Rangers get no punishment at all?

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

Im just waiting for the oncoming Timmy onslaught to declare that Rangers have "got away with it" without any punishment.

 

Lets have a look at this a bit more fully now.

 

Up until May 2011 we traded like every other club in the country. Precariously close to the brink and in a bad financial shape. Our problems were only confounded because our owner's (Murray) other business interestes were in bad shape and the bank were running his affairs, which by default included us. We had debt of around 30% of one years turnover, which compares favourably to most other SPL clubs.

 

In May 2011 there was a change of ownership. CW came in on a fraud, and with our failure to gain entry to the CL or Europa League group stages, our income for the year was never going to match our expenses. CW tried, as do most failing business owners, to rob peter to pay paul, and didnt pay HMRC and other creditors on time, instead preferring to meet player wages and other (allegedly personal) expenses.

 

For 9 months he run us into the ground, and on 14 February the game was up as HMRC refused to give him any more time to pay the outstanding PAYE and VAT, and we went into administration.

 

 

9 months out of our 140 years of unblemished history and faultless tradition. In 140 years we have never had any similar financial troubles thaat seen us not be able to pay HMRC or football or general creditors.

 

In other words, this was most certainly a "first offence". Usually when this happens in court, a judge will look at your previous record and apply a sentence that is either soft or hard depending on such record.

 

In football terms, the rules were already in place for such an event. A 10 point penalty is applied to any club that goes into administration. We took our penalty with good grace and got on with it.

 

I hear talk about £150M of debt. The official figure of £55 is the only figure in play and that included about £40M that accrued under CW's 9 month watch, being Ticketus and HMRC.

 

Instead of talking about mitigating cirucmstances surrounding our entry into administration as I believe would have been appropriate, the talk in this country has only been about how to magnify the administration into 140 years of financial abuse and over-running the game and how we should be punished for all the sins of the game. The games 2 authorities both went on the offensive almost immediately, no doubt pushed into it by a baying mhedia that demanded far more punishment than the crime merited.

 

New rules have been talked about, including enormous fines, points deductions, transfer embargos etc. All for a first offence for a club that has given so much and behaved so well throughout its history, helping many other clubs in their own difficult times throughout the years by playing benefit matches etc.

 

I truly believe the circumstances behind our entry into administration should have seen our club excused the 10 point penalty, as it was something the "club" could not have foreseen or done anything about. Our club's company had been taken over and run by a single individual, answerable to nobody, shared information with nobody, and nobody at the club knew what was going on apart from him.

 

I am absolutely certain that if it was the 2nd biggest club in the country that had fallen into administration in the exact same circumstances, they would not only be no talk of extra, new, far more punitive punishments, but instead it would be all about protective measures against the true victim, the club, from scavenging dishonourable men taking over clubs in the future. The talk would be of trying to get UEFA to give them a lcience becuase it really wasnt their fault at all, a big boy done it and ran away. Because that is exactly what happened to us.

 

And now that the end game is about to be played out, I would not be too surprised if the authorities come under even more pressure to give a certain club even more of an advantage than they have currently by jumping on the throat of the defenseless but still fighting biggest club in the country and trying for one last kick at the beast before he gets up and roars back at them.

 

No punishment? We have been punished far more than we deserve for what was completely out of our control. A 10 point deduction which killed our bid for a 55th title and no European licence for 2012-13 is a very heavy price to pay for a club that could not have done anything different.

 

If someone can tell me exactly what "the club" could have done differently and why "the club" should be punished more than what was in the rules as they stood at 14 February, I would be glad to debate it.

 

No punishment indeed. Not from where im standing.

[forlanssister 3,060]

1546:

 

Chris McLaughlin, BBC Sport

"SPL source tells me that Bill Miller has been given no assurances about possible sanctions for a newco #Rangers"

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

SPL source indeed!

 

How about

 

 

 

1546:

Chris McLaughlin, CFC Sport

"I've been on the phone to Doncaster and told him the Tims will go fuckin mental if they let they bassas off without cutting their balls off."

[GovanAllan 0]

If there's no punishment what's to stop every climb in the country doing the same thing.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

There is a great punishment for going into administration as it stands. A 10 point penalty would almost certainly mean relegation for 10 out of our 12 clubs, by the time you add on the redundancies and cost-cutting that also comes with such an event.

 

You've got to ask yourself what the SPL/SFA's role in all this should be about. The punishment of a club, or the assistance to keep a club alive while keeping a fairly level playing field?

 

As far as I am concerned it is for the courts and creditors to work out what should be done financially to a club that has fallen on hard times, and for the football governing bodies to help each other in order for the game to survive. As for financial fair play, in the last 3 full seasons, which is what UEFA's rules will look at when they come into force, Rangers would meet the criteria given.

 

Incidentally celtic wont meet the criteria for the three year period 2010-12 by the end of this season going by projected figures for this season coupled with the last two seasons.

[forlanssister 3,060]

If there's no punishment what's to stop every climb in the country doing the same thing.

 

If it truly works as good in practice as it does in theory then the SPL will have more incubators than Princess Royal Maternity Hospital !

[Darthter 542]

There is a great punishment for going into administration as it stands. A 10 point penalty would almost certainly mean relegation for 10 out of our 12 clubs, by the time you add on the redundancies and cost-cutting that also comes with such an event.

 

18 points currently separating the bottom 1/2 of the league. With a 10 point deduction, any one of them could have been relegated.

[GovanAllan 0]

There is a great punishment for going into administration as it stands. A 10 point penalty would almost certainly mean relegation for 10 out of our 12 clubs, by the time you add on the redundancies and cost-cutting that also comes with such an event.

 

You've got to ask yourself what the SPL/SFA's role in all this should be about. The punishment of a club, or the assistance to keep a club alive while keeping a fairly level playing field?

 

As far as I am concerned it is for the courts and creditors to work out what should be done financially to a club that has fallen on hard times, and for the football governing bodies to help each other in order for the game to survive. As for financial fair play, in the last 3 full seasons, which is what UEFA's rules will look at when they come into force, Rangers would meet the criteria given.

 

Incidentally celtic wont meet the criteria for the three year period 2010-12 by the end of this season going by projected figures for this season coupled with the last two seasons.

 

I agree with all that TB but there has to be more than the 10 points, I would raise that to at least 20 as all except the bottom 3 would stay in the league as it stands with a 10 point deduction. Or what about automatic relegation down a Div.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

I dont agree with 20 points GA.

 

The 10 points has to be looked at in conjuction with what administration means for the business of the football club concerned. The job losses, the player redundancies, sale of other assets etc.

 

I believe it would mean almost certain relegation for all but the big 2, depending on what time of season the administration came in.

 

If we are to change it at all, the only discrepancy I can see is that it treats a club going into admin in August the same as March, with just 10 points not really affecting a club at the tail end of the season if they have managed to build up enough points to that date, so perhaps a sliding scale of points to reflect the amount of season completed would be fairer.

[calscot 0]

So far administration has cost us a very good chance of winning the league, a fair chance of winning the Scottish Cup and our place in the Champions League. We lost two players and could lose a lot more in the summer for far less than they are worth.

 

The SFA have also rubbed salt into the wound with their fine and transfer embargo.

 

That's without all the mental anguish and fear the club could die.

 

That's quite a punishment compared to other clubs that go into administration.

 

As for sanctions for a newco, we'll have to see but two more years banned from Europe has quite an impact and we've yet to see what the SPL will do to us.