TheWeeBlueDevil

I will wait untill I see it officially announced by the club before I believe it. Would be disappointing to see young players like that walk away now for whatever reason, badly advised, a lack of communication or the lad simply see's an opportunity for himself to earn some kerching. Hopefully just more shit stirring.

"Victories were achieved not by sporting merits, but through slander, conspiracies amongst players and their poaching via third parties, unfair pressuring of referees, who in themselves are as valuable to the fabric of football as the football stars themselves.

"It was interesting to hear that Walter Smith and his party withdrew when they didn't get assurances on some of the things they needed to hear. We need evidence about what Mr Green plans to do." Im confused by that part , King came out of his meeting with Green and said he "was not unhappy" then the next day Walter Smiths party withdrew their bid . Why withdraw their bid if they "never got assurances on some of the things they needed to hear". Surely that would be a reason to stick in, up their bid and try and gain control of the club ? Also seems to contradict King saying he was not unhappy.

This bid scares the shit out of me , I hope Green tells them to take a hike .

Bury Rangers ... sounds like a yahoo facebook joke .

I cant believe a national newspaper would run with this shite story, that looks no more than a facebook joke . The Sun has hit rock bottom with this one .

Sounds like more mischief making .

It was on bbc Reporting Scotland

I don't know what the clubs stance on the issue will be, im not aware of any statement from Mr Green or anyone else at the club to outline if they plan to fight the allegations, if the club are going to challenge this then IMO it's not a good idea to apologize before any verdict is passed. I do agree with you though that there must be stubstance behind it and I do expect that we will be hammered for it. I think we are all now programed to think and expect the worst outcome on every situation .

We have not been found guilty yet , surely any apologies should be giving only if found guilty . King has all but said we are guilty

Taken from VB site , hope it's ok to post this here . The Case For Rangers History Written by Damien Sunday, 17 June 2012 20:27 Ok much has been said online and in people's workplaces about Rangers losing their history due to the formation of a newco. Below I have stated evidence which disproves this myth hopefully once and for all. Now it should be noted that the most vehement pusher's of the 'no history myth' are Celtic fans. Why? Simple, they are bitter. Since their inception they have been jealous of all things Rangers and this gives them the opportunity to right all the wrongs done against them. Poor wee mites. Now what is the basis of their argument? That a newco breaks the timeline of a club. Well the problem here is the distinction between the company that operates the club and the club itself. Rangers indeed have been registered since 1899 as a PLC and again re-registered in 1981. However the actual club was formed in 1872. So according to Celtic fans the years between 1872 and 1899 didn't actually exist and are just a figment of our imagination. So how can we prove that company and club are different? Quite simply by looking at the latest litigation between Rangers and the SFA. Have a look. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html Note the first two sentences: This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. Clearly Lord Glennie finds the distinction between company and club. Newco are now the 'company' that run Rangers Football Club. If this were not the case then the above judicial review would now have been scrapped. This we know is not true as the SFA are still going to decide on it or Charles Green will accept the initial punishment of the transfer embargo. So there we go we now have clear legal evidence that a company and club are separate. Who else should we look to for more evidence? The SPL maybe? Well the SPL are currently investigating Rangers for use of EBT's and dual-contracts with a view to more sanctions. One SPL source has old BBC Scotland that part of the Rangers newco's application for league membership could depend on them taking responsibility for past transgressions. But wait a minute, surely a newco doesn't have 'past transgressions'. Again, it will be an issue that the 'club' did and not the company, therefore history still seems to be playing a part. Even SPL Chief Mr Doncaster admits as much. “You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation”. Note the use of the word's 'football club'. Ok, now we have established that company and club are different what did Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps have to say on this matter. "The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure." - Paul Clark "However, we should make it clear that Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure and the Club survives and will continue playing football at Ibrox." - Paul Clark There are many more quotes from D&P but let's move on. So what about this liquidation malarky, after all this is the main reason for the disappearance of our history isn't it? Well according to Celtic fans it is, however HMRC seem to have a different view. "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox." Now remember what we read above, company and club are seperate entities, HMRC believe this too. And on the subject of liquidation, what do the liquidators have to say? Well appointed liquidators BDO partner Mr Cohen said this: "will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club". Again we are back to the company/club stuff again, anyone seeing a pattern? Clearly we have now established that history belongs with the club and therefore the club no matter who or what company owns it will retain it. But, but..what about... Airdrie? New club didn’t get admitted to SFL. Clydebank was purchased, moved to Airdrie, renamed Airdrie United. Situation completely different. Gretna 2008? This is an entirely new club that just uses the Gretna name, they didn't even lay claim to Gretna's history Third Lanark? Started FORTY years after the demise of the original, surely only a joker would use this as an example, oh wait.... Clydebank(Juniors) - now they are clutching at straws, for a team that's been reformed so many times using this as an example should be ridiculed. These are the only examples that can and are used against the case for Rangers history. Pretty weak, eh? So what of other examples of clubs who have been in a similar situation to Rangers and retained their history? Well three teams stick out, Leeds United, Charlton FC and Middlesborough. All had their companies liquidated and all moved on. Now I suggest anyone who doubts this look up the official websites of these clubs and have a look at the 'History' sections. I think you will find that their histories are indeed intact. Ah but, they are English so that doesn't count. Oh really, liquidation laws applied to Leeds Utd, Charlton FC, Middlesborough and Rangers are the same laws. They apply to both England and Scotland, so no argument there. But wait just a goddamm minute. If one looks far enough back into the Scottish football records like Celtic fans did with ahen, Third Lanark, then we can find the example of Hibernian FC. Now Hibernian FC ceased to exist in 1897, ten years after winning the Scottish Cup and three years after winning Division Two yet these honours still remain on Hibernian's history even though the club wasn't reformed until one year later. How can this be? Could this be why Hibernian fans are keeping schtum in this matter, in case Celtic fans want one of their only two major honours erased? This Hibs example alone proves that the SFA have set a precedent in clubs reforming and keeping their history intact. So there we have it the case has been presented you can make up your own mind. However I will point out that all of the above are facts. Nothing has been made up, it's now up to you to decide, do Rangers retain their history? My answer. Of course we do

Did Walter miss a trick? ..The number of potential investors who looked at acquiring Rangers is not public information. The early advantage held by Paul Murray and the Blue Knights was frittered away. Others came and left for various reasons, most notably Bill Ng citing frustration with the process. Selling a business after a company has become insolvent represents the trickiest balancing act of all advisory tasks, the more so where every action in the drama is subject to public scrutiny and the most significant stakeholder – the fans - has attachment rather than ownership. Throw in a hostile and sensationalist press and it becomes almost impossible. At the last minute, or actually after the last minute, Walter Smith, fronting a consortium including Jim McColl, emerged as a seriously-intended bidder. Did Walter miss a trick in the timing of the expression of interest? Duff and Phelps did not co-ordinate a brilliant selling campaign. Others may have acted differently. In particular: 1.A firm timetable, taking account of insolvency reporting obligations, CVA timetable and requirements of authorities for completion of formalities would have been set and adhered to under simple threat of heading for liquidation if not met by anyone. 2.The Whyte share issue would have been tackled on day 1. 3.The Ticketus agreement would have been torn up on day 1. 4.A pro-forma offer letter stating CVA or liquidation preference, supported by pro-forma proof of funds would have been circulated for completion. 5.Football authorities and tax authorities would have been pro-actively engaged so all potential purchasers were working to the same basis. Maybe they did all that. Who knows? It doesn’t look like they did. Green was able to come late to the party as frontman for Zeus after all other interests had departed, underbid or failed to get their act together. Green cleverly built in the condition that if the CVA failed the sale of assets from Administration to his newco vehicle was binding. Equally, HMRC were clever enough to insert a “liquidator” clause. This was not known publicly until a very late stage due to late publication of minutes of the “creditors meeting by correspondence”. No Creditors Committee was elected at that meeting, so far as I can see. Affairs rumbled on to the CVA meetings. Fans grumbled; press members sensationalised; some journalists remained calm and analytical. HMRC continues to delay publication of the Tier 1 Tribunal result, which did nothing to stop the torrent of as-yet unfounded “cheating” allegations. Fever surrounded the possibility of some late bid. The reality was that the CVA proposal was on the table at a miserably low return to creditors. Now we discover that for three weeks before the CVA meetings Walter’s people had been in discussion with Duff & Phelps. Yet they made no offer until after the meetings. Did Walter miss a trick? Yes – several. Here is my opinion of why. By Green’s admission the CVA proposal was in the hands of the creditors – their vote prevailed On all analyses and advice (my own documented opinion included) the deal in the event of the failure of the CVA proposal was binding. The only glimmer of hope for an acquirer related to the CVA proposal itself. The first trick missed was the opportunity to unseat Green from the CVA process in this manner: Resolve to increase the CVA pot by a material amount.Obtain the support of a creditor to propose a modification to the proposal as tabled.Indicate to the Administrators concern over Green’s ability to fund the acquisition and fund the Club going forward – the Administrators, as Nominee of the CVA, must be reasonably sure of the prospects of success of the CVA or else they should not be proposing it. Indicate to the Administrators the willingness to fund the increased CVA pot (a permitted modification) but also capability to fund the Club going forward for the foreseeable future regardless of SFA and/or SPL sanctions and regardless of diminished season ticket income.Make an offer to Green to accept assignment of his rights under the binding agreement and copy that offer to the Administrators / Nominee. Separatelyand informally confirm that the fan base’sattitude to Walter’speople would greatly enhance the potential success of the CVA in a way which Green’soffer cannot match.Once the CVA proposal had been rejected Duff & Phelps moved to complete the asset sale to newco for two reasons: To get themselves off the hook in circumstances where fees racked up may well be subject to scrutiny and reduction by the liquidator.To let Green and Walter’s people fight out any further transaction free from the shadow of insolvency proceedings.And here’s where the second trick was missed. Once the deal was done, Green’s advisers would be entitled to success fees, and not merely a much lower level of abort fee. Contractually therefore Green’s cost of acquisition increased through the increase of fees to perhaps double or more. Additionally, after the deal was completed, Green could rely upon possession being 9/10ths of the law – he is indisputably in possession and not in a credibility contest. There is now a third trick which I believe Walter and Mr McColl are too astute and experienced to miss but it is the very trick missed by the Blue Knights under Brian Kennedy’s deal leadership. It is this: The value of Rangers assets and the Club is higher than the price paid by Green. Green and Zeus know that. If fans pressure takes Green into financial difficulty, these assets will be sold, make no mistake. Green may protest otherwise but he may not be too bothered if that is the case. What then will protect against a third missed trick? An offer which fairly values the assets, which is not based on the blackmailing assertion of fans support or otherwise, which recognises Zeus’s outlay including the missing of the second trick and a return to Zeus-led shareholders who are mercenary. That’s it. Professor David Kinnon is a chartered accountant and licensed insolvency practitioner who is currently based in the British Virgin Islands. Views expressed are entirely personal.

Could add to that list , will he release a statement on what the clubs position is with regards to the dual contract allegations . Will we fight this tooth and nail .

King said yesterday that he "wasn't unhappy" after the meeting with Green , today Walters team withdraw their bid . That suggest to me that they have now been provided with the "significant information" they had asked for and that they are now happy Rangers are in safe hands. Could be wrong though because nothing is ever as it seems in this sorry saga.

The last pay at the gate match at Ibrox that I can remember was the late great Davie Coopers testimonial, thousands were locked out that night .

I read that somewhere a few days ago, was going to mention it today in another thread but could not find the link to back it up . Maybe you could help me with that

Hibs and Hearts fans marching side by side in Glasgow wearing club colours , Aberdeen fans marching side by side with anybody and the Mhanky hordes giving it all the rebel songs and waving Irish tri colours . Sounds like a nice trouble free fun day

Look at this nonsense http://www.facebook.com/events/193651927427900/ EDIT- Looks like that page has now been closed . It was some idiot attempting to organise a protest march involving supporters from all the other SPL clubs against Rangers getting back in the SPL. They had 300 people saying they would turn up and had another 3000 invited

That could be because he is no pushover.

It's not sanctions im worried about it's the potential loss of titles, and if they cant put sanctions on the newco for this then they will be IMO more likely to punish us by stripping titles.

"A 14-day notice period will be required before the 12 top-flight clubs can meet to discuss whether to allow newco Rangers into the SPL" Dont know why they need 14 days notice but seems they do . Sorry, just noticed Gunslinger and Zappa beat me to it

"Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial." I hope Murray or somebody has some evidence to show in our defence or these vultures WILL start picking at our titles.

Cue the call for titles to be stripped , im getting so tierd of all this bollocks

Have we been liquidated though ...Rangers football club plc will be liquidated in 6-8 weeks time , they no longer own Rangers football club. We were sold before liquidation, thats what I keep telling Timmy anyway.

from C*ltic