Rangers and Dunfermline reach agreement on £85k owed to Pars

[BlueMazza 0]

RANGERS' administrators have come to an agreement with Dunfermline to meet their debt to the Fife club in full, it has been reported.

Dunfermline were last week unable to pay their players their full wages after a cashflow problem sparked by Rangers' inability to pay an £85,000 debt.

The money was owed for tickets sold for Rangers' SPL clash at East End Park on February 11, three days before the Ibrox club went into administration.

It is unclear when the debt will be settled but Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston had already been confident of paying the players in full this week.

Yorkston is today at Hampden with representatives of the other 11 SPL clubs as they discuss rules on financial fair play.

The development came after Rangers players reported at their Murray Park training complex ahead of anticipated news on their futures.

Administrators Duff and Phelps had set today as the deadline for a decision to be reached on how the club achieve £1million monthly savings.

 

From the record yes, but good news if true.

[Bluedell 5,376]

As I've asked on another thread, can they pick just one creditor to pay in full? What about the other creditors?

[BlueMazza 0]

I'm genuinely not sure. Maybe there is a value sliding scale? This one debt would have to be at the lower end surely?

[Bluedell 5,376]

I don't think so, Mazza. There are lots of other even smaller creditors who have not been paid. Perhaps it's something to do wih the timing of when the debt was incurred? Oh, for an administration expert to be on the board.

[BlueMazza 0]

Hmm. So far this seems unusual, because in actuality, Dunfermline being a small creditor compared with others, are less of a priority. The cynic in me wonders if this is to help with the further sanction type things, with Yorkston being against any further action.

Edited March 5, 2012 by BlueMazza

[Bears 0]

Hmm. So far this seems unusable, because in actuality, Dunfermline being a small creditor compared with others, are less of a priority. The cynic in me wonders if this is to help with the further sanction type things, with Yorkston being against any further action.

 

I'm with you on this train of thought too

[BlueMazza 0]

I can't think of any other reason. Further sanctions would push Rangers (potentially) in to further debt. The mention of redistributing the tv money as "punishment" etc would hurt us hard - which is what some people want.

I've found Dunfermline to be the more reasonable of our creditors. It's also a good news story, which predictably isn't getting the same coverage. In fact, it's getting a by-mention at the bottom of other news articles! More and more evidence stacking up in favour of the Mhedia enjoying Rangers' troubles.

[stewarty 1,896]

Could they be agreeing to, say, allow Dunfermline to keep the ticket monies they receive from selling tickets for the next league game at Ibrox?

[craig 5,199]

We arent in a CVA at present, so do the administrators have to apply the cash equitably ? I am not sure but there may be fliexibility to the administrators until we have a CVA. Once we have a CVA then everyone (unsecured creditors) gets treated equitably, but until then I suspect that there is room for maneouvre for the administrators.

[der Berliner 3,357]

On a sidenote, does it tell you about the precarious situation with some SPL clubs if ticket income from a (single) Rangers game means that they cannot pay their players in full a month later?