The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

 

Wheres he off too?

 

Just that he has options and be surprised if he stays this month

 

You never know though - maybe he's been transformed into a Real Rangers Man. 

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, davieholt said:

 

I still don't see how expensive players can just be 'binned' and loans walked away from? In these circumstances players would (successfully) sue for breach of contract and the only way to discard loans is to get creditors (mostly directors) to agree a CVA. Sorry but I'm still stumped as to how this helps - unless it would lead to King leaving, but I'm not sure how that works?

The players who were binned become creditors of the company in Admin. They are free to move on and play elsewhere eg Naismith and Whittaker first time round. 

[Footballfirst]

37 minutes ago, Boris said:

Seems a bit off that a club can simply go into admin as a deliberate means of avoiding debt. SFA/SPFL must surely be asked how they let this happen under their watch. Again!

 

That's what the 15 point penalty and the payment of football creditors in full is designed to discourage.

[The Gasman]

1 hour ago, davieholt said:

 

I get all that FF but making people redundant isn't as easy as that. For starters the 'job' should no longer exist - a very difficult position to justify. Also the basis for selecting a particular employee shouldn't be based on pay levels. A decent employment lawyer would take them to the cleaners. There is also the small issue of credibility. What player would choose to join a club which could renege on his contract by the simple expedient of dipping into admin, ripping up his contract and coming out of admin again? (I agree that the 15 point penalty would put most clubs off but the principle remains)

 

Agree with this.

 

Businesses in Administration frequently make employees redundant, but it must be the job made redundant, not the person.

 

If the Rangers squad was to be cut by an Administrator from 25 to 20 (purely hypothetical figures) to save money that would be perfectly legal - but to “select” the five highest earners as the ones to make redundant would not be legal.  Any selection process must be fair, non discriminatory, and transparent - legally, an individual’s football ability or their earnings, are irrelevant to that.

 

Just to muddy the waters even more - if I were a player made compulsory redundant in an insolvency event (Administration or Liquidation) I’d be straight on to the PFA to lodge a claim that the remainder of my contract was a football debt - therefore had to be paid to allow the club to continue....

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

39 minutes ago, Boris said:

Seems a bit off that a club can simply go into admin as a deliberate means of avoiding debt. SFA/SPFL must surely be asked how they let this happen under their watch. Again!

Ah, but they are a “new”  club Boris so they’ll (the GFA) not consider it an”again” situation.

[Mikey1874]

15 points takes Rangers from 40 to 25

 

25 points would be 8th and would be just 5 points behind the team then in 4th (Hearts). 4th place qualifies for Europa League if one of top 3 teams wins the Scottish Cup. 

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

Agree with this.

 

Businesses in Administration frequently make employees redundant, but it must be the job made redundant, not the person.

 

If the Rangers squad was to be cut by an Administrator from 25 to 20 (purely hypothetical figures) to save money that would be perfectly legal - but to “select” the five highest earners as the ones to make redundant would not be legal.  Any selection process must be fair, non discriminatory, and transparent - legally, an individual’s football ability or their earnings, are irrelevant to that.

 

Just to muddy the waters even more - if I were a player made compulsory redundant in an insolvency event (Administration or Liquidation) I’d be straight on to the PFA to lodge a claim that the remainder of my contract was a football debt - therefore had to be paid to allow the club to continue....

It also happened with Dunfermline

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21936883

 

Quote

Dunfermline have made their highest-earning players redundant after applying to go into administration to avert being wound up.

Interim administrator Bryan Jackson said talks were continuing but expected eight first-team players and three youth players to lose their jobs.

"We have a problem with the highest earners. We don't have the cash - it's just not there," Jackson said.

Jordan McMillan and Joe Cardle both confirmed they were among the cuts.

Pars captain McMillan said on Twitter: "The news is true I have been made redundant with immediate affect but loved my time at club as captain. Hope boys do well rest of season."

Andrew Barrowman, Paul Gallacher, Andy Kirk, Andy Dowie and Stephen Jordan are also thought to have left East End Park.

Manager Jim Jefferies has agreed to stay on until the end of the season but on a reduced salary.
 

 

 

I'd imagine that the administrator will take an immediate look at the income and expenditure of a business, then make a decision on who to let go based on the needs of of the business going forward and the practicality of eliminating specific costs.

 

If, hypothetically, an administrator had to make savings of £40,000 a week  to make it viable, he might choose to dispense with the services of two individuals each earning £20,000 a week , rather than four each earning £10,000 a week.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Footballfirst

[hueyview]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

Stop making it up guys, there is no chance of the might Gers going into administration.

 

You lot are just a bunch of Tic loving bums who listen to Irish bloggers to much.

 

WATP

 

Signed: CJGJ & friends*

 

* Not really signed by CJGJ and friends

Ha .....had me going for a moment.

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

1 hour ago, 1971fozzy said:

Presiction - every game in the cup will be a Home tie at Ibrox 

 

It's a 50/50 shot for each draw, hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

[Deevers]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It also happened with Dunfermline

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21936883

 

 

I'd imagine that the administrator will take an immediate look at the income and expenditure of a business, then make a decision on who to let go based on the needs of of the business going forward and the practicality of eliminating specific costs.

 

If, hypothetically, an administrator had to make savings of £40,000 a week  to make it viable, he might choose to dispense with the services of two individuals each earning £20,000 a week , rather than four each earning £10,000 a week.

Hmmm, I wonder if this does happen if they will make moves to have a firm of their choice involved in handling things.  Nothing would surprise me.

[1971fozzy]

55 minutes ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

It's a 50/50 shot for each draw, hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

 

We will see ?

[NANOJAMBO]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

It all sounds plausible enough. If it happens then I will be interested in the why, and what the end game is.

 

I'm in the camp of hoping that Rangers remain immersed in financial problems for as long as possible as it will continue to keep their potential restrained to the same level as Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts etc., (well maybe not Hibs).

Amen to that.

[Footballfirst]

They are still planning on spending money on repairing the stadium, or at least their plans have been approved.

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

People ask why would King go for a pre-pack?  Trying to put some thoughts as to why not?  Its perhaps the least worst case scenario?  Lets just consider what coming up?

First he has 11 days to find £15m of which £11m for the shares, the rest for cash flow… fact.   He might not need the whole £11m so could get some back and end up owning most of the club? he would be able to push through a new shares issue, but it would be all his shares he would effectively half the value of his own shares and not make a penny, or : He could sell those 20p shares with immediate effect but won’t get 20p for them, at best 19p. BUT he has 11 days to find £15m…..big ask?  And then still promote a share issue?????/

He could sell his share before the 11 days, but no doubt a mug would not only have to buy the 27p shares I would bet that King would also ask for his soft loan back……OUCH!  But why did he buy the shares that tripped the 30% TOP rule anyway?....madness.  And he is not going to sell inside the next 11 days, so he has to find the money?  Unless there is another master plan????

Or go into admin, be the biggest creditor, not plan A but he will make a loss and it might be cheaper and be better off than finding this £15m?  This might be the only ROI still at a loss though? who knows for sure but the reality is he still has 11 days to find £15m and keep trading, or get out of dodge and write off a fortune? 

Perhaps he could appeal the TOP and win, but the Judge was pretty clear what he thought of King and his legal advisors arguments…..irrelevant

Pop corn time  

[socrates82]

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

People ask why would King go for a pre-pack?  Trying to put some thoughts as to why not?  Its perhaps the least worst case scenario?  Lets just consider what coming up?

First he has 11 days to find £15m of which £11m for the shares, the rest for cash flow… fact.   He might not need the whole £11m so could get some back and end up owning most of the club? he would be able to push through a new shares issue, but it would be all his shares he would effectively half the value of his own shares and not make a penny, or : He could sell those 20p shares with immediate effect but won’t get 20p for them, at best 19p. BUT he has 11 days to find £15m…..big ask?  And then still promote a share issue?????/

He could sell his share before the 11 days, but no doubt a mug would not only have to buy the 27p shares I would bet that King would also ask for his soft loan back……OUCH!  But why did he buy the shares that tripped the 30% TOP rule anyway?....madness.  And he is not going to sell inside the next 11 days, so he has to find the money?  Unless there is another master plan????

Or go into admin, be the biggest creditor, not plan A but he will make a loss and it might be cheaper and be better off than finding this £15m?  This might be the only ROI still at a loss though? who knows for sure but the reality is he still has 11 days to find £15m and keep trading, or get out of dodge and write off a fortune? 

Perhaps he could appeal the TOP and win, but the Judge was pretty clear what he thought of King and his legal advisors arguments…..irrelevant

Pop corn time  

 

One thing we've learned from Green, Whyte and the rest at Rangers, and Romanov at Hearts, is that these guys will do whatever it takes to protect their own interests first and foremost and won't give two hoots how things turn out for the club, employees, fans or anyone else so long as they make a bit of money or at least minimise losses and stay out of jail. I don;t see King any differently. In fact, he already seems to have a track record in SA.

Edited January 10, 2018 by socrates82

[RobNox]

2 hours ago, The Gasman said:

 

Just to muddy the waters even more - if I were a player made compulsory redundant in an insolvency event (Administration or Liquidation) I’d be straight on to the PFA to lodge a claim that the remainder of my contract was a football debt - therefore had to be paid to allow the club to continue....

 

 

Would you be able to claim loss of wages as a football debt?  I don't recall if we had to recompense any of the players we let go during admin.

 

I've heard that some of the summer signings by Pedro agreed to accept their signing on fees in monthly instalments, so I presume the players might have a claim on any outstanding balance as being as football debt.

[socrates82]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

It also happened with Dunfermline

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21936883

 

 

I'd imagine that the administrator will take an immediate look at the income and expenditure of a business, then make a decision on who to let go based on the needs of of the business going forward and the practicality of eliminating specific costs.

 

If, hypothetically, an administrator had to make savings of £40,000 a week  to make it viable, he might choose to dispense with the services of two individuals each earning £20,000 a week , rather than four each earning £10,000 a week.

 

One thing's for sure, however much rangers are paying now it's nowhere near what they were paying when they went into admin the first time. Makes it even more worrying for them if they still can't cover their relatively (for them) low wages and small squad. And they have no playing assets at all. No-one else will ever pay 1m for the likes of Dorrans and Murphy. If they do go into admin, most of their current squad will do well to get Scottish Premiership or English Championship/League One clubs. Not like the first time, when a number of their players were snapped up by decent teams down south.

[RobNox]

Just a thought, what if one or more of the lenders have security over Ibrox and/or Auchenhowie?  

[eyesandears]

11 minutes ago, RobNox said:

Would you be able to claim loss of wages as a football debt?  I don't recall if we had to recompense any of the players we let go during admin.

 

I've heard that some of the summer signings by Pedro agreed to accept their signing on fees in monthly instalments, so I presume the players might have a claim on any outstanding balance as being as football debt.

The SFA demand all football debts are settled by any new owner coming in to a club. This covers players (protected by the SPFA), other football clubs but scandalously does not cover the behind the scenes staff at the club. It's the behind the scenes staff that are often the ones that are the hardest working and the least well paid some of whom will have had hours cut or wages reduced. The football authorities however do not care about them as they have no union to fight for them unlike players who have the SPFA.

[Footballfirst]

37 minutes ago, RobNox said:

Would you be able to claim loss of wages as a football debt?  I don't recall if we had to recompense any of the players we let go during admin.

 

I've heard that some of the summer signings by Pedro agreed to accept their signing on fees in monthly instalments, so I presume the players might have a claim on any outstanding balance as being as football debt.

Hearts creditors list contained all the players who hadn't received wages from the start of the month until the day we entered Admin (the period of 1-18 June 2013).  We also had one player (Andy Driver) who had an outstanding bonus or signing-on fee and whose claim was much higher than anyone else at £115k.  John Sutton had the largest claim of players still at the club at the time with £20,492, followed by Webster, Barr, Novikovas, Hamill, Stevenson, Zaliukas and McDonald, who all had 5 figure claims. 

 

The creditors list shows debts of around £80k to companies that were clearly football creditors (Liverpoool, Stenhousemuir, Livingston, Kaunas, SFA and SYFA), but there were also amounts due to players agents such as Key Sports Mgt. Stellar Football, Graham Rankin Sports Mgt and Viola FC.

 

Taking the Clubs, Players, Agents and football authorities claims together you start to approach the £535k of football debts that the club had to pay following admin.  (I believe that Andy Driver either waived his claim or accepted a significantly lower amount).

Edited January 10, 2018 by Footballfirst

[RobNox]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

Hearts creditors list contained all the players who hadn't received wages from the start of the month until the day we entered Admin (the period of 1-18 June 2013).  We also had one player (Andy Driver) who had an outstanding a previous bonus or signing on fee and whose claim was much higher than anyone else at £115k.  John Sutton had the largest claim of players still at the club at the time with £20,492, followed by Webster, Barr, Novikovas, Hamill, Stevenson, Zaliukas and McDonald, who all had 5 figure claims. 

 

The creditors list shows debts of around £80k to companies that were clearly football creditors (Liverpoool, Stenhousemuir, Livingston, Kaunas, SFA and SYFA), but there were also amounts due to players agents such as Key Sports Mgt. Stellar Football, Graham Rankin Sports Mgt and Viola FC.

 

Taking the Clubs, Players, Agents and football authorities claims together you start to approach the £535k of football debts that the club had to pay following admin.  (I believe that Andy Driver either waived his claim or accepted a significantly lower amount).

Thanks FF, so in terms of wages, the only claim a player would have would be the element that was unpaid up to the point of administration.  Loss of future earnings wouldn't figure.  In the case of Rangers then, any player who had agreed to accept their signing-on fee in monthly instalments would still have a claim on the outstanding balance (assuming this is clearly set out in their contract terms).

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, RobNox said:

Thanks FF, so in terms of wages, the only claim a player would have would be the element that was unpaid up to the point of administration.  Loss of future earnings wouldn't figure.  In the case of Rangers then, any player who had agreed to accept their signing-on fee in monthly instalments would still have a claim on the outstanding balance (assuming this is clearly set out in their contract terms).

That would be my understanding.

[RobNox]

From the information in this thread and from other sources, it appears as if it's the non-King faction on the Board who have set in place the arrangements for administration, and that this would be very much a last resort if funding is not forthcoming in the next week or two, either from player sales or from Dave King ponying up some the funding that was committed to in the recent accounts.

 

With that in mind, are there any Rangers players that we think would add value to our team / squad?  Even maybe some promising young players?  I'm just thinking it would be nice to do a 'Rangers' on them and make a derisory offer or two to pick up their players on the cheap, when they might not be in a position to turn us down if the alternative is administration.

[busby1985]

A split board may explain why the Murphy deal was so strangely handled and also the drip feeding of the Pena deal info. This morning it was reports that Pena’s New club where paying his full wage, now we are hearing that’s not true. Also could be because there is genuinely nothing wrong at Ibrox haha. 

[portobellojambo1]

4 hours ago, The Gasman said:

 

Agree with this.

 

Businesses in Administration frequently make employees redundant, but it must be the job made redundant, not the person.

 

If the Rangers squad was to be cut by an Administrator from 25 to 20 (purely hypothetical figures) to save money that would be perfectly legal - but to “select” the five highest earners as the ones to make redundant would not be legal.  Any selection process must be fair, non discriminatory, and transparent - legally, an individual’s football ability or their earnings, are irrelevant to that.

 

Just to muddy the waters even more - if I were a player made compulsory redundant in an insolvency event (Administration or Liquidation) I’d be straight on to the PFA to lodge a claim that the remainder of my contract was a football debt - therefore had to be paid to allow the club to continue....

 

 

 

That was my understanding of how it works as well Gasman, i.e. positions are made redundant, not people. You often find a business may for example have people who occupy a position of say team managers, and the business decides to make that position redundant and thereby anyone occupying that position would become subject to redundancy terms. The business may then, at a later date, decide that they were wrong to do as they did and recreate the position but give it a different term, i.e. call them section supervisors instead for example, and place people in position to do that job. I'd imagine it could be a bit more difficult for football clubs if the position they are making redundant is football players, because you would assume if they were making that position redundant it would impact on all persons employed as football players, not as you say just those earning the most money, as that could be deemed as a discriminatory act.

[Unknown user]

Redundant, contract terminated, whatever you want to call it, an administrator has a lot of power including the right to cancel contracts he feels aren't in the business's best interests.

 

IIRC terminated employees become creditors and will  get the same pence in the pound settlement as everyone else. It seems unfair, but them's the rules!

[RobNox]

I can't see how you can make a position redundant in terms of a football team.  'We've decided the position of right back is no longer required, so regrettably have punted our current right back.  Going forward, our goalkeeper will assume the previous responsibilities of the right back, within the newly created role of Goalie-come-right-back.'

Edited January 10, 2018 by RobNox

[Cruyff Turn]

Question? 

 

If Rangers go into Admin, would it be a 15 point, or 30 point reduction.

 

I ask because I seem to remember if something about a club going into Admin twice then it's a 30 point deduction. 

[RobNox]

4 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Question? 

 

If Rangers go into Admin, would it be a 15 point, or 30 point reduction.

 

I ask because I seem to remember if something about a club going into Admin twice then it's a 30 point deduction. 

25 points for a second insolvency event, within a 5 year period.  So, as it's more than 5 years since the previous event, it will only be 15 points, regardless of whether they are the same club or a new one.  I guess the footballing authorities will be relieved that the 5 years has passed, as it avoids them getting involved in a new club / same club debate.

[redjambo]

6 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Question? 

 

If Rangers go into Admin, would it be a 15 point, or 30 point reduction.

 

I ask because I seem to remember if something about a club going into Admin twice then it's a 30 point deduction. 

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13211022.SPFL_vote_for_tougher_punishments_over_insolvency/

 

15, I think (with 5 next season), because even if you could argue that Rangers were the same club as the previous Rangers who were liquidated, that previous insolvency event was more than 5 years ago.

[Cruyff Turn]

Just now, RobNox said:

25 points for a second insolvency event, within a 5 year period.  So, as it's more than 5 years since the previous event, it will only be 15 points, regardless of whether they are the same club or a new one.  I guess the footballing authorities will be relieved that the 5 years has passed, as it avoids them getting involved in a new club / same club debate.

Cheers Rob, yeah that would have really put them in some position. 

[Cruyff Turn]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13211022.SPFL_vote_for_tougher_punishments_over_insolvency/

 

15, I think (with 5 next season), because even if you could argue that Rangers were the same club as the previous Rangers who were liquidated, that previous insolvency event was more than 5 years ago.

Cheers Red. To me they are a newco, however the SPFL and SFA let them keep their history so I was thinking they'd have to give them a double deduction. 

 

Didn't realise they had put a 5 year limit on that which is somewhat disappointing!

[RobNox]

I supposes there are 2 ways of looking at the effect of the 5 year rule.

 

If the time limit didn't exist, and they took a 25 point hit for going into administration again, that would strengthen their case for being the same club.  I doubt they would argue for a 15 point deduction, as that would be an admission that they are a new club.

 

As it stands, a 15 point deduction applies regardless, so doesn't imply that they are either a new club or the same club.

[Bazzas right boot]

Admin only works if the creditors agree to the write off.

 

Unsure if having lots of small debts is helpful v having one big creditor.

They'd also need a buyer, wouldn't they?

 

If admin goes wrong, then liquidation may follow.

 

Government bodies won't accept admin either.

 

Administration success really depends on the creditors, anyone idea on what/ who they owe.

 

Surely they've paid Thier tax bill and payroll correctly.....

Edited January 11, 2018 by BigDave'sHeed

[Paolo]

6 hours ago, RobNox said:

I can't see how you can make a position redundant in terms of a football team.  'We've decided the position of right back is no longer required, so regrettably have punted our current right back.  Going forward, our goalkeeper will assume the previous responsibilities of the right back, within the newly created role of Goalie-come-right-back.'

It has and does happen. 

 

With regards to your example, no one is employed as a ‘right back’. Try are employed as a footballer.   They just may have a specialist position, which a team may utilise.  They may play a player in a different position though, as we have often done as a make shift resolution to our left back issue.  

 

The administrator may consider the specialist position, and decide we should keep him, and can, or say, it is not affordable, so you will need to promote from within to replace him. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Paolo

[Paolo]

,  

Edited January 11, 2018 by Paolo

[Paolo]

5 hours ago, BigDave'sHeed said:

Admin only works if the creditors agree to the write off.

 

Unsure if having lots of small debts is helpful v having one big creditor.

They'd also need a buyer, wouldn't they?

 

If admin goes wrong, then liquidation may follow.

 

Government bodies won't accept admin either.

 

Administration success really depends on the creditors, anyone idea on what/ who they owe.

 

Surely they've paid Thier tax bill and payroll correctly.....

I’d imagine that as long as HMRC are a creditor due 24.99% or less of the total debt, then any CVA would be accepted. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

9 hours ago, BigDave'sHeed said:

Admin only works if the creditors agree to the write off.

 

Unsure if having lots of small debts is helpful v having one big creditor.

They'd also need a buyer, wouldn't they?

 

If admin goes wrong, then liquidation may follow.

 

Government bodies won't accept admin either.

 

Administration success really depends on the creditors, anyone idea on what/ who they owe.

 

Surely they've paid Thier tax bill and payroll correctly.....

Admin works to help ptotect the business as a going concern. Rangers MkI were in big trouble because the biggest creditor was HMRC who by their well known policy on page one of their manual is they dont do p-in-the-£ deals, its all or bust.  Green tried to convince the world that he has a deal for a CVA and nobody in the media challenged this?

 

Rangers MkII it is King who has the biggest unsecured debt, he has to decide to either find £15m in 10 days and keep pumping good money after bad in this never ending money pit just to stand still, or go into pre-pack and get back whatever he can?  at the same time not needing to prop up a failing business model?

 

If King does not choose then events may overtake him and admins may be appointed who will work in the best interest of the business rather than for King?

 

 

[DETTY29]

There were rumours that King (we assume NOAL?) wasn't putting monet in directly but borrowing from the other investors / directors.

 

Could it be he hasn't ponied up original sums and the guys who have have had enough and are trying to make sure King doesn't make anything from Rangers do crash the whole bus (as they are screwed anyway in getting a return) but still hold some albeit small, hope of calling in direct loans with Long so he is completely fecked.

 

Yep, fanciful.

[DETTY29]

There were rumours that King (we assume NOAL?) wasn't putting monet in directly but borrowing from the other investors / directors.

 

Could it be he hasn't ponied up original sums and the guys who have have had enough and are trying to make sure King doesn't make anything from Rangers do crash the whole bus (as they are screwed anyway in getting a return) but still hold some albeit small, hope of calling in direct loans with Long so he is completely fecked.

 

Yep, fanciful.

[Unknown user]

Admin would be interesting, especially as people connected to the company are excluded from the settlement vote, so all these director creditors would be left without a say in the deal being accepted.

[doctor jambo]

Those who run football need to look at themselves over this

1- King sits as Director with RFC

2- RFC board act in such a way that RFC is liquidated

3- RFC 2 born

4-King passed fit to run RFC 2

5-RFC2 board act in such a way that they are in real danger of insolvency

 

Why any of the antics of RFC 2 is a surprise is beyond me- what next

 

RFC3 born, david Murray passed fit to run RFC3?

[sadj]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Admin would be interesting, especially as people connected to the company are excluded from the settlement vote, so all these director creditors would be left without a say in the deal being accepted.

 

Would that not then deem it pointless going to admin unless its to save them losing any further monies?

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

 

Would that not then deem it pointless going to admin unless its to save them losing any further monies?

I have no opinion on it mate, I'm no expert on these things. I just enjoy watching them squirm. 

[sadj]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

I have no opinion on it mate, I'm no expert on these things. I just enjoy watching them squirm. 

 

lol no worries , was more just a general question to anyone. Just seems like if thats the case there would be no point unless its to do with the bord split. Either way i think its unlikely just now but it is fun watching them squirm and say they have no issues whatsoever.

[...a bit disco]

Er...

 

Daily Record Sport‏Verified account @Record_Sport 27m27 minutes ago

Pedro Caixinha suffers Mexican Cup humiliation as Cruz Azul are beaten by lower league side formed five years ago http://dlyr.ec/PaQ6xR 

[brunoatemyhamster]

3 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Er...

 

Daily Record Sport‏Verified account @Record_Sport 27m27 minutes ago

Pedro Caixinha suffers Mexican Cup humiliation as Cruz Azul are beaten by lower league side formed five years ago http://dlyr.ec/PaQ6xR 

 The Football club formerly known as Alebrijes de Oaxaca ?

 

El Triggeros broom FC ?

[...a bit disco]

2 minutes ago, brunoatemyhamster said:

 The Football club formerly known as Alebrijes de Oaxaca ?

 

El Triggeros broom FC ?

 

 

As a side note, their next game is against Roadrunner apparently!

 

[milky_26]

Just now, ...a bit disco said:

 

 

As a side note, their next game is against Roadrunner apparently!

 

they will need to be wiley to beat them

[sadj]

10 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Er...

 

Daily Record Sport‏Verified account @Record_Sport 27m27 minutes ago

Pedro Caixinha suffers Mexican Cup humiliation as Cruz Azul are beaten by lower league side formed five years ago http://dlyr.ec/PaQ6xR 

 

Certain irony to that