der Berliner 3,357 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 newco can pay whomever they want to - they are not obligated to do it I dont believe. They have chosen to. It would be very difficult, I suspect, for any other creditors to prove precedence in paying creditors Well, unless I am mistaken, "newco" were coerced by the SFA to pay all football debts. Else we might not see a Rangers team play football for a season. Obviously, any lawyer worth his money and working on our behalf could always point this out to the SFA in any future legal debate with them ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,357 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I see both sides, saving 100k is good business but we're not losing 100k either, we agreed the fee and we have the best LB in Scotland. Perhaps we will sell him on for 1-2 million in a year or so and make a profit. If this was first offer to help Hearts Id be ok with it but as said they refused it last time. They will probably make the 100k plus more next season when they are playing us in the 3rd tier after the restructure. While I would hope that is the case, I very much expect the rules applied to us will not be applied to Hearts or any other team falling into administration. Of course, there is no guarantee that Hearts will have to go the "newco" route or being placed into a similar position like we were last summer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 wont hearts have to pay the 20 mill to the creditors of the defunct bank? thats how much debt they were in. very good chance they will go under. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 who else do we owe money to? each and every one of them should be paid off over time, including hmrc. Totally agree. Every penny of the debt owed by the old company should be paid. Why? Because it was 'Rangers' that accrued the debt and it is 'Rangers' that should pay it. The name or personnel in charge of the management company doesn't matter, morally. Joe Smith the baker delivered 6 months worth of bread and scones to 'Rangers' because it was Rangers; not to "XYZ company ltd". If we are going to get back what we were, we have to start behaving like we used to and start acting in the Rangers way again. And while we are paying back creditors, we must make sure that we pay back our enemies, too, and make them rue the day they thought it would be a good idea to kick us when we were down. For that, too, is the Rangers Way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Totally agree. Every penny of the debt owed by the old company should be paid. Why? Because it was 'Rangers' that accrued the debt and it is 'Rangers' that should pay it. The name or personnel in charge of the management company doesn't matter, morally. Joe Smith the baker delivered 6 months worth of bread and scones to 'Rangers' because it was Rangers; not to "XYZ company ltd". If we are going to get back what we were, we have to start behaving like we used to and start acting in the Rangers way again. And while we are paying back creditors, we must make sure that we pay back our enemies, too, and make them rue the day they thought it would be a good idea to kick us when we were down. For that, too, is the Rangers Way. Yes agreed and it works both ways, any monies due to Rangers pre-2012 should also be given to us but this is where 1 rule for Rangers and another for the rest kicks in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I see both sides, saving 100k is good business but we're not losing 100k either, we agreed the fee and we have the best LB in Scotland. Perhaps we will sell him on for 1-2 million in a year or so and make a profit. If this was first offer to help Hearts Id be ok with it but as said they refused it last time. They will probably make the 100k plus more next season when they are playing us in the 3rd tier after the restructure. apparantly isheaquierry is worth 8m so how can wallace be the best left back and only worth 1 to 2 million? lol he is easily worth many times more than that. nearer 5 i would say. and isheaquierry is worth realistically around half of that. Edited February 22, 2013 by kuznetsov 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie P 4 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 apparantly isheaquierry is worth 8m so how can wallace be the best left back and only worth 1 to 2 million? lol he is easily worth many times more than that. nearer 5 i would say. and isheaquierry is worth realistically around half of that. Aye, but you forgot about the Seville calculator rule, did you not! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Aye, but you forgot about the Seville calculator rule, did you not! thats why i cleared it up at the end by saying he is possibly worth about half of what wallace is worth. "and isheaquierry is worth realistically around half of that." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 wont hearts have to pay the 20 mill to the creditors of the defunct bank? thats how much debt they were in. very good chance they will go under. Hearts are an asset of the bank they don't owe it anything technically, if the bank is taken over the new owners will either take on Hearts (which I doubt) or just sell the asset to whoever comes up with the most money and the asset is the ground not the team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 any monies due to Rangers pre-2012 should also be given to us but this is where 1 rule for Rangers and another for the rest kicks in. It's not one rule for us & one for them. we have paid certain debt through choice - we had no legal obligation to pay ANY of them. The SFA stipulated that we should pay football related debt in order to get our playing license, something that if there was time, we could probably have challenged since the SFA have no rule concerning football debt (note: There is in Engerland). If we were to offer to pay the HMRC monies, RFC would then be admitting liability, which simply isn't the case - this debt was run up by actions of Craig Whyte, not Rangers Football Club. If we opt to pay, HMRC will have to drop any legal proceedings into Whyte. All previous debt was run up by the Oldco in order to run the club.....however, I would like the club (not publicly) to try to reimburse the smaller companies for monies lost. If its done publicly, the media will be all over it, and not in a good way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.