The Gasman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If some of the high earners have refused proposed cuts of this magnitude before, as has been reported, what's to say they'll accept them now? I wondered that as well, but this is just for one month (presumably hoping the Blue Knights have ridden in to the rescue by the 16th) the previous deal was either till the season end, or permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon Wilson Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 These must be the nicest Administrators in the whole wide world. I'm not really surprised either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Taking the piss somewhat. They could easily have flogged McGregor, Davis, Whitaker along with Jelavic in January for less than they would have liked but still a decent sum. Would also have saved a whopping amount of wages as well as giving them a chance to make a dent in the HMRC bill. Yet they continued to trade as if nothing was wrong? Either they have zero intention of repaying the debt or they have the attitude that a ?72 million debt is the same as a ?70 million debt. Scum. It's becoming clearer by the day the administrators are not trying to secure the best deal for creditors. They are merely trying to keep the carcass alive long enough until their hand is forced and liquidation is the only option. I'd have thought HMRC must be getting twitchy about ever seeing any of the ?9-15 million currently outstanding never mind the real money outstanding. There's been zero progress made by duff & welts at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What ever else is happening at Ibrox - what's completely certain now is that none of this is actually being done for the benefit of the creditors. It looks like a complete firefighting excercise hoping that something will turn up that will save the club from the invitable. What a complete and utter farce. This latest plan does sound as if it is being done for a potential buyer, especially as it says this is only being done for 1 month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 There is likely to be some job losses says one bit, so saving the players to cut the office staff no doubt, the same office staff that folks are to think of when gloating to much, seems the huns arenae bothering about them to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboman1512 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If rangers have been cheating for the past two decades with regards to player contracts would that mean that they have also cheated any European teams that they may have won against out of potential European glory or at the very least European money for games they may have won if rangers weren't cheating them, surely any these clubs have a right to be a little miffed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What ever else is happening at Ibrox - what's completely certain now is that none of this is actually being done for the benefit of the creditors. It looks like a complete firefighting excercise hoping that something will turn up that will save the club from the invitable. What a complete and utter farce. As surmised on the RTC website : are D & P trying to keep the playing squad intact in the (incredibly misguided) belief that a newco RFC can actually get into the SPL next season and that keeping the squad together enhances the prospect of getting some nutter to buy the club ? Certainly looks like it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fxxx the SPFL Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sorry if posted already but mate at work was golfing yesterday with the father of one of the Rangers u19's and the laddie has been told that he will be getting his wages cut (if agreement goes ahead) from ?600 p/w to ?150 p/w so looks like the mail article of 75% reductionshas some truth in it but only provided all players agree to deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It's becoming clearer by the day the administrators are not trying to secure the best deal for creditors. They are merely trying to keep the carcass alive long enough until their hand is forced and liquidation is the only option. I'd have thought HMRC must be getting twitchy about ever seeing any of the ?9-15 million currently outstanding never mind the real money outstanding. There's been zero progress made by duff & welts at all. Each day of delay is adding tens of thousands of pounds onto the salary bill for this month, thousands of pounds onto the Administrators own bill, and tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of pounds onto the bill for operating costs. How exactly is this helping Creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas-voss Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Are they basically just keeping hold of players until the Uefa deadline and then come March 31 if no one has bought them there will then be a mass cull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) So despite the administrators saying on Saturday they have given the players until Sunday to come up with a decision which nothing is agreed they will make the decision of what happens. Today they offer the players a new offer to consider. Edited March 5, 2012 by jamboinglasgow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So despite the administrators saying on Saturday they have given the players until Sunday to come up with a decision which nothing is agreed they will make the decision of what happens. Today they offer the players a new offer to consider. Time for HMRC to get back to court to question the legitimacy of the Administrators actions and to petition for new Administrators to be appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So despite the administrators saying on Saturday they have given the players until Sunday to come up with a decision which nothing is agreed they will make the decision of what happens. Today they offer the players a new offer to consider. What new offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This may have been answered over the previous million pages but do rangers have any other liabilities APART from HMRC and Dundee Utd, Dunfermline and Hearts (i.e. football debt)? I mention it because, when Portsmouth went into administration a couple of years back they were in debt to all sorts of companies, including caterers, security, police, ambulance, programme producers etc etc Have rangers been sly in keeping it straight with everyone except the one creditor they thought they could cheat - HMRC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) BBC (on the live feed) reporting the administrators are paying dunfermline in full. As a very large Creditor in this, I'd think that HMRC will be going postal that the Administrators have paid off another Creditor in full, while they're still waiting! EDIT: Should have said that I'm happy for Dunfermline getting their money, just not that it's come from the Administrator. Edited March 5, 2012 by The Gasman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) What new offer? Keep up Hughesie! http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17221172 Edited March 5, 2012 by ...a bit disco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What new offer? The no redunacies and 75% salary cut for top earners, 50% for middle and 25% for the rest, offer that the press has just reported has been offered to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sorry didn't realise we were onto a new page in the thread! Cheers So what ahppens in a months time when they need to save another million? Will they spend 3 weeks trying to negotiate another deal? 3 Weeks they have been in Ibrox and they have literally done nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sorry didn't realise we were onto a new page in the thread! Cheers So what ahppens in a months time when they need to save another million? Will they spend 3 weeks trying to negotiate another deal? 3 Weeks they have been in Ibrox and they have literally done nothing! That doesn't matter 'cos Elbows McCulloch said he'll play until the end of the season for free. Problem solved apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samster Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) The no redunacies and 75% salary cut for top earners, 50% for middle and 25% for the rest, offer that the press has just reported has been offered to the players. Without knowing the intricate details of the financial goings on at Ibrox this sounds a bit like putting out a fire with a water pistol. Edited March 5, 2012 by Samster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This may have been answered over the previous million pages but do rangers have any other liabilities APART from HMRC and Dundee Utd, Dunfermline and Hearts (i.e. football debt)? I mention it because, when Portsmouth went into administration a couple of years back they were in debt to all sorts of companies, including caterers, security, police, ambulance, programme producers etc etc Have rangers been sly in keeping it straight with everyone except the one creditor they thought they could cheat - HMRC? They must have because I read on Sunday that Duff & Phellps had gone to court last Friday to try and secure monies promised to them from Whyte at the time of his takeover. The sum was ?9 million however they can only seem to find ?3.6 million which is with Whyte's lawyers in London (who has been holding some sort of position at Ibrox apparently). The report said that there were three others also making claims on this money, whio they are it did not say but it's probably Whyte's Mum Dad and Ex Wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skivingatwork Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Time for HMRC to get back to court to question the legitimacy of the Administrators actions and to petition for new Administrators to be appointed. Very much this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 They must have because I read on Sunday that Duff & Phellps had gone to court last Friday to try and secure monies promised to them from Whyte at the time of his takeover. The sum was ?9 million however they can only seem to find ?3.6 million which is with Whyte's lawyers in London (who has been holding some sort of position at Ibrox apparently). The report said that there were three others also making claims on this money, whio they are it did not say but it's probably Whyte's Mum Dad and Ex Wife According to a recent post on the RTC website , the Admins have said the money was paid into a non RFC bank account (was it CWs solicitors ?) AND that the money had been used for various purposes. But it's not clear for what. It would appear any monies paid to CW , that he may have squirelled away , may not quite amount to what the Admins were hoping for. Allegedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Like Whyte playing the game of looking into finding an administrator then claiming HMRC pushed them into it to save the flack from the support I reckon the administrators are offering the players unrealistic deals to make the players look like the bad guys for the player cuts if they refuse 75% cuts. I would have a new found respect for Kyle Laffertey if he done a Ashley Cole and laughed down the phone when offered the deal. That would be hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Like Whyte playing the game of looking into finding an administrator then claiming HMRC pushed them into it to save the flack from the support I reckon the administrators are offering the players unrealistic deals to make the players look like the bad guys for the player cuts if they refuse 75% cuts. I would have a new found respect for Kyle Laffertey if he done a Ashley Cole and laughed down the phone when offered the deal. That would be hilarious. Glasgow today after Rangers players were told of the latest offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If rangers have been cheating for the past two decades with regards to player contracts would that mean that they have also cheated any European teams that they may have won against out of potential European glory or at the very least European money for games they may have won if rangers weren't cheating them, surely any these clubs have a right to be a little miffed? i've been saying this for the last few weeks to a few rangers mates. they seem to think this is all ok, cos they went through the european games etc fairly!?!?!?! they can't seem to comprehend that by cheating every team in scotland, they were in europe unfairly, and won with players they couldn't afford where other european teams may have progressed further had rangers not been cheating from the first game of the scottish season and beyond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Its like fecking groundhog week I swear. Is todays 'revelation' about discussions surrounding reduced wages not EXACTLY the same as the discussions which were carried out last week and subsequently rejected?! The same discussions which we were told would be taken out of the players hands. Its becoming a farce now to be honest. Every day there is a new delay, or a new proposal on the table which needs 'discussed'. They've bought themselves over two weeks through this divert / delay tactic.... we're no further forward now than we were two weeks ago. I'm gonna be honest and say its becoming an annoyance now. I'd rather they just died. This slow and painful nonsense isnt all its cracked up to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) From the Glasgow Evening Times, with thanks to RTC . Stewarts Regan's wife said she is delighted that her husband has now grown a pair ?Gers could face a ban from SFA By MATTHEW LINDSAY Share 5 Mar 2012 SFA chief executive Stewart Regan has revealed Rangers could be booted out of Scottish football if they are found guilty of giving players two contracts. The governing body is currently conducting an independent inquiry into Craig Whyte?s controversial takeover of the crisis-hit Ibrox club. However, Regan has confirmed other issues have arisen during the course of the far-reaching investigation which will also be looked at in greater detail. It has been speculated that Gers players had two contracts with the Glasgow club when EBTs were in use between 2001 and 2009. And last week ex-Rangers director Hugh Adam claimed that specialist payments were being made to playing personnel as far back as the mid-1990s. Under the SFA?s articles of association, clubs are only allowed to give players one contract of employment. Regan admitted on Friday that the allegations made by Adam, who was ousted from the club board by former owner Sir David Murray, would be looked at. And he outlined the range of punishments available to the organisation if Rangers are found to have breached their strict guidelines. He said: ?If you look at our articles of association, it shows a range of powers that the judicial panel has. ?What will happen is that the matter will go to the Scottish FA main board and will then pass through to the judicial panel. ?There?s a whole range of things from suspension to termination of membership at the extreme end to fines and ejection from the Scottish Cup or other such penalties the panel deem appropriate. ?It (Hugh Adam?s claim) is one director?s take on things, but, as a board, we have to examine it.? Regan added: ?The inquiry covers primarily the Craig Whyte era, but in digging into facts it has take us into other areas. ?It?s thrown up matters which are of interest to the committee. I?m there representing the board. We?ve got into the meat of what has been going on at Rangers and now the inquiry has gone in different directions. ?The inquiry isn?t judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts. ?The board will consider the facts and if the board feels the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process.? Regan refused to dismiss the possibility of a separate inquiry being launched specifically into allegations of double contracts at Rangers in the future. He remarked: ?That will depend on the board?s view of the facts and what information there is. The situation is changing daily and new information is emerging all the time. ?We?ve got our hands on certain pieces of information and we?re exploring it and asking for further information. If it?s the board?s opinion that they want a fuller investigation then that will be an option.? Meanwhile, Regan has confirmed that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, whose role at Rangers during the Murray era has come under scrutiny, will not be involved in any investigation into secret payments. He saud: ?I think it?s pretty obvious that he (Ogilvie) is heavily conflicted. Campbell won?t play any part in any meeting, discussion or conclusion on any activities surrounding Rangers.? Edited March 5, 2012 by AllyjamboDerbyshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonbe110 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 BBC (on the live feed) reporting the administrators are paying dunfermline in full. Erm, where does this leave us? I'd be surprised if Hearts dont try to get an injunction to stop the payment to the Pars. If ?80k leaves Ibrox it means there will be ?80k less left in the pot for any potential CVA of which Hearts will get a much bigger sum than Dunfermline. I'm not sure the Administrators have the power to choose one creditor over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Surely its time for the creditors to start asking questions!! 3 weeks and next to no cuts, something not right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd be surprised if Hearts dont try to get an injunction to stop the payment to the Pars. If ?80k leaves Ibrox it means there will be ?80k less left in the pot for any potential CVA of which Hearts will get a much bigger sum than Dunfermline. I'm not sure the Administrators have the power to choose one creditor over another. I think the issue here is whether or not the money held by Rangers in connection with the Dunfermline game is even theirs in the first place. If it does not belong to Rangers at all and they are simply holding it as agents, then the administrators cannot do anything but pay it over to the Pars. If it is Rangers money and the administrators pay it out to an ordinary creditor, I suspect the administrators would be personally liable for that sum should Rangers be unable to meet all of its other debts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd be surprised if Hearts dont try to get an injunction to stop the payment to the Pars. If ?80k leaves Ibrox it means there will be ?80k less left in the pot for any potential CVA of which Hearts will get a much bigger sum than Dunfermline. I'm not sure the Administrators have the power to choose one creditor over another. Hearts money is football debt so isnt that ringfenced from the SPL TV money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd be surprised if Hearts dont try to get an injunction to stop the payment to the Pars. If ?80k leaves Ibrox it means there will be ?80k less left in the pot for any potential CVA of which Hearts will get a much bigger sum than Dunfermline. I'm not sure the Administrators have the power to choose one creditor over another. Rangers at this point are not due Hearts money. Other than for our match on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 According to a recent post on the RTC website , the Admins have said the money was paid into a non RFC bank account (was it CWs solicitors ?) AND that the money had been used for various purposes. But it's not clear for what. It would appear any monies paid to CW , that he may have squirelled away , may not quite amount to what the Admins were hoping for. Allegedly. What I find strange about this whole thing is that Whyte appointed these Administrators and he also had one of his lawyers Gary Withey implanted as Rangers Company Secretary and yet Duff and Phelps keep saying they are trying to idetify where the missing ?5million went. I've got a great idea why don't they just ask their pal Craig Whyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the general Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers at this point are not due Hearts money. Other than for our match on Saturday. why are Rangers due us money from Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers at this point are not due Hearts money. Other than for our match on Saturday. What money are we owed from our match on Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Surely its time for the creditors to start asking questions!! 3 weeks and next to no cuts, something not right here. All part of Whyte's master plan I would think. After all who was it that installed them as Administrators despite HMRC's objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamdub Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Time for HMRC to get back to court to question the legitimacy of the Administrators actions and to petition for new Administrators to be appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers at this point are not due Hearts money. Other than for our match on Saturday. Surely it will be us that owe Rangers money for our tickets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What money are we owed from our match on Saturday? Read something about it on one of tge articles posted a few pages ago....i assumed it was something to do with tickets...could be wrong. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Surely it will be us that owe Rangers money for our tickets? Wouldn't it be funny if we kept it though. You know, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It didn't finish the game in Italy. I actually think it would be the best thing that could happen.....there is so much paranoia amongst Scottish clubs that if if something did come out then it would at least clear the air and ensure that everyone from this day was 100% squeaky clean. Scottish Football in on the verge of a major rebirth imo. It's only paranoia if there is no corruption! I agree that this is a wonderful opportunity and I hope your closing sentence is truly prophetic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 why are Rangers due us money from Saturday? Did you get the right change with your pie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Is lee Wallace is one of the 3 players rumoured to be signed to a craig whyte company and not the Uglies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The administrators aren't going to be able to pull this off. Nobody is going to buy the club while this mega tax bill is in the post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'd be surprised if Hearts dont try to get an injunction to stop the payment to the Pars. If ?80k leaves Ibrox it means there will be ?80k less left in the pot for any potential CVA of which Hearts will get a much bigger sum than Dunfermline. I'm not sure the Administrators have the power to choose one creditor over another. pretty sure they cannot prefer one creditor over any other,and by paying the pars that is exactly what they have attempted to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Is lee Wallace is one of the 3 players rumoured to be signed to a craig whyte company and not the Uglies The version of the rumour I got told is that it's every player who has signed a new contract (whether they are actually a new signing, or an existing player) since Craig Whyte came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The version of the rumour I got told is that it's every player who has signed a new contract (whether they are actually a new signing, or an existing player) since Craig Whyte came in. yeah what i heard (possibly from JKB) is that the 3 players are mcgregor, davis and whittaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grado Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The version of the rumour I got told is that it's every player who has signed a new contract (whether they are actually a new signing, or an existing player) since Craig Whyte came in. If that's true then it's youngsters like perry little McCabe and wylde that are gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 SPL to have their own investigation into the rumours of Rangers 2 contract system. Doncaster is going to be on SSN soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts