bluebear54

As far as I'm aware, the administrators now run the Club - not Whyte. So, I think the future of the Club is presently in their hands. Whyte's alleged creditor status would - I think - be key to all of this. I would hope that if he has put nada of his own wonga into this, and has financed the takeover on the back of future season ticket sales, then all bets are off. Forlanssister and Bluedell are much more knowledgable than I am in these areas.

Agreed that Liewell has a very powerful position within the SFA. However, if you were Regan, would you want CW having an influential position in the SFA? I've never shaken hands with the man, but if I did, I would count my fingers afterwards. However, point take about us being marginalised. I don't for one moment see any reason why GS or someone else could have been a representative. The past couple of years have effectively seen a coup d'etat with regards to the SFA and the SPL. They have been very effective at chipping away at the fabric of the governance bodies and ensuring that they have a a major influence. The repercussions are very sinister and we are only now seeing these panning out. Corinthian spirit my arse.

In either scenario of going elsewhere, it would be crucial that we keep the same kind of support that we had yesterday. We would have to play to the "hard done by" card and ask the fans to support us like never before. Either situation is not entirely without merit. We might be forced to finally make Auchehowie come good, regularly producing some hot young guns, bleeding them early, and getting top dollar for them when we move them on. One piece of pure magic would be to leave that bitter twisted lot behind and let them concentrate on their own demise. No matter what happens in the coming months, the need for all the fan groups to unite is paramount. I still see no evidence of that - I may be wrong. Still think we're seeing power struggles and individual agendas being played out.

The plot thickens ...............

With regards to Ally - and I love the guy - our record this year has been woeful, as has the football. We went out of Europe twice to teams that operate on a fraction of our budget. We went out of two Scottish Cups also to teams that operate on a fraction of our budget. One - or even two - occurrences would be questionable, but 4? Also, we threw away a commanding lead in the league - a lead that would have still had us in with a shout of the SPL trophy even post-administration. Somebody tell me otherwise, but this has been a disastrous season and probably one of the worst in living memory. I do think that if it wasn't Ally, the coaching staff would have been out of the door a long time ago.

Kenzie - let's take a possible scenario (which is the latest win-win being bandied about on pond-life forums and by pond-life spokesmen) Rangers are granted permission to stay within the SPL but with punitive sanctions which would essentially dilute their competiveness for five years or so. Surely, in such a scenario, RFC have the option of saying either "Yes - we accept that" or "No way Jose, we'll do something else." In that kind of situation, Rangers could look into all their other options. It might just be my opinion, but I would lose all faith if we allowed CFC, SFA, SPL et al to keep us in the SPL for their financial benefit while ensuring that we are a diluted force. I would rather stick hot needles in my eyes in the 3rd division or at the lowest levels in Englandshire - and ensure we keep capacity crowds.

Don't think so Dutchy. My take is that CW certainly witheld the PAYE and VAT, but I don't think he was forcing the hand of HMRC. He may not have had any choice, financially It would seem that not all resources available to RFC were made available to them. This leads to the question of whether the Ticketus money was already eaten up by funding the takeover. Otherwise, there was £24m in the pot to certainly pay the PAYE and VAT and other outgoings. The administrators were making noises yesterday that if HMRC had wanted us to fold, they would have issued a winding up order, or would have gone for administration already. There are also reports that HMRC are under pressure from the Scottish Government/Scottish Parliament not to put Rangers out of business. As far as I understand it, HMRC only got involved in the administration thing last Monday when they became aware that CW had posted a Notice of Intent at the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh which would have allowed the Club to escape administration by putting together a CVA. HMRC then appealed for an independent administrator to be appointed, and Lord Menzies ruled that Rangers had until 3.30pm to appoint the company of their own choice. So I take it that this was a wee bun fight about who would be appointed as adminsitrators, and HMRC essentially forced CW's hand. Nice to see that you mention "How many SFA articles he's infringed is another matter however." This, I think is key to a lot of things, and I think it's important to draw a line which distinguishes the actions of CW (if his takeover is proved to be illegal or if the SFA are proved to be negligent in their duty) and any actions by RFC.

Thanks FS - I read this too. I've always had the opinion that when we we see blatant arse-covering it's a question of no smoke without fire. I might be way off the mark, but I think there is a house of card scenario here, and we are seeing a LOT of worried people hoping that they don't get dragged in to this.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. I've seen press reports of the SFA investigation, the Strathclyde Police investigation, and I've read rumours of a City of London Police investigation into either him or some of his companies - may be Pritchards. There is also the FSA action against Pritchards. Apart from these, I'm not aware that CW has anything else on his agenda.

There would be , certainly. At the end of the day, it would depend on who was picking up their tab, and if they had any official capacity on the Club. I wouldn't think it would be CW himself, but it may have been one of his other companies, but there again it could have been RFC. A debatable point however is that if CW assumed total control of Rangers following negligence on the part of the SFA, then those lawyers were arguably appointed in thw ake of that negligence. Perhaps a decent QC could have a field day.

The point I'm trying to make here is that perhaps the SFA should be wary of imposing any sanctions on RFC if there are serious grounds to believe that they themselves have been negligent in scrutinising the takeover and the suitability of Craig Whyte. As far as I'm aware, the first time they made us aware of their concerns about CW was December. It would follow therefore that if they had been negligent in these duties, any concerns they now have can be likened to shutting the stable door after they have allowed the horses to bolt. That includes, IMO, any lawyers put in place by Graig Whyte witholding information.

There's been talk of patsies in references to others. I do think that GS has been made a big patsy in all of this. Think he was brought on board to add "Rangers Cred" to the Club structure. I feel sorry for him.

Despite their to moves to cover themselves, if the takeover turns out to be illegal or has broken any rules, the SFA are grossly negligent in their duty. Equally so regarding CW being a fit and proper person. I for one would not want to let them get away with trying to shift the blame onto RFC.

Totally agree Zappa. I never saw this as being a quick fix. But why should it be? There is an opportunity here to start afresh, no matter what level, but we have the chance to do things properly - and well.

Dutchy - as far as I recall, the SFA already announced in December that they were investigating Craig Whyte. They have now, however announced that they are investigating RFC - not specifically Craig Whyte. I'm not aware that they started that investigation into CW, never mind finished it. I'm also not aware that they have made any statement on any outcome. Would this infer that they have an ongoing investigation in to Craig Whyte and now have launched an inquiry into RFC also? They certainly haven't made this clear and that's one thing that intigues me. Historically, the SFA's deliberations and machinations have not filled me with optimism. The point I was making is that that there is a question of gross negligence on the part of the SFA in not having approved Craig Whyte as a fit and proper person at the outset when he was intending to take control of Rangers. The main worry I am expressing is that RFC may be getting stitched up in a time of extreme weakness. At the time that the SFA announced that they were investgating Craig Whyte (December), Ronald Regan was quoted as saying "We have been in dialogue with the club on this matter and in light of today's developments have requested clarification by return. The governing body's articles of association state that office bearers with their football clubs must meet their board's fit and proper criteria. The SFA board reserves the right to make such a judgement after due consideration of all relevant facts. Asked if it was the SFA's duty to check such matters when a person takes over a football club, Regan responded "Every club in Scotland supplies an official return and by supplying that official return they are effectively signing up to the articles of the Scottish FA. The rules and regulations are laid out very clearly as to what is and what isn't allowed as far as company directors are concerned. Given that clubs are changing their directors and people are coming and going every day, it's impossible for the Scottish FA to investigate every single person across every professional club in Scotland. So by signing up to the official return they are binding themselves to the articles of the Association. When anything happens to indicate that a breach of those articles has taken place, that is the point at which the Association gets involved." Makes me wonder why we need an SFA in the first place. I could carry out that role with a staff of between zero and one.

Quote - What are the actual rules? Well, that depends on what day it is. SFA (and SFL) are a farce, and it's really about time we had a proper audit of the lot of them. my opinion says time for a parliamenary inquiry, if not a full blown independent one. Internal SFA and SPL inquiries are laughable in their scope, competence and partiality. At the end of the day, people like you and I are paying the wages for these people, without actually having a voice in how they behave. Times are changing, the time is ripe for change. Let's do something.

With regards to the SFA and the SPL, I don't foresee any lenient bending of the rules as far as we're concerned. Instead, my senses tell me this might end up being a 15 points per season or "out of Europe" solution in the interests of the Corinthian spirit of course. I'm very wary that we are "unprotected" at present with no real possibility of response from our corporate side. We need a response - the SFA statement is one of intent - make no mistake.

Would this imply that the charge for the tickets - period 2011 - 2015 was more or less transferred to Ticketus?

A statement read: "The SPL was at 3.26pm today presented with a contract between Daniel Cousin and Rangers FC dated 17 February 2012, signed by the player and by Paul Clark, the joint administrator of The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration). This says it all. "The SPL was at 3.26pm today ...." What kind of f***wit or jobsworth writes stuff like that? Does it give them some kind of perceived legal/moral authority? All they've done is screw up a player's chance of playing out a few months at a decent wage. Oh - and of course, making things more difficult for Rangers. SHAME on them. SHAME on them all. We'd be better off without them. 50,000 crowds of diehards in the SFL would be a better alternative. A lower league in England or anywhere else would be even better.

Hi Ian - this is what worries me. I try to balance my thoughts by looking at as much evidence as possible. But I seem to come back to the same conclusion. I'd like some thoughts on my comments re:- "We - as a support - however, need to get our act together pronto. CW won't be defending us, there's nobody else within the Club's structural management, and the admin team will not give two hoots about how fairly or not the SFA deal with us. It's outwith their remit."

Thanks FS - we rely on you guys to shine a light. In this area, I'm way over my head. Couple of questions - wht are the dates shown as being 1999, yet CW is the signatory? Second, is that Phil Betts signature there? (last seen galloping into the sunset?)

Now, earlier today, I made a flippant comment about this being an attempt by the SFA to cover arse. After having read this, I'm not too sure now. Having looked, I can see no mention of investigating Whyte - I can only see mention of investigating Rangers. I dearly hope that this is not a Liewell inspired attempt to better his club's chances at our expense. IMO the SFA should be investigating the takeover and what they missed through inadequacy. This, however, stinks of another attempt by Celtic to gain an upper hand - possibly with further long-reaching punishment for the club as a result. Somebody please calm me down, but my spidey senses are tingling. Apart from anything else, I don't think the SFA have the competence to complete a balanced investigation. However, if they want to get dragged into this, then, in my book, bring them on. This whole saga will end up having huge repercussions and the more that fall off the coconut shy, the better. We - as a support - however, need to get our act together pronto. CW won't be defending us, there's nobody else within the Club's structural management, and the admin team will not give two hoots about how fairly or not the SFA deal with us. It's outwith their remit. Think we need to ask questions about the SFA incompetence in vetting CW in the first place. In my book, if they had done their job properly, we wouldn't be in this place. Wouldn't mind a good QC like DF at a time like this.

The Scottish Football Association are to conduct an investigation into Rangers over a "number of potential breaches" of the governing body's articles of association. A statement read: "The Scottish FA can today confirm its intention to conduct a full independent inquiry into the activities of Rangers FC and, specifically, a number of potential breaches of the Scottish FAâ??s Articles of Association. "We are concerned by the developing situation at the club and the new information that has come to light since the appointment of the club administrators, Duff and Phelps. "The chairman and his panel will be briefed by the chief executive, Stewart Regan, next week and will consult further with the administrators, Duff and Phelps, as part of their inquiry. "We have been guaranteed full co-operation by Paul Clark, representing the company. "The Scottish FAâ??s previous efforts in obtaining information relevant to the Fit and Proper Person requirement has been restricted by the club's solicitors' continued failure to share information in a timely or detailed manner. "We now feel there is no option but to undertake an independent inquiry to establish the clear facts and to determine the extent of any possible rules breaches." Stewart Regan, Scottish FA chief executive, added: â??Since we have been unable to receive any detailed information requested in relation to Article 10, we feel we have no option but to appoint an independent committee to investigate a number of concerns we have raised. â??We expect the investigation to be concluded as quickly as possible and will confirm the outcome in due course. We will be making no further comment on the investigation in the meantime. â??Finally, I would like to reiterate the need to learn the lessons from this unedifying episode. It is essential that we work together to improve the overall sustainability and competitiveness of the game in this country. "This is a matter that the Scottish FA is already in discussions with the relevant league bodies to address.â? http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottis...investigation/

Doesn't look good. However, according to the administrators we haven't seen this money - is that correct? After a day of slightly lifted spirits, this and the SFA announcement have me concerned again. Never mind, we don't do walking away, and we don't do losing.

Brilliant quote. We must make sure we don't walk away from anything - including any debts.