Ergatrude

I disagree. You missed my point.... If you had a salary of 40k/pcm you're bills would come close to 40k/pcm. Firstly, after tax how much of that 40k/pcm do you think he see's? If you were paid that per year I think you see about 26k of it after tax (this is a guess), so assuming my guess is correct then he would see 26k/pcm. Take from that a substantial mortgage, insurance, car payments, agents fees, normal expenses, his new baby, blah blah blah carry on. THEN take 75% off of that 26k/pcm.. I think that it doesnt matter what your wage is, you will be living close to the limits (unless ofc you are Bill Gates :fish:) & a 75% wage reduction for our players, though not the end of the world, would require substantial change. It's not fair, imo, to say that just because they are high earners that they should just deal with their shit & take a massive pay cut in their stride. At the end of the day, in their profession these salaries are normal & if they can earn it then fair enough. They command respect for even considering taking a cut, nevermind actually following it through no matter what they are earning or how much the cut. Not everyone would.

I think you answered it yourself there mate. He will probably be on that salary now (Around £3-4k pcm), his bills will surely only be around that mark (I assume) but like he said above he has investments & savings which is where most of the other 6-8k (another assumption) he would normally earn would go. Now he can afford his bills, but not his investments & I assume he will be relying on his savings for baby stuff & luxuries. While this is a significant & admirable sacrifice for the good of the club I do agree with Darthter's point that if any average person took a 75% pay cut it would mean certain homelessness or having to quit. It doesn't take away from the fact of what they have done for our club. They are the people & we are forever in their debt

Very good juancornetto. Very well worded. I'd be interested in his reply.

Pfft, I'd rather not have the 10 points.. we get the points back and they will then say the title isn't tainted.

Oops, never saw the original thread, sorry.

Rangers Football Club may not be in administration because of a legal technicality, it has emerged. A hearing is to be held at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on 19 March to settle the issue. Accountants Duff and Phelps were supposed to have been appointed administrators of Rangers Football Club plc last month. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was not notified, meaning administration was not legally binding. The club returned to the Court of Session on 9 March to ask for a new order, backdated to 14 February, when Lord Hodge had originally granted administration. He has now granted the club an interlocutor - a court order - allowing the matter to be heard in Edinburgh next week. Creditor challenge In the meantime Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps will act as "joint interim managers" of Rangers. An expert in insolvency told BBC Scotland although this was a technicality, it could offer interested parties such as HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) a chance to challenge the way in which the club's affairs have been handled in the past month. It has also emerged that Duff and Phelps are set to challenge the creditor status of finance firm Ticketus. A two-day hearing is set to get under way at the Court of Session on Thursday. Rangers owner Craig Whyte is understood to have mortgaged about £24m of future season ticket sales over a four year period to Ticketus. The finance firm has since been named as a partner in the so-called Blue Knights consortium looking to take over the club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17373292?

I expected more from this thread

Diatribe, now there's a word I don't know. Thank god for google!

I don't mean him I mean the guy from Hutchinson vale school.

Get the guy that was on 'the debate' the other night in to handle our youths. Frankie knows his name, I forgot already

Whyte said he was confident of winning it but that Rangers hardest days were ahead. That's not as positive as Brian Kennedy's comments, imo.

Surely Paypal will transfer all payments made to the incorrect address to the correct account.

Option A may be relevant, but option b makes it manageable either way making us a more attractive purchase than before we went into administration.

I think its option b mate.

Didn't shareholders pay this £100m debt in share issues and the rest was paid by a JJB sports deal? I'm pretty sure, as someone not 'in the know', that he didn't physically walk away from Rangers £100m worse off than when he bought us. "he is willing to help in 'any small way'" - aye please do, keep your nose out. I appreciate the glory years, I understand we had to pay for it some point. Selling to a crook, then remaining silent as our club was driven into a fucking wall, then when we are getting back on track release a statement.. can anyone else smell a P.R stunt?

I like this guy. I may be naive, but he comes across as genuine. He is also the first to say he isn't phased by the big tax case.

Where did the AEG rumour come from?

Punished. I feel punished. Punished for overspending. Punished for trusting. Punished for dignified silence. Punished for being a large club. Punished because we are there to be punished. I know that Rangers will get through this. I also know that we will be punished. Even though others haven't.

In 6 months time they might not be our governing body anymore

I think this suggestion would far more likely get the appropriate planning permission than a SuperCasino. Would it make money in Govan though? I'm sceptical.

I agree, online polls/surveys are great for reaching the masses. They have a tendency to miss the old school bear, the workaholic & the technophobes (which would be a relatively high number). In addition to that it is hard to vet the vast numbers of online submissions to try and weed out all the non-Rangers minded replies.

The question is 'how?' Zappa.

Great read mate. From my point of view, I think we would benefit from some fan input, how we would implement fan input is a major issue. There are so many fans of this club with differing opinions how would we accurately guage their wants & needs. I think it was Zappa who said putting surveys/questionnaires under seats at ibrox on matchdays, which, I suppose could work but would have its flaws. I don't agree with fan ownership though. At the end of the day, we are a football club & football matters but we are also a multi-national business & that requires professionalism & certain expertise. My opinion is fan input is essential, but fan ownership could be catastrophic. Finding a balance is the hard part.

They were quoted last week as saying they are paid 400k pcm.

I didn't even think we had 20 players these days :fish: