UCF2008

I take these 'people who would get involved' wouldn't be capable of providing sufficient funding either or else what's the problem exactly?

If it's done properly, then yes. The trouble with increasing our profile abroad isn't necessarily the difficulty of creating awareness in our brand as much as capitalising on it. For instance we could have issues with TV deals that other big clubs don't. Likewise with merchandising. There are other avenues we could explore of course

One things for sure. For some reason - can't quite put my finger on it - there's something about Mr Green renaming our training facility to McNeil Park that just doesn't quite sit right.

Agreed, but since it is on the agenda it's something that merits debate

Have to disagree with that. It could be argued that we've had a few better players than Cooper - especially those from foreign shores who've hung around for at most a handful of seasons - but dozens? He's up there with the best of them and I would actually include Coisty in that bracket, but then naming our training facility after our current manager does seem a bit crass.

He's aggressive in his play, but no more so than the likes of Black and Broon. He'd also have the latter for breakfast.

I was under the impression that a one year contract with us (money not being an issue) to round off his career is what he's looking for.

Immediate merchandising potential aside, having a household name like Gattuso on board would be a huge bonus in terms of the asian market we're supposedly going to be trying to break into. On the playing side it's a little bit fuzzier. Who's place would he be taking in the team and as much as he'd no doubt be the better option, would it be worth it for just one season?

Should have paid the PAYE in September (as KO indicated we were able to) and then gone into admin. You'd still have been hated for it though.

Is he suggesting here that shareholders should be considered creditors in the CVA? Would that not basically relinquish their shareholding to Sevco when otherwise a successful CVA would see them maintain their shareholding?

Is it not possible that Kings statement is in response to D&P's report and statement of proposals to creditors dated 5 April 2012? Seems to me that most of his statement is relating to the CVA proposal and if anything appears to show a lack of inside knowledge of how the club is to be run and funded moving forward. In fact it's calling for more transparency in that regard.

There's been plenty of debate on this one already since the CVA revealed the 'loan' aspect, but apart from the difference of the fans funding the running of the club as opposed to the purchase itself, what club doesn't use season ticket monies to fund running costs?

Supposedly. I do find it bizarre that Paul Murray's been risking derailing the CVA by calling for D&P to be replaced and now this. Going by DK's statements regarding Green's deal for Whyte's shareholding he's pretty much saying that TBK's deal for the shares was also worthless.

Dave Kings said from square one that he thought liquidation was 'inevitable' and that a CVA route wasn't a feasible solution to the clubs situation. Whether he would have released this statement if TBK's had won is debatable. I find it interesting that given he felt liquidation was the only eventuality, why the nonsense claim to Whyte's shareholding? You know he's lacking support to his claim when he has to resort to Elis to back it up. Also, are the shares (including his existing shareholding) not worthless in the event of liquidation? Then there's his claim over his investment which has now gone from proposed legal proceedings against Murray to a claim against the club. What effect would this have on his (TBC) creditor status in the CVA?

I would hope then that the renaming of Murray Park issue was a last minute decision on some sort of scrap to feed the mhedia with as opposed to the support.

Too late Zappa. Aidan O'Neill QC beat me to it in his response to Lord Glennie's verdict. Not sure that he had a short term ban in mind, but he was gibbering about a suspension affecting our ability to play pre-season friendlies which I think would have been the least of our worries if it was long term.

I hope they see it that way as well, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't impose a short term suspension that would have no effect on the rest of Scottish football - just us.

Completely agree regarding naming the investors. Like I said, that's not what's important at this point in time. I think the troublemakers, spin merchants & press speculation on the Green consortium in terms of those involved and available finance has caused a fair bit of unrest amongst the support. Quotes like those from that DR article don't help either when the outcome of the resulting meeting is a statement that offers anything but reassurance never mind clarity. With regards to renaming Murray Park, I'd agree that Walter and Ally could be just as deserving as those proposed, but I don't see why it has to be named in someones honour. There's enough of that at Ibrox. Why not just call it the Rangers Academy or Rangers Park?

Suspension of our SFA membership would effectively keep the ban in place. I'd like to think that anyone taking over the running of the company from someone with the business skills of Craig Whyte, might be able to improve that turnover.

So it would appear we're getting the short of it then. What about the season tickets Andy?

Considering that that we've had a week of the RFFF talking about 'card's needing to be put on the table' before they would encourage supporters to buy season tickets they could at least have given some mention to that in their statement. Names of investors and amounts of money involved aren't important if releasing that information into the public domain would affect the CVA prospects. However, they went into that meeting seeking clarity on behalf of the support and to come back out with that statement is quite poor really.

I didn't say that the squad size needs cut. I just pointed out that if whatever punishment we're given results in us not being able to sign players then the squad's more likely to reduce than increase in size. As for losing our high earners to balance the books, I think we'll possibly be able to hold on to 2 or 3 of them, but again that's just guesswork. It's easy enough to make assumptions of what needs to be on that front but there are plenty of variables...

Fact of the matter is we don't know whether we'll be able to sign players or not. We won't know if we're allowed until the SFA punishment is decided and we won't know if we're able to until the clubs business structure becomes clearer. At the moment it does look more likely that we'll lose players but even that's not certain. Obviously we don't want the squad size to reduce, but unfortunately that's outwith the clubs control atm.

True, but if the business is run properly then living within our means might not have as big an impact on the field of play as you think

Various things could go against us over the next couple of months that could make your point valid. Until they do though, Europe is still on the agenda.