Bluedell

Asset stripping, you mean? Even worse. You're correct that I'm making big assumptions but companies are under an obligation to charge a market rate for their services so I doubt that they would take ownership and not charge rent.

I thought Rangers FC owned it, not Rangers International.

So if Rangers FC (previously Sevco) bought the assets then why is Green saying that another company owns it now?

Here we go again about what?

He probably doesn't give a shit but I do. When did the ground get sold and how much was paid for it? I have my doubts that what was said is correct but if it is then there could be issues.

No, it doesn't. The club is the club. It is totally wrong if it has sold the stadium to a holding company. What happens if the holding company decide to sell the club? If it is the case then the club suddenly has to pay rent for using the stadium. Who would this rental income go to? The shareholders as dividends? It's a fucking disgrace if the assets have been stripped out of the club. Would you be happy if Murray had transferred ownership of Ibrox to one of his companies?

WTF? So the club doesn't own Ibrox any more? Surely that can't be right?

That's assuming we would have got promotion every year, which a court would not be able to assume. Plus did we actually make a formal application 10 years ago? I doubt that we did and as such a court could not take that into account either.

So to those who give this rumour the slightest bit of credibility, how is it meant to work? It's a fact that £22m was raised. It's a fact that 65m shares have been issued. Where do the loans fit in? You can't lend money and get ordinary shares in return.

I don't .

Claimed? Is there some doubt as to the amount raised?

I really don't want the club issuing a statement every time it has a commercial dispute with someone. It happens all the time and we should not be reacting just because some of our enemies create a storm.

Marketing guys can come up with whatever stats they want. It's not difficult and they can frame their research to come up with the results that are most favourable to their views. Whether you accept the results depends on how Celtic friendly you want to be. As for Hugh Adam? FFS.

Sad that Celtic's PR lies are being swallowed.

I'd much prefer to be playing in England but think that the OP is slightly flawed. If we were to win the court case then the FA would allow us to join the bottom rung of English football. I'm not sure what that is but it's below level 11. "Below Level 11 the pyramid becomes regional and the cups become accordingly regional. Further down the pyramid is split on a county basis". They could allow us to join at a level 12 or 13. Would we be willing to do that and work our way up over a 12-13 year period? I doubt that. It's far too long and the club would suffer and it's basically a non-starter.

Err, no. Don't have a clue why you think I'm saying that....other than to deflect the point in the post ; So where do you draw the line and what level of expenditure suddenly becomes "tantamount to cheating" or "tainting" the championship win? When we win the league this season, we will have won it fair and square. We don't need to be ashamed that we have more cash because we are a bigger club and have bigger crowds. Perhaps it's not the biggest achievement ever but It's not tainted in any shape or form. As for the original point, I wouldn't count it as 55. The existing 54 is special and let's not devalue it by including league wins at the 4th level of football.

I'm not sure who this "we" is, but I don't recall anyone complaining that the fact that we have less cash is tantamount to cheating. Yes, it is. We did during much of NIAR as well. Are you suggesting that was tainted as well?

Incredible that a question about titles can turn into yet another Ally and Green bashing exercise....

I think that there's a touch of hysteria in the article (and in many views over the past couple of days). I don't see Rangers as an angry club. They are being shut of league reconstruction talks and are correct in reacting to that farce. There are issues with Dundee Utd and have been for the last 4-5 years and that manifested in boycott but it's hardly a major thing. However I do disagree with Green acting like a petulant schoolboy and not sitting in the directors' box. Directors of our club should always act like that and while it is OK to agree with the fans' generally held view of a biycott, it is a totally different issue to refuse to shake the hand of another club's directosrs (if that is what he did) or sit in the directors' box. Our directors should always do that as representatives of the club. It doesn't matter how the directors of other clubs behave. Ours should behave immaculately and not just because it may get favour within the support. As for the Green v Murray issue, the article lacks credibility as it fails to mention even one issue over which they disagree.

So calling my views lunacy isn't slagging off a fellow fan?

On an issue like this where we as a club should be showing a united front? Definitely, Nobody is saying tha you shouldn't question it or disagree with it, but they still should not have gone and given ammo to those who wish to harm our club. Sorry if you feel that's lunacy.

I'd say that ignoring the wishes of the club when they ask you not tpo attend a game says a lot about what kind of fan you are.

What do you mean by that?

Who thinks it's sexy to be obese?

Are you sure? This had nothing to do with oldco and therefore why would it start proceedings? It was newco that has the issue with the players.