Rangers director Paul Murray reveals rival deal to buy club as Craig Whyte bid falter

[rbr 1,247]

Do some of the Rangers directors believe that we will lose the tax court case and therefore be forced into administration, with a friendly administrator being on hand to do a prepack deal, selling them back the club for a song?

 

They will then end up owning a debt-free club for a minimal cost, and they will be quite happy, but not caring if we have had to sell some players in the mean-time, been unable to give Ally any transfer budget and losing players when their contracts run out?

 

Let's not forget that at least 2, possibly 3, of the "independent committee" of directors have their livelihood at stake.

 

Are we confident that they would be happy to propose a solution that resulted in them losing their jobs, and not go for a solution that is worse for the club but allowed them to retain their positions?

 

There are too many conflicts of interest involved for the supporters to be confident that the club's best interests are being looked after.

 

 

They would also throw away one season , and they would need to be sure we were out of Administration nearly as quickly as we went into it , as I believe you cant compete in Europe whilst in administration

[Bluedell 5,329]

They would also throw away one season , and they would need to be sure we were out of Administration nearly as quickly as we went into it , as I believe you cant compete in Europe whilst in administration

 

From what I can gather, it is high up on ALL parties' agendas.

[Guest Sjp1873]

When you say all agendas I assume you mean the Rangers directors?

[Frankie 8,145]

When you say all agendas I assume you mean the Rangers directors?

 

Yes. Administration continues to be considered as a deliberate strategy for the future - especially if the tax case goes against us.

[Bluedell 5,329]

When you say all agendas I assume you mean the Rangers directors?

 

Directors and prospective buyers.

[Guest Sjp1873]

Yeah I can see why they would see that as a logical solution, when I saw the capitalised ALL I was trying to find out if this was including Whyte as I couldn't see how or why administration would benefit him at all.

[maineflyer 0]

Chaps, it's much better to go through this now than a prolonged period of infighting after a deal goes through. Keep the faith, these are all Rangers people we're talking about but the takes are high and they're entitled to want to win. Stop the nonsense about this damaging the club - the state we're in does anyone think a few more scratches on the paintwork will really make any difference.

[Guest Dutchy]

Paul English states that Whyte would have to be mad to spend all this time and money attempting to buy Rangers and that we shouldn't think he is dodgy as he's sure to invest moeny in the club.

 

I paraphrase, I know, but why should we assume that he is indeed the Whyte knight he's making himself out to be? It's a strange situation after waiting all this time that he's wanting things hurried through toot sweet, or he'll walk, maybe!

 

As Craig has tried to explain a few times here, the machinations of financial goings on are beyond most of us, and although he's done a good enough job of trying to clarify these rules, there's no guarentee that they will be followed to the letter after the deal has gone through. Think of a politician promising you the earth, and giving you nothing near what you expected.

 

I think we have to trust the boards doubts about this bid, on nothing more than the old adage, "If something looks too good to be true, it usually is".

[Stimpy 0]

Administration should not be considered an option if it can be prevented, which it can.

 

If Bluedell's source is correct and all parties are considering it an option then they do not deserve to run Rangers.

[craig 5,195]

Administration should not be considered an option if it can be prevented, which it can.

 

If Bluedell's source is correct and all parties are considering it an option then they do not deserve to run Rangers.

 

Whilst there is negativity surrounding administration it MIGHT give the club the opportunity to settle its debts for pennies on the pound. I am no insolvency practitioner (or corporate recovery specialist) but often times administration is a good thing for entities.

 

Do we not have to qualify for the CL next season if we win the league ? If so there is a decent chance we wouldnt qualify. If we went into admin and took a 10 point hit we would still probably finish 2nd and give ourselves that 2nd CL berth the following season. So I am not sure it would have a massive impact financially - in fact, the loss of CL could be wholly mitigated by a reduction in the payment amount of debts (one would have to assume the likes of LBG would accept less than pound for pound).

 

Whilst we all want what is best for Rangers, we have to remember that administration may not be as bad as it sounds. We dont want the club's reputation shattered but the Board have a responsibility to look after more then just the reputation - they also have to look after the financial aspect of the club (I know I know... poor job in the last 10-15 yrs...) and administration may be better for the club in that regard - if we got agreement to pay the debts at 50p in the pound we have saved about 10 million to LBG right there - that can go right back into the club. I just doubt whether LBG would accept that especially as they believe Whyte has the funding to pay them in full.

 

I am not saying the above is the case or factual - but it is plausible - and it MIGHT be in our better interests long term (if we can see beyond the reputational damage - but there doesnt seem to be that much of a fall-out from the Tims after their near locking the doors).