UCF2008

So the tangible fixed assets are worth £27,991,000? According to the D&P estimate of our financial position at time of insolvency our tangible fixed assets were £113,205,333. I realize the mechanodome can't be worth much, but why is the difference so huge?

Maybe I'm missing something simple, but if the PLC has (or had in 2011) assets = £18,905,000, cash at bank = £10,818,000 and liabilities = £28,075,000 how can the net worth be £29,639,000?

From Bluedell's investigation I gather the one with 37k of credit only still exists to maintain the original name. PLC owns players, the ground and SPL share. The other one gets all income from gate receipts and TV and pays all the wages. According to Bluedell the club is also represented in Europe under this company name so I would assume then that it holds the SFA membership. Even with all that info it's not very easy to decipher which one technically owns 'the club' though.

I think part of the problem there has been statements coming from those at the club in recent weeks have fallen into the trap of admitting guilt without going into specifics. CG and MM have both made no shortage of comments about crimes of the previous owners while our management team have held up their hands and declared we've done wrong and deserve to be punished as they suggest we've been punished enough. Quite probably some quotes have been used out of context as ammunition for the SPL inquisition, but we're not exactly making it difficult for them to twist our words when clubs own website has presented press conferences which are equally damning. We really should have been a lot more concise when commenting on the crime and punishment of our situation

Clearly that's one of the biggest challenges we face here. With a majority of the articles it's obviously agenda driven with the headline already written before the interview even takes place. We're up against it in this regard. That's why I find it difficult to understand why anyone on our side would question informed comment in our defense.

Especially if they're allowed to hog all the headlines uncontested in the mhedia.

At least he was there and is stating an opinion as a witness as opposed to the various muppets who've been mouthing off with nothing but hearsay to back their claims.

Could probably send an email with subject 'Website - Broken link' from the contact page here

While the motivation for Murray to make that statement may be questionable, I don't think there's much to argue with what he's saying. Our current owners may do well to take note and avoid making any further throwaway comments or unnecessary admissions of guilt regarding 'crimes of previous owners'.

Much better. The website has been very poorly looked after over recent months when it's no doubt been getting a lot more hits than usual. At least now pages load properly at first time of asking. I notice that the first-team page still contains all of the contract rebels. Considering our new arrivals have been included and the likes of Davis and Fleck have been removed, I'm not sure if that's an oversight or rather a declaration that the deserters are still considered our property.

Probably because the offer on the table was a good bit less than the 'insulting' one he turned down from us in January.

You're probably right. They could postpone the start of the season like the Turks did last year due to the match fixing scandal

Just like I was arguing when all this bullshit started about the SFA membership being dependent on a agreement from all parties including the SPL. Try telling that to the bheeb & their mhedia cronies though.

This wouldn't have been required with a successful CVA though would it? And yes, that is a rhetorical question mate.

As much as we're all for giving our new friends in the SFL the benefit of the doubt with some declaring them the victims of this fiasco while others stick them on a pedestal as champions of sporting integrity, the fact of the matter is that everyone's in it for themselves. The SFL and it's member clubs saw the opportunity to steal the cash cow by denying us entry to Div1 and seized it. The SPL were stupid enough to give them that opportunity because they were so arrogant as to believe that the SFL would do their bidding. The SPL's now throwing it's weight around in every way it possibly can to rectify the situation and protect itself from financial meltdown. The truth is nobody cares about Rangers except Rangers. Everyone else only cares about the money.

Not normally, but in this case he'd be telling the truth whether the player stays or goes, unless of course we haven't offered a contract extension.

I don't think it's all down to suspected connections with Whyte or Murray or indeed that we suspect our new owners will cause the club harm in similar fashion. I think a lot of the suspicion comes from the fact that we simply don't know who our owners are. We were promised complete transparency by Green and so far that's not been forthcoming. The fans want to know who owns what percentage and who's running the show, because it sure isn't Charles Green. Obviously, where you work or at least plan to work to a model where there is no majority shareholder, these type of issues are going to exist. The trouble is that at the moment without clarification on the issues, we're being left to make assumptions. From looking at the board it would seem that we DO have a majority shareholder in Zeus Capital. Is that going to change? Who's giving up shares for the flotation?

His agent is quoted today as saying we've offered to extend Goian's contract to 2016 and wouldn't stand in the players way if a good offer comes in for him.

I'd need to read back over it to confirm that and don't have their proposal at hand right now mate. Since we both seem to be agreeing about the CVA though, if it wasn't newco, what was their plan B?

On that front though, Kennedy & TBK's were proposing a CVA that offered even less and despite the fact they had a newco solution in their proposal they claimed the CVA was all they were interested in. During their press conference, Kennedy was making noises about getting the best football CVA specialists in the country on board who supposedly felt we had a really good chance. However, if you take into account the fact that Kennedy himself had admitted to approaching Bill Miller with a proposal of adding some finance to make the CVA achievable, then the numbers really don't add up. Personally, I think every single one of them knew that a CVA would be a long shot unless there was a LOT more return being offered to the creditors.

At least that might decide our opposition for a couple of pre-season friendlies along the way.

Four years from now this group of players could have the unprecedented claim to having played and beaten every Scottish league side. Quite possibly they could add every winners medal in Scottish football to their career tally. You've got to admit, all our troubles aside, that actually does make us an attractive proposition.

I do get the impression that a fair number fans are anti-Green and if you combine those with the large portion of the support who continue to sit on the fence, remaining unconvinced that Green and his consortium are the right men for the job, then you possibly do still have a majority. Had he been successful in buying the club, especially in partnership with TBK's, Kennedy wouldn't have had this problem. If Kennedy were to be welcomed on board at this point in time, I think it probably would go a long way to getting the support on side. The two main obstacles to that are the majority shareholding Kennedy's after and the issue of whether Kennedy and Green would be able to work with one another.

That would be on the assumption that Green is pulling the strings of all the current shareholders should he be actually prepared to make a 50% shareholding available to the fans as he's said he will.

That's the point though, throughout the whole drawn out bidding process, there was more than sufficient opportunity for all these jokers to get a deal done. Instead, they pissed about with low bids that didn't stand a chance of getting PB status nevermind give HMRC food for thought with regards to the CVA. Now they're all still hanging around taking it in turns to put in yet more insufficient bids to take over the club and dividing the support in the process. Has it not yet occurred to this mob that were they to join forces they might be able to obtain close enough to a 50% shareholding that the remainder required to gain a combined controlling interest would be achievable at time of flotation.