Rangers

Nah, redundancies normally mean paying out cash.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Not a chance of top plaers being made redundant. FFS it cost them £1million to get Bunter Beattie aff their books.
Bhoyzilla made an interesting post on anither article he said
"That means big wage players will be moved on and replaced by lesser players.Something tells me the contracts that were handed out was only to protect their investment in said players".

That, is much more plausible.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Do you mean like Celtic with Izzy, and possibly Kayal.It's what clubs do if they can manage it.

============================
Of course they do.

But, the difference being if Rangers go into administration, then said players would be available at a much reduced rate.

Maybe that's why Whyte wanted top dollar for Jelly in the last window.

The £9m smelled like them trying to squeeze Sven for more. A tactic that backfired if that was the case.

I really think Whyte is in this to make money off the back of Rangers distress.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Zach - surely something bizzare about CW complaining about the rise in the wage bill since he took over.....??

Whose fault could that be????

Seems to me Plan B might be to flog the top players. Just a consideration...

I smell redundancies



it ll be the backed up drains you smell

Davie Weir says it on his list

Whyte says Rangers have assets of £80M, that's Ibrox and Murray Park on old valuations probably not worth that at present.
So really they don't have assets worth £80M, as he says they won't sell Ibrox so what have they got to sell?

Q & A on Gers future

TOP insolvency adviser Michael Lord-Castle answers the questions Rangers fans are asking.

Q What will happen if Rangers cannot pay their tax bills?

A Football is different to any other business in the UK. If this was a normal company the Inland Revenue would issue winding up proceedings immediately. As it is football they tend not to do this and try to reach an agreed settlement.

Q What could the settlement be?

A Inland Revenue could take a share in the club or it could be that they accept third party funds and subrogate the debt. That means another party comes in and for the £50million, they give the HMRC £15million to £20million to take no further proceedings. The debt would become the third party’s but the pressure would be off Rangers. That is the easy route out of this for HMRC.

Q Who would come in with that money?

A There are three types of person. One who has a genuine passion for the club and has the funds available and also the business acumen.

The second are outside investors who have lots of money and get a kick out of owning a football club.

The final type are those people who can see an opportunity to asset strip the business and are able to sell players and look at the property and turn it around. There are many financial incentives for business men to do that.

Q What would asset stripping mean?

A The club, the players and the land is sold off and developed for residential or commercial use and there’s no football club. It is the worst-case scenario.

Q Is it possible the current owners could settle the HMRC debt?

A The big problem there is that there is a lot of distrust on both sides. I think the current owners had plenty of opportunities to deal with this properly and commercially. In my opinion they have not adopted the proper approach and are now paying the price for it.

Q Will Rangers exist in a year?

A With the correct management and support which is readily available it could be. Without that, no — and I don’t believe it has got that at the moment.