Rangers Rumours Archive April 30 2012

30 Apr 2012 23:07:11
Fact.this will become apparent very soon.

Ticketus and Craig whyte will do a deal where ticketus pay Craig Whyte £3 million and they get the floating charge and get Ibrox and Murray park. They will do a deal with someone but to there terms.They will have someone on the board just like Lloyds bank did.

This was always Craig Whytes back up if all else failed.

Charges will be dropped by D@P..

Rob

Charges dropped! best rubbish ever

I do not believe this rumour, Ticketus publically announced they were withdrawing from any drect involvement for pure financial reasons. Owning a football ground exposes oneself to even higher risks.
BK took over CWs guarantee to Ticketus, removed them as a creditor, removed CWs floating charge and secured CWs shares for a pound.

Its a done deal.


Anorak

Ticketus will go after Whyte to get their money back, they have been taken in by this fraudster, why would they associate with him after he has defrauded them?

Nonsense. CW is in no position to sell Ibrox anyway - that's for D&P. I can't see Ticketus throwing good money after bad either.

Ticketus are a business. Like any business they will do what ever it takes to turn a profit. Even more importantly they will deal with whoever thay have to deal with to protect an investment.

If that means dealing with Craig Whyte then that is what they will do!

Does Craig White do deals? He seem to be quite smug at the moment. But Ticketus will want something out of him even if it's his shares.

What confuses me is if Ticketus are owed circa £26M and they have personal guarantees from CW, why would they accept anything less than the full money, by taking CW to court.

Indeed why is it even on the Gers balance sheet if the money is guaranteed personally by CW?

Agreed with "What confuses me..."

Somehow CW's "personal guarantees" are little more than a bookkeeping exercise. He thinks he stands to lose absolutely nothing. Ticketus will certainly go after CW and I suspect they are preparing their case now.

The debt is on Rangers books because an earlier court ruling placed Ticketus as a creditor, not as the owner of 3 years of season tickets under a CVA or liquidation or something.

Ticketus will not accept less unless they feel they will not recover the full amount through CWs floating charge, there are secured creditors of 36 million, if a liquidation sale only raises 30 million then secured creditors only get 85p in the pound approx.

However BK has taken on the guarantee for the full amount so its irrelevant.


Anorak.

Just a thought on craig whyte, on the assumption that this was the plan all along ie administration and liquidation,i think that before even taking over rangers he and his team sat down and discussed every and i mean every eventuallity, remember this is his game, its how he makes his money, therefore i think he will have to be dealt with eventually, financially speaking off course.

Why start a Rumour entry with 'Fact'?
This is a message board for rumours. Facts are not rumours.
Also, your 'Fact' turns out to be rubbish.
Double Fail.

30 Apr 2012 22:14:13
I'm hearing very strong rumours that the paperwork required for liquidation has been drawn up for thursday and that Duff and Phelps will book time at court to formally start the process. They may allow the team to fulfill their fixtures as a token gesture towards the league but by the end of the season the Newco will be in operation in time for a mass of business as soon as the season ends. Both parties have said that if liquidation is a strong possibility and going into it before the SPL sanctions are put in place they will avoid the penalties. Very reliable source.

The only way for rangers to hurt celtic is to go down the divisions or go out the game. nobody will pay to watch a one horse race and celtic cant afford that massive wage bill with no oldfirm games and no sky money and a bored silly stadium. wheres the thunder gone then mr lennon

I know this to be nonesense.
Very reliable source.

If indeed this does happen, any newco application would have to be put before the SPL panel who would decide the application and agree/vote on any sanctions (if any). Either way guys there is no way we are gonna come out this without any penalties and god knows what else if the EBT investigation goes against us. Newco is now inevitable and if we can retain SPL status with minimum sanction then I for one will see this as a result.

Will this rumours board be liquidated too?

Seriously, stop listing s**t from Spetic minded forums etc and posting here as "fact" FYI, Kerryfail Street is NOT a "very reliable source"

The only way for rangers to hurt celtic is to go down the divisions or go out the game. nobody will pay to watch a one horse race and celtic cant afford that massive wage bill with no oldfirm games and no sky money and a bored silly stadium. wheres the thunder gone then mr lennon


What a lot of misinformed rubbish you write. Sky money is only 3% of our income over a season and I am sure we will make it up some other way. Do your homework mate and by the way " We welcome the challenge "

Rangers WILL be liquidised and all history lost.

Hurt celtic and lennon why, murray fecked your club up not celtic or lennon put your anger into saving your team better for you,garlar07

'The only way for rangers to hurt celtic is to go down the divisions or go out the game. nobody will pay to watch a one horse race and celtic cant afford that massive wage bill with no oldfirm games and no sky money and a bored silly stadium. wheres the thunder gone then mr lennon'

I agree by and large with this poster but before we leave the SPL we should use our vote to amend the voting structure and the payout ratios. This would significantly weaken the Celtic we meet in a few years when we regain SPL status.

Bigbaloobear

Actually the paperwork for liquidation probably has been drawn up. Why? First because D&P can charge for doing it, and second because it's been "plan b" from the start.

But Thursday? Nah.

What has this got do with hurting Celtic? What has it got to do with hurting anybody? The reason these sanctions have been put in place is because of cheating and sh!t loads of debt. We the people are not to blams David Murray is! It has nothing to do with any other team in the SPL who we i may add owe money to.

The only way for rangers to hurt celtic ......?

Should'nt you be more concerned about surviving rather than hurting other clubs. patheetic

There seems to be more people here who want to hurt the other SPL teams rather than save Rangers. Get a grip. Al

Dead things only hurt living things in the movies... Why would Rangers decide their mode of despatch to maximise damage to someone else? Ridiculously small minded post, grow up and worry about what happens to Rangers not the other teams who you imagine to have caused problems for them.

Bearing in mind, you have no say in what happens to Rangers unless you can stump up at least 30 to 40 million right now, with the potential of another 50 to 75 if the tribunal upholds the decision in the big tax case...

30 Apr 2012 18:46:10
Guys, i'm sure its not the favourite blog in the world but the Rangers Tax case guy makes a good point, liquidation before the end of the season would be hugely counter productive due to earnings for placement etc. I know some of it might not reach the club but some will and that in itself makes it wortwhile.
Nevis

I found his blog to be informative with regard to the media and the SFA, but totally biased toward liquidation.
He has no greater insight into the minds of HMRC or D&P than you or I.

Anorak.

Yep. The guy's view is tainted. He despises Rangers.

Despite waht happens we need to learn leasons . The club belongs to the fans . if an operating company makes a profit thats great and if they don't let them take the hit . The alternative is we'll all have doubts about any future ownership.

Maybe you lot should go across and ask ed007 who it is running the RTC blog.You might get a surprise if what a few certain people have said is true.....

#twitterparodytims

The guy has made no bones about his allegiences but he has been bang on with everything he has said so far.

He has greater insight into the minds of D&P and HMRC than most. He clearly has a legal or financial background.

If Rangers fans had looked into what he was saying rather than dismissing it as timmy fantasy maybe they wouldnt have let their club get into such a sorry state.

Like I've been saying for ages, D&P are trying to do exactly that. Keep Rangers going till end of season for a variety of reasons not least this season's money otherwise the results will be wiped.

He has greater insight into the minds of D&P and HMRC than most. He clearly has a legal or financial background---------------------------------------------------

If he had any insight into such affairs he woud not be committing himself to liquidation like a demented ferret.

It has been obvious from day 1 that Rangers is worth more to the creditors under a CVA than liquidation, and it has been obvious from day 1 that HMRC do EBT deals when the owner is not rewarded.

Anorak.

Anorak may I ask when have HMRC agreed to a CVA where they are the biggest creditor?

OK Anorak how much will you bet on a CVA being agreed?

I'll give £50 to any charity you name if a CVA is agreed.

Mac

HMRC struck a deal with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs over EBTs, this suggests the use of financial pragmatism rather than some absolute dogma on the EBT issue. I expect there will be numerous different scenarios and arrangements being negotiated, the outcome will as always depend on the variables.

I could ask an equally valid question, when has the HMRC blocked a CVA as the majority ordinary creditir that:
Resulted in the loss of 10 million to HMRC, risked a 40 million return to over 200 creditors, put 200 people on te dole and the owner was not being rewarded in a CVA or harmed in liquidation ?


Of course they will do a deal.

A HMRC have just had their collective arses kicked over cutting deals with companies over tax debts.

b HMRC's own policy is not to agree to CVAs where there has been tax evasion. That is not my interpretation of it, or what some guy in a pub told me, that is their policy.

c Rangers were told in 2010 how much they were being persued for and made no provision for it (actually spending 4 million on Jelavic). I'm sure HMRC will be delighted to bend over and let Rangers carry on regardless after paying a fraction of what they owe.

Rangers werent in admin when Whyte offered to settle but only a blind man couldnt see that was where they were headed so nothing in the circumstances has changed in that respect.

There will only be a CVA if a real billionaire turns up.

Mac

Mac,

I am an anorak, I do not gamble nor give money to charity.

Think about it calmly, how can Rangers possibly be worth more liquidated than as a going concern ? It cannot.

How can HMRC liquidate a company to deter owners if the owner loses nothing ?

Do you not think HMRC has a reponsibility to all the other creditors and to the employees, their decision is going to cost them all money, and there are hundreds of them, in a recession.

Please do not talk about precedents, making an example, and some policy that is carved in stone, it is no more vald than my argument, at least mine makes sense, yours is based on some unhealthy bias.

I am an anorak not a gers fan.

It simple, the man in charge of the EBT scheme is gone and he got a pound, new owner is also getting a pound and the company is insolvent to the tune of 100 million.

No reward and big message, no need to liquidate to obtain either.

Anorak.

There will be many EBT cases in the future when HMRC will be the biggest creditor in a CVA, and their decision to liquidate may result in the loss to the taxpayer of 100 million and thousands of job losses.

Do you seriously believe they will not do a deal ?

Anorak.

A Revenue and Customs spokesman said: "HMRC has a long-standing policy that we will not support a CVA which seeks to give preference to one class of unsecured creditor over another.
----------------------------------------

Port Vale:

In Scotland there is only one class of unsecured creditor, therefore this objection does not apply.

Did you notice HMRC did not just state " we do not do CVAs under any circumstances ? ".

Wonder why they bothered to give their reason in this case ?

Anorak.

HMRC will be far and away the biggest creditor when the FTT verdict is finally returned with a (worst case) figure of £90 million owed to them. Then Ticketus for £25 million assuming D&P invalidate their arrangement.

I honestly dont see how HMRC accepting £9 million (assuming a 10p/£1 CVA agreement) and writing off £81 million of taxpayer's money is better in a recession
than bailing out a company with a history of tax evasion and negative cashflow.

Last I heard Rangers assets were valued in the region of £90 million. Of course if sold they would never fetch that but assuming a CVA arrangement at 10p/£1 (its unlikely to even be that high judging by the bids) they would be paying £13.5 million in total (at worst). Surely the sale of Ibrox, Murray park, Car park and players if they make it to the transfer window would raise more for the creditors?

And after all is that not the legal duty of the administrators? To act in the best interests of the CREDITORS.

HMRC do have a responsibilty to the hundreds of creditors. The hundreds of creditors who are owed £20 million between them but are going to have to share £2 million in a CVA. They also have a responsibility to the taxpayer in general too and that is to stamp out tax evasion.

Although I am biased I certainly dont think it is to an unhealthy level. I have stated many times on this site and others that I dont want Rangers to go out of business. I just cant see any possible other outcome.

My argument makes sense too ;-)

Mac

Anorak do you actually read any expert views on this?Jim Traynor,Chick Young?You ignore every fact to suit your own deluded thinking...The taxman doesn,t do deals BK hasn,t secured ticketus debt or floating charge and you won,t gamble on a sure bet as you claim?I will eat my shoes in the centre circle at ibrokes if your not liquidated by may 13th...now thats a fact {Ed001's Note - are you calling Jim Traynor and Chick Young experts? Hahaha, are you really that stupid????}

CW offered HMRC 11 million to settle the tax case, it was rejected. So you think they will now take 8 million?
Thats not including the 15 million or so PAYE/NIC contributions used by CW to run/fund the club since his take over.

@Anorak. Rangers most certainly can be worth more under liquidation than a CVA. Many reasons for this. The most obvious being that for a CVA there has to be actual cash to distribute which has to come from someone taking over the club as the bank is dry. Unless someone is forthcoming with that cash the CVA might be pathetically small. Liquidation on the other had means selling assets like Ibrox, realising much more cash. Depends entirely on whether Rangers is worth more as a "sum of its parts" than as an ongoing business.

Another reason is that payouts to creditors in a CVA is structured differently than under liquidation (CW's floating charge etc). Even under your (Anorak) original scenario of the two being worth the same, that doesn't take into account that CVA might be worth more than liquidation for some creditors, and less for others.

McWulf

How many CVAs, administrations or receiverships or liquidations have Traynor and Young been involved in, none.

Anorak was an asset stripper from 1983 to 1998 and has been involved in hundreds. Anorak is an expert on insolvency and these two chaps are experts at writing unfounded speculation.

HMRC policy is a guideline aimed at preventing shareholders gaining at the expense of HMRC. There are multifarious reasons why HMRC will do a deal or not do a deal, each instance is judged on an individual basis. In my opinion there is sufficient reason to believe HMRC will in this instance do a deal, I am not stating it as a fact and anyone who claims no deal is a fact is wrong.

Let me state something glaringly obvious, if it is a well established fact HMRC do not do CVA deals on EBTs, then why was Rangers not liquidated months ago ?

Why are insolvency experts on both side of the deal wasting 3 months on negotiating a CVA deal when it is a FACT it will be rejected ?

Mac,

We are all entitled to logically deduce from the available information what is probable or not. It is probable that TBK-BK bid of 8-10 million was never the total return to the creditors, the liquidated assets are worth 30 million plus. So what is missing ?
This amount used to include the 26.7 million Ticketus arrangement, they withdrew and were replaced by BK, and a revised deal was proposed.

What is more probable, the revised deal includes a guarantee to Ticketus or does not ?

If you are suggesting the latter, then explain to me how an improved offer to the creditors can be 26.7 million less than the old offer ?

The amount they are bidding is for the ordinary creditors, the bid removes 36 million of secured creditors making a total of 45 plus million. There is no way Ibrox and MP would raise 45 million in an auction, half of that is more likely.

It is financially impossible for a liquidated Rangers to be worth more to the creditors than under a CVA, now that is a fact.

McWulf,

A secured creditor is the same under a CVA as under liquidation, and asset values do not increase under liquidation. The cost of running a going concern has absolutely nothing to do with the return to the creditors under a CVA, it is irrelevant, the asset value does not decrease under a CVA.

Anorak.

McWulf,

Rangers has 36 million pounds worth of secured creditors, these creditors don't want cash, they want their deals ratified.
It does not matter if someone offers 36 million for liquidation in cash, for all intensive purposes it is the same return.

They are not getting more out of liquidation, and no one has bid 36 million in cash for a liquidated Rangers, so the securedcreditors would be gambling the assets would raise 36 million in a firesale.

I will endeavour to explain my case in laymans terms.

Rangers have approx 36 million in secured creditors and they don’t want cash, they want their old deals back for various reasons, one of which is the assets sold under liquidation may not return 36 million. A CVA bid that includes their guarantees removes them from the list of creditors, add this to the 9 million offered to the unsecured creditors and you get a combined creditor return of 45 million.

Everyone would get the same return and share in liquidation if the assets were sold for 45 million cash, 36 million would go to the secured creditors and 9 million to the unsecured.

CVA bids offer more than the anticipated asset sale price as an incentive to the creditors not to liquidate, therefore it is illogical to state a liquidated Rangers would bring a better return to the creditors, secured or unsecured.

The reason I do not believe a liquidated Rangers is worth 45 milion is simple, nobody has put an offer even close to this figure, asset strippers are vultures, they wait until the dying become the dead before they pick the bones.
If I was a secured creditor I would be worried a liquidated Rangers asset sale would raise 36 million, never mind 45 million.

The deal is done.

Anorak.

'the deal is done'?

How the hell do you know?

The Anorak knows because Ally and the consortium have both gone public forcing both HMRC or CW to move. They have put the onus on these two parties to agree to the CVA share sale or get nothing out of a plan B Newco and be blamed for ruining Rangers.

The consortiums offer will be confirmed by D&P to be the best return for the creditors now its someone elses move and there isn't much time. The Newco is being prepared in case they run out of time to register the newco as a temporary substitute for Rangers FC.


I believe CW will come out tomorrow and explain his position, it will be he sells his shares for a pound or he wants X millions for any loss incurred by Ticketus, I beliebe it will be the former.

All eyes now turn and stare at HMRC, deal or no deal....and why ?

Who benefits out of liquidating Rangers and who gets punished ?

CW does not benefit and the tax payer and the other creditors gets punished, they lose the CVA money.

I believe financial and political pragmatism will combine to force HMRC to agree toa CVA.

Anorak.

30 Apr 2012 18:09:11
preferd bidder expectd next 24 hours an blue nights may consider liqudation as a last resort on stv news

TBK aint so blue after-all, their bid is worse than Murray's, where the f**k are all our rich fair weather supporters?

Read what they stated - "as a last resort"
what else would be the last resort ?

So long as the make a profit, its on the list of options. don't be kidded they are after anything other than making as much money as possible, thats why liquidation rather than paying their dues is the order of preference.

Prefered bidder doesn't mean "done deal". It's just the start of the process and the end of the "you call that a bid" laughter.

TBK's have realised that the 'delay' in voting by the SPL has, in effect, left the door open for a Newco to be up and running BEFORE any further penal sanctions are implemented. Remember two important points - 1. D&P stated at the weekend that a Newco could be in place for 11 May 2012 (i.e. 2 days before the end of the season) and 2. Rangers' representative at today's meeting ALSO voted for the delay. Our punishment will be limited if a newco is in place before any deadline and we'll get voted back into the SPL to preserve ther SKY TV deal. Morals go out the window when you get right down to it....................

30 Apr 2012 16:24:50
Hopefully this is false information but just want to post to let people know in the horrible off chance that it's true.
Staff at Rangers have been told that they will be losing their jobs come the end of next month and the two bids have been rejected. They will only entertain offers that have no conditions.
This would be very worrying if true and I'm hoping it is just rubbish but fear it may not be.

TBK-BK bid did not have any conditions, the Bill Miller bid had conditions on top of conditions on top of conditions.

Try again.

I wouldn't be surprised, because I don't think the offers that are on the table are good enough.

My main worry though is Ticketus. Why did they pull out? The deal thay had with the BKs was better than they could get with a CVA. This makes me thionk that they will reject the CVA and push for liquidation.

Why else would you pull out of a deal that would refund all of you money over a ten year period in favour of 10p in the £ when you rejoin the creditors?

Maybe they will pursue Craig Whyte or even HBoS/Lloyds for their money back. If they did raise an action against the bank and won then the bank would come after us again probably with all guns blazing.

None of this takes away from the fact that our last two majority shareholders have not been fit for purpose!

Got this off RM today which seems to clarify all these doom and gloom stories "Staff meeting at Ibrox was to clarify present developments with regards the bidding process etc. There is enough money to pay staff until end of May by which time the takeover should be complete. Miller in pole position at present, although both bids aren't acceptable at present they are very, very close. Miller has been in contact with SFA/SPL for 7 weeks trying to sort out legal issues etc, TBK/BK only recently approached the authorities. Expected to be announced at some point this week but definitely looking like a newco as TUPE etc was discussed."

Unless they've changed tack, DP have always said that bids must be unconditional. Can't understand why it's been going on so long!

Think that's rubbish and I'm not even a Bluenose. This account from elsewhere seems credible:

Staff meeting at Ibrox was to clarify present developments with regards the bidding process etc. There is enough money to pay staff until end of May by which time the takeover should be complete. Miller in pole position at present, although both bids aren't acceptable at present they are very, very close. Miller has been in contact with SFA/SPL for 7 weeks trying to sort out legal issues etc, TBK/BK only recently approached the authorities. Expected to be announced at some point this week but definitely looking like a newco as TUPE etc was discussed.

TBK and BK offer unconditional? Yer arse it is. Wasn't one of their conditions that Whyte gives up his shares and that a CVA needs to be agreed?

"TBK-BK bid did not have any conditions, the Bill Miller bid had conditions on top of conditions on top of conditions."

Blatant misinformation. TBK-BK bid most certainly did have conditions: That Craig Whyte hand over his shares and creditors agree a CVA. Pretty damn insurmountable conditions actually.

It doesnt matter anyway as this whole bid process is a PR exercise. D&P are going to have to look for another scapegoat since SFA meeting was adjourned today.

Mac

My main worry though is Ticketus. Why did they pull out?
---------------------------------------

For the reasons given, however BK may have guaranteed their original agreed deal with TBK. So Ticketus are cool and sorted.

I believe D&P are using Millers bid to drive the price up, there is no way BM bid is in front or accepable to anyone. You would get far more than millers bid having a liquidation firesale or auction.

D&P obviously have a figure in mind that they feel will be accepted by the main ordinary creditor ( HMRC).

Its getting down to the wire, all this bluff and counter bluff is coming to an end.

The administrator is doing his job by pushing and pushing the bidders upwards, he will call time soon.

First post is wrong all bids at present are conditional. Neil Doncaster has confirmed talks with one bidder and says he's due to open talks with the other bidder.

Blatant misinformation. TBK-BK bid most certainly did have conditions: That Craig Whyte hand over his shares and creditors agree a CVA. Pretty damn insurmountable conditions actually.
-------------------------------------

Sigh, these are not conditions, its a basic description of what they are buying, they are bidding for the shares under a CVA.

If the CVA is not agreed and if the shares are not availble then there is nothing to bid for.

If I make you an offer for your car, it is on condition it is for sale. You wish them to make an offer for a car regardless if it is for sale or not, just utter tripe.

What is wrong with you people ?

Anorak.

I'm guessing this has been made up. D&P will release statements about the bids through formal channels not in the staff canteen.

Was just on STV sports news. The administrators have told staff at Ibrox that there is enough money to pay them until the end of May although they believe there WILL be a new owner by then. They expect a preferred bidder to be announced within the next....wait for it.....24 hours.

We have heard this all before but hopefully there will be some light at the end of the tunnel.

TTG

TBK and BK offer unconditional? Yer arse it is. Wasn't one of their conditions that Whyte gives up his shares and that a CVA needs to be agreed?
---------------------------------------

Has someone left a door unlocked or is it a virus, let me repeat the availability of the shares and the agreement to a CVA are not conditions of the bid, it is a description of what they are bidding for !

They are buying the shares under a CVA agreement, which part of this do you not comprehend ?

If the shares are not available or the CVA is rejected then what are they bidding for, dinner with you ?

Only 75% of shares are for sale. Whytey wants to hold on to his £1's worth.

Only bids with no conditions has been the situation from day 1.

Only bids with no conditions has been the situation from day 1.
----------------------------------------

Yep, when you bid for the shares under a CVA there can be no conditions.

75%? OK, done the maths. Rangers must be worth £4.

"Sigh, these are not conditions, its a basic description of what they are buying, they are bidding for the shares under a CVA.

If the CVA is not agreed and if the shares are not availble then there is nothing to bid for.

If I make you an offer for your car, it is on condition it is for sale. You wish them to make an offer for a car regardless if it is for sale or not, just utter tripe.

What is wrong with you people ?

Anorak."

You can sigh all you like mate but it is a condition of BK bid that Whyte relinquishes his shares, not that they are available for sale. The BK condition is that they will not give Whyte a penny (as previously stated by Murray) That IS a condition.

Feel free to disagree with people but there is no need to be a dick about it.

Mac

PM,TBK,SDM,CVA,BK,BM ????WTF?
What day is the deadline this week?

30 Apr 2012 12:12:52
SPL decision on Fair Play rules deferred:

Chris McLaughlin ‏ @BBCchrismclaug
Financial fair play meeting adjourned until May #SPL

Chris McLaughlin ‏ @BBCchrismclaug
Neil Doncaster says clubs wanted more time for clarity #SPL

No surprises there then,the SPL clubs could not agree on the colour of the wall they are in

I said a couple of hours ago that IMHO they will liquidate after rangers last home game, basically on Monday May 7th. Strange that this meeting has been postponed till then. From where I am sitting they are just trying to get us throught he turnstyles to get as much cash off us as possible before throwing the towel in. Maybe time to protest against the rangers board/administrators and hold a mass protest next Saturday and boycot the match. Do they take us for mugs ?

Could the SPL dither any more? Even as a Celtic fan, this sounds ridiculous to me. Those who still even care down south must look at all the delays in the SPL/SFA/SFL/Duff & Phelps and laugh.
They really do know how to shoot themselves in the foot.

Hope those that are responsible for the mess our club are in are brought to justice.
They have been bleeding us dry for years while they enjoyed their tax free lump sums.

This could be seem two ways: 1, the clubs are being sympathetic to Rangers current predicament and don't want to be seen to stick the knife further before a deal is sorted. However does not BM deal at all. 2, they are sticking the knife in further by  deferring, making a deal more difficult and the once the club has come back as new comp will the  vote in the rule change to twist the knife. Either way, bad day. 

Yup I've been saying for weeks now that liquidation will be after the last game (not home game, but the last fixture). Unless, of course, a meaningful offer is accepted by then.

Look stop the conspiracies, 12 clubs are being asked to vote on far reaching issues affecting our game in Scotland.

You lot in here think everything is about Rangers. This is about the SPL and no one is giving a hoot about Rangers critical timings.

Rangers have stuffed everyone else up why should the SPL rush its business to suit one club or it's fans? Honestly you think the universe rotates around Ibrox.

Has anyone had their season ticket renewal form yet ? That speaks volumes to me.

The SPL and the SFA must find the right balance between punishing Rangers without punishing themselves.

Nothing untoward about this in my opinion.

Why May 7th when we have a game on May 13th.

May 7th is a week today. Makes sense.

"Why May 7th when we have a game on May 13th." The last home game ( ever ? ) is on 5th May 2012, 7th May is first working day after that. The 13th May game is 12:30, (A) St Johnstone. 5th May will be the last big chance to get some money in before the end of the season.

Best if decision before last game, as then relegation set in stone, and who in spl gets the vote changes......

Also his or Dunfermline then have course to legal action over break, etc etc etc

A clean decision would be better for all....

Honestly you think the universe rotates around Ibrox.
------------------------
thats the thing though, for 4-5 spl clubs their financial viability DOES rotates around Ibrox.

There is no debate, the future of the SPL is dependant on two teams. If teams are struggling now then they will go bust without a healthy Rangers.

Just a thought May 7th is a bank holiday. Will the meeting then be put off for another week....this nonsense is ridiculous now....zzzzzzzz

I would not mind if we went into the 3rd division take it on the chin for a few years and come back stronger any thoughts fellow bears

30 Apr 2012 11:00:01
Instead of these silly demo walks against sfa surely we should be demo against these administrators they are ripping us off stupid, when was a club ever in administration this long? Liquidation only way now, duff and duffer out, they are totally taking the piss now? P.S. why were rangers fans at porkhead yesterday? Surely not going to away grounds should have started yesterday?

Exactly how many Adminstrations have you been involved in then? Whilst they can be open to criticism (lack of redundancies) compared to other administrations, the timetable is still relatively short so far. This has a long way to go irrespective as to what happens to the sale.

Try Portsmouth

I'm pretty sure that this could be the last old firm game as we know it. so maybe that's why it was not boycotted.

I would say that not going to support our team is a lousy idea and exactly why are we punishing our opponents , they didnt put us in this sh@@@y mess. Get real .
I want to follow follow for as long as I can but then I am a Gers supporter, and that means going to games and chearing them on. I believe most of the stupid ideas are put forward by armchair supporters who have not even been to our home ground. WATP

What exactly is it Duff and Phelps have failed to do? They are running the club with their hands tied behind their  backs. Your saviours are not putting enough money on the table to make their task any easier and with court cases outstanding and sanctions being put in place do you seriously think they could have completed anything yet? Also your cash flow is dependant on you, the fans turning up at every game, regardless of how you feel. I might be wrong here but no other club has withheld gate money to you, so you need as much as you can muster to keep afloat. Get some sense man, get behind your club and stop cutting off your nose to spite your face or you will be liquidated. 

I have said this so often I may have developed a verbal tic, the administrator can not put forward a CVA bid to the creditors until the total debt to the creditors has been formalised, this requires the figure from the BTC.

Appointing a prefered bidder is the beginning, its not the end.

Eh few years back Motherwell were in admin for 2 years mate, dont think they had any points deducted though may be wrong on that one

JG

Motherwell and Dundee met the 31st May deadline and did not have points deducted at the start of the next season. This was becuase the rules were implemented whilst they were already in admin. 

What exactly have d and p done? You have answered your own question. Sod all. Redundancies should have been made righ away.

D&P have kept Rangers out of liquidation, they are experts, leave them alone to get on wth their jobs.

Yeah, lets make immediate redundancies and close the doors a week later. great plan. sigh.

Fans went to game yesterday to see possibly last OF game for a long time. Fans support their team - directors, SDM, Craig Whyte, D&p , tbk, bill miller, brian kennedy and the rest of these so called money men support their bank accounts/

They camt to PARADISE to wreck the toilets and chant rascist, biggoted songs.
I wonder if UEFA watch Youtube? I hope so. I wonder if the police officers standing watching made a report?
You must be so proud!

30 Apr 2012 09:58:41
Tweeted today by Brian McInally of the Mirror:

Brian McNally ‏ @McNallyMirror

Some very good sources indicating the wheels of #Rangers liquidation are in motion & a statement may not be too far away.