What happens next?
Having lodged court papers, Rangers have a minimum of five days and a maximum of 10 to appoint an administrator. During that time, negotiations can be held with creditors, with the main ones being Craig Whyte's company, The Rangers FC Group, and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
HMRC may be owed up to £49m once the tax tribunal delivers its verdict on the club's use of Employee Benefits Trusts. For now, though, Whyte is the secured creditor, having paid off the £18m to Lloyds and transferred that debt to his company. Ticketus are another creditor, having loaned Rangers £24.4m against future season ticket sales, but Whyte insists that this was underwritten by one of his other firms. Hearts and Dundee United are also among the creditors as Rangers still owe transfer fee instalments and ticket money.
And if the club chooses to appoint an administrator?
There will then be a moratorium on Rangers' debts while the administrator attempts to manage the finances. Once the cash flow has been stabilised, he will seek to move the club back out of administration.
That requires a majority of the creditors to vote for a Company Voluntary Arrangement. Essentially, the administrator calculates how much Rangers can pay of their debts, over what time period, and asks the creditors to accept the offer.
Is this likely?
To arrange a CVA, the creditors must return a majority vote on the offer. Every creditor is granted one vote, but the yes vote must equate to 75% of the total debt. So if Rangers owe £80m, then the CVA will only be signed if the value of the debts of the creditors who vote yes is more than £60m.
This means that HMRC could have a significant influence, particularly if the tax bill is substantial. HMRC have shown a marked reluctance to accept CVAs from football clubs, even if it places the teams' existence in peril. This has also been a high-profile tax case at a time when HMRC are under political pressure to crack down on tax evasion, and on the business of football.
How does this affect the team?
If Rangers formally enter administration, then under Scottish Premier League rules they are automatically docked 10 points. If they fail to exit administration before the beginning of next season then they will start that campaign with a further 10 point deduction.
What about the players?
Once in administration, Rangers cannot sign anybody. Daniel Cousin can complete his arrival if the paperwork is processed before administration formally occurs. The administrator will look to reduce costs, and the wage bill will be significant among the outgoings.
Yet it would not make financial sense to offer to terminate the contracts of players who have a resale value, even if they are high earners. The likelihood is that, with such a small first-team squad already, any job cuts will be felt by administration and other non-football staff.
Will the SFA become involved?
Theoretically, the SFA's Judicial Panel can suspend or terminate a club's membership if it goes into administration, but in practice this has never happened. If Rangers are still in administration after the March 31 deadline for teams to submit their accounts for the club licensing process for next season, then the Ibrox side will be unable to play in Europe, even if they qualify from their league placing.
What happens if Rangers fail to persuade their creditors to sign a CVA?
The club would then face being wound up. Yet in this scenario, if Whyte maintains his status as the secured creditor and so be first in line to receive the money his company is owed, he can, in theory, strike a pre-pack agreement with the administrator.
In lieu of his debt, he would take on the club's assets – Ibrox, Murray Park, the staff – and would be free to start a new company, or phoenix club. The new Rangers would have to apply for membership to the SFA and to regain entry to the SPL.
And then what?
Commercially, the Scottish game needs Rangers – many of the sponsorship deals, and the television contract relies on their existence. The SPL may then judge that the new club must be allowed entry, but impose further punishments to dissuade other teams from following the same path.
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