UCF2008

Yes because they both thought the bids being put forward had next to no chance of persuading HMRC to let it go and figured they could 'save' the club for peanuts at the finish line.

Way I see it that would be Green's problem. Not ours.

Any shortfall with regards to covering losses will likely see half the playing squad lost in transit to newco and attempt to blame the desertion on the players in question.

My reading of the situation is that Green thinks he can bring in the money to subsidise the losses in the form of further investment up to his magical £20m mark. However, we're not going to achieve anywhere near that if we're not in the SPL.

Join the two together and you've got an insurance policy if things go tits up for one of them financially. That's if they were actually serious about investing as opposed to just being a safety net.

...Instead both McColl and Kennedy appeared to value a debt free Rangers at around £6m. Dave King can go on all he likes about Green's profit based business plan. These two guys had the financial clout to blow Greens bid out of the water and yet they didn't because they're no different than Green. To them it had to represent good business or else no deal. So taking that into account, how much do you think THEY would have been willing to 'subsidise' the club.

Interesting that you mention BK. Where did he disappear to?. He said himself that he was willing to throw some money behind the Miller bid in order to get the CVA over the line, in other words make an offer to creditors that would have made it difficult for HMRC to block. Did he not like the idea of working with McColl? Did he have to be THE money man in any partnership? Why could these guys not have got together from square one to save the club? They had more than enough time to do so and for whatever reason didn't. I'll be honest and say that if McColl and Kennedy had joined forces. I wouldn't have cared how much was coming from spare change and how much was being loaned from the banks because at the end of the day they're both good for it. Trouble is that neither, despite being given ample opportunity, really stuck their necks out for the club.

German league pyramid has only quarter that of English. Just think, 6 years and we could be playing in the Bundesliga

OK, so we'll make that a 24 year plan instead then? Personally, I think we'd be better off just going off to our pre-season in Germany and staying there.

I would imagine the SFA and SPL boards have been in discussions over delegation of sanctions with regard to all the charges against us in the event that we get voted back into the SPL and they don't manage to complete the league merger in time.

They could argue that the penalty is due to the conclusion of investigations started during the season. Since the new season hasn't started it's not really that much different to Falkirk being denied entry into the SPL and Motherwell avoiding relegation after the season had concluded in 2003.

Yeah and if we're lucky we could make it from the Combined Counties Football League to the Championship within 10 years.

In my opinion re-entry into the SPL with a points deduction would be the most fair form of punishment. Like I was saying in another thread though, if they want to demote us to the 1st division then they don't need SFL approval. They could give us re-entry to the SPL with a 50pt deduction from last seasons campaign and demote us in place of Dunfermline. The Scottish Cup ban is one that would have been accepted. A number of fans may have boycotted the Scottish Cup out of spite in any case. However, if we're demoted to the 1st division it represents further loss in finance, sponsorship exposure and gives the players another trophy less to play for. The transfer embargo one is just the SFA being pig headed and insisting that one way or another their initial unlawful punishment will stand. What sort of players are we supposed to attract to the 1st division? It might as well be a 2 year embargo ffs.

You might get the odd one. Personally I think that across the board you might be looking at an overall drop in SPL attendance figures of about 2-3% (worst case) if they vote us in, compared to maybe as much as 30-40% if we don't get back in. The opinion polls on the other hand would suggest that it's a lose / lose situation.

Of course they will. Would you really expect any different? Like the statement indicates it's a case of risk assessment. Personally, I think most club's who take such a level headed approach are more likely to vote us back in, but in doing so they'll probably be taking a gamble on the forecasted drop in their own attendances. Opinion polls are one thing, but when it comes down to it, how many fans actually will follow through on their threats and walk away from their own club over this?

If they want to start us in the First Division, the easiest way to get that idiot Longmuir's head round it would be for them to give us re-entry into the SPL but deduct 50pts from last seasons total and relegate us in place of Dunfermline. Let's see him trying to argue with that.

Haven't seen or heard anything to suggest it doesn't. I read a claim in one of the rags that the club has lost one sponsor already, but didn't say which one. The JJB logo is still on the club's website though and having checked recent JJB press releases there's no mention of Rangers at all. Also, seemingly Glenmuir's involvement is limited to sourcing apparel products, which you would assume will be Rangers branded golf related gear. Doesn't sound like that investor is investing much in the way of finance.

Or JJB's at least

I'm still not too sure about the logic in that thinking. I mean, more cooks in the kitchen doesn't necessarily mean the business will be successful. If anything it can have the opposite effect due to in-fighting or they could unanimously make the wrong decisions.

I think Ally's found Green a difficult character to trust from square one. He's been advised by other people in the business who've worked with Green (at least one of whom he does know and trust) and I don't think he's been too impressed with what they've had to say. Then there was the join the dots business connection the press initially made between Green and Whyte which despite probably having no substance, no doubt set the alarm bells ringing. Incidentally, I don't think Ally's alone in having these trust issues with Green. If he was then Green would have the full support of the fans (or at least much closer to it than he currently does) and more tellingly he'd have secured investment from at least some of the Rangers men who now for some reason seem absolutely desperate to wrestle the club from him.

What sort of backing is a football manager supposed to give the owners of a club? Is it not supposed to be the other way round? If the Smith Group take over would you expect a statement from McCoist giving them his full backing or does that just go without saying?

Well said Chris. Here's hoping that our battle worn troops pay heid.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but in our current set of circumstances I think 'No Surrender' is an appropriate slogan.

It wasn't though. Ally's said as much himself.

I think I might have to agree on that one. They appear to be all one and the same being. Green is the mouthpiece and he does have a mouth on him, that much can't be denied.