ASKED about the impact of the French Revolution 200 years after the guillotine flashed in Paris, Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier, replied: "It is too early to say." This tendency to pause before commenting was a scarce commodity in Scottish football yesterday.
The rush to judgment is, of course, understandable. A Scottish institution that has a significance far beyond the football field stands on the brink of administration, perhaps even insolvency. It is a remarkable story. It is also largely an impenetrable one. To introduce another politician to the debate, no-one, in Churchill's words, is sure whether this is the beginning of the end or just the end of the beginning of a financial crisis.
The Craig Whyte era at Ibrox began with mystery, has now added the chill of anxiety to supporters and has the intrigue of a story with an ending that no-one can predict with any certainty.
This is a tale of one club but Scottish football looks on in some trepidation. Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, was keen to emphasise yesterday that his club would survive no matter what the fall-out from Ibrox. This is a proper stance from the head of a public limited company. However, the national sport risks being embroiled in its own revolution, with guillotines optional.
The Rangers' crisis has two possible roads to run. Both have a significant impact for Scottish football.
If as Whyte insists, administration is the first step on the road to recovery then the consequences for other clubs is as yet undefined. First, how much money do Rangers owe to other clubs in terms of transfer fees? And if there is an outstanding debt, how much would a creditor be entitled to under a company voluntary arrangement. Second, it would also be intriguing if the Rangers "road to recovery" was embarked upon by other clubs facing financial problems. Anyone for a Hearts FC CVA?
There was much debate, too, last night about the impact of a 10-point deduction to Rangers. This would almost certainly hand the Clydesdale Bank Premier League title to Celtic, who are already four points clear, and could have a significance on the second place, reducing the gap to third-placed Motherwell to nine points with the Fir Park side having a game in hand.
This is the normal stuff of football chatter. But it is about as relevant at the moment as what precisely the band was playing when the Titanic went down. There is much, much more at stake than the league trophy.
The CVA route may lead to happier lands but Whyte himself used the word "survival" last night. The threat of insolvency hangs over the club like a razor-sharp guillotine.
Whyte and other sources at Ibrox were bullish about the announcement of the intention to appoint administrators, stating that it would protect the long-term future of the club. In contrast, however, a banking source said that insolvency was a realistic and perhaps unavoidable prospect. A leading politician, Sports Minister Shona Robison, also spoke about supporting moves to "enable the club to stay in business".
This potential insolvency is not just a Doomsday scenario for Rangers but a move that would cause an extraordinary upheaval in the Scottish game. Firstly, it would pose problems in reviving the club. It opens up the prospect of Rangers having to seek re-election to the leagues.
The Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association last night restricted comment last night to stating when penalties would bite and to how the situation was being monitored. This anodyne stance may be criticised but it is surely sensible when information is at a premium and the potential impact is so huge.
The SPL without Rangers, for example, would pose what business people call a "challenging situation" for Neil Doncaster and his team. The biggest source of outside income for the SPL is the television deal with Sky, ESPN and BBC in differing formulas. It is not difficult to see how attractive an SPL without Old Firm matches would be to broadcasters. It would be as difficult to sell as EastEnders featuring a storyline in the style of a Japanese Noh play.
There would be a significant impact, too, on gate money for clubs. This would not be felt just in the revenues from the ordinary punter but, more markedly, in the cash derived from the hospitality market. The visit of Rangers usually involves a substantial travelling support and a rub on hospitality packages.
The biggest turbulence, though, would be created by the removal of a force that produces the crucial dynamic in Scottish football. It is banal to say that every competition needs competition but it makes it no less true.
Much nonsense has been written about the peculiarity of Scotland in that it has only two teams who can win the league. This state of affairs normally prevails across Europe, particularly in Portugal, Spain and now possibly England. The removal of Rangers, even a dramatic reduction in the club's resources, would create a competition gap that another club would need time to fill.
There is also the deep, personal impact on fans who face losing a team they have supported all their lives. There was palpable shock, a sense of loss, in the voices of Rangers supporters last night.
The only certainty as darkness fell on a day that trembled with the hubbub of speculation, recrimination and justification is that February 13 will be remembered as a day when Scottish football changed.
This is a story with finance at its elusive essence. But the bottom line is that its effect will be felt profoundly and widely. And it is far too early to say just how wounding it will be to a club, its fans and to the national sport.
THE FOOTBALL LANDSCAPE Rangers in the spotlight but the national game now faces an uncertain future, writes Hugh MacDonald
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article