Rangers hit with 12 month transfer embargo.

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Agree with you. Both Celtic and Rangers need each other if they want the league to keep growing. If Rangers were to somehow fall then it will have a huge negative impact on Celtic too. Dont seem to understand why Celtic fans are actually happy about the demise for both footballing and financial purposes

Good example will be Real Madrid and Barcelona. If one was to fail then the other would surely be overwhelming favourites to woin the league which will in-fact decrease the quality of the league etc.
Because the reasons which many fans wish to see the demise of Rangers aren't to do with football. It's what Rangers represent for many in Scotland, that they want them to end.

So a lot of the arguments put forward here don't really apply to the situation.
 
Last edited:

Alcaraz

Member
Jun 15, 2010
12,808
0
0
Because the reasons which many fans wish to see the demise of Rangers aren't to do with football. It's what Rangers represent for many in Scotland, that they want them to end.

So a lot of the arguments put forward here don't really apply to the situation.
I am talking about in a rational sense and not looking at it emotionally or symbolically, the fact of the matter is that Celtic and Rangers need each other if the Scottish League wants to continue growing. If one was to fail then the other will also be impacted and not in a good way
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
Because the reasons which many fans wish to see the demise of Rangers aren't to do with football. It's what Rangers represent for many in Scotland, that they want them to end.

So a lot of the arguments put forward here don't really apply to the situation.
Why do they not apply? You can counter with "I'd like to cut myself to spite them", but they're still relevant.

It also really depresses me that religion polarises football in such an extreme way. Religion or even geography should never get as extreme as it has done in Scotland (and other countries, ofc). Geographical rivalries are in essence there because it's more fun to compete with the people you have personal relationships with. As much as I may dislike City, I'd never want them to go down the ******* - Football for me, and the league, would be so much more bland without that rivalry.
 

AM67

Member
Jul 5, 2011
139
0
0
See if people who had a go at Celtic fans for wanting Rangers to die just read up on their history first...
 

JonoMUFC

Member
Aug 25, 2009
1,189
0
36
30
Rangers have stolen £134m and used it to buy players they can't afford to achieve success. Everything they have won in the past 15-20 years has been won using players they bought with taxpayers' money. They haven't paid PAYE since Craig Whyte took over and owe £9m to HMRC as well as the big and small tax cases. They haven't paid for any player they have bought in the past two years or so. Hearts and Dunfermline have been unable to pay their players' wages due to not receiving money from RFC this season. Every club Rangers have knocked out of the Champions League qualifiers using players they did not pay for has had £10m stolen from them. Every club they beat on the way to the 2008 Uefa Cup final has been potentially denied a Uefa cup final spot. Every club who has came runners up to Rangers in the SPL, Scottish Cup and Scottish League Cup over this period has been robbed of a competition win. There is a number of family businesses close to going bust over money owed by RFC.

That's more or less the gist of it. A 12 month transfer embargo is injustice? The SFA are kicking RFC when they are down? Haha

The SFA should've waited til after the derby game to do this.
Im not gonna argue with people who already made up their minds regarding Rangers. I do not judge an entire organisation for the misdealing's of a few stupid and selfish people at the top. Any fan of any club would be horrified to find this out and disgusted that their club must pay for the stupidity of the owner, but oh well it didn't happen to you so wont care.
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
AM67, since you're so against clubs spending outside of their means, I assume you'd have been fine with Celtic going bankrupt in 1994?
 

AM67

Member
Jul 5, 2011
139
0
0
There's £7m debt (that was paid) and then there's not paying taxes and racking up £134m of debt.

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think what rangers have done isn't completely out of order. They can't pay back the money they have spent on success over the past two decades and they never had any intention of doing so
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
There's £7m debt (that was paid) and then there's not paying taxes and racking up £134m of debt.

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think what rangers have done isn't completely out of order. They can't pay back the money they have spent on success over the past two decades and they never had any intention of doing so
With inflation that's more like £20m. Regardless of what you owed, your bank was still sending the receivers in, and you were within 24 hours of bankruptcy. Plus football as a whole has become much more debt funded business (It most certainly isn't just Rangers who overspent), and when you consider Rangers' assets have also risen in that time period, the recoverable % of debt that both creditors could hope to receive is probably quite similar. Regardless, you can't condemn Rangers and justify Celtic for doing the same thing.
 

AM67

Member
Jul 5, 2011
139
0
0
Celtic almost went bust but didn't and all debts were paid.

Rangers decided to stop paying taxes and spent £70m of tax money on players. More recently they have bought players and haven't paid for them and decided not to pay £9m PAYE. They have spent in total £134m that is not theirs and they have broken the law.

Celtic did not do the same thing as Rangers and if we did I would tell you we would deserve to be punished. Can you explain to me why Rangers shouldn't be punished for what they done? Obviously me being a Celtic fan is blinding me as I can't see it at all.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Why do they not apply? You can counter with "I'd like to cut myself to spite them", but they're still relevant.

It also really depresses me that religion polarises football in such an extreme way. Religion or even geography should never get as extreme as it has done in Scotland (and other countries, ofc). Geographical rivalries are in essence there because it's more fun to compete with the people you have personal relationships with. As much as I may dislike City, I'd never want them to go down the ******* - Football for me, and the league, would be so much more bland without that rivalry.
It depresses me also mate, I am no advocate of religious hatred whatsoever.

The reason it doesn't really apply is because for a lot of people it's not really about football (or else I'd completely agree with you on everything you've said about footballing rivalry). Sadly the hatred is deeply imbedded in the culture, and thus is brought into the football clubs (throughout Scotland I might add). You can't really compare the city- united rivalry, its very different.

In reply to alcaraz- I agree with you in the footballing sense, I'd rather see some sort of healthy rangers, to bring in the tv money, and have a few OF games a season, and save the rest of the league. But like we did in the 90's they've got to learn to live within their means, and maybe? a transfer ban is a great way to start that.
 
Last edited:

Kris

Member
Sep 17, 2005
11,006
0
36
32
Celtic almost went bust but didn't and all debts were paid.

Rangers decided to stop paying taxes and spent £70m of tax money on players. More recently they have bought players and haven't paid for them and decided not to pay £9m PAYE. They have spent in total £134m that is not theirs and they have broken the law.

Celtic did not do the same thing as Rangers and if we did I would tell you we would deserve to be punished. Can you explain to me why Rangers shouldn't be punished for what they done? Obviously me being a Celtic fan is blinding me as I can't see it at all.
How about you calm down, read what Joel and Mike are actually saying and you might understand. They are not out to get you or Celtic, neither of them have any affiliation to Scottish football.

Of course Rangers should be punished but looking at the bigger picture, this punishment will most likely have a negative effect for all of us. If Rangers are not competitive then neither is the league. Who is going to want to watch the SPL when Celtic are 20/30 points clear every year? TV audiences dwindle and Sky/ESPN think "Why are we paying for something nobody is watching?" They don't renew the deal and we lose a major source of income.

And before you hit me with the "Celtic's revenue is only 20% reliant on TV money" or whatever the figure might be, but what about the teams who don't get the commercial revenue that you do?, Or the gate receipts?, Shirt sales? Over half of the teams in our league, if not more?

Games against the old firm give teams like Motherwell who only average around 3-4 thousand a week with a good 2-3 more through the gates. If Rangers are sitting 7th in the league, are you really going to pay £25 to go watch your side play them?

When the rest of the SPL starts making cuts and the quality of player lowers even more than it is now and the smaller teams go under, what then?

* * *

Personally I think the decision is a bit ridiculous. The SFA allowed Gretna to spend money they didn’t have and allowed them to cruise their way into the SPL, only for their only source of income Brookes Mileson to take ill and later die. Where was his fit and proper person test? Or Dundee when those Itialian crooks took over and the likes of Speroni, Cannigia, Ravaneli and Bonetti arrived and they ended up with 20m worth of debt. Christ look at my own team, we barely pay our players, release some then sign another :\ Why is it that the SFA always bottle it when punishing Hearts?

Rangers should be punished accordingly but the SFA are a joke, no consistency what so ever. It’s just one thing after another with them. Our chairmen are no better, every fan in Scotland wants a better league system but the clubs only see the $$ signs in keeping the current format. Crossroads much? Perhaps this saga will be the breaking point we need.

Rant over :)
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
Celtic almost went bust but didn't and all debts were paid.

Rangers decided to stop paying taxes and spent £70m of tax money on players. More recently they have bought players and haven't paid for them and decided not to pay £9m PAYE. They have spent in total £134m that is not theirs and they have broken the law.

Celtic did not do the same thing as Rangers and if we did I would tell you we would deserve to be punished. Can you explain to me why Rangers shouldn't be punished for what they done? Obviously me being a Celtic fan is blinding me as I can't see it at all.
Can you tell me where I said Rangers didn't deserve to be punished? I must have forgot about posting that.

How did you not do what Rangers did? You both spent outside your means. You both had the people you owed both call in the administrators on you. They're parallel.
 

AM67

Member
Jul 5, 2011
139
0
0
they have over £70m in unpaid taxes

we didn't even go into administration

not paying taxes is breaking the law how is it anything like the same
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Can you tell me where I said Rangers didn't deserve to be punished? I must have forgot about posting that.

How did you not do what Rangers did? You both spent outside your means. You both had the people you owed both call in the administrators on you. They're parallel.
It was a little different. Celtics situation was as much to do with the Whyte family, and then the Kelly's taking money out of the club (when we were one of the best sides in europe) and then never putting it back in. Rather than in Rangers case a sugar daddy pumping money in, and then his business almost going bust and then not being able to carry on paying the money (as well as not paying taxes).
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Can you tell me where I said Rangers didn't deserve to be punished? I must have forgot about posting that.

How did you not do what Rangers did? You both spent outside your means. You both had the people you owed both call in the administrators on you. They're parallel.
It was a little different. Celtics situation was as much to do with the Whyte family, and then the Kelly's taking money out of the club (when we were one of the best sides in europe) and then never putting it back in. Rather than in Rangers case a sugar daddy pumping money in, and then his business almost going bust and then not being able to carry on paying the money (as well as not paying taxes).

A little bit similar to the two manchester clubs. Although I doubt the Glaziers will destroy United, and I doubt City's owners will run out of money to keep funding City.
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
they have over £70m in unpaid taxes

we didn't even go into administration

not paying taxes is breaking the law how is it anything like the same
You're right, being 24 hours away from bankruptcy is a much better situation.

If you can't afford to pay your tax bill then HMRC have the right to levy your assets against you to pay them, or appoint an administrator to temporarily run the business to give the creditors their money. That is precisely the situation Celtic were under. So your argument is that because you owed a bank and Rangers owe the taxman, you can justify what you did?

Ignorance is bliss.
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
**** it. Rangers are bastards, Celtic are superior in every way and they'll continue to be the most successful club EVAR with or without Rangers.
 

juventus1980

Member
Nov 15, 2011
149
0
0
**** it. Rangers are bastards, Celtic are superior in every way and they'll continue to be the most successful club EVAR with or without Rangers.
I love how you all guys get upset about Rangers and Celtic all the time, even though half of you dont even support them. XD

Of course they're going to hate each other- you all trying to rationalise years of history into a footballing argument isnt going to work.
 

AM67

Member
Jul 5, 2011
139
0
0
im sorry is deciding to break the law to the tune of £70m in order to buy players acceptable now? its not that rangers 'couldnt afford' to pay their tax bill, they chose to avoid tax payments to spend the money on players
 
Top