AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Assuming Liquidation (or the best case scenario as we mostly see it ):- I think there are a few factors that just might preserve Ibrox as a football venue as opposed to a supermarket or even housing. Should a supermarket outbid someone trying to buy Ibrox to 'save' Rangers then it might be a huge lossmaker as it will be in the very heartland of Rangers and I could imagine a lot of wives being banned from using it. Because the front of the main stand is 'listed' it would make it very difficult to use it for housing, unless as very high end flats, which would have a very limited potential market, so any bidders would have to bear this in mind. On the other hand, a potential saviour would have to buy Ibrox and new players just to get going and shell out at least, say, ?20m in the process while hoping the 'Old Rangers' supporters accept the new club and they, sated on success and big named players, just might not turn up in sufficient numbers so it would be a very risky 'investment'. Rangers fans are notoriously fickle when it comes to turning up when things are not rosey and they will require a winning team (whatever division they are in) to display their 'loyalty' and won't be satisfied with 2-1 wins against the likes of Elgin or Berwick even if they do run away with the title. The level of investment, and therefor the likelihood of remaining at Ibrox, will probably depend very much on whether or not they stay in the SPL, and just how quickly that decision is made. Saying this, I still expect the SPL to crumble and do everything possible to keep them in the SPL as there's too many club chairmen out there afraid of the unknown and lacking in ambition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'd recon that Ibrox will have a far higher value as a football stadium, than as an uncleared site for redevelopment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The thing is Gas everybody exoects CW to form a newco Rangers right away, even if they are forced to start from the bottom. CW might not be allowed to form a Newco Rangers under the fit and proper person rule, plus if what the papers say and leaks from inside Ibrox that CW is now not the prefered creditor but rather Octopus (parent company of Ticketus) is now the prefered criditor, They will be forced to sell off the stadium to repay some of the debt. So whoever ends up with Ibrox is in the driving seat for newco, but they would also need to buy another league side willing to give up their history, raname and move to Ibrox, best of luck with that. If they cant buy out an existing league side and have to start with a brandnew Newco Rangers, then there might also be about a dozon or so ex-rangers people all claiming their version of newco is the right one, they might get into a bidding war for not only Ibrox but the right for the name. Not forgetting they have to compete with the likes of Gala or Spartans for league entry, A newco Rangers starting from Scracth would have to set up a club, buy Ibrox at auction, and risk applying for league entry. You will have spent about ?30m before you have even put a team on the park. Ibrox will have to be put up for sale as this is the only tangable asset, A willing newco rangers owner might also have to compete with the likes of Ikea, Morrisons and Cala or Barratt homes for the land. Remeber it wont be up to CW or anybody at all inside Rangers who get to decide what happens to the stadium, its down to the Administrators to do whats best for the debtors, These options are: Administration the powers will try to keep the company afloat until a suitable buyer has been found and can satisfy a majority of the debtors to accept Xp in the ? and that being the tax man is not going to be easy. Liquidation: A total fire sale everything must go "Stadium", "land" the lot, whatever money can be rasied will be then divided up to the debtors and they will just have to happy with what they get. Somebody might be able just to buy the name and the naming rights, butwith no staduim or infrastructure again best of luck with that. You could own the name and the history, but somebody else might be able to buy the stadium and call themselves another version, that makes things interesting. Excellent post again!! Always pleasing to read when someone can explain this in simpler terms for people like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adayinmay Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This is something I've felt has largely been ignored by the SPL/SFA when they've discussed, albeit they've hardly discussed it, possible outcomes should Rangers lose the tax case. This is not just a story of a team getting into financial distress by overspending and borrowing beyond their means, they have deliberately chosen to take a risk with a scheme that, even they, must have realised was, at the very least, dodgey and fraut with the possibility of severe consequences, but the greed and arogance that marks Rangers, and Murray, meant they went headlong into disaster. Murray, in his haste to get out, has now sold the club to a pretty disreputable man, who, as appears the case, has, in a very short time, compounded the crisis by apparently cheating the Rangers' season ticket holders and has possibly used that money to actually finance his purchase of Rangers. If ever any business deserved to go under due to financial mismanagement it is Rangers, and it is only because of their 'special relationship' with the SFA and SPL that people are even considering they might survive with only a 10 point penalty (it looks increasingly likely that administration is the least of their worries regardless of the result of the tax case). While I don't think Rangers should disappear altogether I do believe they should not receive any sympathy from the SFA or SPL, who should, in fact, be showing anger with the club and it's officials for cheating and bringing our game into massive disrepute. I just hope that, whatever the SPL/SFA try to do, enough of the rest of the SPL chairmen are prepared to stand up and say enough is enough and that any Rangers newco has to start at the bottom, where they belong. And who else other than the SFA or SPL could come up with Parma as an example of how they might treat Rangers, a club from the home of the Mafia? Fine post. My fear is that the SFA and SPL will do nothing. If the suggestions are true of duplicity and differing contracts lodged by Rangers to the SFA then I think they will distance themselves from Rangers as much as they can. Rangers downfall could well bring down the SFA as well if it's shown that they knew and allowed Rangers to act as they did. For this reason I believe the SFA will silently retreat in the hope the spotlight doesn't fall on them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Ibrox will have to be put up for sale as this is the only tangable asset, A willing newco rangers owner might also have to compete with the likes of Ikea, Morrisons and Cala or Barratt homes for the land. Remeber it wont be up to CW or anybody at all inside Rangers who get to decide what happens to the stadium, its down to the Administrators to do whats best for the debtors, These options are: Can somebody point me to anything on this thread that supports this (serious question). My understanding of the RTC website is that the date of the original floating charge is critical (as there has been legislation changes since the date of the original floating charge) which Llloyds had over the stadium since way back when. CW bought this from Lloyds and RTC website clearly states he will keep the stadium no matter what. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 My understanding is that any vote by the SPL, to invite any Rangers NewCo to join, would have to be unanimous. The SPL requires eleven teams to vote for the change, and as RFC would no longer exist, every one of the remaining clubs will need to agree. If I was NewCo, I would not be too confident. I would expect them to try to start a new league altogether to be honest, I think they would make the case for starting afresh and as one of the biggest clubs in the country they would place themselves in it from the start. They would cite the dissatisfaction from supporters at the current set-up and use that as a vehicle for re-structuring if they could... A larger top-division would be the carrot used as a distraction, Similar to when there was talk and rumours of the OF threatening Steven Thompson at UTD with breaking away and inviting SFL clubs to form a new ten club top-tier, if he did not sign up for the top-ten SPL. How many SFL clubs would not bite their.hand off for a place in a top-flight league and the money from OF supporters in their grounds... I hope there is some law against doing this but i would not be surprised if the concept was not mooted at some point as a way of trying to force their way back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Can somebody point me to anything on this thread that supports this (serious question). My understanding of the RTC website is that the date of the original floating charge is critical (as there has been legislation changes since the date of the original floating charge) which Llloyds had over the stadium since way back when. CW bought this from Lloyds and RTC website clearly states he will keep the stadium no matter what. Cheers. His floating charge might enable him to keep the stadium should he choose, but should an offer come in for it he'd have to match or better it as, in the event of liquidation (which would ineveitably follow should an administrator fail to get a CVA), it will be the duty of the liquidator to sell all the assets for as much as he can get. My understanding of the floating charge is that it covers all the assets as opposed to a standard security over Ibrox itself. It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that the floating charge in question is now held by Ticketus which will be a nightmare scenario for Rangers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Can somebody point me to anything on this thread that supports this (serious question). My understanding of the RTC website is that the date of the original floating charge is critical (as there has been legislation changes since the date of the original floating charge) which Llloyds had over the stadium since way back when. CW bought this from Lloyds and RTC website clearly states he will keep the stadium no matter what. Cheers. This is now debatable, CW has said this but then again he has said a lot of things that have proved to be economical with the truth, he has since then borrowed ?24m from ticketus and IF he has used that money to but those rights from LLoyds then as I said Octopus will own the stadium, until CW has paid back the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 My understanding is that any vote by the SPL, to invite any Rangers NewCo to join, would have to be unanimous. The SPL requires eleven teams to vote for the change, and as RFC would no longer exist, every one of the remaining clubs will need to agree. If I was NewCo, I would not be too confident. The SPL Articles of Association (if I am reading them correctly) provide for an 83% voting requirement for admission of new clubs (other than through the normal process of promotion), so I think 10 out of the 11 remaining would be enough to see Rangers Newco in. While I think Vlad might well vote against, I am not confident even one of the others would join him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The SPL Articles of Association (if I am reading them correctly) provide for an 83% voting requirement for admission of new clubs (other than through the normal process of promotion), so I think 10 out of the 11 remaining would be enough to see Rangers Newco in. While I think Vlad might well vote against, I am not confident even one of the others would join him. I bow to you better knowledge.... ....but it's not what I wanted to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Another wrinkle that popped up briefly before but is maybe worth repeating. Article D.1.13 of the SPL's Rules and Regulations requires full details of a player's terms of employment to be given as part of the player registration process. If Rangers didn't provide details of the Employee Benefit Trustts to the SPL their player registrations were therefore invalid (forfeiture of points in games they played would seem appropriate). If they did, SPL officials (if the tax case is lost) have arguably condoned or are complicit in tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The SPL Articles of Association (if I am reading them correctly) provide for an 83% voting requirement for admission of new clubs (other than through the normal process of promotion), so I think 10 out of the 11 remaining would be enough to see Rangers Newco in. While I think Vlad might well vote against, I am not confident even one of the others would join him. 83% is the same as 10 out of 12. One would assume that a legal challenge could be mounted by the next team in the First Division who could argue if a team drops out they should be promoted up. If the SPL allowed a newco Hun to waltz in then it would, in this poster's opinion, be farcical and our game would be shown up as shabby and tawdry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 83% is the same as 10 out of 12. One would assume that a legal challenge could be mounted by the next team in the First Division who could argue if a team drops out they should be promoted up. If the SPL allowed a newco Hun to waltz in then it would, in this poster's opinion, be farcical and our game would be shown up as shabby and tawdry. Don't think they would have a case. The SPL Articles provide for automatic reduction in the number of SPL clubs in the event a member club ceases to exist (iroincally Doncaster would be progressing to his favoured 10 club league!). A new club entering is a matter for 83% of the remaining 11 to agree. Rangers Newco vs 2nd in Div 1 would alas have only one winner. I of course agree an open door to Rangers Newco would be farcical but we know our game is shabby and tawdry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Another wrinkle that popped up briefly before but is maybe worth repeating. Article D.1.13 of the SPL's Rules and Regulations requires full details of a player's terms of employment to be given as part of the player registration process. If Rangers didn't provide details of the Employee Benefit Trustts to the SPL their player registrations were therefore invalid (forfeiture of points in games they played would seem appropriate). If they did, SPL officials (if the tax case is lost) have arguably condoned or are complicit in tax evasion. I'm sure another poster had mentioned on the big tax thread (!) that there was a similar requirement with the SFA. If Rangers had supplied the full info to the SFA, then our national association could find themselves complicit in illegal tax evasion, which would piss off UEFA big time. Alternatively, if Rangers had not provided the full info, then they would be in clear breach of the SFA's articles of association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 SPL rules state that any team that suffers an insolvency event ie administration or liquidation or receivership etc has it's voting rights suspended for the duration. Therfore assuming no other club was in the same situation and 11 clubs were eligible to vote 83% would require that 10 teams out of 11 vote in favour so 2 or more dissenters can veto any proposals. Basically the "Old Firm" veto would be out the window for the duration so the clubs should be prepared to take MAXIMUM advantage IF they are smart enough as collectively the could out-vote Celtic ie Old Firm interests on any issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I of course agree an open door to Rangers Newco would be farcical but we know our game is shabby and tawdry. Fully agree with this FA. I do wonder if there maybe any scope for any challenge from any of the SFL Clubs, who would be watching any NewCo leapfrogging all of them in the football hierarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I reckon you could buy Ibrox for ?10m then rent it back to the new co at ?3m a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I reckon you could buy Ibrox for ?10m then rent it back to the new co at ?3m a season. When Douglas Bader was still in charge , at the time they 'only' had debts of ?70 odd million , the stadium was valued at ?45 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 SPL rules state that any team that suffers an insolvency event ie administration or liquidation or receivership etc has it's voting rights suspended for the duration. Therfore assuming no other club was in the same situation and 11 clubs were eligible to vote 83% would require that 10 teams out of 11 vote in favour so 2 or more dissenters can veto any proposals. Basically the "Old Firm" veto would be out the window for the duration so the clubs should be prepared to take MAXIMUM advantage IF they are smart enough as collectively the could out-vote Celtic ie Old Firm interests on any issue. Dream on. As it is many matters require only a 66% majority, for example approval of commercial contracts (TV dealsetc), yet the majority of SPL clubs have regularly supinely acceded to the interests of the OF (faced with the regular threat of the OF taking their ball away) . There is no way 10 out of 11 SPL clubs will be "smart" enough to act collectively against the OF, even if one of the OF is temporarily out of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 At a function in Glasgow recently - several seemingly well placed Rangers supporters at the table all going down the Newco line and giving it the "everything will be okay line" - however their noses were well and truely put out of joint by another guy, an accountant who told them them that the Newco idea was a non starter if the Tax case went against them as the new company would still be liable for the tax bill. Don't really know if that is the case or not - however the Rangers peoples faces were an absolute picture I thought one of them was going to suffer some sort of appolexy on being told this and it did shut them up on the subject for the rest of the evening. What's quite staggering about all of this is that these people actually think that the rest of Scottish Football is going to go belly up on all of this and ensure that nothing actually happens to the club if adminstration occurs. Personally I hope they land up being liquidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Fully agree with this FA. I do wonder if there maybe any scope for any challenge from any of the SFL Clubs, who would be watching any NewCo leapfrogging all of them in the football hierarchy? Would they have to be elected as members of the SFA first, before being allowed to compete in the SPL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, that is certainly the case, and grounds for hope. Not sure what the rules are for admission to the SFA as I can't get into their Articles and Regulations on their web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 At a function in Glasgow recently - several seemingly well placed Rangers supporters at the table all going down the Newco line and giving it the "everything will be okay line" - however their noses were well and truely put out of joint by another guy, an accountant who told them them that the Newco idea was a non starter if the Tax case went against them as the new company would still be liable for the tax bill. Don't really know if that is the case or not - however the Rangers peoples faces were an absolute picture I thought one of them was going to suffer some sort of appolexy on being told this and it did shut them up on the subject for the rest of the evening. What's quite staggering about all of this is that these people actually think that the rest of Scottish Football is going to go belly up on all of this and ensure that nothing actually happens to the club if adminstration occurs. Personally I hope they land up being liquidated. With reason. Doncaster has already said they are scouring the world for "best practice" and quoted the case of Parma (who escaped scot-free despite 3 years in administration) as one (indeed the first) example! Scottish football may not be corrupt but is apparently willing to learn from those who certainly are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, that is certainly the case, and grounds for hope. Not sure what the rules are for admission to the SFA as I can't get into their Articles and Regulations on their web site. All sort of wee clubs have SFA membership through the affiliated local & national associations. That's all that would likely be needed to clear that hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 With reason. Doncaster has already said they are scouring the world for "best practice" and quoted the case of Parma (who escaped scot-free despite 3 years in administration) as one (indeed the first) example! Scottish football may not be corrupt but is apparently willing to learn from those who certainly are! Don't know about that FA. The spotlight is well and truely on them and the SFA have already set precedents with this sort of stuff with Livingston and Dundee. They risk being laughing stocks if they fail to deal properly with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 83% is the same as 10 out of 12. One would assume that a legal challenge could be mounted by the next team in the First Division who could argue if a team drops out they should be promoted up. If the SPL allowed a newco Hun to waltz in then it would, in this poster's opinion, be farcical and our game would be shown up as shabby and tawdry. If this is what ends up happening - without sounding too much like a drama queen - I would give up completely on Scottish football, which would involve my beloved Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think Vlad would vote against them, as would the team finishing bottom! :greggy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think Vlad would vote against them, as would the team finishing bottom! :greggy: I have no doubt that Vlad would vote against it, but would anyone else have the balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A few points in answer to some of the previous posts. It is unlikely that Ibrox would be attractive to a retail development with Braehead and Silverburn close by. A supermaket wouldn't pay top dollar either. I think there is also a big Asda just along the road. The area isn't attractive for housing as there a lot of commercial properties in the immediate vicinity. It might have been more attractive for housing had the site been adjacent to the river. It's a football stadium or nothing as far as I can see. The voting for admission for a newco to the SPL is indeed 83%, so it would need 2 clubs to vote against to prevent the unthinkable heppening. There have been precedents for the "relegated" club being given a stay of execution, so I can't see whoever is in 12th position (Dunfermline or Hibs ) voting for the newco if it meant that their relegation would be confirmed. Relegation could cost a club between ?2M-?3M in lost revenue as things stand. There is an odd SPL rule about membership of the SFA, which allows direct entry to the SPL, although UEFA would still require a 3 year period before allowing entry to the CL or EL. Membership of League confers Membership of SFA H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenor Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A few points in answer to some of the previous posts. It is unlikely that Ibrox would be attractive to a retail development with Braehead and Silverburn close by. A supermaket wouldn't pay top dollar either. I think there is also a big Asda just along the road. The area isn't attractive for housing as there a lot of commercial properties in the immediate vicinity. It might have been more attractive for housing had the site been adjacent to the river. It's a football stadium or nothing as far as I can see. The voting for admission for a newco to the SPL is indeed 83%, so it would need 2 clubs to vote against to prevent the unthinkable heppening. There have been precedents for the "relegated" club being given a stay of execution, so I can't see whoever is in 12th position (Dunfermline or Hibs ) voting for the newco if it meant that their relegation would be confirmed. Relegation could cost a club between ?2M-?3M in lost revenue as things stand. How would Celtic vote? Many pros and cons involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swavkav Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 so if they do go bust & a phonix club does grow, & they get straight back into the SPL, they would not be allowed to play in Europe for 3 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 When Douglas Bader was still in charge , at the time they 'only' had debts of ?70 odd million , the stadium was valued at ?45 million. The land it's on is worth very little and so it's only value is as a football stadium. On that basis it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and in a fire sale I reckon it would be unlikely to go for more than ?10 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A few points in answer to some of the previous posts. It is unlikely that Ibrox would be attractive to a retail development with Braehead and Silverburn close by. A supermaket wouldn't pay top dollar either. I think there is also a big Asda just along the road. The area isn't attractive for housing as there a lot of commercial properties in the immediate vicinity. It might have been more attractive for housing had the site been adjacent to the river. It's a football stadium or nothing as far as I can see. The voting for admission for a newco to the SPL is indeed 83%, so it would need 2 clubs to vote against to prevent the unthinkable heppening. There have been precedents for the "relegated" club being given a stay of execution, so I can't see whoever is in 12th position (Dunfermline or Hibs ) voting for the newco if it meant that their relegation would be confirmed. Relegation could cost a club between ?2M-?3M in lost revenue as things stand. There is an odd SPL rule about membership of the SFA, which allows direct entry to the SPL, although UEFA would still require a 3 year period before allowing entry to the CL or EL. Membership of League confers Membership of SFA H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA. They would probably postpone relegation for 1 year while everything was "restructured" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They would probably postpone relegation for 1 year while everything was "restructured" A 16 team league hurriedly arranged to allow them in - and then move to go back to 10 after three years no doubt (aided and abetted by the quislings in charge of other clubs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A 16 team league hurriedly arranged to allow them in - and then move to go back to 10 after three years no doubt (aided and abetted by the quislings in charge of other clubs). Would it be the SPL or the SFA that would be involved with this? As remember, Campbell Ogilvie is now pretty high up in the SFA, and he must have been heavily involved with the tax "avoidance" when he was at Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 so if they do go bust & a phonix club does grow, & they get straight back into the SPL, they would not be allowed to play in Europe for 3 years? Correct. Even in the Parma example, they were excluded from Europe for 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The land it's on is worth very little and so it's only value is as a football stadium. On that basis it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and in a fire sale I reckon it would be unlikely to go for more than ?10 million. Oh how different, if only tin legs had been granted a licence to build a casino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They would probably postpone relegation for 1 year while everything was "restructured" More likely to increase the size of the spl, so as not to upset the winners of the 1st division.. Would it be possible for a company or individual to buy ibrox with no intention of owning a football club. Just purely to rent it back. No that would be interesting, as you could have a few different new rangers trying to secure the rent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imeantasong Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 How would Celtic vote? Many pros and cons involved. With Rangers I'd reckon. Old Firm and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As far as voting is concerned, Celtic are in a very difficult position. The financial argument re TV money and sponsorship would suggest that they would vote for a newco, but on the foootballing side, if they can guarantee themselves access to the CL (even to the qualifying rounds) for a few years while RFC regained their status then it would be in their interests to vote against the newco. It is unclear what the impact on ST sales would be in a league without RFC or should it become uncompetitive. Looking at the fan base, then there is likely to be strong lobby for Celtic to vote against a newco. Should the club go against their wishes, then there could be a backlash in that people may not renew their STs claiming the league's integrity had been thrown away. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with that stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A 16 team league hurriedly arranged to allow them in - and then move to go back to 10 after three years no doubt (aided and abetted by the quislings in charge of other clubs). This is exactly the scenario that I envisage should they become a newco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Don't know about that FA. The spotlight is well and truely on them and the SFA have already set precedents with this sort of stuff with Livingston and Dundee. They risk being laughing stocks if they fail to deal properly with this. No they didnt. It was the SFL who dealt with Livingston and Dundee, its got nothing to do with the SFA. It is the SPL who deal with Rangers regarding the league again nothing to do with the SFA. Dont know about liquidation as ive not read the rule if there is one on this but in the event of administration it is a 10 point deduction nothing more nothing less. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 With reason. Doncaster has already said they are scouring the world for "best practice" and quoted the case of Parma (who escaped scot-free despite 3 years in administration) as one (indeed the first) example! Scottish football may not be corrupt but is apparently willing to learn from those who certainly are! And when you consider Parma come from the home of the Mafia it makes it an even more ridiculous example for them to choose. Who was it likened the SFA to the Mafia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 so if they do go bust & a phonix club does grow, & they get straight back into the SPL, they would not be allowed to play in Europe for 3 years? Correct. ....and that's a UEFA rule, so it doesn't matter what the SFA/SPL think about it, it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 No they didnt. It was the SFL who dealt with Livingston and Dundee, its got nothing to do with the SFA. It is the SPL who deal with Rangers regarding the league again nothing to do with the SFA. Dont know about liquidation as ive not read the rule if there is one on this but in the event of administration it is a 10 point deduction nothing more nothing less. FACT Yep - you are correct in this - but it's going to look really silly if the SPL deal with this in a less robust way than the SFL did. It's going to be even more daft if the Tax issue is the one that finally puts the nail into their coffin. Pussy footing about with people who have in essence cheated the rest of Scottish football and the Scottish public for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 a queston for someone. people are saying that ibrox could be sold to a supermarket or for land for housing etc. but i have a recollection from possibly jkb that part of ibrox is a listed building, is this correct and if so that surely would limit the sales market and thus the price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As far as voting is concerned, Celtic are in a very difficult position. The financial argument re TV money and sponsorship would suggest that they would vote for a newco, but on the foootballing side, if they can guarantee themselves access to the CL (even to the qualifying rounds) for a few years while RFC regained their status then it would be in their interests to vote against the newco. It is unclear what the impact on ST sales would be in a league without RFC or should it become uncompetitive. Looking at the fan base, then there is likely to be strong lobby for Celtic to vote against a newco. Should the club go against their wishes, then there could be a backlash in that people may not renew their STs claiming the league's integrity had been thrown away. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with that stance. It is clear on the Rangers Tax Case site and Phil Mac Giolla Bhain's site that the Celtic faithfull would be very angry if Celtic voted in favour of a Rangers newco and hopefully they are all letting the Celtic board know this. I expect there is a lot more to be unearthed with the goings on at Ibrox and I would not be surprised at all if the parent company of Ticketus now hold the floating charge over Rangers assets, after all, how on earth could Whyte have persuaded them to lend the money without such security? This would also go some way to explaining why Whyte hasn't published the accounts as he'd have to show this transfer of the charge. If this is the case I'd imagine it puts pre-pack administration out the window and Rangers into an even more precarious position as Ticketus would undoubtedly want all their money back, plus interest, so everything would have to go in the real fire sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yep - you are correct in this - but it's going to look really silly if the SPL deal with this in a less robust way than the SFL did. It's going to be even more daft if the Tax issue is the one that finally puts the nail into their coffin. Pussy footing about with people who have in essence cheated the rest of Scottish football and the Scottish public for years. They cant impose any other punishment than a 10 point penalty for administration as that is the rule. If they dished out any other punishment it would be in breach of SPL rules and Rangers lawyers would have a field day. So in essence the SPL are going to look silly if Rangers go into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 a queston for someone. people are saying that ibrox could be sold to a supermarket or for land for housing etc. but i have a recollection from possibly jkb that part of ibrox is a listed building, is this correct and if so that surely would limit the sales market and thus the price I think you are correct and it's maybe something the Rangers faithfull will cling to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 a queston for someone. people are saying that ibrox could be sold to a supermarket or for land for housing etc. but i have a recollection from possibly jkb that part of ibrox is a listed building, is this correct and if so that surely would limit the sales market and thus the price Part of it is listed. The ground is not worth much as an uncleared development site with a listed building on it, it's only real value is as a football stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.