Rangers in administration (lozies)

RIP

14 points clear by the end of today?

29 point turnaround!!

Probably quite a good time to post this

R.I.P

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17020610

lo lo lo

Shockingly enough, David Murray could be the one to save the club from complete financial meltdown, and retake ownership of Rangers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/14/rangers-david-murray-financial-crisis

BBCDouglsFraser Douglas Fraser
I hear from a lawyer working in the Court of Session building that Duff and Phelps have now been appointed administrators of #Rangers

RIP.

Rangers are now officially in administration. Duff and Phelps appointed as administrators.

First step on the road to recovery. Excited by this outcome.

LOL!!!! .. in administration and a £75m tax bill looms

EXCITED BY THIS OUTCOME

lo lo lo lo lo lo lo lo lo

The futures bright, the futures BLUE AND WHYTE!!!!!!

TheRangersFan wrote:First step on the road to recovery. Excited by this outcome.

Administration is almost never recovery in fooball. You might easily end up unable to compete, with reduced revenue and reduced financial capabilities. The problem with Admimistration that they always cut costs to ensure survival, in a football club that almost always means reduced spoeting capabilities. The club might survive, but it will not be a nice recovery.

This is the perfect oppertunity for the SPL to reshape itself. Change the TV Deals, implement youth development systems, actively promote the league and get their heads out of their arses, or else the same will eventually happen to Celtic. Rangers going under is a sympthom of the way the SPL is being run in my opinion.

The Maestro wrote:14 points clear by the end of today?

29 point turnaround!!

Probably quite a good time to post this

That was amazing

Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers
Administration has been a certainty at Rangers for months. But not liquidation. Now, though, I believe a 50%-plus chance RFC will go under.

SkyScot James Matthews
#Rangers fans in tears outside Ibrox @skynews

Maestro if Rangers duck under they will likely take the SPL with them...

Doubts whether Rangers can host matches

The police said they won't provide their services unless it is guaranteed that they will be paid. I think SPL and UK laws require police presence at matches.

Doubt it will actually come to that though, still good to know

A couple of posts up you just said exactly the opposite, that the SPL could be rejuvinated by Rangers going under. Anyway what you just said is completely subjective. I don't think Scottish football needs Rangers. Teams like Dundee United and Aberdeen will thrive without them.

The Maestro wrote:A couple of posts up you just said exactly the opposite, that the SPL could be rejuvinated by Rangers going under. Anyway what you just said is completely subjective. I don't think Scottish football needs Rangers. Teams like Dundee United and Aberdeen will thrive without them.

I never said that? I said that it is the perfect oppertunity to make the changes that the SPL needs. No one ever does anything unless they are forced to it. In order to rescue Rangers and in essence prevent Celtic or any other clubs from following suit, they need to restructure the league.

The Rangers/Celtic rivlary has accounted for the majority of your and the SPL's TV-revenue. With that rivlary gone Celtic will throne up top as the strongest club in the country by a country mile, reducing foreign interest significantly. In order to keep that advantage they will probably ensure that the SPL keeps shifting the most money to them, as that's how the current financial structure is laid out today. Which will in turn lead to Celtic recieving less revenue as the TV market becomes less interested.

If Celtic continues it's current spending trends and wish to remain ambitious on the international stage, then Celtic's expenses will become unbareable and they will find themsleves in a precarious situation similar to that of Rangers. The only thing that can possibly happen after a Rangers meltdown, unless the structure of the SPL is significantly changed, is a significant reduced quality of football.

Hope this doesn't increase the chance of Celtic playing in the English leagues.

iSamuel wrote:Hope this doesn't increase the chance of Celtic playing in the English leagues.

Considering the problem mostly lies in the structure of the league system and the financial structure, replacing Celtic and Rangers with say Hearts and Aberdeen doesn't really fix the problem.

Laurencio the thing that instantly pisses over your television money argument is that this only accounts for 3% of Celtics income. 3%!!!

You're argument is still subjective, there is more to suggest the Scottish Premier League will improve without Rangers.

You are right, this is an opportunity for the Scottish Premier League to rejuvinate itself, but you're wrong if you think Rangers will bring anybody else down with them. They've already done the damage. Teams like Aberdeen have been denied the opportunity to compete because of Rangers financial doping. The last time Rangers were in the doldrums Aberdeen were in European finals, the league was much more competitive. We had four different title winners in ten years.

The Scotland needs Rangers argument is much like the Scotland can't survive independance, it's just scare mongering

The Maestro wrote:Laurencio the thing that instantly pisses over your television money argument is that this only accounts for 3% of Celtics income. 3%!!!

You're argument is still subjective, there is more to suggest the Scottish Premier League will improve without Rangers.

You are right, this is an opportunity for the Scottish Premier League to rejuvinate itself, but you're wrong if you think Rangers will bring anybody else down with them. They've already done the damage. Teams like Aberdeen have been denied the opportunity to compete because of Rangers financial doping. The last time Rangers were in the doldrums Aberdeen were in European finals, the league was much more competitive. We had four different title winners in ten years.

The Scotland needs Rangers argument is much like the Scotland can't survive independance, it's just scare mongering

3%? Really? What are the remaining 97% then?

I'm not saying you need Rangers, I'm saying that in the current system they are an important part of your league system. The traditional rivlary Rangers vs Celtic is one of the massive selling points of your league, without them the league must surely lose some of it's popularity? In the short term there's no one even remotely capeable of competing with Celtic either if we're perfectly honest, it would take Aberdeen or Dundee years, if not decades, to be able to reach that level of competitiveness.

Unless you change the league system, which you really should be doing anyway, I can't see Rangers going under being particulary good for Scottish Football, nor Celtic. If you do change it then it can be the push you need to get out of the mess that has been created over the years, I admit that.

In 2010, Celtics TV revenue was 17% of there income.

A quote from a fantastic piece in The Guardian

Closely tied to this belief that RFC will re-emerge is the notion (repeated like a mantra on all broadcast frequencies) that "the Scottish Premiere League without Rangers is unthinkable", and "Scottish football couldn't survive without the Old Firm". But this idea was quashed by Celtic's chief executive Peter Lawwell only this week, when he stated plainly that his club "don't need Rangers" to flourish financially. Lawwell said the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust "would have no material effect on Celtic".

The idea that the two clubs are mutually dependent persists only because the idea of Rangers and Celtic is so deeply embedded not just in Scottish culture, but also in Scottish press circulation. The Old Firm flog papers. But, in reality, the idea that splitting the Old Firm would be a travesty for Scottish football is upheld only by people who have vested interests in our (already) hopelessly failing game. Scotland's Sky TV deal is already pitiful, and BBC Scotland's coverage is reduced to a poorly produced highlights package.

Michael Grant of the Herald wrote: "Celtic and Scottish football could live without Rangers but, boy, it would be as dull as dishwater." For the absent-minded and unobservant, Scottish football has been in dire terminal decline for some time now. The idea that it would be worse in a league that would immediately present more opportunities for success is patently absurd. It's the sort of logic that could only be expressed by members of a closed group.

Life after Rangers would mean for every other club a chance that the thousands who migrate towards Ibrox from towns across Scotland every other Saturday might show an interest in their local team. They would have realistic hope of winning trophies. But the positive reality of a Scottish game without Rangers is not primarily about a sport rid of a substantial element of ritualised bigotry and sustained intergenerational hatred, but the prospect of top-quality football being played by young Scotsmen in an atmosphere of optimism. That's something worth aspiring to.

The mainstream press have been fatally blindsided on the impending crisis at Ibrox despite excellent blog coverage. But let's not blame the clubbable journos. The real culprits are the management and board of the club who piled profligacy upon spending spree, from Dick Advocaat's dubious £12m Tore Andre Flo to David Murray's gigantic vanity project. But who'd blame them? Our culture lauds these dodgy geezers. Murray, the club's previous owner, was quoted as saying: "For every £5 Celtic spends I'll spend £10." That doesn't seem so clever now.

The Maestro wrote:A quote from a fantastic piece in The Guardian

Closely tied to this belief that RFC will re-emerge is the notion (repeated like a mantra on all broadcast frequencies) that "the Scottish Premiere League without Rangers is unthinkable", and "Scottish football couldn't survive without the Old Firm". But this idea was quashed by Celtic's chief executive Peter Lawwell only this week, when he stated plainly that his club "don't need Rangers" to flourish financially. Lawwell said the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust "would have no material effect on Celtic".

The idea that the two clubs are mutually dependent persists only because the idea of Rangers and Celtic is so deeply embedded not just in Scottish culture, but also in Scottish press circulation. The Old Firm flog papers. But, in reality, the idea that splitting the Old Firm would be a travesty for Scottish football is upheld only by people who have vested interests in our (already) hopelessly failing game. Scotland's Sky TV deal is already pitiful, and BBC Scotland's coverage is reduced to a poorly produced highlights package.

Michael Grant of the Herald wrote: "Celtic and Scottish football could live without Rangers but, boy, it would be as dull as dishwater." For the absent-minded and unobservant, Scottish football has been in dire terminal decline for some time now. The idea that it would be worse in a league that would immediately present more opportunities for success is patently absurd. It's the sort of logic that could only be expressed by members of a closed group.

Life After Rangers Football (Larf) would mean for every other club a chance that the thousands who migrate towards Ibrox from towns across Scotland every other Saturday might show an interest in their local team. They would have realistic hope of winning trophies. But the positive reality of a Scottish game without Rangers is not primarily about a sport rid of a substantial element of ritualised bigotry and sustained intergenerational hatred, but the prospect of top-quality football being played by young Scotsmen in an atmosphere of optimism. That's something worth aspiring to.

The mainstream press have been fatally blindsided on the impending crisis at Ibrox despite excellent blog coverage. But let's not blame the clubbable journos. The real culprits are the management and board of the club who piled profligacy upon spending spree, from Dick Advocaat's dubious £12m Tore Andre Flo to David Murray's gigantic vanity project. But who'd blame them? Our culture lauds these dodgy geezers. Murray, the club's previous owner, was quoted as saying: "For every £5 Celtic spends I'll spend £10." That doesn't seem so clever now.

I don't disagree with that. But there's a blatant case for chanaging the financial structure as soon as possible, unless you want a similar scenario to this in a decade or so only with another club going under.

Until then Laurencio, can we just raise a glass to this excellent news

Rangers still owe Hearts transfer money (Around £700K), and still owe money too Dundee over gate receipts.

The SPL without Rangers is like diahorrea with no toilet paper.