I'm modest enough to admit that I was wrong about something once. It was only once though and it was way back in 1984......Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Printable View
I'm modest enough to admit that I was wrong about something once. It was only once though and it was way back in 1984......Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I know its a fine balance in reality, i suppose if Rangers get a good manager in then it would give them a fighting chance. Another McCoist and they would be favourites for relegation!
I agree with you - I've never understood this myth that's being perpetuated about Celtic trying to get Rangers back in the SPL. It would serve no purpose unless Rangers invested hugely in their squad and they do not have the cash to do that. Rangers as they presently are would be cannon fodder in the SPL over the course of a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Hate to disagree but Admin - this companies first of course - apparently won't expunge onerous contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
I'm not familiar with the details BUT on the basis they were written by Charlie for the benefit of Charlie and his pals there's no reason why they haven't been written in a watertight way...
If true, this is the Clumpany's dilema - the Spivs will continue to bleed them dry unless they press reset.
As I said earlier, I would be very surprised if the contracts couldn't be cancelled by the administrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
The likelihood is that the amounts payable under those contracts would be added to the creditors. If they have no security, they would then rank behind Ashley .
They all hate each other. And themselves. It manifests itself in their behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Other countries, like Belgium, are different - and maybe more honest about this? - mainly because each club was given a matriculation number on registration. As far as I remember when I lived in Belgium when a team pulled the Ardrie trick they look on the number and history of the club they bought over (and their number was deleted). My local club in Antwerp Beerschot lost their 7 league titles when they took over Germinal in the 1990s - they got Germinal rather un-illustrious history instead! AFAIK when a club liquidated they have to reapply for a new FA number. No club can prance about pretending to be 140 years old when it has the latest matriculation number to be issued.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Celtic need Rangers back because they have an annual £10m hole in their accounts. They see themselves as a Champions League side therefore that demands a certain level of squad quality. To attract players they need to have a selling point (CL football and guaranteed matches against Rangers sell that) thus To afford those ambitions they need Old Firm games which are revenue generators. Even when Rangers were mince in the early 80s the Old Firm games were sell outs.
Do the supporters of Beerschot believe they're supporting the same team?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Looking back at the Prospectus last year it said something like there may be securities against Ibrox & MP but we've not seen anything to confirm or deny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Two home games against Rangers every season isn't going to fix a 10 million black hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
It is not just the games against rangers though, the Celtic fans know the league is won on day one and their fan base has dwindled. Rangers brings interest and fans back.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
No idea but I notice from Wiki that Germinal Beerschot played with a 1999 badge and listed 2 cup victories as their honours (one as G and one as GB), This team went bust in 2013 but immediately reformed as Beerschot Wilrijk and is now playing with a 2013 badge, it doesn't pretend to have any honours. All these teams have played in the old Olympic stadium in Antwerp watched by the same longsuffering fairly large support.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The same would be true if Rangers were in the league right now IMHO. Rangers are very poor and miles away from where Celtic are in terms of quality, and I am failing to see where the quantity of cash they require is going to come from? After getting pasted twice the Rangers fans wouldn't go back and we would be back to where we are now. I genuinely hope that Celtic crush them in the cup - that will silence a lot of what I see is nonsense about the dynamic of the SPL changing significantly should Rangers be promoted....Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
The emotional argument has more weight for me if the supporters believe it's the same team.
A seriously wounded Rangers offers nothing extra though. 2 games to horse their rivals - fair enough, there's some appeal there but not enough to fill a £10m black hole. They would be just another diddy team. That's not going to sell £10m worth of season tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
The real cash for Celtic is in the Champions league and a strong Rangers would jeopardise their chances of getting their hands on that loot - way too risky for them to contemplate imo.
What is the general feeling amongst Celtic fans? Do they want them dead and gone or do they want the OF games back? That may influence what the Celtic board really want too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
The securities held by MA are shown in the accounts and at Companies House.
That is all the securities there are, other than standard ones on leased equipment.
In terms of gate receipts alone it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
But if Celtic are playing Rangers there's a number of things that come into play.
1 Sold out hospitality. You won't sell £750 a plate packages for Kilmarnock or Ross County. Celtic will bank over £1m per Rangers game in hospitality.
2 live on Sky - increased TV deal.
3 Media Rights
4 increased interest from fans. Celtic currently play with the top tier are Celtic Park closed most games.
It's mixed IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
The ones who lap up Phil McGobbledygook & his hysterical agendas want Rangers destroyed completely. Whereas The old school guys who grew up watching Steins teams or players like Paul McStay miss the Old Firm game and want it back. The Glasgow guys who work together with their bluenose mates generally think enough is enough and it's time Rangers come back.
You are more passionate about Rangers being back than any Celtic fan I know, or indeed, many Rangers fans.:devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Aye but who's YOUR REAL big team eh? ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Just so I understand was Ashley trying to gain more than 29.9% stake in order to loan Rangers more money in a debt for equity type scenario?
As that avenue has now been blocked can I assume he can loan the company more money however this would need to shown in the accounts as a creditor? Would this make him less likely to put in more money incase the big A comes around and he gets diddly squat in the pound? Or can he ensure his loans are secured on say Ibrox?
Appreciated in advance the answers!
He was trying to increase his stake in the company TO 29.9%.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithTheHibby
By continuing with, and adding to, the secured loans, if administration happens he will rank first before any other creditor.
Clever cookie. He really has got them by the short and curlies. I wonder what his agenda really is?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Still trying to work that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithTheHibby
Ballengeich had a decent shout earlier in the thread, which is worth a read. I think it might be about getting hold of the properties.
Ashley is all about Sports Direct, any agenda will probably hinge round the benefits for this company (or a simple money making opportunity).Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithTheHibby
I can't see him swapping the boardrooms of the Premiership for Paisley/Kilmarnock/Dingwall at the weekend so he's unlikely to be a "hands-on" chairman any time soon.
:confused: All three of those teams can't go down at the end of the season, can they? Shirley two at most? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Ashley wants rangers cause it will be far easier to get them into Europe and winning things than it will be Newcastle.
for a lot less outlay he could be quids in.
I'm with you on this one. If a strong Sevco return to the top division it reduces Celtc's chances of making the Champions' League by 50%. The CL is worth an awful lot more money than 2 games & all other associated income that Sevco bring to the table. I also doubt that the £10m figure quoted by Celtc would stand up to serious scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Newcastle get more money from TV than Celtic's turnover. Champions league is a nice earner but nothing compared with epl.Quote:
Originally Posted by weonlywon6-2