Friday, June 15, 2012

Rangers: Newco or no go?

A liquidated Rangers start life again as a newco. The Rangers Football Club.

Rangers are no more.

Not quite, of course. The football team - its home and its training facilities if not its players - has a new owner in a new corporate structure.

For now ownership lies with a consortium led by Charles Green. Tomorrow, next week, next month it might be a consortium led by Walter Smith.

Even after liquidation Rangers are haunted by uncertainty and tussled over by businessmen to the bewilderment of the ordinary fan.

But a new Rangers have indeed risen from the liquidated shell of the old company.

Where do they go now?

The decision that most SPL chairmen didn't want to make now lies with them.

Yes to the Rangers newco?

No to the Rangers newco?

It makes me worry about the business acumen available to Scottish football if it is indeed true that representatives of the other 11 clubs sat round a table and allowed themselves to be persuaded that Rangers didn't face the prospect of liquidation.

I suspect, however, it's far easier to convince an audience if they already want to believe what you're saying.

And how the SPL chairmen must have hoped that they didn’t have to make this choice.

Vote "yes" to a newco and stick with the comfort of familiarity.

Maybe the odd sanction to give an impression of resoluteness - or hope that the SFA do that for you - and then carry on as before.

Or vote "no" and take a step into the unknown.

When Rangers first went into administration I wrote that what is a simple moral decision for fans wouldn't necessarily be reflected by directors facing more complex debates about what their choice would mean for their own clubs.

That remains the case.

Fans have been vocal and overwhelming in their opposition to Rangers being allowed entry to the league.

Supporters are often out of step with their chairmen and directors. No SPL club is yet run as a democracy, these are not elected officials and more often than not what they feel is best for us and our clubs doesn't chime with the wishes of large sections of their "customer base."

But the strength of opinion here is perhaps unprecedented across the clubs. Can the men who will ultimately make the decision afford to ignore that?

Ramifications for the TV deal and other potential losses of income will influence their decision. The clubs themselves should be better acquainted with the consequences of refusing entry than anyone else.

And yes, protecting revenue streams is important. But the sheer scale of the financial folly at Rangers means that being seen to capitulate to a newco might have even graver consequences.

The idea of "sporting integrity" risks being cheapened by over use in recent weeks.

But if the other clubs are prepared to let Rangers back simply so they can chug along in the shadow of two dominant clubs, unable to stand on their own two feet, then the SPL can make no pretence at being a sporting entity anyway.

We've seen what greed and bad management can do to football clubs. Now should be a time to readjust.

I suspect that the scale of Rangers' wrongdoing, the lack of humility in the face of that wrongdoing, the "you'll die without us" attitude and the weight of public opinion is beginning to tip the balance against a newco.

I've also got a feeling that clubs struggling with their own finances won't buy the line that Rangers have been punished enough with a European ban, a ten point deduction and a period of emotional turmoil.

Fans of Rangers and fans of other clubs will always be at loggerheads on these issues but "we've been punished enough" is a bad argument to make.

It focuses attention on the litany of misdemeanours and leads the listener to the conclusion that contrition is unlikely to follow.

Rangers cocked-a-snook at corporate governance, stiffed their creditors and were gobbled up for pennies by a man who didn't see any problem in discussing transfer targets even as football debtors went unpaid.

It sends out a very dangerous message for the future of football governance in this country if a place is set for them and they are warmly welcomed back to the top table.

That is really not punishment enough.

The issue of football governance also means that the inquiry into alleged impropriety in player's contracts must be allowed to run its course.

The outcome of that investigation will tell us much about the health of the game in this country.

If a vote on the newco is taken before any findings are delivered then that vote will be compromised, a decision made without full possession of the facts.

Like everything else in this sorry saga the timescales are rushed, the details murky, the outcomes uncertain.

Should new Rangers be allowed into the SPL?


Will new Rangers be allowed into the SPL?


A month ago I would have said they almost certainly would be. I think they still probably will be but it's no longer such a certainty.

The next few weeks are going to be messy, divisive and nasty.

Whatever the decision, for better or for worse, I suspect Scottish football will never be the same again.

The history issue

Does a newco retain the history of the oldco?

The findings of the current SPL investigation notwithstanding I find it unlikely that any directive is going to be issued from Hampden denying "new" Rangers the list of trophies won by "old" Rangers.

That won't stop fans of other clubs trying to deny fans of Rangers that history.

And it won't stop Rangers fans trying to deny fans of other clubs the right to deny them of that history.

A difficult one to be sure.

If you've watched Rangers at Ibrox for 20 years and plan to watch them at Ibrox for another 20 years I find it unlikely that you're going to consider 2012 a dividing line separating the achievements of the old and the new.

History in this case is surely subjective. Fans will bicker over this forever and a day but they'll only be bickering over a perception of whether this is "Year Zero" or not.

Your own perception might depend if you love Rangers or if you hate them. If you're stuck in the middle you'll probably just hear "blah, blah, blah."

I'm not sure the next time Hibs host Rangers I'll be thinking "Well, this is jolly nice, this is the first time we've met these boys in blue at Easter Road, I do hope we go on to forge a superior record to them in our head-to-head clashes."

I don't really think it works like that. Rivalry understandably inspires glee that Rangers' history will be wiped out. But it doesn't give anyone "control" of that history or someone else's interpretation of history.

(If the SFA were to offer guidance on this - and what could possibly go wrong if that august body starts wrestling with the philosophical issues involved in taking ownership of history - might I also suggest they bring in some governance on the issue of stars above badges which has, frankly, given over to anarchy in recent seasons.)

My own view?

If you ask me when Hibs were formed I'll say "6th August 1875."

I won't mention the period in the early 1890s when the club was forced into what we might call abeyance.

The timeline goes back to the beginning, skipping over the break.

The history of football clubs is a powerful thing and it has always been about more than decisions made in committee rooms, law courts or tax offices.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.


  1. I don't think the SFA nee to offer guidance. Historical precedence exists in the form of Airdrie Utd whom neither own Airdrieonians' history from whom their fans come from, nor Clydebank's despite being the same corporate shell.

  2.  Not sure the precedent quite works.

    Airdrie United were, essentially, putting Clydebank out of business so why would they want their history? Airdrieonians SFA membership wasn't transferred to Airdrie United so there was a much more distinct break than will be the case IF new Rangers have the old membership transferred to them.

    As for Airdrie United "owning" history - they don't make a massive distinction between United and Airdrieonians when recounting past successes on the club website:

    "they won the Bells Challenge Cup in both 2000 and 2001 and again in 2008"

    "They" apparently referring to both the old club and the new club.

    Perceptions, opinions, an ever decreasing circle of bickering on this one I think.

  3. A few clubs have changed 'company' name but remained that club.  Rangers will continue to be Rangers but in the 3rd division.  The club will remain the owners change.  Another well presented item.

  4. Does no one else find it shocking that the administrators have been allowed to transfer Rangers assets directly to Green? I don't know about law but I thought that was a job for the liquidators - I at least expected some sort of bidding process to get the best price on assets for creditors. This is especially true when aspersions have been cast on the administrators themselves. I don't care what happens to the history but it appears there is no end in sight for the murky dealings.

  5. Andy Taylor wrote:

    Does no one else find it shocking that the administrators have been
    allowed to transfer Rangers assets directly to Green? I don't know about
    law but I thought that was a job for the liquidators - I at least
    expected some sort of bidding process to get the best price on assets
    for creditors.

    This is especially true when aspersions have been cast on
    the administrators themselves. I don't care what happens to the history
    but it appears there is no end in sight for the murky dealings.

  6. Hi Andy

    Thanks for the comment.

    Yes, I think a lot of people are amazed at how that works and how it seems to deny creditors the chance to maximise potential returns as well as the way it delivers valuable assets to Green for such a ridiculous price.

    I believe the creditors could have worked together to challenge this but for some reason that didn't happen.

    Will certainly be interesting what findings the industry watchdog returns when it completes look at Duff & Phelps.

    Seems there's been nothing but rogues in this process. Green might well be the next in a long line.


  8. If the SPL vote to dump Rangers on July 4, they should spite them by joining the English League!

  9. They won't be voting to "dump" anyone. They'll be voting on whether a new company can join them. Different then.

    The English league don't want Rangers.

    And this "spite" argument. Heavens above. You need friends not more enemies. Killed by crooks, the death prolonged by a lack of humility among a club and - some - supporters who just can't help themselves.

  10. Well I read the comments that the executives at Hearts and Dundee United made. They claim to only be interested in fairness, but the jealousy they feel for Rangers is obvious. All I know is that with their history, Rangers don't deserve to suffer the grave insult of having to toil in the Scottish 3rd Division next season, which is being seriously proposed. They would be better off playing in a lower division in England. And I bet the English league would be happy to have them.

  11. The executives of other clubs are having to bow to the wishes of their fans. Seems a sensible policy.

    Rangers history is remarkable but their recent history is of club living ridiculously above their means, unable to meet the obligations that all companies face and leaving clubs - including the two you mention - down hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    They were liquidated. Gretna went out of business. Third Lanark disappeared from Scottish football.

    But Rangers get away with it because of their history? Ridiculous. It's not a grave insult, it's a club run into the ground having to start over. And it wasn't the 11 other SPL clubs that ran them into ground.

    Rangers (and Celtic) have approached the English leagues a number of times over the years. They've been rebuffed. Aside from the UEFA implications they are not wanted by the majority of English clubs. We knew this before Rangers became a toxic business proposition. I don't see how things could have changed in their favour in the last few months.