bluebear54

Problem with plans, Zaps, is that - knowing us - there will be zillions out there, and there are also likely to be zillions of personal agendas and visions. Some insane. Some sane. For example, MD is God on FF. With great respect, he has spoken very well recently and I admire him for that. It's obvious that he is totally passionate for the Club - as are many of us. We must however be careful and ensure that the Rangers family craft that subtle division between personal vision and a democratically engendered vision. At extremes, both are dangerous, but the correct synergy is what is needed. The smart plan is to decouple these personal agendas from the overarching agenda of the sustainable future success of Rangers. That sustainable success and future is what the Rangers and we all need. Back to my point of a few days ago about the need for the fangroups to pull together. I would just like to see it being done more democratically. Any selfless, non-agenda driven, democratically-minded, media friendly souls out there?

Not sure Bain will continue his case if CW is out of the picture. I may be wrong, but don't think so. Would hope, however, that he doesn't have intentions of moving his sun bed back to Ibrox.

dB - You're so right. I've been trying to make this point for years. This is a manufactured offensiveness that never existed. As are other offensivenesses that never even offended. They were merely a political vehicle. GA's point about inconsistency is also one that is totally correct - but at the end of the day, it's an argument that we will never win. I do make the point that - while we know that certain words/chants/songs are deemed to be inappropriate - it's totally suicidal for sections of the support to continue with them and therefore sympathise with FS's previous comments. We need to approach this in a much smarter and reasoned manner, but now is not the time - we've got too much on our plate at the present. My opinion is that it's perfectly possible to achieve this, and that it just requires some savvy strategy. Tit for tat attempts at defending ourselves won't work. Didn't work for the Jews under the Third Reich, and it won't work here. One should learn from history. Let's bide our time and work up the solution. It's not that difficult. Knee jerk reactions will not help at all.

I'm in two minds how to take that statement. However, my list of people I trust as regards Rangers has - in the space of a couple of weeks - become a pretty small one. In that case, I tend to doubt the honesty here. Although the comment from Whyte on Ellis is telling.

Thanks FS. Great initiative. My email now sent.

This thing is a little easier to sort out than we imagine. At present - as a Club - we are totally rudderless and powerless. Factum. We need to concentarate on one thing at a time. The first is the continued sustainable existence of the Rangers. Forum talk will not help us one iota with regards to this continuing debate about how we are treated. Let's sort the Club out first. We can therefafter throw our energy into addressing the agreed inequalities about how we are being treated. A position of power and a legitimate (ie non administration) position within the Scottish football heirachy will provide a better forum to take this argument forward. At this time, we should all put our energy in to our immediate problems.

Don't forget the the other parameter which is that Auchenhowie costa a lot to run, and. I don't think it has ever fulfilled it's real economic/player skill potential.

I'm pledging £500 and I'll throw in any proceeds the Club can make out of my ex. Haven't asked her mind you! Would have been more serious if the fan groups had asked for realistic commitments to monthly payments - say in multiples of £10 per month. I do think that a) for the majority, and b) with regards to long term future planning, that concrete commitments of £120 to say £1200 per annum would in the long term be more sustainable and realistic. Furthermore, it's a bit pie in the sky. There's no teeth in this. Do you get a vote? Multiple vote? What kind of governance? What's to stop fans with the best intentions making an arse of it? This is a one off opportunity and one off chance. If this fails, a lot of fans will not back Plan B. At least there should be some kind of policy statement. Just what I think, mind you. Other thought is that this will be hacked big-time by arses with the downfall of our Club at heart. Again just what I think.

From what I read, there were 16 shares. That not right anyone?If the money went into Pritchard's, is that not embezzlement?

Can't agree more Frankie. I want our Club back. Honour above everything.

The place we're in, we need a lot, lot more than that. Besides, he said he would give it immediate consideration. I'm giving Shakira immediate consideration right now, but I don't foresee her knocking on the door anytime soon.

Without being a drama queen, I truly wonder if this whole affair doesn't warrant a public inquiry. There are clear implications for the health of Scottish football.

I'm convinced this is new territory for him. He' never before been faced with his previous lies in such undeniable form.

So - purely speculation of course - who do you think DID know?

And what will the Chairman of SEPA bring to the table? Is he there to make it a watertight case?Wonder how much this is costing? Then I ask why such an unprecedented gathering. I'll bet the role of the SFA in this is not within the remit - nor any consideration of whether the SFA have been negligent in their duty. I think this needs to be investigated at a higher level than the SFA and I think their role in this should be within the remit of that inquiry.

Walter Mitty comes to mind. I'm of the opinion that I will trust the findings and opinion of the administrators as opposed to Craig Whyte's ever-changing version of the truth.

Initial thoughts - if this is all correct - are that it's time for a major bit of revisionism. RFC did not - contrary to popular media opinion - go into administration because of the big tax debt and years of financial mismanagement. It went into administration because CW was allowed to take the Club over and ran it into the ground either due to mismanagement or on purpose. That last point is neither here nor there if the Takeover was made possible by unlawful financial assistance.I note that media haven't picked up on the possible repercussions of the Mail article. The BBC are still concentrating on if the Scottish game needs a strong Rangers. So who is worried this morning? Craig Whyte - I really think the game's up for this guy and hope he gets everything he deserves. I wonder - from other press reports - if he is not also guilty of embezzlement and fraud. Ticketus - I think they will be very worried if they did provide funding prior to the takeover. They would then be knowingly complicit in providing financial assistance. Collyer Bristow - they'll try to dodge this one but I'm sure they knew what was going on. They'll be very worried. David Murray - yet to pan out but what if he was complicit in the Ticketus deal? I seriously hope that in the "all bets are off scenario, he doesn't get the Club back. I'm sure he knew what was going on - but he' man who knows the power of smoke and mirrors. LBG - they may have also known but I'm pretty sure they would have covered their back. SFA - gross negligence in my book, and heads should roll. The matter of compensation should also be addressed. What chances of resignations? SPL - did they have and duties here? That's the first thoughts. If we had the cajones, this should keep some QCs going for some time and it may be that RFC will come out of this much better than appeared a week ago. It won't be easy, and this is all very messy. We really need class leadership - and pronto.

If that's correct FS, surely he's not that stupid?

If this is true - and the Mail would be stuffed if it isn't, then I think Whyte's in deep doodoo. Brings into question the validity of the takeover and the role (or non-role) of the SFA.Is it criminal anyone?

Money for nothing: Whyte used £24m Ticketus deal to pay off bank By John McGarry Last updated at 11:04 PM on 20th February 2012 Craig Whyte sold off four years of Rangers season tickets — one month before he bought the club. The embattled owner flogged the seats to London-based Ticketus to fund his entire takeover last April — four weeks before he persuaded Sir David Murray to sell up for just £1. Sportsmail can reveal Whyte convinced Ticketus to advance him £24.4million on the proviso that he would then buy Rangers. That cash was deposited into a client account with his London-based lawyer Collyer Bristow on April 7. Whyte then showed Murray that balance as evidence he had sufficient funds to give Lloyds Bank the £18m they were owed — one of the key conditions of the sale. He then bought Murray’s 85.3 per cent shareholding for £1 on May 6, paid off Lloyds and used Rangers employees’ personal tax — which should have been handed over to HMRC — to help run the club. Until it ran out and forced administration eight days ago, that is. Had Murray refused to sell to him, Whyte would have returned the money to Ticketus — a gamble he was prepared to take. The latest revelation means that Whyte, who stayed away from the first post-administration game against Kilmarnock on Saturday, effectively bought into the club for nothing before installing himself as the ‘preferred creditor’. It is widely assumed he will never attend another game at Ibrox and there are now questions marks over that ‘preferred creditor’ status. Strathclyde Police are examining files pertaining to Whyte’s nine-month tenure, which were handed to them by former chairman Alastair Johnston. The SFA have also launched a full inquiry into Rangers in a move that was welcomed by manager Ally McCoist at the weekend. The ruling body claim to have been hampered in their efforts to establish if Whyte fulfils the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria. Rangers are now 17 points behind Celtic in the SPL after receiving an automatic 10-point deduction. The Ibrox club plunged into administration last Monday and, three days later, the administrators revealed they had ‘no visibility’ of the Ticketus money in the football club’s account. The announcement came despite Whyte previously insisting that ‘every penny’ of the money had gone into the running of the club. Two weeks ago, the embattled owner also claimed to have sunk £33m of his own money into the club. It emerged that lawyers Collyer Bristow had handed ‘significant information’ which provided ‘some visibility’ on the whereabouts of some of the cash. An £18m payment was made from the account to Lloyds on May 9 — three days after the takeover went through, but it is still unclear where the remaining £6.4m is. Exactly how much of the £6m proceeds from the sale of Nikica Jelavic to Everton landed in the club’s account is also unknown. Last Thursday, joint administrator Paul Clark said: ‘Some of it is deferred. Some of the funds appear to have gone into the club — but we need to go through the detail.’ There is also a question mark over what security Ticketus now hold for their part in the April deal. Were Rangers to be liquidated, the firm would have no obvious means of re-selling the seats they have bought between now and 2015. Financial experts believe it is inconceivable that they would have agreed to advance such a huge sum without a safety net. Whyte’s credibility among the Rangers support is at an all-time low. When news of imminent administration broke last Monday, he initially said he had been left with no alternative due to the so-called ‘big tax bill’ which the embattled owner claimed could cost the club £75m. However, when the application was heard in the Court of Session, that story was exposed as a fallacy. The real reason the club had been forced into administration was down to the fact that £9m in VAT and PAYE had been unpaid. Duff & Phelps believed that this had been used for the day-to-day running of the club. Just a week before administration, Whyte’s evidence was called ‘wholly unreliable’ by a sheriff after a civil case. As players and staff at the 140-year-old club brace themselves for job cuts on Tuesday, the whereabouts of the 41-year-old Motherwell-born businessman were last night unknown. He avoided the Kilmarnock match, claiming he was ‘taking a backwards step’. Here's the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-Ticketus-money-pay-bank.html#ixzz1mxzl4HzQ

I'm surprised not many others can see it. Totally agree - it's worrying.

GA. Been thinking the same. Given the situation this year and given that can't be expected not to take it beyond the limit, best to have no away fans at us and them. I can foresee big problems otherwise. Irrelevant if it's a league decider or not. Just too risky.

We would have healthy crowds because we were on a mission. I dare say a special TV deal to watch us progress. And a much less expensive player pool. And hopefully a means of running our Club (and paying its dues) in a more effective way than present.

Is the larger part not sitting happily with LBG now?