CaleyD

The great thing about the whole Rangers mess is that you just know there's always more to come..... Andrew Ellis to take legal action over claim to 24.9% of shares - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17667092

Just a shame you remain so bitter about the merger, Dougal, because if you took the venom surrounding that issue out of your posts on this thread then you'd have a few things left that I would agree on. That's not to say I disagree with your merger related issues, I just don't see the point in constantly dragging them up and they only serve to give people an excuse to ignore the other stuff in there which is worthy of discussion.

Of course the Euro income goes to Rangers, that's my point. Without that income then Rangers are going to be no more able to compete with Celtic than I would be able to compete with Bolt over 100 meters. How interested are TV going to be in that? Not very!!! So, either way, TV are going to lose interest and as an income stream it will be heavily reduced. Thus removing a large part of the "financially good for the SPL to have Rangers in it" argument.

D.. all I am doing is critically examining the alternative to your "expensive merger that swallowed up the previous club' assets". And for passing round buckets read a total of over £5 committed one way or another by Tullochs - over £2 million of that to keep the administrators from the door following over spending during the period that ICT went from D3 to D1. You can critically examine it all you like as it doesn't matter how you might want to spin it, the merger and everything that was needed to secure a position in the SFL was expensive. Whether you want to clock that up as overspending is up to you. I'll refrain from critically examining your figures since they clearly have no basis in fact.

Opening post has been updated with further information.

Wonder if the bookies will give odds on Proctor going to Crawley Town?

What on earth are you on about, Charles. I never for one moment suggested that a single Inverness team would have been allowed entry to the SFL, nor was I referring to anything else in your cut and paste from the "Book of Tired and Old Responses to Anything Related to the Formation of ICT". Had you stopped to think and read what I said for just a moment you would see that what I was saying is that you can hardly compare the spending of the two, on the bais you were, when (and the reasons matter not) one team was forced into spending massively to get into the SFL and the other was not. It wasn't all that long ago the buckets were being passed around for the "Save our Staggies" appeal. A situation that arose, in large part, due to the overspending on players mentioned by ictchris in the 2002-2005 period when C*unty tried to buy success.

C*unty have something like 12 first team squad players out of contract at the end of the season, so we are no more likely to know what their squad will look like than we are our own.

The cracks were showing in Rangers ability to survive day to day with the finances before Whyte came anywhere near the place. They were already being all but run by the bank because of fears that they could not service the £18 Million Debt and various people were seeking to have funds frozen to protect them for fear the company was heading in to administration if a buyer could not be found (or indeed even if they did find one). They (Rangers) also already had a deal in place with Ticketus previously, so Whyte doing this deal with them was nothing new. Payments were due on old agreements there, Rangers already tight cashflow situation was damaged by funds being frozen and whilst I do not argue for one second that Whyte knew exactly what he was going to do when he came in, I don't believe that Murray was unaware and "duped" as he claims to have been. Rangers was heading for administration, it was simply a matter of Murray finding someone willing to take the wheel so as he could distance himself from the crash....someone who didn't give two hoots about tarnishing their own name so long as they could make a pound or two from it themselves. Maybe Whyte was the one who was, to some extent, "duped". Losing the BGT was always going to send the company to administration and I think that is what Whyte had been planning for when he took over. Even if his promised investment had gone in to the company it would not have stopped them being where they are today, in fact if he realised early on that throwing money at it would make no difference then it makes a certain amount of business sense not to throw good money after bad. Better to hold on to it and use it to get the company through administration and invest beyond that....an option which has all but been removed from the equation due to the earlier than expected and far more dramatic downfall experienced by Rangers.

Number 1 still exists.,,plus C*unty were never forced into an expensive merger that swallowed a good deal of the previous clubs assets and had a stadium imposed upon them which cost more than it should and carried the additional burden of a very expensive road having to be put in place. Not exactly calling it on a level playing field there Charles, and you know it. I don't know, or care, if C*unty spent more than us over the years, but it's not something that could be settled on the basis of who's paid the highest transfer fee(s). You'd need to look at wages etc also....Paul Hartles Pay per PLay deal anyone?

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement (as you often do) and that statement was wrong (as you often are)....I merely pointed that out.

A Rangers FC living within it's means and without the possibility of income from European football isn't going to come anywhere close to competing with Celtic...certainly no more so than any other team in the SPL, or any team that would be added if SPL were booted out. For that reason, the argument that Rangers should be kept to secure TV and Sponsorship deals does not hold water. Sadly I have to agree with you that the decision makers are far too short sighted to see this and will find themselves caught in their own hype and rules will be bent. changed and people will bend over backwards to keep Rangers in the SPL. Sad reflection of just how screwed up the game is in this country.

Depends on whether the loan was secured on the car. If it was a personal loan/credit agreement then the car could not be repossessed. The interesting thing about "footballing debt" in Scotland is that once in administration it does not cover future debts...essentially any payments due to be made to another club in the future such as instalments on players purchased. It's likely that Hearts will find themselves lumped in with all other creditors and be offered Xp in the £. Rangers have been in danger of administration for almost a year now, so anyone who offered them credit to any great extent during that time did so knowing of the risks. In fact, anyone who doesn't insist on C.O.D. or money up front when dealing with a football club in this day and age does so with the added risk that they may never see all of what they are due.

Strange CD hasn't given us the correct info if he knows mine is wrong! How about you providing the source of your information? My information is a matter of public record and anyone can go check it any time they like.

Wow...in all my years working in financial services and business analysis, I never knew that!!! As I said, I never delved any deeper. However, given that the name IS very similar to others...including the clubs current registered name and associated trademarks etc...then it's more than likely they would have needed permission to register it. Even more so when you look through the proposed names and see others which are similar (such as Rangers (2012) Ltd). Nothing sinister in any of that....it makes sense for anyone preparing a bid to be prepared, even if the first choice is not the liquidation route.

A new company (Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Ltd) was set up on 20th February...I've not delved any deeper than that, but it would appear this would be one of the proposed NewCo's. What's also interesting is that there's a document submitted to Companies House for the existing company on 31st May shows the removal of the banks charge on properties AND that the property was removed from the ownership of the company. Again, I've not delved any deeper on that (I spend enough at Companies House keeping up with our own club) but it would indicate that thee's evidence to substantiate Whytes claims to a secured charge over it...and would perhaps explain how he was able to secure Ticketus money against assets other than season tickets (which is yet to be cleared up). I am aware of the rangerstaxcase blog...but try to avoid reading to much of these sites. They are however good for obtaining documents with which to form my own thoughts and opinions. I don't like this assumption that if the SPL were to kick Rangers NewCo out that they would/should somehow be able to come straight back in at Div 3. It would actually serve as little...if any punishment...to allow that. Liquidation would mean a 3 year freeze out from Europe, so having to crawl back up through the leagues isn't going to effect them much. It might provide a bit of a financial boost for smaller clubs by way of increased gates for a game or two, but is that a price worth paying for those who have ambitions of progressing? Would it be fair to throw uncertainty on clubs who will shortly be trying to prepare for next season by not knowing what league they are preparing for (talking about those who would be shunted up if Rangers were relegated). How are Rangers going to finance their time in these lower divisions? The administrators can't even balance the books on an SPL income and whilst wages would be reduced (short term) they've still got an expensive stadium and training ground to operate. Rangers books cannot be balanced (much like many clubs) without constant new investment...and in their case the investment needed is far higher than what it is for any other club with the possible exception of Celtic. They're not going to pull the home crowds in the lower leagues...regardless of how "united" the fans might say they are. Rangers FC, in whatever form and however they manage to continue is not viable....certainly not as a force to challenge Celtic in any way, shape or form. Sponsors know that....which is the real reason they are holding of on doing deals. TV knows it....which is why they've not signed contracts for the new deal. They have nothing to bring to the table. Income for the league will be hit whether they are allowed to stay in the SPL or not, the only difference with allowing them to stay is that they'll continue the duopoly with Celtic that allows them to take a lions share of the income....a reduced income. There's not possible scenario whereby Rangers will add any more value to the SPL than any other team that would be promoted to replace them. Better to get rid and allow a more democratic setup that better serves the interests of everyone.

Yeah, he...and to a large extent Ticketus...have been very quiet and playing their cards very close to their chest. What is also interesting from the report is that it makes no mention of this "HMRC Deal" that they were on about where they are supposed to have given them some kind of promise to play nicely. Lots of people, including Administrators, seem to be assuming that the situation with Whyte is a done deal and he'll just hand over his shares....I suspect he'll only hand them over in return for the £30 Million he claims he is due. I've heard people talk of him being forced to sell, but I can't see any immediate or direct route to such action. Some have cited the Liverpool situation as an example, but in that case the owners of the shares had "toxic debt" with the bank and it was the bank who applied the pressure and ultimately forced the sale. Things like drag-along clauses and such do not come in to play as Whyte is the majority shareholder, so it could take months (with no guarantee) for legal argument to be prepared, presented and judged. Even if they go the liquidation route, then if Whytes claims that he is a secured creditor are true, then he would be paid..in full..ahead of anyone else. Again, the legal argument could tie it all up for months...if not longer. In short, Whyte has them by the nads and one way or another he is going to get his money.

Nothing more to tell...you made a statement, that statement is wrong.

Word is wrong.

Sorry Gabby, but I can see absolutely no basis whatsoever for defending a position of need for a team that has spent (directly or otherwise) a conservative £350 Million pounds beyond their means in the past 10 to 12 years.

Gabby, are you still of the opinion that Scottish Football needs teams like Rangers?

Not Just the Rangers/Glasgow Media then?

The list of people owed money is as at the date Rangers went in to Administration. Payment to ICT and other clubs is not listed individually, as there is no reason for them to do so, but you will see a figure in there for payment of ticket money to other clubs. There's also a paragraph that explains why they paid these monies (and not others) and it was due to the fact that they would have to end up paying it in full under the "footballing debt" rules and witholding money and having SFA/SPL deduct it from monies due there could/would result in additional penalties and them having to pay more in the long run.

Charles, I am shocked to learn that you are/have been withholding information sought by the readership and public who pay your fees and/or provide you with your platform as a reporter/journalist. Looks like that recent TV documentary about the control that football clubs have over the Scottish Media runs deeper than we might have wanted to believe!!!

The day I stop believing will be the day I give up following ICT.