Proof that top level football is not always great


Yesterday was not a particularly good day for football.  The Edinburgh cup final was played before a half empty Hampden long before the end and Chelsea’s revival of catenaccio secured the Champions League.  If nothing else the latter proved that football at the very top level is not always great.  Perhaps the reason why truly great teams are so celebrated.

There is an interesting dynamic to Rangers in administration.  Creditors have a cash offer of around £8.5m to consider but eight players, Naismith, Bocanegra, McGregor, David, Whittaker, Goian, Lafferty and Edu cut release clause deals with Duff and Phelps for values greater than this.

Any CVA agreed next month (unlikely though it is) could be paid for by the departure of these players.  Charles Green could potentially be the second person to buy Rangers for only £1.

It is, however, unlikely that other clubs will offer money for these players before a CVA is agreed as they will be available as free agents should the CVA fail and those in control of Ibrox attempt to form a Newco.  Therefore, the chances of creditors getting their hands on any of these transfer fees are limited, no matter what happens to the company.

You can buy a hard copy of the new issue of CQN Magazine via Magcloud here.

The graphic below is just for a flick through, to read the magazine go here to it’s dedicated site.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 22

  1. Yesterday’s fitba wiz mince..


    …anyway, Rankers attitude to creditors,including the paperboy,seems to be,


    “If yez want it,come an’get it if yez think yer hard enuff.”


    ‘Scumbags’ doesn’t cover them.

  2. The players’ agents will be busy selling them around Europe right now. If clubs are interested they will bide their time for the best deal – and no transfer fee also makes for a bigger signing on bonus.



    BTW – isn’t this podium stuff really getting very dull? Surely it’s run its course by now?

  3. Listening to Off the Ball with Cosgrove and Michael Grant. Liquidation is now discussed as inevitable and this always brings a smile to my face. Firstly because we win forever and secondly the media tried to fight off this talk for months.



    Cosgrove made a good point about ‘diddy teams’ and who this will now apply to and Grant referred to the huns being fed up hearing about ‘Moonbeams’.



    Changed days indeed most peculiar mama.

  4. harryhoodsdugbitme on

    Man I need to get a life. I even bought the herald today to hopefully read of their demise. I wont be doing that again. The biggest sports story ever is again largely ignored. Surprise surprise. Will we see them again? Surely life without them is a better, happier and more peaceful place. All the new legislation regarding sectarianism will be tested in July? Or will it? HH.

  5. D&P shaved around 20million from the player asset valuation with these deals, for the sake of saving around 2m in wages.



    The sale of one key player would have covered these salary costs, and I don’t remember reports that any players were up for sale while the russian transfer window was still open in Feb (ironically, I remember media calls to sell our players).



    Didn’t they also knock back an offer for Naismith?

  6. You gotta laugh! hunman fans saying they will boycott away game next season – what, poor old Albion Rovers and the like, how will that impact, gimme a break. And, as if that’s not funny enough they want their players to boycott Scotland games as well How will we all survive. What a loead of idiots they are.


    As for Chelski, what an advert for Anti-football they were. If that is what we aspire to then I don’t fancy CELTIC playing that way in any way shape or form. Boring and uninspiring garbage. Gimme Barca and Celtic any day of the week.


    Off to get the grass cut before QueenLubO belts my ear



    Hail Hail




  7. All the new legislation regarding sectarianism will be tested in July? Or will it?




    Aye,we’ll all be gettin’ huckled for objecting.



  8. Watching Chelsea in last night’s game was like having a bad toothache – a lot of pain. One can easily understand a team of plucky minnows playing this sort of anti-football but you surely expect something a lot better from a team with Chelsea’s resources and backed by one of the wealthiest bond holders in the world.


    I looked at my watch and it was an unbelievable 38 minutes before Bayern Munich’s goalkeeper had to handle the ball. What is a player like Fernando Torres who cost 50m.doing clicking his heels on the substitutes bench, surely he should be back in his native Spain playing real football -, has the lad no ambition?


    God forbid this is the future of football.

  9. harryhoodsdugbitme ‘All the new legislation regarding sectarianism will be tested in July? Or will it? HH.’



    Going by the video of the police ignoring the sectarian singing and vandalism in the toilets at CP I wouldn’t be expecting too many arrests this summer. Unless they’re investigating fellow officers.

  10. Not posted in a while but tin hat on…



    I want RFCia in the spl!



    Not because I would miss the ‘magic’ of the ‘old firm’ games that doesnt enter my thoughts.



    No, the reason is twofold:-



    1 a financially stricken Rankers would render them the level of a dunfermline, easy to beat, the occasional gubbing and give us bragging rights for years nay DECADES to come (what’s not to like) and



    2 the sponsors still buy into the ‘old firm’ bullshit and we don’t lose out financially.



    Keep turning the screw

  11. Doesn’t matter how much history or how big a fan base a club has now


    As witnessed by Chelsea last night and Manchester City last week ,money and lots of it is what secures trophies now

  12. 67Heaven ... I am Neil Lennon..!!..Truth and Justice will always prevail on

    harryhoodsdugbitme on 20 May, 2012 at 15:48 said:



    They need to die before Scottish Football can live

  13. thomthethim CQN (genuine) Badge Wearer on



    From early on in last night’s CL final, I had a strong hunch that Chelsea were going to win; notwithstanding Robben’s penalty miss.



    For all Bayern’s territorial superiority and possession, they never really troubled Chelsea, who never lost their composure or form.



    Contrary to some comments, Chelsea were not a poor team last night.


    Their tactics spoiled the game, but they were good at them.


    With Drogba up front, plus his work for the team all over the park, they had a very potent weapon.



    As someone said earlier, these tactics win cups, but it should make us appreciate the great teams more.



    Paul, a wee question.


    In your heart of hearts, do you really believe thet they are finished, or do you think that the establishment will pull them through?

  14. Paul67 et al



    I must admit I was quite impressed with the clash of colours, and the atmosphere at the start of the Hampden final, but unfortunately for the Hibernian supporters their team did not turn up. Or rather it did turn up. Does show though that there is a potential audience out there, if only the football quality could consistently attract it. As for the Champions League Final, well Bayern could have and should have won it, at no point were they the lesser football team. Of the four semi-finalists Chelsea were the only team not actually challenging for their title, and this allowed them to focus on both the FA Cup and the CL trophy. They were also the least accomplished of those four teams, and at times were given a master class in how football should be played. Had the game went to a replay, as in 1974, Bayern would have won comfortably. Interestingly enough, Kenny Dalglish’s Liverpool beat Chelsea home and away in the EPL and despite a poor first half in the FA Cup final could have won at Wembley. I guess their American owners did not notice that.

  15. Imatim and so is Neil Lennon on 20 May, 2012 at 15:08 said:



    ‘So what satisfactory evidence would you give to the contrary Ernie?’



    That’s not how it works.



    Is someone says Brother Walfrid (or anyone else, it’s a general point) did something for a particular reason it’s up to them to provide evidence to support their claim. You can’t say that the claim should be believed until it’s proved to be false. That’s Alice in Wonderland stuff.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 22