued at £18.5m in the accounts, but that represents its depreciated replacement cost (i.e. how much it would cost to rebuild less the amount of use we've already had out of it) and it's unlikely that anyone would pay that amount for it. That means that in terms of selling the assets as opposed to the business the balance sheet values don't actually tell us very much. One of the reasons it's done that way is that no-one can really tell how much the resale value is until they actually try to sell it. In truth, both RFC as a business and Ibrox/Murray Park as properties are worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay for them, and in the current circumstances it's very much a buyer's market. The administrators have to decide whether they can get more for the assets individually or from selling RFC as a business.

However, as I mentioned a few pages back, RFC's accounts describe the value of freehold property as being based on their 'recoverable amount' and that amount is £112m. I think that's bad wording and the auditors should have insisted on changing it. If I was a creditor I would be pointing this out to the administrators and saying that was the sort of value they should be looking to get from it if they were selling it to a newco and the amount that should be included in the calculations if they were selling it to knights or millers. I wouldn't expect to succeed, but it might bump up the price a bit. And yes, I think the auditors have a case to answer for that wording rather than for the valuation itself.

I do think the amounts being quoted by prospective buyers are far too low and it must be touch and go whether there's any point in continuing with the administration.

Thank you once again

Just one more thing ...









Just kiddin'

No more questions Ma' Lud

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have to disagree.

The best interests for creditors and shareholders, as at day 1, were served by maintaining a "business as usual" approach and trying to sell the club as a going concern.

It's all very well to say, in hindsight, that such an approach was not the best. However, let's not forget that, as at Day 1, no-one outside of CW knew the extent of the losses, the exact nature of the Ticketus deal, the amount of the creditors, and the number of law-suits that would be required.

In most administration cases, the interests of creditors and shareholders ARE best served by maintaining the business as it is, and safeguarding some sort of future for the business, its staff and its trading partners.

I can see where you are coming from with this but I disagree with your interpretation.

The administrators were either very naive or badly briefed in their early days in charge. Without any knowledge of the financial situation they went ahead and tried to sign Daniel Cousin. This was crass stupidity to agree a deal that was way beyond anyone else in the SPL bar Celtic especially when Rangers owed large sums of money to Dunfermline, Dundee United and Hearts. They were rescued from this folly by the imposition of a transfer embargo.

I remain convinced that the administrators were initially acting in collusion with Whyte and had been given the hint that cash would be forthcoming (from Rangers Group?) to keep the club afloat until they returned from administration. Hence the 'business as usual stance' Once they got to find out the true extent of the debts their line changed.

The creditors have every reason to be annoyed if Rangers are booking hotel accommodation prior to a match in Edinburgh.