UCF2008

I get what you're saying, but it's purely a transfer ban that doesn't apply to our existing over 18's. A newco scenario is still a bit of a grey area on that one, but as far as I can see the SFA actually do have the right to apply such a ruling and our best bet is going to be to take it up with FIFA in the hope that they can manage to make a decision in time for the Jan transfer window.

It's even more disconcerting however if we have 5 or 6 involved with some expected to drop interest if we lose out on the CVA. In that case could you even call it a consortium? ...and what about the max 15% shareholding?

If we already had transfers lined up (for instance pre-contract agreements) before the ban was put in place then I would agree.

Of course, if that's the case then it's not exactly comforting that we have an £8.5m CVA pot with (supposedly) 20 contributors involved which would then drop to 5/6 if it's not accepted.

The issue there is that it's outwith UEFA jurisdiction, but not the SFA.

Is it possible that the numbers involved are dependent on a successful CVA? Can't remember if it was in the media conference or subsequent interviews, but Green did say that a number of consortium members would pull out in the event of a newco.

The way things are going Gribz I don't think we're going to be in any position to pick and choose.

I hope you mean re-sign. Otherwise we could have an even bigger problem

Trouble is that we can leave debt's behind via a newco. We can even leave certain unwanted contracts behind. We don't however have full power over the situation - as the SPL are going out of their way to prove. Div3 is no escape either as this is an SFA ruling.

The more I think about this the more the uncertainties mount up. Is this another get out of jail free card for a newco or would the ban carry across along with the rest - ie our history, titles won, etc? If the ban carried across then yes, we would be left with an under 18' s squad and the only hope of holding onto any existing senior players would be to ship them out on loan for a season ...or resign our SFA membership ...now there's a thought

Players who are currently registered can have their 'existing' contracts extended. There's no mention of a newco at all. According to the PFA the players would have freedom of contract in the event of a newco and meanwhile this ruling prevents us from signing ANY players (over 18) - including free agents.

The way I see it, the players will wait until the beginning of July and assess the situation at that point. Assuming that Whyte's shareholding has been transferred, we've achieved a CVA, they like what the new owners have to say and they've been paid their full salary as per the agreement for their contracts reverting back to normal on June 1st, I don't think any will be wanting to leave. Anything other than these outcomes and the players are going to have decisions to make. That said, it also probably depends on what sort of opportunity their agents are able to present to them.

At the end of the day what we're discussing here is purely speculation. While in my opinion Kennedy's 'best' lawyers in the land for this type of scenario may have given us a better chance, the fact is that (at least for the meantime) we're left with D&P to present our case. All we can hope for is that they're successful.

Even though I've backed Ally's ability to become a great manager from the start, I've been quite frankly amazed by his performance this season. To take on the role he did at that point in time was something that even WS has said he wouldn't have advised - purely due to circumstances. The way events have transpired I don't think ANY manager (WS included) would have performed better. In fact I think all other managers we've had in the past 20 years would have struggled with results alone never mind the rest of it. 2nd spot would have actually have been seen as a major achievement had it been one or two of the others. Let's give Ally the credit and backing he's due. In fact, to add to that ...how the fcuk TLB (complete with multiple counts of bringing the game into disrepute) got MOTY and Ally didn't even get a look in is THE MOST DAMNING EXAMPLE of the state of our national sport. ...AND yet another example of why Ally deserves our continued backing

TBH, I think this is probably the type of strategy that any biidder would have been advised to take. You can even see from TBK's written bid that a newco WAS involved. Trouble is how said bid is presented. You might be able to explain x amount of the bid hinging on a successful CVA, but I have a feeling that HMRC (and a lot of OTHERS) won't take too kindly to an all or nothing proposal.

I hardly think that accurate is how I would describe the document Zappa, but at least the half truths in our defence do add up. As for the findings (not to mention the justice of it all) well that's another story entirely...

I think SDM is quite clearly still to this day gagged by LBG, as were the Rangers board at the time of LBG 'running the show' looking back to AJ's continual contradictions of WS on the matter. With that in mind I think it would go without saying that SDM's ego is likely to also be playing a big part in his take on events.

Agreed, we should accept no less than our valuations for players we want to keep.

"He used to give me roses, I wish he could again; But that was on the outside, And things were different then. We'd built our world together, With a love so clear and strong; But that was on the outside. Where did i go wrong?"

I agree that the RST has always been clear on what it's agenda is. Please, can you tell me why exactly the RST supported a bid from square one that had insufficient financial backing along with a declared intention to reinstate the old board?

I'm no fan of the RST. I have never appreciated their arrogant stance that they speak for our support as a whole I believe their actions for the most part to be with the cub at heart, but that doesn't get away from the fact that they have consistently been most vocal when our club comes under threat and from the media coverage and opportunism that ensues. Despite their good intentions, in general the RST have been nothing but a PR nightmare for the club, as far I'm concerned The interference of the RST throughout the bidding process by pledging allegiance to one bidder while attempting to discredit others has hindered our clubs chances of survival. The most recent attack on an 'unwelcome' bidder is disgraceful, although I wouldn't be too quick to put ALL of the blame on the RST for that one. We need to realise that we do have a division in opinion amongst our support on a variety of issues and have had for some time. HOWEVER, if ever there was a time for unity this is it.

That article as whole, at least as far as those littered with quotes from D&F, has got the most WTF quality about it we've been hit with yet. So, we've now got four bidders - one of which is BK. The other bids are from Bill Ng, one from a mystery middle east consortium and the other from the UK consortium. 2 of the bids are at least associated with 'known names in both football and also within the Scottish community' who would bring about a 'crescendo of interest and support'. Three of the four bidders are in the hands of lawyers - They're at an advanced stage, but so are two of the others ...So now there's five???? AND YET WE AWAIT AN UPDATE FROM BRIAN KENNEDY ON HIS POSITION despite the fact that all three (yes three) of the bids we had yesterday were acceptable. I smell fish

Agreed. My point is that we shouldn't be increasing costs, but that we need to be mindful of what we would be losing. If we extend the contracts of Aluko, Little & possibly Kerkar - Aluko is the priority here IMO - then I would expect that to be achieved for a small to reasonable saving in wages considering that we'd be offloading Papac and Healy. Then if, for instance, we put Lafferty up for sale we could bring in an additional £1-1.5m while reducing the wage bill by a further £1m+ p.a. End result is that the squad size would be slightly reduced, but no fire sale and 2 or 3 players retained. Like I say, it's all about whether the new owner wants to remain competitive.

Really? Because that's the exact excuse they used for not making the cuts that some folks on here are adamant that they should have made from square one. Don't get me wrong - If they're left with no choice then those cuts will have to be made, but even PM was harping on about how costly it would be to repair that damage a couple of weeks back.

That's assuming that we'll be playing a youth team next season, which tbh I'd happily accept as much as the next bear if it's our only means of survival. We've been pre-warned though, by men who's opinion I hold in higher regard on these matters than any on here or any forum, what that could lead to. If a buyer wants to remain competitive in the short term then the cuts need to be measured very carefully. If all we're left with is a long term plan of survival then I get your point, but the fact is that we just don't know.