Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

More importantly...are they dead yet?

---

Oh come on now.... which would you prefer? A bullet in the back of the head or a long, slow, painful slide into Hell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Oh come on now.... which would you prefer? A bullet in the back of the head or a long, slow, painful slide into Hell?

---

A slow painful slide into Hell obviously sounds better, but it's time to finish them off now. Looking forward to the Orcs in Mordor awaking to find a world without GRFC, with scenes of grown men vomiting in grief outside 'ra big hoose'.

Mwah hah hah!

:flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Yet another investigation time ...

http://www.scotprem.com/content/defa...2&newsid=11135

Into alleged second contracts going right back to the start of the SPL.

---

Admittedly it was in a different financial era but teams down south have been demoted for less in the past. Peterorough United were demoted in 1968 for OFFERING an unsanctioned bonus for ONE game - they didn't even pay them as PUFC got horsed 7-1 in the game in question! Though it was, as now, a blatant case of one rule for the little clubs and a totally different one for the big clubs and it still rankles with older Posh fans to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posh Historian

In February 1967 Posh offered what was an illegal bonus of £100 per player to beat Sunderland in an FA Cup Fourth Round tie. The rules limited the bonus to £6 a man....and what a waste of effort that was, Sunderland won 7-1. Illegal signing on bonuses had also been made to players from funds made available by the Supporters' Club.

To the world at large it was a case of the new boys not getting to grips with the rules, of ignorance and stupidity rather than a calculated attempt at rule-breaking. In fact the club had been so unaware of what they were doing was wrong that some transgressions had been openly reported in the minutes of meetings and in the Company Statement of Accounts. But they were found guilty and the punishment proved to be the most draconian since Leeds City were expelled from the Football League in 1929 - Posh were to be demoted to the Fourth Division at the end of the season. And that announcement was made in November when hopes of a promotion were still high - a wasted season if there was ever one - though remarkably, the team accrued enough points over the season to have finished in the top half of the table!

What made the demotion even harder to take was the punishment handed down to two clubs at about the same time whose charges were perhaps a tad more serious. Later in the same season Port Vale were "expelled" from the Football League. However they were already in the bottom division, and were - as everybody expected - voted straight back into the same league at the end of the season. But then came the turn of a biggish club - Manchester United. What was the punishment they received in September 1969 - demotion, expulsion? Don't be silly - they were fined.

---

A quick question for Cropley Was God.


Is this thread now your full time job or do you have another one in the real world you do as well (when it doesn't distract you from this more important task)?


:wink:




p.s. Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

Chris Mclauchlan reporting on twitter that if an agreement can't be made today then the administrators will move in with a redundancy list this afternoon which WILL focus on high earners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

A quick question for Cropley Was God.


Is this thread now your full time job or do you have another one in the real world you do as well (when it doesn't distract you from this more important task)?


:wink:




p.s. Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

---

Are there 3 S's in obsession?

It helps that I am the boss, with immediate and unfettered access to Hibs.net, and no attention span....

Actually, if you think D&P are expensive at £600 per hour, just wait until Hibs.net get my bill. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Are there 3 S's in obsession?

It helps that I am the boss, with immediate and unfettered access to Hibs.net, and no attention span....

Actually, if you think D&P are expensive at £600 per hour, just wait until Hibs.net get my bill. :greengrin

---

So are you Mr Duff or Mr Phelps?


:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

A quick question for Cropley Was God.


Is this thread now your full time job or do you have another one in the real world you do as well (when it doesn't distract you from this more important task)?


:wink:




p.s. Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

---

Yes, thanks CWG !

I have read every post in this thread and you're knowledge and level head has been fantastic.

I keep waiting for your accountancy trouser dropping moment, I hope to be there for the vinegar stroke !!!:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

So are you Mr Duff or Mr Phelps?


:greengrin

---

Wash yer mouth out.

I am neither. However, I am hiding in one of the filing cabinets in Ibrox. The one marked "Do NOT look in here under any circumstances. This is NOT for the eyes of the polis, HMRC or anybody else involved in the Fenian conspiracy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrickyNicky

Yes, thanks CWG !

I have read every post in this thread and you're knowledge and level head has been fantastic.

I keep waiting for your accountancy trouser dropping moment, I hope to be there for the vinegar stroke !!!:greengrin

---

Too far.

:na na:

Actually, too late. That happened the moment Craigy boy made that speech outside Ibrox with his bulging eyes (has nobody contacted his dealer yet??)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Too far.

:na na:

Actually, too late. That happened the moment Craigy boy made that speech outside Ibrox with his bulging eyes (has nobody contacted his dealer yet??)

---

What an idea!

The " Craigie " is the new weedgie drug of choice - it turns dancers intae investors!

However the comedown is a " big Whytie " -yer eyes bulge, you can't remember where your money is, you have to sell all your belongings, strangers come in and rifle through your dirty washin and all this for a pound !:banana::nanafunk::nanasplit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrickyNicky

What an idea!

The " Craigie " is the new weedgie drug of choice - it turns dancers intae investors!

However the comedown is a " big Whytie " -yer eyes bulge, you can't remember where your money is, you have to sell all your belongings, strangers come in and rifle through your dirty washin and all this for a pound !:banana::nanafunk::nanasplit:

---

:top marks

:I'm waiti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

To be fair and balanced, I can see a number of common sense reasons for paying off the debt to the Pars relatively promptly.....

1) The quoted £80 odd thousand is a relative pish in the ocean compared to the gargantuan debts in store for the huns.

2) Defaulting on Dunfermline's gate money would carry the heavy risk of getting in EVEN MORE trouble with the SPL/SFA thereby putting Ranger's hopes of having a viable future as an ongoing entity in the SPL under even more pressure.

3) The timing of the transaction was such that paying Dunfermline was probably made relatively easy - ie the money presumably was still sitting in the safe as opposed to one of Whyte's offshore bank accounts.

4) The disruption caused to Dunfermline by non-payment would have been massive - thus creating a deluge of additional ill will and bad publicity which the denizens of Ibrox can ill afford at this time.

Putting all of the above together it is understandable that the decision was made by the administrators to pay Dunfermline the money they were due in full and at relatively short notice. Happilly not all of the same factors are in place regarding the outstanding cash the Yams are due for Lee Wallace :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basehibby

To be fair and balanced, I can see a number of common sense reasons for paying off the debt to the Pars relatively promptly.....

1) The quoted £80 odd thousand is a relative pish in the ocean compared to the gargantuan debts in store for the huns.

2) Defaulting on Dunfermline's gate money would carry the heavy risk of getting in EVEN MORE trouble with the SPL/SFA thereby putting Ranger's hopes of having a viable future as an ongoing entity in the SPL under even more pressure.

3) The timing of the transaction was such that paying Dunfermline was probably made relatively easy - ie the money presumably was still sitting in the safe as opposed to one of Whyte's offshore bank accounts.

4) The disruption caused to Dunfermline by non-payment would have been massive - thus creating a deluge of additional ill will and bad publicity which the denizens of Ibrox can ill afford at this time.

Putting all of the above together it is understandable that the decision was made by the administrators to pay Dunfermline the money they were due in full and at relatively short notice. Happilly not all of the same factors are in place regarding the outstanding cash the Yams are due for Lee Wallace :greengrin

---

Still illegal, though, as far as I can see.


However, I will let the admins. explain it.... perhaps there is something in the tortuous insolvency legislation that allows it. In a mischievous moment, I emailed the BBC, Herald, Record, Sun and Scotsman, asking that they put that question to D&P.

I understand, from the press, that haha hearts were paid £700k, with the rest due in 2 installments, July 2012, and I think July 2013. But that may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basehibby

To be fair and balanced, I can see a number of common sense reasons for paying off the debt to the Pars relatively promptly.....

1) The quoted £80 odd thousand is a relative pish in the ocean compared to the gargantuan debts in store for the huns.

2) Defaulting on Dunfermline's gate money would carry the heavy risk of getting in EVEN MORE trouble with the SPL/SFA thereby putting Ranger's hopes of having a viable future as an ongoing entity in the SPL under even more pressure.

3) The timing of the transaction was such that paying Dunfermline was probably made relatively easy - ie the money presumably was still sitting in the safe as opposed to one of Whyte's offshore bank accounts.

4) The disruption caused to Dunfermline by non-payment would have been massive - thus creating a deluge of additional ill will and bad publicity which the denizens of Ibrox can ill afford at this time.

Putting all of the above together it is understandable that the decision was made by the administrators to pay Dunfermline the money they were due in full and at relatively short notice. Happilly not all of the same factors are in place regarding the outstanding cash the Yams are due for Lee Wallace :greengrin

---

Breaking news - click on listen live near top RHC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioscotland/

EDIT: Players proposal turned down - redundancies to be announced this pm!

Let the good times roll!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Still illegal, though, as far as I can see.


However, I will let the admins. explain it.... perhaps there is something in the tortuous insolvency legislation that allows it. In a mischievous moment, I emailed the BBC, Herald, Record, Sun and Scotsman, asking that they put that question to D&P.

---

As this was ticket money for the Pars' home game and belonged to Dunfermline, Rangers were only acting as agents in collecting it on their behalf. I suppose this could have something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basehibby

To be fair and balanced, I can see a number of common sense reasons for paying off the debt to the Pars relatively promptly.....

1) The quoted £80 odd thousand is a relative pish in the ocean compared to the gargantuan debts in store for the huns.

2) Defaulting on Dunfermline's gate money would carry the heavy risk of getting in EVEN MORE trouble with the SPL/SFA thereby putting Ranger's hopes of having a viable future as an ongoing entity in the SPL under even more pressure.

3) The timing of the transaction was such that paying Dunfermline was probably made relatively easy - ie the money presumably was still sitting in the safe as opposed to one of Whyte's offshore bank accounts.

4) The disruption caused to Dunfermline by non-payment would have been massive - thus creating a deluge of additional ill will and bad publicity which the denizens of Ibrox can ill afford at this time.

Putting all of the above together it is understandable that the decision was made by the administrators to pay Dunfermline the money they were due in full and at relatively short notice. Happilly not all of the same factors are in place regarding the outstanding cash the Yams are due for Lee Wallace :greengrin

---

I agree it makes absolute sense. However it appears that such payments are probably illegal as it would involve the Administrators applying selectivity in paying off creditors.

Certainly if I owned Dundee United and found that Rangers had paid off £85,000 to Dunfermline but were holding on to £200,000 to the Arabs, I would be hopping mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GloryGlory

As this was ticket money for the Pars' home game and belonged to Dunfermline, Rangers were only acting as agents in collecting it on their behalf. I suppose this could have something to do with it.

---

That might be their stated justification, but it's still a creditor, IMO. As someone said earlier, the same rationale applies to PAYE & VAT, where RFC are collecting them for payment to HMRC... or not, as the case may be :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

I agree it makes absolute sense. However it appears that such payments are probably illegal as it would involve the Administrators applying selectivity in paying off creditors.

Certainly if I owned Dundee United and found that Rangers had paid off £85,000 to Dunfermline but were holding on to £200,000 to the Arabs, I would be hopping mad.

---

It may be that Hearts and DU are not sufficiently clued up about the rules, particularly the Scottish/English thing, hence they might not see the need to protest. However, HMRC will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That might be their stated justification, but it's still a creditor, IMO. As someone said earlier, the same rationale applies to PAYE & VAT, where RFC are collecting them for payment to HMRC... or not, as the case may be :greengrin

---

I dont think they are a creditor as the money was Dunfermline's and was not funds owed as a result of a fee for a service provided. What should have happened is that Rangers should have held these funds in a seperate designated (client money) account and not part of their own assets. When the Administrators established that fact then they would be able to release the funds.

Gregg Wylde released already according to Twitter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Argylehibby

I dont think they are a creditor as the money was Dunfermline's and was not funds owed as a result of a fee for a service provided. What should have happened is that Rangers should have held these funds in a seperate designated (client money) account and not part of their own assets. When the Administrators established that fact then they would be able to release the funds.

---

I doubt very much that a Client Account was operated. If it was, I might agree with you. However, if it was, then ALL the money should have been in there, and there would be no staged payments, as is happening. It could have been paid out in full.

If there was no Client Account, ie it went into the pot, then it's a creditor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

Gregg Wylde released already according to Twitter...

---

Surprised at that, TBH. Would have thought he had a sell-on value. Is his contract running out soon?

Assuming that 800K of the million pound monthly cost saving is to come from players wages, that's about 200K per week.

If ten players are to be released then the average take-home wage has to be in the region of £10K after tax. Cutting to the chase, for every low earner - like Greg Wylde - that is punted a big earner like Whittaker needs to be papped oot the door if that 10K a week average is to be attained.

Let the good times roll! :thumbsup:

AC Milan Legends v Rangers "Legends"

Imagine getting done for benefit fraud and then suggesting a coffee morning at the local church to pay the bill.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Surprised at that, TBH. Would have thought he had a sell-on value. Is his contract running out soon?

---

No i think from what i read the other night he had a few years on his contract. Also spotted on twitter that more than 11 are expected to go today, dont know how much truth there is in that.

To answer your question earlier, a slow death for sure but this looks like the first real signs of that happening.

According to the Herald Diary, Andy Cameron was doing a charity auction and raised £3,000 for a trip on the plane for two to Celtic's first away European fixture next season.

He then attempted to raise some money for Rangers but his offer of two seats on the bus to Brechin next season received no offers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

No i think from what i read the other night he had a few years on his contract. Also spotted on twitter that more than 11 are expected to go today, dont know how much truth there is in that.

To answer your question earlier, a slow death for sure but this looks like the first real signs of that happening.

---

He signed a 5 yr contract in August!!!