[SCO] Scottish Premier league 2012/2013 (21 Viewers)

ZoSo

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2011
41,656
#22
So 'something' :p

The club doesn't have any assets to balance the books? Surely the debt wouldn't be that big either?
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#23
Total debt, as of 5th April, was £134m and it has gone up since then.

Of that figure, about £90m was due to HMRC.

Rangers didn't have a hope of paying off that debt (and the deliberate tax evasion of many years meant HMRC weren't about to do a deal with them).

That's why they are being wound up (and hoping to reform Naples Soccer style).
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#25
Assets weren't worth that much, either.

Ibrox is only valuable as a football stadium and only to Rangers.

Murray Park (their training centre) isn't worth much because it is land that isn't allowed to be developed.

And their players aren't much good.
 

ZoSo

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2011
41,656
#26
How can they rack up that much debt then? just wages over a long period of time + interest and low operating income?
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#27
Pulling a scam to avoid paying taxes on player wages for 10+ years that just got found out about recently, which also meant there were penalties and interest to be paid.

And the owner who took over last year basically decided to fund the club by paying no tax on wages, so he racked up several million more.
 

Suns

Release clause?
May 22, 2009
22,090
#29
The agreement with SKY gets null and void if Rangers are not in the league, right? That could be way too much money loss for teams to accept and therefor would lead them to accept Rangers back in the league?
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#31
The agreement with SKY gets null and void if Rangers are not in the league, right? That could be way too much money loss for teams to accept and therefor would lead them to accept Rangers back in the league?
I very much doubt SKY would walk away from Scottish football.

The deal may well be renegotiated, though.

The deal isn't that good anyway and it's fixed so that Ranger and Celtic get most of it.

Most teams wouldn't lose much if the deal was smaller but Rangers not being in the league was used to redistribute the money more fairly.

That would just cause Celtic to lose out and they can't possibly allow Rangers back in because their fans would go nuts.

Not to mention the revenue the clubs will lose when Rangers fans visit twice a season.
Take Aberdeen as an example:

Two visits from Rangers (though it was only one visit last season): £25 a ticket x 6,000 = £150,000

Increase in home attendance required to nullify that: £150,000/38 games = ~£4,000 per game/£25 = ~160 extra folk attending each game across the season.

Very easy to do if Aberdeen are vaguely decent and in danger of achieving something, which is more likely in a fair, competitive league.

Keep in mind also that Celtic fans have said they will boycott any team who votes yes to Rangers getting into the SPL, so the situation could be just as bad if Rangers are voted in.

And thousands of Aberdeen fans (including myself) will stop going if the club votes Rangers back in.
 

ZoSo

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2011
41,656
#32
I very much doubt SKY would walk away from Scottish football.

The deal may well be renegotiated, though.

The deal isn't that good anyway and it's fixed so that Ranger and Celtic get most of it.

Most teams wouldn't lose much if the deal was smaller but Rangers not being in the league was used to redistribute the money more fairly.

That would just cause Celtic to lose out and they can't possibly allow Rangers back in because their fans would go nuts.



Take Aberdeen as an example:

Two visits from Rangers (though it was only one visit last season): £25 a ticket x 6,000 = £150,000

Increase in home attendance required to nullify that: £150,000/38 games = ~£4,000 per game/£25 = ~160 extra folk attending each game across the season.

Very easy to do if Aberdeen are vaguely decent and in danger of achieving something, which is more likely in a fair, competitive league.

Keep in mind also that Celtic fans have said they will boycott any team who votes yes to Rangers getting into the SPL, so the situation could be just as bad if Rangers are voted in.

And thousands of Aberdeen fans (including myself) will stop going if the club votes Rangers back in.
This is crazy, so many things to consider for the people making the decisions.
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#33
AFC statement:

"Yesterday's announcement that Rangers FC will reform as a New Co brings a degree of clarity to the situation. However there are a number of other investigations ongoing.

Like everyone we wish to see them resolved as soon as possible.

"A large numbers of our supporters have made their views and feelings very clear and as a Club I can assure everyone that these are being taken into account. The integrity of sport in general and football in particular must be central to any decision.

"This issue has our full attention and we will communicate any decisions we take in relation to this situation with our supporters in a transparent way at an appropriate time."


Reading between the lines: yeah, we'll probably vote no, so will you please stop harrassing us constantly.
 

Scottish

Zebrastreifenpferd
Mar 13, 2011
10,332
#34
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18422397

^^ Series of quotes from SPL Chairmen on how they will be voting. The correct way (In my opinion) for any club is to ask the fans. There are far too many variables for anybody to be able to calculate what will be the best route forward. I seriously seriously hope that Lawell doesn't vote 'yes' on behalf of Celtic.

I just can't get over how Rangers are acting like they don't deserve any of this. Far too many Celtic fans (and fans of other clubs of course) spend too much time being anti-Rangers rather than being a Celtic fan. I'm not one of them - I normally don't give a flying fuck what Rangers are up to, but in this case I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They deserve it all - they really do! Good riddance.
 

Scottish

Zebrastreifenpferd
Mar 13, 2011
10,332
#35
http://celticfc.net/newsstory?item=2682

"ON May 28, 1888, the newly-formed Celtic Football Club played their first
ever game, beating Rangers 5-2. On April 29, 2012, the newly-crowned
Scottish champions took to the field for the last derby match, and beat Rangers 3-0."


And I've heard that radio adverts for Celtic season tickets or new jerseys or whatever end with the line 'Celtic - always have been, always will be' :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#36
Keith Wyness: Rangers have forsaken sporting integrity.

I have followed the sad Rangers story over the past few months, and from long before, since the start of the decade, when I was on the inside of Scottish football. I have thought long and hard about my position on this and tried to ensure that there was no kneejerk reaction based on any football loyalties or misplaced schadenfreude after my time at Aberdeen.

The need for Scottish football to be creative and innovative to maintain its place as a football country with a vibrant league has been more urgent since the turn of the millennium. Any change must always have, as its bedrock, sporting integrity.

The blockage for many changes has been the Old Firm voting together with a determined self-interest. In many Scottish Premier League (SPL) board meetings I witnessed this and the attitude that bordered on arrogance. They felt that they had this right because of their dominance on the pitch.

The voting system has always been based on an 11-vote majority needed for significant changes, so if the Old Firm vote together they can block most things. This was always the stumbling block. Such was the frustration that this caused, the other ten clubs actually resigned from the SPL in 2002. It took such a desperate measure to bring about a more reasonable distribution of television income.

One consequence of Rangers’ present travails is that this voting system must be changed. It cannot be enough just to accept that change and allow Rangers back in for such a compromise; this change must happen regardless, to release the stranglehold on the status quo.

Recent events indicate that Rangers may have maintained their dominance by dubious means. Terms such as “financial doping” seem to ring a bell. Such means have led in part to the ruinous financial state of the club and the crisis-ridden decisions of the past year. So the sporting integrity of the league has been put in serious question over the past ten years by owners hell-bent on their own myopic rivalry. How can the most serious of sanctions not apply?

Unless sanctions are real and meaningful, how can any sporting competition that claims to be the premier competition in its national game have any credibility?

To claim that short-term commercial imperatives are more important than sporting integrity is misplaced. This has been an embarrassing chapter for Rangers, but it is only a small period in the history of Scottish football and the game will go on.

Allowing Rangers to form a “newco” to come straight back into the SPL would show a lack of judgment by the SPL board and its club members. If it does not, why would either of the Old Firm fear any sanction about anything? Just like the playground bully, they must realise that their actions have serious consequences, that there is something bigger than them.

Even Italy managed to punish clubs by dropping them several divisions, yet those clubs came back after learning a lesson that they could be punished if they broke the rules of sporting integrity.

In ten years, will Scottish football look back with pride that it stood for its principles, or will it just have an embarrassed nod and a wink about its little dirty secret?
If I had to choose someone to fix Scottish football (other than myself) it would probably be Keith Wyness.
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#38
The SPL is completely seperate from the Scottish Football League (SFL), so in theory being kicked out of the SPL would leave them without a league to play in.

The assumption is that "Rangers" would be allowed straight into Division 3 because it would bring more money than could be turned down at that level.

I still believe there is an excellent chance they won't be playing football at all next season.
 

The Curr

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2007
33,705
#39
A club with the amount of support they would have would shoot up through the divisions.

If they aren't in any division next season, do you think that'll be the end of them or will they be back in the year after? Surely they (the fans at least) won't just go away.
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#40
What do you mean finish them?

Rangers are finished (or they will be once the liquidation is complete).

This new "Rangers" may well not survive without going straight into the SPL.

And I'm really not sure the fans will go with "Rangers". Supporters Trusts have advised fans against buying season tickets and The Sun and the Daily Record - the two main Glasgow propoganda spewers - don't like the new owner, so aren't encouraging fans to get behind the new club.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 21)