stewarty

Fair do's but if it is as he says, he'll show the title deeds to bomber/ the QC. He may be under no obligation to do so but it's a doubt that won't go away until he does. We also need much more detail about the investors and how the board intends to find the club going forward. The "more details in a few weeks" just isn't acceptable when you are asking fans to pay for season tickets. He also needs to get Green on a tighter leash. Green's style seems to rub a number of folk up the wrong way and he also seems to have made some glaring omissions, particularly around the lack of contact with playing staff.

This could be borderline attempted fraud. Especially if bears have already notified the club that they wish their DD's cancelled.

I would accept but would insist on some conditions. 1. No further footballing sanctions can be applied. 2. The financial penalties are suspended until the outcome of the Procurator Fiscal's investigation; and are then reviewed in light of its findings and any potential criminal charges that are brought. 3. Continuity of the club's history is officially recognised by all remaining football authorities.

Agreed. I think everyone is full of mixed emotions at the moment.

What the f*** is going on? Wont anyone tell us?

Implying therefore that the SFA, his employers, have not done enough to protect or assist a member club. Sackable offence?

Worth a few millions. Rumoured to be part of most of the consortia that have supposedly/actually been placing bids.

A glimmer of light in the gloom. But we've been here before.

I think we should know better than to dismiss these things out of hand. If true, we'll find out soon enough.

I would need to watch it again, but I'm fairly sure he was talking of not knowing anything about Green or his backers. In any case, as above, I'm prepared to cut him some slack. And i expect more players to do the same very soon. I don't like saying this, trust me.

Yeah I saw them. Will post a reply tomorrow.

No, but I am increasingly downbeat about our circumstances. We've had 4 months of a shitstorm with little good news to talk of. And there is so much uncertainty still in the air. So who could blame any player wanting to know who and what they are playing for? As Ally said on Saturday, I'd just rather they were up front about things.

Incidentally, these risky future income gambles put is into administration. My view is that Whyte gambled on champions league income to shore things up until he could work an exit. Again, this is just my interpretation of the facts but there are some striking similarities between Whyte & Green and frankly I'm bricking it.

I don't know. Don't think i suggested an opinion on the matter either. I am however extremely sceptical about Green, to the point of mistrust as it happens. I don't believe he has the money to run the club. I believe he gambled on getting season ticket income to fund the club in the short term which would buy him time to bring in more investors. This appears to be unravelling very fast for him. I don't pretend to know if this is wholly accurate, it's just my interpretation of the facts as I see them.

I think most of us would have made a similar decision if faced with the circumstances Rangers are in. You can argue that he could have at least transferred to the newco, if only so that the club can receive a fee for him moving on, but why would he trust Green? Because Green would be the one determining whether or not to accept a bid. Sure there's potential financial benefits for some of the players in terms of signing on fees. Some of them may also get higher wages. But I tend to take what Naisy says at face value. He has always come across as a decent and genuine guy. I'm not happy he is leaving but I can at least accept why he is making his choice.

What little optimism I had over our situation is being sapped away on a daily basis. So many mixed emotions, so little hope.

I expect nothing less from the station that brings on the likes of Paul Brennan from CQN to discuss our ongoing saga, yet only begrudgingl y/ occassionally manages to find someone from our own fanbase to fight our corner.

You can tell Keevins enjoyed writing that. Or am I just becoming embittered about this whole thing?

Happy birthday Zappa!

Sad to see but inevitable really. All of these players took a wage cut to help us out and that will not be forgotten

Sporting integrity is the charge. It is used to beat us across the head. It is used by non Rangers fans throughout the country, and beyond; to justify that we should be punished again and again. And again, for the sins of Murray, Whyte and others. The morality of football is at stake, apparently. But as was articulated in Andy Steel's article, where does morality begin and end? Why pick morality in a sporting context and ignore the financial immorality of other club's choice of sponsors like Wonga.com? Or the immorality in accepting sponsorship from companies who sell alcohol, when those most succeptable to the negative long term effects of such products, are those most likely to be working class and football supporters? The thought hit me today when discussing Rangers plight with a work colleague. It goes thusly: where is the lack of integrity in failing to administer a legally acceptable tax avoidance scheme? Sure the EBT's utilised by Rangers sailed very close to the wind legally, but the crucial point is that they WERE legal at the time. Furthermore, they were fully dislosed on an annual basis within the club's financial statements. What we are charged with, as far as I can tell, is that we have adopted a legally acceptable tax avoidance scheme, but administered it incorrectly. Now, say we had administered the scheme correctly, and that we had no tax liability because of this. Would we still be lacking in sporting integrity? The only difference is in the way we have administered the scheme, remember. I accept that there are moral arguments about the use of such schemes. We need only look at the exposure of Jimmy Carr's use of a similar-looking scheme, to see the public's ire at the means by which those with money, are adept at avoiding tax when those who don't have lots of money, have no means of avoiding it. But lets dispense with the integrity hand-wringing and have an honest debate about the real underlying issues in play: hatred, jealousy and self-interest.

Sporting integrity is the charge. It is used to beat us across the head. It is used by non Rangers fans throughout the country, and beyond; to justify that we should be punished again and again. And again, for the sins of Murray, Whyte and others. The morality of football is at stake, apparently. But as was articulated in Andy Steel's article, where does morality begin and end? Why pick morality in a sporting context and ignore the financial immorality of other club's choice of sponsors like Wonga.com? Or the immorality in accepting sponsorship from companies who sell alcohol, when those most succeptable to the negative long term effects of such products, are those most likely to be working class and football supporters? The thought hit me today when discussing Rangers plight with a work colleague. It goes thusly: where is the lack of integrity in failing to administer a legally acceptable tax avoidance scheme? Sure the EBT's utilised by Rangers sailed very close to the wind legally, but the crucial point is that they WERE legal at the time. Furthermore, they were fully dislosed on an annual basis within the club's financial statements. What we are charged with, as far as I can tell, is that we have adopted a legally acceptable tax avoidance scheme, but administered it incorrectly. Now, say we had administered the scheme correctly, and that we had no tax liability because of this. Would we still be lacking in sporting integrity? The only difference is in the way we have administered the scheme, remember. I accept that there are moral arguments about the use of such schemes. We need only look at the exposure of Jimmy Carr's use of a similar-looking scheme, to see the public's ire at the means by which those with money, are adept at avoiding tax when those who don't have lots of money, have no means of avoiding it. But lets dispense with the integrity hand-wringing and have an honest debate about the real underlying issues in play: hatred, jealousy and self-interest.

Given D&P's conduct, and their numerous contradictory statements since February, I'm inclined to believe te Beeb's stance on this. I'll get my coat

I would presume it is an asset that is transferred to the newco and will continue on existing terms unless the sponsor has an exit clause they wish to exercise.

From the beeb: