Rangers News

First topic message reminder :

Updates on Rangers Transfer news.

I know its a bad example but its still shocking that only about 95 fans made the trip for the big club that aberdeen claim to be.

Also heard on the Radio, the panel said Rangers are responsible for the actions of Craig Whyte because the club put him in charge. You can't seperate the club from the actions of one individual. The next guy who called up was a Rangers fan and said 'does that mean Celtic are accountable for what happened at Celtic Boys Club?'.

By the panels logic, yes.

#HEEL wrote:I know its a bad example but its still shocking that only about 95 fans made the trip for the big club that aberdeen claim to be.

Not shocking considering

1) The cost of travel to the furthest away club.
2) Nothing to play for.
3) In the last home game, it was quite clear the players were on holiday already.
4) The manager in the last home game, insisted on playing players who are leaving the club in the summer and not giving the youngsters some SPL experience.

Plenty of fans turn up to games when there is something to play for. Not a suprising turnout because it is the end of the season. Plenty of fans turn up to away games at dundee utd, hearts etc earlier in the season because there was still something to play for.

On the CW thing, Rangers were screwed before he took over. He was a chancer looking to make a few quid. The BBC saw this, reported on it and it resulted in Rangers fans boycotting the BBC.

He is just a fall guy and the real problems lie before he took over. Rangers fans were in love with him when he took over, can you imagine the backlash if the SPL stopped him from taking over?

The thing that really bugs me regarding this is how much lack of balls the smaller clubs have.

For years Rangers and Celtic have been wanting to leave Scottish football. This is the chance to do the right thing and demote Rangers if they do go newco.

Can you imagine it if the smaller clubs vote for a newco Rangers back into the spl and in 10 years time they finally get their big move to a better league. Where does that leave everyone. Scottish football is dead unless the smaller clubs grow a set and do what's needed.

Gers still waiting on ruling

SPL vote on financial fair play adjourned again

The SPL's vote on financial fair play sanctions, which could affect Rangers, has been adjourned again until 30th May.

Five hours of talks were held at Hampden on Monday, but no decision has been reached.

New rules would see greater penalties for clubs in administration and sanctions on clubs who undergo an 'insolvency transfer', which would see them docked 10 points for two seasons and 75 per cent of their SPL income for three years.

The vote was previously adjourned for seven days and American Bill Miller subsequently assumed preferred bidder status from Rangers' administrators Duff and Phelps.

Rangers were not represented at Monday's meeting, instead sending their apologies, and Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston revealed the meeting did not have sufficient information available to reach a consensus.

Yorkston said: "It has been adjourned again. It took a long time to not decide anything.

"We need to know more information, we were hoping it would get resolved at this meeting.

"We all want to make quick decisions and come out with what the story is but we don't have enough information."


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7738244/

'We need to keep Rangers in the SPL'

Dundee United manager Peter Houston says he would be left with almost no budget for next season if Rangers are ejected from the SPL

After watching his side secure European football next season with a 1-0 win over Celtic on Sunday, he gave an insight into the financial pressures facing clubs as Scottish football continues to consider how to handle Rangers' financial crisis.

Houston has another rebuilding job on his hands during the close season, and said that task would be almost impossible if crisis-hit Rangers are no longer in the SPL.

It has been estimated that every club in the top tier would lose £600,000 from their budgets if the Ibrox side are expelled from the league.

Houston said: ''Personally, I think we need to keep Rangers in the SPL. I know that fans will be upset with that. But me being at the sharp end knowing what's going on with regards to budgets and what it could do to the SPL and Scottish football, we need Rangers.

''I have said all along that we need a strong Celtic and Rangers. Supporters may disagree with me but if you cut £600,000 off my budget I would hardly have anything left.

''I am just being honest. I totally agree that Rangers have to be punished. But what that should be, I don't know.''

Before Sunday's match, United chairman Stephen Thompson admitted that there is dilemma facing the SPL board over what to do with a 'newco' Rangers, if such a situation arises.

Thompson is part of the league's board that will vote on preferred bidder Bill Miller's proposal for Rangers to retain its place in Scotland's top tier, and told BBC Scotland: "This season we got £1.4m from the SPL. If we only get £200,000 to £300,000, then how do we fill the £1m?

"But fans are talking about boycotts. It's a lose-lose situation."

Illustrating the dilemma facing Thompson and others in the Scottish game, BBC Scotland also heard from United fans at the ground who said they were holding off deciding on season tickets for next season until they find out what punishment Rangers will face.

Some fans are pledging to walk away from Scottish football altogether if, as they see it, financial considerations are given precedence over sporting integrity.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/Sport/Football/article/22593/we-need-to-keep-rangers-in-the-spl-peter-houston-risks-fans-anger.html

Correct me if Im wrong? But is the argument essentially that Rangers are "too big and important" to be punished? It seems an awful reflection on the league if Rangers (or Celtic) should be allowed do as they please free from any punitive measures.

Perhaps a league without Rangers and Celtic would be better for Scotland in any event.

Gordy wrote:Correct me if Im wrong? But is the argument essentially that Rangers are "too big and important" to be punished? It seems an awful reflection on the league if Rangers (or Celtic) should be allowed do as they please free from any punitive measures.

Perhaps a league without Rangers and Celtic would be better for Scotland in any event.

It looks like it will be a two year 10 point deduction [3 if you include this year], a 12 month transfer embargo, and three years reduction of SPL fees.

In total that is a pretty fair penalty to me, Livingston fans will probably disagree.
The transfer embargo will be the one that does the most damage, the big money players will be off skate so they will be left with the reserves and youths to field a team.
I find that ironic as Rangers have had a very poor youth policy. They just went out and bought any decent players from the other SPL teams, a double whammy as it weakend the opposition.

The league wants to be more competitive and to me the only way that can happen in the short term is a 50% share of gate receipts.

The question that keeps coming to my mind is what happens if Rangers/Celtic were ever to finish bottom of the league would they suddenly become to big to relegate. It's a possibility that this could happen to Rangers next season.

For all Houston is crying poverty they could easily sell some assets and bring in players on reduced wages or promote more youth. It's not the ideal solution but it's far better to live within your new means and have a league with some integrity than the alternative.

A sorry state we find ourselves in.

I have often wondered if housing on Murray Park is on the buyers agenda.
No one in their right mind would want to buy Ibrox.

Planning permission for housing at Murray Park would be much easier than before the training centre was built.

How long before they change the name of Murray Park?

Dass wrote:The question that keeps coming to my mind is what happens if Rangers/Celtic were ever to finish bottom of the league would they suddenly become to big to relegate. It's a possibility that this could happen to Rangers next season.

We would just have to change the rules for them again.

Hibs attendance last night -15,281.
Hibs att vs Rangers earlier this season - 11,380.

We don't need Rangers, just something to play for.

Good point re Hibs attendances RDduncan

Pro rata Rangers seem to have a pretty poor traveling support.
Maybe the Hibs/Rangers game was on the telly?

Bill Miller withdraws his bid for Rangers!

What a shambles, does this mean that the only bid is now the preferred bid?

Doon the Water wrote:Good point re Hibs attendances RDduncan

Pro rata Rangers seem to have a pretty poor traveling support.
Maybe the Hibs/Rangers game was on the telly?

The Hibs/Rangers game was on telly but so was Hibs/Dunfermline

Think it's also very unfair that most games on telly are Rangers/Celtic away games. They maximise their home gate for home games and get paid tv every away game. Other clubs lose out on home fans watching on telly and the stupid kick off times.

Rangers administrators respond to Bill Miller's withdrawal

Rangers administrators issued the following statement in response to the withdrawal of their preferred bidder for the club, American businessman Bill Miller.

David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: “We can confirm that Mr Bill Miller has decided not to complete his purchase of Rangers Football Club.

"Since Mr Miller was announced as preferred bidder on Thursday of last week, it is regrettable that more progress could not be made to further the sale of the club.

"We have been informed by his advisors that there were a number of issues with which he felt uncomfortable including legacy contracts, the limitation of potential revenue streams and the expectation of required investment.

"As in any company takeover, the selection of a preferred bidder does not guarantee the completion of the sale. In this case, with time and money for Rangers running out quickly, it was essential to move the process forward with urgency. Mr Miller’s bid was deliverable to creditors and was the only deliverable bid on the table at that time. We had no other unconditional bid.

"Given the fact that Mr Miller did not enter into an exclusivity agreement, we informed all other known potential bidders at the time the door was not closed.

"As a consequence of Mr Miller’s bid being accepted, three other bidders have come forward to express their interest in buying the club and these offers are being evaluated with the utmost urgency.

"There is every opportunity for these bidders to now complete the purchase of the club prior to the end of the season."

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/98751-full-statement-rangers-administrators-respond-to-bill-millers-withdrawal/

Have these three other bidders just come forward, or are they the original lot who they hope are still intersted?

I struggle to believe that three bidders have come out of the woodwork since Bill Miller was named preferred bidder. That's akin to bidding for an item at an auction when someone has already won. I'd imagine this is just a ploy, the Blue Knights are probably the only game in town at the moment, and this has been announced so D+P can still play hard hardball with them if required.

Miller said that the info they received was more optimistic than realistic. It's taken him the best part of 5 days to carry out the due diligence. I can't imagine a deal to buy outright the club can be concluded by Sunday. It looks like more halftruths from D+P.

If D+P are to be believed, they stated last week that due to the timescales, a CVA is not plausible. If true, a newco is the only way forward. The Blue Knights are firmly against this plan.

Looks like the ba's burst for Rangers

May I ask who was responsible for Rangers ending up in this state? There seems to be alot of finger pointing in all directions but is it the case where they have been cheating the system for a long time under Murray or has this fellow Craig Whyte been responsible for the financial state of affairs?

Craig Whyte acted quickly to appoint these particular administrators. I wonder why he chose them

As far as I can see there are suddenly three "interested parties". I am not sure where "interested parties" translates to "bidders".

Gordy wrote:May I ask who was responsible for Rangers ending up in this state? There seems to be alot of finger pointing in all directions but is it the case where they have been cheating the system for a long time under Murray or has this fellow Craig Whyte been responsible for the financial state of affairs?

No. It goes back to the previous chairman and board. CW lied to everyone and bought it over so he could make a few quid - he specialises in liquidating companies. The whole mess started way before Whyte came on the scene.

If they are found guilty of the tax evasion thing it could go far back as the "mid 90s" according to former director Hugh Adam.

Well the guys with the 'No Yanks at Ibrox' banners got their wish.
I wonder what some of their fellow fans think of them now.

The thing that I find astonishing was that Whyte never even had the money to buy Rangers in the first place. Whatever happened to 'due dilligence' by the old board.

Doon the Water wrote:Well the guys with the 'No Yanks at Ibrox' banners got their wish.
I wonder what some of their fellow fans think of them now.

Think it was started on Follow Follow by the fans representative who will be on Scotland Tonight (11pm) with Graham Spiers. Quite a lot of infighting with them now because of it.

Miller was never serious about a bid, but was just having a pop at the fans as he was getting a lot of hate mail/e-mails. Just a wee dig that the media have blown up. Real reason he pulled out was that he realised how bad a situation it really is...

Pay a bit of money for a quick shifty at the books then runs a mile.
Not a good sign.

I'm not a "fan" of any football team, but I found the following commentary on Rangers all a little bit depressing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17999964

Yeah it's not good Nore Staat, don't believe there are three bidders there myself, load of rubbish i think.

Is the suggestion that Craig Whyte as an businessman that specialises in liquidation took over Rangers with the intention of liquidising them for his own profit? this would be quite shocking in my view. Surely whoever sold him the club must have been aware of this? Surely there must have been safety mechanisms to ensure against this? Am I right in saying he was also disqualified from being a director? Its seems very confusing that such a man could take over arguably the biggest club in Scotland?

On another issue, I has read that the American bid for the club has been withdrawn citing two causes - fan obstruction and unrealistic projections from the administrators. Both are surely very worrying? Can Rangers supporters really afford to be so choosy about who can save their club? My understanding is the club has not been awash with offers. It seems like cutting off ones nose to spite their face.

Also, is it not very worrying that professional appointed administrators have been accused as being overly optimistic in their representations of the club? To paraphrase the American - "the adminsitrators projections were more optimism than reality". This will surely have a negative impact on future bids?

Finally, how long can Rangers go on before the money runs out and liquidation becomes unavaidable? It seems like the administrators might be covering up the extent of the problems.

They have until the end of the season before the money runs out, what date i'm not sure. There is a lot of problems there that have been covered up and it was about time all was revealed.

With the season now over time must be running out fast. What confuses me is the mixed messages coming from all sides. The administrators seem to have been fooling the fans and potential bidders as to the perilous nature of the situation. I must say that liquidation looks unavoidable at this stage barring a miracle.

Lets hope the bidders involved are serious or i think you are right, you would think if they were big guns though they would have been in there from the start, they wouldn't leave it until the last week, they obviously don't want to be named just now either. Maybe Rangers are best to start of again in the third division if they are going to be playing a young, inexperienced squad for 3 years.

I find it difficult to believe that only Rangers find themselves in this position. Surely they would be following "best practice" of other clubs throughout Britain and Europe - and probably non-football business as well around the world.

But given the vast gap in quality between Celtic and Rangers and the other sides in Scotland, would it not be fair to say that even a depleted and youth filled Rangers side will still hold their own in the division?

From a punitive perspective, I can see the logic in forcing Rangers to start from the bottom entire, especially in the even of liquidation. But surely this is something they are looking to avoid at all costs? Would fans turn out in numbers to see them play minnows in obscure venues?

Gordy wrote:But given the vast gap in quality between Celtic and Rangers and the other sides in Scotland, would it not be fair to say that even a depleted and youth filled Rangers side will still hold their own in the division?

From a punitive perspective, I can see the logic in forcing Rangers to start from the bottom entire, especially in the even of liquidation. But surely this is something they are looking to avoid at all costs? Would fans turn out in numbers to see them play minnows in obscure venues?

Wouldn't say there is a "vast" gap in quality. Squad depth has a lot to do with it. Celtic can afford to keep a whole backup eleven that could compete against the rest but they do lose to (lost at the weekend). If Rangers have all youth players then it asking a hell of a lot of them to try and stay in the league especially with no experienced heads. Other clubs turn to youth players when injuries happen. What will Rangers do.

Can't see anything but liquidation. The tax case will definitely finish them off even if some numpty decides to buy them.

The fan base will cut hugely. The majority of the "fans" rely on the rivalry/hatred with Celtic that they will simply disappear. and they probably won't be playing at Ibrox.

Heard the three bids were from Tesco, Morrisons and Asda....

You're such a happy cheery positive soul Duncan.

I predict a saviour will emerge in the dying seconds.....IN A HELICOPTER!! Possibly even on the 22nd May. How poetic would that be??

Aye I know...pure wishful conjecture...just like most posts here on the subject now.

In all seriousness though, It's niggled me since the start of administration that Whyte moved like a whirlwind to get these administrators appointed rather than anyone else....we never ever had a clear answer on why. Given their inability to conclude a deal thus moving the club closer to the brink forgive me for thinking something very underhand could be going on in the administration process.

I hear that the Venky's are considering expanding north of the border following their success at Blackburn.

Hi Jas
Whyte wanted to bring in his tame administers ahead of HMRC.
I thought it strange at the time how fast they went and why on earth a judge would side with Whyte and not HMRC.

There has been a strong wiff about this process from the start of Murray selling.

Doon the Water wrote:Hi Jas
Whyte wanted to bring in his tame administers ahead of HMRC.
I thought it strange at the time how fast they went and why on earth a judge would side with Whyte and not HMRC.

There has been a strong wiff about this process from the start of Murray selling.

If only they could book the same judge for the "big" tax case!!

I agree though that something smells and has done since the Murray sale. I'm also gobsmacked that Whyte hasn't been arrested for some financial misdemeanour or other.

I see Ticketus are suing Whyte for £24million
Fat chance.

I know, he's a slippery character.

So what happens next? If another preferred bidder gets picked tomorrow will he not do the same as bill miller, read the books then run a mile?

Wasn't the preferred bidder supposed to put 500k towards Rangers to keep them going?

Can't see how anyone would put any money towards Rangers when there is a (£75mill?) tax case around the corner.

£500k that's about a weeks worth.

The Blue Knights bid was £1.5m.

Skysports are reporting that Craig White has agreed to sell his shares in Rangers to a London based consortium who apparentley have a vast premier league experience , talks took place late lastnight .

And now the consortium are seeking to become the prefered bidder with the administrators

Sounds a bit more promising Kenny.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

Link to an article explaining why Craig Whyte's shares may be a red herring.

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Skysports are reporting that Craig White has agreed to sell his shares in Rangers to a London based consortium who apparentley have a vast premier league experience , talks took place late lastnight .

And now the consortium are seeking to become the prefered bidder with the administrators

Which suggests that Craig Whyte is still meddling, and perhaps explains why he chose these administrators.

superflyweight wrote:http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

Link to an article explaining why Craig Whyte's shares may be a red herring.

Interesting Blogger

But he doesn't seem to explain why Craig Whytes shares would be a "red herring". He mentions the bidder might have to buy up Whytes security (or something?) - presumably meaning a deal still needs to be done with Whyte. As 85% shareholder, does Whyte own 85% of Ranger's assets? A shareholder has limited liability - meaning he is only liable to the value of the shares - hence Rangers debts can't be pinned on Craig Whyte - apart from the value of the shares - which cost him £1 (one pound stirling). Maybe I am talking nonsense - hopefully someone could kindly explain if I am.

BREAKING NEWS

Rangers have new owners:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18049325

He's well loved by Sheff Utd fans...

CaledonianCraig wrote:BREAKING NEWS

Rangers have new owners:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18049325

Have they actually bought the club or are they preferred bidders and now getting a look at the books like bill murray?

Still, it's a ray of light at the end of the tunnel. A green light lol

Rangers appeal against their transfer embargo and £160,000 fine. I thought GG would have put this up. He might have done himself in by now though!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-rocked-after-ban-appeal-fails.17619105

IMO this is spot on they haven't paid for players in their squad. They can renew players contracts and sign under 18s. McCoist said it hurts the club but the club have cheated and that has hurt other teams so fat Sally will just need to sulk. He's lucky he's got a job anyway even before admin Celtic had turned the tide and they were out of 3 cups.