UCF2008

The agreed 10pt penalty within the SPL rules seemed to be acceptable up until the point we entered admin. England have similar penalties. Leeds got deducted 10pts for going into admin and a further 15pts for not exiting via CVA. The main problem I can see with talk of changing the rules at this point in time to make it more of a deterrent is that it's simply not the real reason. You'll find that out when the next club that goes into admin is let off lightly due to it all being big bad Rangers fault.

Did any of them pay or at least agree to pay all debts in full?

Funny that. I just posted a similar question on another thread. Is it not strange that through all the posturing and media circus surrounding our insolvency events, nobody has been asking never mind been able to answer that question?

Any club who goes into administration is doing so due to crippling debt. CVA and Newco are both methods of exiting administration while walking away from the majority of said debt. What pence in the pound arrangement did Dundee, Motherwell and Livi make with their creditors while receiving no punishment whatsoever?

Seriously though, since the SFA are backing us into a corner over the Oldco football debts, they could always pay them on our behalf and fine us for the total. That might work.

Not sure TBH. We could always make it a discretionary tax free loan....

Way I see it, if we accept those terms then we shouldn't be considered a newco. We shouldn't have to start from the bottom and we shouldn't be banned from Europe for 3 years. If it's Div1 and Scottish Cup ban then those terms are acceptable.

I'd probably go back to the just before UEFA cup final. Try to win the game and quadruple, avoid the riots and warn Murray to sell the club to someone who could cover the EBT bill instead of spending big that summer and dropping us right in the shit (Lloyds) along with himself.

Thing is though, we didn't go first. We're not the first SPL club to go into administration. Over the 14 year history of the SPL there have been 11 insolvency events in Scottish football. Ours is the 5th in the SPL. Motherwell and Dundee got threatened with a 10pt deduction as that rule was brought in while they were in administration. Livingston got threatened with a 10pt deduction as they went into admin a month or so after the penalty was introduced. They stayed in admin for more than 15 months without suffering any penalty. Livingston were then liquidated in 2009 while in the First Division after a 2nd insolvency event, leading to demotion to 3rd division. It should be remembered that the SFL have different insolvency rules to the SPL. For that same reason Dundee, who had earlier escaped punishment in the SPL were deducted 25pts for suffering a 2nd insolvency event while in the First Division. Gretna were already relegated and the season completed at the time they were liquidated. Hence the reason they were relegated to Div3 and the SFL threatened expulsion should they not be taken over. When the takeover didn't materialise they resigned from the SFL. Yes, we're the first SPL club (company) to suffer a liquidation event. If we were in the First Division at the time of the event then relegation to Div3 would appear to be par for course. However we're not and it's been the SPL's failure to take heed from previous administration events (all four of them) and update the rules accordingly that's left the door open for the 'sporting integrity' nutters to pick a punishment ad hoc. Now they're suggesting that we should be punished to the full and then give amnesty to those who follow suit over the next two years. Where's the integrity in that?

Spot on Chris. I honestly don't understand why any Rangers fan would think biting the bullet and starting from Div3 would be the end of all this nonsense. This is just too big a mess for a quick fix. I've wondered if we would have been facing the same issues had Rangers gone into administration and swiftly come to the newco eventuality mid season. The SPL board would have been forced to act quickly to bring the matter to a close and save the season. We'd possibly have been given a further points deduction, maybe even enough to relegate us to Div1 for this season. We wouldn't have had talk of div3 and loss of history though. Instead there's been far too much time given for the pot to boil over. We've got several key players in the authorities and media who have realised over the past week or two that it's time for a reality check. I fear it's too little too late though.

What constitutes the club's 'history' in terms of it's continuity seems to be open to debate. The existing history may be at risk to some extent due to threats of titles being stripped. As it stands the Rangers brand and IP have transferred to the newco along with the other assets. The club itself hasn't seized to exist and as long as that remains to be the case there can't be any break in the club's history. Don't get me wrong, no matter what way this plays out there WILL be a lasting stain and yes, they do have us by the balls. If we did have to force our way back into the game by taking over another club, then yes it could be argued that there is a break in the history, but those who wish to make such arguments are already doing so. At the end of the day it's what the club means to us bears that matters most. They CAN'T take that away.

The PFA's job is to protect the rights of the players. Apparently in our case that extends to media rights as the PFA have been using the media as a means to drive a wedge between the club and player at every opportunity.

Of course they didn't have to stay. Like Ortiz they could have said they were willing to have their contracts moved over, but wanted to move on. Davis and McGregor claim to have been wanting to transfer over and even stay so long as we didn't have to drop to Div3. They claim Green wasn't open or was unresponsive (ironic lack of clarity from them on that one) to negotiation to this regard. Needless to say that were we to be relegated to Div3 they would have been the first two out the door due to unsustainable wages so I'm not sure what they were getting at. Like I suggested previously, possibly the contract clauses didn't cover them for the newco. Even still, like I say I don't see how it would have suited the club any more than the player to hold them to a contract if it wasn't in their best interest. That said, it's their livelihood that we're talking about here and they were probably being advised in no uncertain terms by their agents (along with the ever interfering PFA) not to transfer over. Couple this with what appears to have been little or no line of communication with the club and ongoing speculation that suggested they might have to go through more of the same off the field turmoil from last season, I can understand where their coming from to some extent. I don't agree with them though and I don't see any reason that they couldn't have transferred over and given the club a chance at least to retain some funding for the playing squad.

Have to agree. I'm not too sure about Green and Zeus. I think they've underestimated the job they've taken on and what's required in some areas and overestimated in others. I think the lack of investment in their vision for Rangers from the millionaire bears who've stepped forward so far indicates that possibly their numbers don't add up and their business plan is unworkable. Whether they succeed or not probably depends to a great extent on how they can adjust to immediate circumstances outwith their control never mind finding a workable business model beyond that. The level of adversity from the support won't be helping though and this sort of idiotic vandalism is an embarrassment to us all.

Think he meant that other players leaving made it easier for him to decide to join them in abandoning ship rather than it probably making it easier for him to get a game. In Fleck's case it comes across that he already felt alienated and was thinking about moving elsewhere. It also seems to be the case that like the rest of the players who've left he shares the same doubts about our new owners as much of the support appear to. Do they have anything more to justify those doubts or like those supporters do they just think they should have been given answers to questions that probably can't be given with any certainty at present?

For the sake of staying on topic though, well said Lee Wallace. With that kind of unwavering, uncompromising attitude we can fight back from this on the field of play. Whatever level we end up at, that's where it counts the most.

I agree with most of your post apart from this part. What if the CVA had been accepted? Would it have been fair then? Try asking the Motherwell and Dundee fans that question. It's not as if they went into administration while they were living within their means signing the likes of Goram and Caniggia. Doncaster was saying only about a month ago how he could see no difference between newco and CVA. He went as far as pointing out that newco was the more common method of exiting administration. Of course if we had achieved the CVA the SPL board would still have had the dual contract stick to beat us with. They might even have relegated us. What they wouldn't have done is put it to a vote of rival supporters. The uncertainty of our current situation and in turn Scottish football as a whole stems from the SPL board delegating responsibility to the member clubs by agreeing to have a newco vote in the first place. The media can spin it whatever way they like to appease the masses who are baying for blood and brainwash the rest into accepting it. There might not be much that we as a support can do to effect the outcome, but we shouldn't accept ANY of their 'sporting integrity' bullshit.

That was (immediately) before the CVA was rejected. Possibly some of the players on that list were part of a contingency plan should we not remain in the SPL. Obviously in that scenario we would have had to do a fair bit of restructuring to the playing squad, but I don't think anyone was banking on so many players jumping ship without giving the club at least some transfer value. We will need to bring players in as the squad is already about 11 players beyond threadbare. We've got Hegarty signed on a new one year deal so far. Hopefully we can get the other out of contract players who turned up the other day to stick with us. Beyond that we'll probably have to wait until we find out if it's Div1 or 3.

Don't think his comments about lies were aimed at Green. The media are just trying to spin it that way. He did say the he thinks the fans don't seem to trust Green or think he's the man to take the club forward. At least the majority of fans who are voicing their opinion at the moment would suggest Fleck might have a point there. He also said he was moving on because of footballing reasons - Doesn't think Coisty would play him. Don't really have a problem with anything he had to say. I think Fleck's a decent player, very underrated by the support. Don't think we'd have got much money for him had we tried to sell him this Summer, but all the same a decent youngster to keep or sell would've been better than nothing.

'Integrity of the competition'?? - It's a pre-season friendly ffs and the games aren't even full length. Seeing as that shower have been reported to be after 3 or 4 of the deserters in recent days, it wouldn't surprise me if that's got something to do with it. One more to add into the bad books.

If the players aren't interested in helping the club any further, I can't see why they'd be interested in paying creditors. If the admin / liquidators think otherwise I don't think they would get much joy out of trying to deny the players a free transfer. That said if the CVA proposal had been delayed for a few more weeks as well as offers received pre-transfer window accepted then it goes without saying that there could have been more in the creditors pot. However, I would also expect that the value of the business assets and hence bidders interest would have been lower.

I wouldn't have expected these players to stay on at the club. I do find it puzzling though that they would deny the club the opportunity to claim any sort of fee for them. Even a nominal fee for each of those who have objected to the transfer of their contracts could have been sufficient to at least settle our outstanding football debts which UEFA could yet throw the book at us over.

When I suggested the same thing on another thread (50pts would be sufficient iirc) the response from other posters who apparently know more than myself was that points deductions couldn't be retrospective. The way I see it though is that in the interest of 'sporting integrity' under mob rule, they can do pretty much anything they like.

Don't think Whyte (or in that case the club) could have got away with this level of corporate restructure in the lead up to an insolvency event. Think it would be seen as Gratuitous Alienation. For that sort of restructuring to offer any level of protection, I think we'd have to be on a firm enough financial footing to guarantee against insolvency for a period of at least five years. Could be wrong, but that was my understanding of it from when the legality of Miller's newco plan was being discussed.