Looks like the players are discussing a plan for no redundancies. I hope so. What about the non playing staff though? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17221172
Great idea! The numbers still seem low to me though. How many people actually know about it though? They need to keep advertising it. https://www.saverangers.com
So there are 4 bids on the table for Rangers. A surprise one came in from Germany! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17614317 The bid from Germany is the biggest surprise, with the group or individuals involved having avoided the headlines until now. Indeed, prominent German-based Rangers fan David McAllister, the prime minister of Lower Saxony, told BBC Scotland that he had heard nothing of a bid from his country and that he personally is not involved.
What's going on with the administrators? http://news.stv.tv/scotland/99441-w...conference-on-the-failed-rangers-bid-in-full/
What was kind of bonkers was the follow up from Duff and Phelps and then the counter from Murray / Kennedy camp. Administrators Latest Rangers takeover: Blue Knights see red at Duff and Phelps as they withdraw offer Seems to me that the Murry/Kennedy bid was pretty low with a bunch of conditional elements which were unlikely to be realised. My impression is that they either do not have or unwilling to provide the funds up front like Bill Miller's £11.2m proposed and later withdrawn bid showed. Perhaps they're angling to pick up the assets if / when liquidation occurs and then start anew. Edit: On an unrelated note, my team got relegated today.
The whole thing gets more and more confusing.....the UK must have the most bizarre bankruptcy laws that are imaginable. So...D&P are "administrators" not "liquidators" (BDO are the liquidators)...but D&P can sell (ie. liquidate) the company's assets (players, stadium, training ground) by pre-arranging a sale to Green? So by voting down the CVA, HMRC are forced to live with a 5.5 million pound price for the assets of RFC as those assets are transferred (liquidated) into Green's newco Rangers? I would have thought a "liquidator" would have raised more money if they were free to sell the assets for cash to whomever wanted them? So the playing staff of Rangers could be sold off indivdiually. RFC, this year, were no "worldbeaters" but there has to be more than 5.5 million pounds of transfer value in that squad? There are limited uses for Murray Park if you are not a football club but, surely, a retailer or home builder would have seen some value in that land....Ibrox is a listed building and somewhat purpose built for football.....but I bet it is worth more than 5.5 million on its own too. Not sure there are many (any?) bankruptcy regimes were a "liquidation" would/could have happened in this fashion. All that said, as Rangers now have to seek approval to re-enter, both, the SFL and the SPL I think there is an opportunity for the clubs to use RFC's situation for the betterment of the game. Find a solution that levels the playing field somewhat and allows some domestic competition (on and off the field) to foster. It is too easy to say "the scottish game needs Rangers because they generate all of the revenue and other clubs would starve without them {btw...you could insert Celtic into that sentence too} it may not be all that meaningful. While it is true that the OF are the largest revenue generators, the way it is structured they get most of that revenue back anyway it has been said the ESPN tv deal would die without Rangers...but since the OF split of that deal is 80%....why would Hearts and Hibs and Aberdeen...etc...care? While it is true that Rangers and Celtic bring the largest travelling support (by far) in the SPL, they do not have the impact that it should have because the jacked up prices plus the "feeling" of the home support that it is a lost cause plus additional segregation/policing often deter home support from coming and that the OF matches do not have the same impact that they used to. With the OF using their financial dominance to ensure on-field dominance, the other clubs cannot predict or ensure European football (or even being able to compete for it) so their spending is geared towards not qualifying and, therefore, their gates drop and the spiral continues. As Rangers re-apply for entry (or, depending on how you look at it, apply for re-entry) there should be a non-confrontational look at the structure of the Scottish game that leads to changes that Rangers would have to agree to (thus breaking the OF "cartel" whenever these things have been voted on in the past). 1. An SPL of 16 or 18 teams. 2. Balance of the SFL teams spread over two divisions not three (if the SPL is 16 there would be a 1st & 2nd of 13 each if the SPL was 18 it would be 12 each). 3. The ESPN/other TV deals would be split more fairly (I like the notion of a split that was 60% OF....30% "other SPL" and 10% to a parachute/stability fund for teams relegated out of SPL). 4. Since liquidation means Rangers are out of Europe for 3 years anyway, have them withdraw their opposition to the one year transfer embargo imposed on them and apologize for the court challenge {this should end any discussion of FIFA being invovled with punishing the SFA}. In return, the SFA could recongize that the sanction is tough (given how many players they will need) so they lift the age limit to 21 (from 18) and allow them to apply for permission to sign no more than 3 players over that age. With that you could have a better split of money. Rangers' current SPL spot (in the 12 team SPL) would be lost and given to Dunfermline (last year's relegated team) but Rangers would be free to apply (as all SFL clubs would be) for one of the new (4 or 6) spots and they would be the most qualified. They should be able to compete (ie avoid relegation) with what is left of their current squad plus some signings (per the amended embargo). In the second year, they are free to sign whomever they want as they build towards the day when they are able to compete for European spots. In the meantime, some other Scottish teams have had more exposure to Europe and more domestic success and, perhaps, have built on that. Just an idea.
In principle I agree with you. But this is Scottish football and we will never come together for the good of the game. Far too much bitterness.
As I understand it, "change" has been impossible because the OF (on monetary/structure matters) voted together to block change that took money out of their pockets. If voting in favour of some change (not necissarily what I have outlined above...just pulled those numbers/ideas out of a hat) were a condition of re-entry, there would be an incentive for RFC to work with the other clubs to effect a reformation.....regardless of what CFC might, or might not, support.
For one thing it ends the split. Which is a good thing. It also "spreads the wealth" a bit more over more teams which most people (outside of the OF) also think is a good thing.
Scottish football fans are bored. They are not turning up in pretty big numbers now. A 16 or 18 team league is what they want.
Walter Smith fronting a bid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18447530 Another development.
Wouldn't preventing Rangers from re-entering SPL have the same effect? With the current rule allowing any two teams to veto any proposed changes, wouldn't making the Rangers work their way up from the lowest division would, in effect, allow the non-OF teams to gain control of the league and try to "even the scales"? First on the list would be to get rid of that two team veto rule.
Yes...but my idea was to negotiate that as part of Rangers' re-entry to the SPL. The problem with "siezing" change by forcing Rangers into Division 3 is that it does, to some extent, shrink the pie of income that the clubs would be sharing once they effected the changes. It also, likely, alienates a large portion of the RFC support who would feel agrieved. There is no easy answer here....in Scottish Football there nevers seems to be....but I jus thought that negotiating change as part of a "new Rangers" entry into a larger SPL would be the least harmful compromise. That said, today has been another spectacularly eventful day and there really is no way to predict where this is all going.
The problem with that approach is the likelihood of the Rangers backing out of the deal once they are back in. Once they are in, it's not like they can boot them out of SPL if they renege. It also seems to set a dangerous precedent, IMHO. If the Rangers are let back into SPL, where is the "punishment" for getting themselves into this mess and how would SPL justify not allowing the next SPL team that goes under back into the league once they are liquidated? There is a risk of the Rangers fans being alienated, but this whole process has been alienating Rangers fans anyways and having them sent down might even bring some of those fans back in because then they'll have a common enemy.
Ibrox has been full every week since we went in to administration. We were averaging about 45,000 per week before administration. I think it has brought the Rangers fans closer together which is a good thing.
Except for the whole "don't renew your season tickets" movement. Administration may have brought the fans closer together, but it does seem to be driving a wedge between the team and the fans.
