UCF2008

Maybe so, but replacing players (pending a successful SFA appeal) with unknown quantities in roughly the same wage bracket would be even more costly.

Assuming that a sale of the club can be completed in time, then of course we won't know to what extent immediate cuts will need to be made until the new owner's in place. That said nothing suggested on this thread so far has involved 'escalating' costs

STV are reporting it So far no more than a couple of 2 word quotes to back it up mind you.

Ticketus have confirmed that they're not involved in any of the three bids and expect to launch legal action against Whyte within the next few days

Have to agree on that point and a CVA approach avoiding a Newco with Whyte removed as a hurdle and Miller's financial input in return for a majority shareholding would give the best chance of satisfying both the support and the creditors.

I don't think that there's ANYTHING that can be done about that. It's a lose / lose situation. If we stay in the SPL we'll be the most hated club in Scotland outwith our own support. If we don't, then we'll fight our way back to a decimated SPL only to be blamed for it's demise AND we'll be the most hated club in Scotland. I disagree. I don't feel that we as a club or support have anything to feel ashamed of. We have plenty to be angry and anxious about, but I don't buy into the guilt trip we're being hit with by our rivals and a pandering mhedia one little bit.

One thing that's been striking me as odd about this whole incubator newco thing is that we're transferring the SPL share. Why not come to an agreement with the SPL and SFA to allow the asset transfer but to keep playing with the SPL share still attached to the Oldco? That way we would avoid further sanctions (other than a 10 point deduction if the oldco's still in admin at the start of the season) until which point that a CVA succeeds or fails and the oldco is liquidated or the assets transferred back accross. As it stands, transferring the SPL share and being punished to the full for a 'transfer of SPL share' leaves us with little in the way of incentive to actually attempt a CVA.

Hardly surprising coming from the relegation fodder. Who's being selfish now?

I think it's likely there will be a wage cap with only a couple of exceptions allowed. Possibly that could be phased in though if we manage to cover some of the losses through selling one or two of our more valuable playing assets. Whether the transfer embargo remains or not I wouldn't be surprised to see at least 4 or 5 players leaving in the summer even if we do stay in the SPL. As for the fans, it's hard to say. I think SFL3 would see attendances dwindle to an all time low. If we stay in the SPL then I don't see much change as long as we remain competitive. Also if we're up against it due to points deductions, this might even be an extra incentive for the support.

I'm still not so sure about the 3 year euro ban. The 'incubator' newco is purely to shield the club from possible liquidation due to the length of time required to attempt to achieve a CVA. The club wouldn't be trying to 'avoid paying its debts or obligations' any more than a straight CVA route out of admin. Barring an unlikely successful appeal we're not going to be in Europe next season anyway, so I can't see why UEFA would automatically hit us with a 3 year ban in the event of the Newco being formed. Is it not more likely that they will wait to see if the CVA is successful?

Whyte was presented to us as a turnaround specialist and the support in general took that at face value, despite there being no evidence other than his supposed wealth along with it's proposed distribution on our behalf and the fact he was a self proclaimed 'lifelong Rangers fan' to back up his takeover. This time round we're a whole lot more suspicious and certain elements - in cahoots with well respected and connected businessmen - have no doubt done their fair share of digging and yet had nothing but the 'big bad newco' argument to throw at us.

My opinion of the CW takeover was that time would tell and as much as I'm tempted to feel the same way this time round I think our current situation demands more commitment from the support. Unfortunately I think the newco route has been looking increasingly likely to be the only route out of this mess for some time now. Until I'm given any reasonable evidence to think otherwise then he has my full backing. YES from me

Very interesting read there Ian. I especially liked this bit ... Looks like this guy is a very different type of 'entrepreneur' to CW

Definitely looks like a different guy judging by the photo Zappa Try this one instead... Taken from Bloomberg Businessweek

Football (or soccer as they call it over there) is what could be regarded as a growth industry in the States. Maybe Mr Miller can see some potential in purchasing a brand in the sport which already has a global reach, not to mention 3 of their National squad (including captain) on it's books. As for the resume mentioned in Zappa's post, here's the source - http://www.santafe.edu/about/people/profile/Bill%20Miller

Does the worth of 100,000 season tickets not add up to more than £27m though? Assuming the average season ticket price over the course of the deal was approx £350 then that would possibly explain how Ticketus could already have been repaid around £8m.

No shit sherlock This is the level of mentality of those running (not to mention reporting on) our game. The guy even goes into hypothetical scenarios where it might be possible. Basic arithmetic = out the window. Unbelievable.

You would assume the club's SPL share would remain with the 'oldco' thus giving the SPL & SFA some leverage while avoiding the proposed newco sanctions. What other assets would remain with the oldco in order to satisfy creditors is open for debate. Essentially though, it would take the day to day running of the club along with any future debt out of the hands of the admin.

The way I read it is that would protect the clubs assets and history during what could be a protracted CVA process. During that process, the rangers football club plc would retain the bulk if not all of the debt (or 'toxic assets') and also I would assume the SPL share. If the CVA is successful then a merger would take place to see the club retaining it's SPL share. If not then the share would be transferred to the 'newco'. It all really comes down to the governing body's interpretation of such an asset transfer and continued club operations via two seperate business entities.

1. They all claim to want to exit via a CVA. 2. They all claim to have the best interests of Rangers at heart. 3. They all (as you put it) appear to be playing the 'Hokey Cokey' with their bids to allow the other to get the job done. 4. None of them independently have been able to do so. 5. Combined, they actually WOULD have the vast majority of fans on-side. 6. Combined, they would have the financial and tactical advantage in the negotiations. 7. Is the number of individuals involved in a consortium relevant? 8. I was hoping for 10 reasons. 9. Might get there yet

Assuming that Whyte DID secure the Ticketus deal with his own assets as opposed to the club itself, then Whyte & Ticketus CAN'T be dealt with separately ...at least not withstanding a lengthy court case or two. Then there's the ACTUAL financial state of the club which can only be truly assessed via due diligence ; undetermined SPL/SFA sanctions ; the CVA ; the BTC ; plus whatever the lot of them have in store for the next hurdle. To answer your question - NO

It would appear as though Ticketus are pitting TBK's and Ng against one another in a separate bidding war to get them on side. Best solution to that (and the whole situation in general imo) would be for TBK's and Ng (and Kennedy) to join forces, give Ticketus their final offer which they can like or be lumped in the CVA pot. At the same time obtain certain conditions in the deal (re: compensation for Ticketus losses) required to ensure Whyte will hand over his shareholding. Get the papers signed pending due diligence and tell D&P to go and f**k themselves concerning preferred bidders and exclusivity. Then we'd just have the CVA (and small issue of the BTC) to deal with.

Agreed that any CVA proposal submitted to D&P by the bidders should allow for the outcome of the BTC ruling one way or another. That's not to say that a CVA would be likely to be agreed upon by the creditors beforehand other than to discount or attempt to settle the BTC.

The way I see it, they were always going to be forced to drag their feet due to undetermined factors like the big tax case and the purchase/seizure of Whyte's shareholding. None of the bidders in their right mind(with the possible exception of TBK's) would have purchased the club and exited via a CVA before the outcome of the big tax case.

Thus it would set this date as a deadline for us to exit administration in order to avoid the proposed punishments. Also you can be sure that SPL approval of any newco route would be delayed to the extent that we wouldn't meet said deadline.