Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

These administrators are pish, IMHO!

Surely they should look at what players (as in numbers) are needed as a minimum to put a team out - the team doesn't have to be good enough to finish first or second or even third, just literally enough players to fulfill their fixtures. It's same old Rangers, wanting the best without any real right to it.

Sally McCoist should just be getting told, here's your squad, most of them are young laddies but to be honest we've a whole load of other folk owed our money so we can't sustain your international players' wages. Sorry about that.

It's a joke, IMHO.

And another thing - the SPL will absolutely ruin Scottish football if they don't take the heaviest sanctions possible and punt them from the league for the dual-contract stuff if it's proven that they're guilty of it. Anything else just makes an absolute mockery of the integrity of the league. Strip them of their titles and cups for good measure as well, why the hell should the rest of Scottish football have to make cuts while those bas****s cheated their way to title after title. They've got a massively higher income than the rest of us as it is, and they STILL cheated.

Empty the lot of them from the league.

**** Rangers.

---

Well said Matty, lets hope they go the way of Third Lanark and just cease to exist altogether.

Yeah, I hope all this sympathy stuff coming from our SPL reps outside Hamden today was just for the cameras.

St Mirren, Killie, and Dunfermline reps all expressing sympathy at Rangers plight yet these are 3 clubs which suffer most when their local support get seduced into the ever expanding army of Old Firm glory hunters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

These administrators are pish, IMHO!

Surely they should look at what players (as in numbers) are needed as a minimum to put a team out - the team doesn't have to be good enough to finish first or second or even third, just literally enough players to fulfill their fixtures. It's same old Rangers, wanting the best without any real right to it.

Sally McCoist should just be getting told, here's your squad, most of them are young laddies but to be honest we've a whole load of other folk owed our money so we can't sustain your international players' wages. Sorry about that.

It's a joke, IMHO.

And another thing - the SPL will absolutely ruin Scottish football if they don't take the heaviest sanctions possible and punt them from the league for the dual-contract stuff if it's proven that they're guilty of it. Anything else just makes an absolute mockery of the integrity of the league. Strip them of their titles and cups for good measure as well, why the hell should the rest of Scottish football have to make cuts while those bas****s cheated their way to title after title. They've got a massively higher income than the rest of us as it is, and they STILL cheated.

Empty the lot of them from the league.

**** Rangers.

---

:top marks

Sad thing is, neither OF side can ever be guilty of anything in this league. The SFA will forever continue to bend the rules around them to suite their agendas. The OF more or less own the league.

If it was any non-OF side in this situation (as there has been) they'd be told where to go if they had the arrogance to hold on to their international players while failing to make debts and ends meet.

As you say, an utter joke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Dunfermline's outstanding money has been settled in full which must be to the detriment of other creditors.

Was their claim on RFC funds sufficiently different that they could be treated as a special case, or should the window cleaner, the plumber etc feel aggrieved that D & P have acted the way they have.

---

Perhaps they see paying off SPL debts as the most important lest the club need to rely on the goodwill of the other teams sooner or later I wonder...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wee_hibee

:top marks

Sad thing is, neither OF side can ever be guilty of anything in this league. The SFA will forever continue to bend the rules around them to suite their agendas. The OF more or less own the league.

If it was any non-OF side in this situation (as there has been) they'd be told where to go if they had the arrogance to hold on to their international players while failing to make debts and ends meet.

As you say, an utter joke!

---

As I invited an earlier poster.... who hasn't responded.... how would you have done things differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

Perhaps they see paying off SPL debts as the most important lest the club need to rely on the goodwill of the other teams sooner or later I wonder...

---

I can see nothing in this article that justifies giving DAFC preference.

http://www.biggartbaillie.co.uk/idea...administration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I can see nothing in this article that justifies giving DAFC preference.

http://www.biggartbaillie.co.uk/idea...administration

---

I didn't mean it to be legitimate, just that that may be the thinking behind it. Why else would a small creditor manage to get paid in full?

By this stage they likely know that there is no serious bids for the club, no chance of a CVA and the Big Tax Case to come, so liquidation city. Using what cash there is to stop Dunfermline roundly voting NO against NuRangers seems like they are planning for just that. If we see moves to give cash to Dundee United and Hearts then I reckon they are definitely planning for the smoothest ride for the Phoenix Club as possible.

Which would of course not be looking out for the creditors at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wee_hibee

:top marks

Sad thing is, neither OF side can ever be guilty of anything in this league. The SFA will forever continue to bend the rules around them to suite their agendas. The OF more or less own the league.

If it was any non-OF side in this situation (as there has been) they'd be told where to go if they had the arrogance to hold on to their international players while failing to make debts and ends meet.

As you say, an utter joke!

---

You're getting things confused in your anger, and I think you're wrong.

The time to rail against the SFA is when there is somethign to rail against, At the moment, while we're awaiting what they have to say after their investigation, to shout at them is just howling at the moon. Make a judgement when there is something to judge. The SPL is in the same position. They have done everything they can within existing laws - points deduction, transfer embargo. To take action without evidence to back it up would (rightly) leave the SFA accused of unseemly haste and more critically to leave the door open for appeal and obstruction. To take action against them before a clear picture exists of what is going on would genuinely be a joke.

As for "being allowed to hold onto international players" - thats nowt to do with the SFA or SPL - that is the administrators doing their job. Its maybe not fast enough for our liking, keen as we are for the demise of Der Hun, but lets assume they are taking their legal responsibilities seriously. They are seeking to maximise current viability, mid term income and future value of the business for potential investors and credtors. On a purely business basis, it is the right thing to do to involve employees in getting a solution - they dont have to accept any consulation, but it makes sense to do it. The fact that it didnt happen at Motherwell for example is probably more to do with the absolute value of wages. Most people could afford a 75% drop in wages of £60K a month. It's not possible if you earn £3K a month, so the only realistic solution was to bullet the players.

I have no sympathy for the Hun, and hope they are pumped out of existence, but screaming "conspiracy" is to lower yourself to the level of the Hun, the Soapdodger and the Yam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

I didn't mean it to be legitimate, just that that may be the thinking behind it. Why else would a small creditor manage to get paid in full?

By this stage they likely know that there is no serious bids for the club, no chance of a CVA and the Big Tax Case to come, so liquidation city. Using what cash there is to stop Dunfermline roundly voting NO against NuRangers seems like they are planning for just that. If we see moves to give cash to Dundee United and Hearts then I reckon they are definitely planning for the smoothest ride for the Phoenix Club as possible.

Which would of course not be looking out for the creditors at all...

---

.. and which would, IMO, result in other creditors applying to the Courts to have the payments returned.

The same ranking, broadly, also applies in liquidations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I can see nothing in this article that justifies giving DAFC preference.

http://www.biggartbaillie.co.uk/idea...administration

---

That mob are playing games from where I'm sitting. Trying to get SPL sides, on side (in this case DAFC) for when it come to voting them back into the league. :rolleyes:

Dundee Utd will get their cash next, you watch :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

That mob are playing games from where I'm sitting. Trying to get SPL sides, on side (in this case DAFC) for when it come to voting them back into the league. :rolleyes:

Dundee Unt will get their cash next, you watch :wink:

---

Is nobody listening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is nobody listening?

---

WHAT!! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

WHAT!! :greengrin

---

:na na: Illegal it is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

As I invited an earlier poster.... who hasn't responded.... how would you have done things differently?

---

Sorry I didn't respond earlier on - been a bit busy.

For starters I wouldn't have tried to push through a transfer for a new striker on X thou a week when it was obvious redundancies would soon be necessary.

Next I would have identified any high earners who's contracts were up in the summer (ie no transfer value) and eliminated them from the wage bill asap.

Not saying their job is an easy one but from the start Duff & Phelps seem to have had an undue regard for the on field fortunes of Rangers when their first duty is towards their creditors.

Besides I'm getting bored - LET THE DISMANTLING BEGIN!!! :drool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

That mob are playing games from where I'm sitting. Trying to get SPL sides, on side (in this case DAFC) for when it come to voting them back into the league. :rolleyes:

Dundee Utd will get their cash next, you watch :wink:

---

Dunfermline are hardly likely to vote to admit newco Rangers. If Rangers are kicked out of the SPL Dunfermline (or Hibs) would be the most likely benificiary in keeping their own place. Especially the case considering the comments by John Yorkston today.

The Administrators are behaving like total amateurs over the whole episode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

:na na: Illegal it is

---

Why would administrators make an illegal payment? Whyte may have brought them in thinking they would do their best to help him out, but they must surely be considering their own long term interests. Do you expect HMRC to challenge the payment to Dunfermline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Dunfermline are hardly likely to vote to admit newco Rangers. If Rangers are kicked out of the SPL Dunfermline (or Hibs) would be the most likely benificiary in keeping their own place. Especially the case considering the comments by John Yorkston today.

The Administrators are behaving like total amateurs over the whole episode.

---

I agree, my thinking behind my last comment was that they, (Huns) may just be trying to get on the good side of the other clubs. We shall see if/when Dundee Utd get their money.

And I also agree with your second point, they are not coming out of this with much credit. (for my liking)

It's just a matter of time until the, "call it" :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Why would administrators make an illegal payment? Whyte may have brought them in thinking they would do their best to help him out, but they must surely be considering their own long term interests. Do you expect HMRC to challenge the payment to Dunfermline?

---

They are English and so are the HMRC inspectors on Rangers case, probably don't know we have different Laws and rules up here in Jockville. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

They are English and so are the HMRC inspectors on Rangers case, probably don't we have different Laws and rules up here in Jockville. :greengrin

---

I suspected that might be a possibility. It seems strange that the English football authorities can have a rule that clubs going into administration have to give priority to football debts above other liabilities. I'd have thought that England would have laws about insolvency which would overrule the whims of organisations seeking to protect the interests of their own members, but it's an odd place:greengrin.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...5-off-pay.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

I suspected that might be a possibility. It seems strange that the English football authorities can have a rule that clubs going into administration have to give priority to football debts above other liabilities. I'd have thought that England would have laws about insolvency which would overrule the whims of organisations seeking to protect the interests of their own members, but it's an odd place:greengrin.

---

he rules in England apply where a CVA is used and is a pre-condition for the club retaining its place in the League. This plays on the value of the Leeague place to the club in question.

The 'Football Debts First' rule would not apply in the case of liquidatation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...n-Tuesday.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

he rules in England apply where a CVA is used and is a pre-condition for the club retaining its place in the League. This plays on the value of the Leeague place to the club in question.

The 'Football Debts First' rule would not apply in the case of liquidatation.

---

That doesn't explain to me how, even under English regulations, a football debt could be settled before a CVA has been reached. Doesn't paying off a football debt leave even less for other creditors thus leaving their pence in the pound settlement even lower? The value of a future league place seems irrelevant to non-football creditors if a reorganised company will not be liable for debts prior to administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

That doesn't explain to me how, even under English regulations, a football debt could be settled before a CVA has been reached. Doesn't paying off a football debt leave even less for other creditors thus leaving their pence in the pound settlement even lower? The value of a future league place seems irrelevant to non-football creditors if a reorganised company will not be liable for debts prior to administration.

---

Without the League place a CVA would be pointless so liquidation would be the only option. A football club will inevitably be worth more as a going concern to a buyer than a collection of (mostly worthless) assets. Player registrations would be of little or no value in the event of a liquidation and the real estate may not be of great value either if there are planning restrictions preventing redevelopment. Hence that all may pursuade the non-football creditors to accept paying the Football debts and go for the CVA.

This was done in a very dubious manner at Leeds. No-one seemed to know who the new owner of Leeds was after coming out of Administration and it was all hidden behind offshore trusts. The suspicion was that some of the major creditors (not HMRC) were given shares in the new company as a sweetener to get them to vote for a one pence in the pound payoff from the CVA. This enabled Bates to push through the CVA against the oppposition of HMRC.

Things seemed to be almost as bad at Portsmouth. There were suggestions that the debts from non-HMRC creditors was exaggerated in order to dilute the ability of HMRC to block a CVA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Without the League place a CVA would be pointless so liquidation would be the only option. A football club will inevitably be worth more as a going concern to a buyer than a collection of (mostly worthless) assets. Player registrations would be of little or no value in the event of a liquidation and the real estate may not be of great value either if there are planning restrictions preventing redevelopment. Hence that all may pursuade the non-football creditors to accept paying the Football debts and go for the CVA.

---

Thanks for that explanation. It still seems to me that the administrators may not have grasped the difference between Scottish and English regulations so CWG's claim of illegality may remain valid. Regardless of football rules and the interests of other creditors, HMRC seem to have such a large proportion of Rangers' debt that I suspect the payments to football creditors may not be unchallenged, as they could block any CVA should they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

They are English and so are the HMRC inspectors on Rangers case, probably don't know we have different Laws and rules up here in Jockville. :greengrin

---

Seems that Rangers FC are destined never to get fair crack of the whip.

Remember this is Rangers - English law probably does apply here.

I would imagine Celtic would follow the Irish rules should they be unfortunate enough to suffer a similar fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Dunfermline are hardly likely to vote to admit newco Rangers. If Rangers are kicked out of the SPL Dunfermline (or Hibs) would be the most likely benificiary in keeping their own place. Especially the case considering the comments by John Yorkston today.

The Administrators are behaving like total amateurs over the whole episode.

---

I disagree.

I think they are trying to keep the thing intact as long as they can, and hopefully get to March 16th to see who has put their money where their mouths are.

That said there are very few individuals in Scotland who would be able, let alone willing, to finance some sort of package for Rangers, so a consortium would be their best hope.

I also suspect the admins are still reeling as to how badly Rangers are run, and any attempts to impose financial boundaries are meeting wholesale resistance from within. They will have concluded that football is a general basket case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basehibby

Sorry I didn't respond earlier on - been a bit busy.

For starters I wouldn't have tried to push through a transfer for a new striker on X thou a week when it was obvious redundancies would soon be necessary.

Next I would have identified any high earners who's contracts were up in the summer (ie no transfer value) and eliminated them from the wage bill asap.

Not saying their job is an easy one but from the start Duff & Phelps seem to have had an undue regard for the on field fortunes of Rangers when their first duty is towards their creditors.

Besides I'm getting bored - LET THE DISMANTLING BEGIN!!! :drool:

---

I don't disagree with your method of cost-cutting. However, it's the timing that I don't agree with.

Some on here (apologies if you're not one of them) have suggested that the redundancies should have happened on Day 1. I just can't agree with that. In order to establish what costs you need to cut (and it's only in the past week that the £4.5m. figure has been mentioned), you need to go through the process that the admins have gone through, namely:-

Establish what assets you have.

Establish what assets you should have, but don't. (Ticketus, the Arsenal shares, etc.)

Establish what debts you have, and NOT what the company tells you they are (eg, the Revenue debt started at £9m, presumably on the basis of what the company said, but is actually £15m)

Maximise immediate income (eg, ensuring that the police cover is in place for the Kilmarnock game)

Examine the validity of any security, and don't rely on what the company tells you (in this case, a huge issue. It could be worth £18m or more).

At the same time, of course, you have to review costs all over the place, including staff. But, as I say, you can't begin to cut them substantially until all of the steps I set out have been properly taken. None of those can be done properly overnight.

More importantly...are they dead yet?