Bluedell

"The match will kick-off at 3pm, and admission to the game is £10 for adults and £5 for concessions. Tickets can be purchased in person at the Rangers Ticket Centre. " They've changed selling them on-line for some reason.

I think he means the 'English' (ie London) Times rather than the Evening Times. ? It was in the Scottish section of the English online version as well.

I guess they're technically correct. The interest was reversed and that was on a point of principle rathe than a calculation error. The further reduction that may or may not happen is on a technical point as to the starting point of the calculation but the calculation itself was probably carried out correctly.

Tickets for this don't appear to be on sale online.

I'm planning to go along to the game. Hopefully there is pay at the gate.

I'd also add that even if they did find any of the others responsible, I don't have any confidence they'd be found guilty in today's Scotland, under the current regime.

I doubt he knew that it would be found taxable. There was just a risk and he offered a percentage of it to make it go away. A common approach, as I'm sure you know.

It always did appear to be orchestrated. None of that is news. If you're just reaching that conclusion then that's fine. Some of us have been living with that realisation for many years. Rangersrab, for example, has been calling out certain politicians, bankers and others for years. I've been through it all. I just don't feel like wasting more mental anguish on it. The time for establishing those guilty of it was earlier this decade. In my totally uninformed opinion, if it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen. They even managed to (deliberately?) cock up the trials of Whyte and D&P. It's now part of the Rangers story and there's little or nothing we can do to change it.

Got a ticket. ?

The SNP and Labour have done well in elections over the years despite being anti-Rangers, so there's no real incentive for anyone to call for it.?

I don't think that would be a good move for Alfie. He'd just be a back-up to Vardy. He needs to move somewhere where he'd be first choice.

Maybe voluntary was the wrong word, but that's probably how the legal system would look at it.

The demand has reduced from £92m to £68m. Still terminal. I don't think that the story is as big as many in our support think it is. The Times has some speculation that it could be reduced further from £68m to £20m, but that's all it is at the moment. It's just speculation from unnamed sources. If it was the Sun or Record that was doing the speculation in this manner, we'd be laughing it out of the water.

The initial demand was issued in 2009 and as the demands are being revised downwards, I don't think time limitations would apply. I doubt that they could increase them at this stage (other than perhaps charge more interest). I reckon there's not any proof. There's too many internet rumours floating around to know what's real and what's not.

Just to clarify that HMRC have dropped the £24m penalty charge and submitted an amended claim for £68.3m. It's not £20m. There are further appeals in place that could see it drop to £20m, but The Times don't give any suggestion as to who it it that thinks that.

I believe that you're correct. 75% of creditors by value must agree for a CVA to proceed.

I read them before posting but wasn't too clear what they meant, ?

Probably, although I 'm not going back to check. There's been too much emotional baggage on this over the years and I don't want to get dragged back into it.

1. The football debts that newco paid were voluntary. They weren't legally due to pay them. 2. Oldco went into administration due to Whyte not paying the PAYE as much as anything else. 3. Our financial position under Whyte meant we couldn't meet the EBT tax charge without the penalties, so at that point, did the additional penalties make that much difference? We can point back to that being the reason for Murray selling to Whyte but Murray wanted to sell his shares anyway and may have done so without the penalties. Nobody can prove anything one way or another. Trying to trace the eventual outcome of administration back to the penalties is legally tenuous and legally remote and it's unlikely anyone would be successful in legal action. Even if there was, would Craig Whyte not be the major shareholder and therefore beneficiary? We may all want to lash out and blame someone but there's no proof that anyone acted illegally or through bad faith, even though we all have our suspicions. What is does prove is that HMRC are confirming that there was no fraudulent or negligent behaviour by the club and HMRC have put that in writing, and it blows up the claims that we "cheated" one and for all. Things are going well for the club. Let's not get distracted by this sideshow which has no relevance to the club right now.

It's oldco news and got no impact on RIFC.

Thanks. Given our luck in Europe, that scenario must be worth a bet.

if we end up with the same points as Porto AND YB, then we're better than Porto, Porto are better than YB and YB are better than us?

If Porto win their 2 games, we beat Feyenoord and lose to YB, will it not come down to goal difference between us, Porto and YB so we could still get knocked out?

If you get 2, and I don't get one then I'd be happy to take your son to the game.

A draw between Porto and YB would mean a draw against Feynoord would see us through.