Bluedell

There is no way we should accept a temporary licence. They either give us a full one or they don't. It would only be done for the purposes of TV and therefore they can screw themselves and Sky can see what a state the organisation of Scottish football is in.

No. There isn't really anything more to say about it.

Why would you want the British football team to do well? It's not the fault of the team or the selector that the Irish FA and SFA are small minded and tried to prevent the Scots and Northern irish to play. Are you really going to allow the actions of a corrupt SFA to dictate whether you support the team GB football team? Shame on you!

Kenneth Nisbet Mure who attended Glasgow High School in the late 50s/early 60s. Surely he's one of us?

Nothing. The sale never went through due to the collapse of the cva.

No it wasn't. It was a purchase. The TBKs was exactly the same model.

It's strange that he thinks it's OK for him to buy shares but then it can only be Rangers fans who buy them in the future. Do as I say and not as I do? THe shares will then be sold to Rangers people at no profit, but presumably they could then sell them on at a profit? A strange way to set something up. I'm intrigued by the fact that he thinks we are in a mess. What would he have done differently over the past month or so?

FWIW, I've heard the same thing.

I fail to see how it safeguards us, and it's so terrible a deal that it will never be accepted. It's an irrelevence. The 2 things it does do is that it disrupts the club and damages Kennedy's credibility, neither of which are positive.

There is less of a risk for a credit card company if you are selling something tangible. You go into your corner shop and buy a bottle of wine and walk out with. The transaction is complete and there is little risk of the credit card company receiving a complaint. You walk into a travel agent, for example, and buy a holiday that you are going to take in 6 months time then there is massive risk for the credit card company. The tour operator goes under and the credit card company has to refund the amount paid to the client. Rangers are looked upon similarly to the tour operator whereby they are not fulfilling the services that they are providing for another 9 months and therefore there is a big risk to the credit card companies and they will require guarantees, and even then may not be happy with the risk. An example I think I've given before was where I was willing to put a cash deposit to cover 100% of my turnover and the credit card company were still unhappy. It's just the nature of the beast these days.

Given Kennedy doesn't have the cash to buy the shares and provide working capital then it doesn't bode well. As for the "genius" description, someone is obviously in a trolling mood tonight.

We'll need to disagree on that. Questions can be asked in a neutral manner or can be asked in a negative manner and that article is the latter, in my opinion. Why ask where the £30m has gone? It has been explained that the initial use of that was in relation to a successful CVA. There are other examples where issues have been explained but he is ignoring the answers and continuing to ask the questions as if they have not been answered. Why ask if Ally knows the role of Stretford? is there any suggestion that he wouldn't know his role? Of course Ally has yet to be told his wages budget. Sanctions have yet to be finalised so how can you give him a budget? The assertion that Green lacks credibility with a majority of the fans whereas Kennedy is popular is hardly factual and hardly neutral. That is not put by someone someone who is concerned. That is someone who is anti.

Oldco would be due the cash back.

I thought that the bid was £5.6m plus 10% interest. Where does the £12m come from?

That article is far from balanced. A number of the issues he raises have already been explained and a few question he asks are pure supposition that the answers are not already known. He has been going towards anti-Green for a while but he has really come out of the closet with that article.

I would suggest that you don't understand their reasoning either. They want control, and they want it as cheaply as possible. They don't care about Green one way or the other. They put out scare stories to try and get the fans on their side to put pressure on Green's guys to sell. There could be someone in charge of the club that they trust and they still wouldn't be interested in sticking in a lump sum for 15%.

It had gone downhill since Ewen left. DJ and Roughie are too similar, plus there was too much irrelevant stuff on it. Still, it's a shame that it's going given what we are left with.

The "famine song" was sung about by Scottish people to Scotttish people so what did we have to fear? We even had that great property lawyer, Donald Findlay, to support the viewpoint. A court decided that Rangers fans were being racist and anti_Irish. It wasn't a kangaroo court and it wasn't Mickey Mouse defending but our viewpoint was ignored and the court reached what seems to me as a ridiculous decision.

Why is Kennedy more trustworthy? It seems that the level of trustworthiness varies depending on the amount that you are willing to entertain the RST.

£6.16m for a controlling interest in the club and you won't get your cash for 2 years? 1. It's a crap offer....probably worse than some of the offers that have been rejected. It will never get accepted. 2. Kennedy obviously has no cash to invest in the club. It looks as if he is using the club to pay the profit to Green's investors. I fail to see how anyone can welcome this as positive. It looks as if it's no better than the status quo in the best case, and we may be worse off.

Sorry but that's still more naivity. Even if Murray is truthful they will still probably find us guilty as the payments were made. They are not looking for the existence of a bit of paper. They are not looking to see if the rules were broken. Legal recourse? They are trying to take that away from us well. This is got nothing to do with morality. We are not "facing the music". There is no chance of us receiving a fair hearing and there is no chance of us getting a fair punishment. We are trying to escape from a kangaroo court.

Sorry but this is one of the most naive things I have seen in a while. The answer is NOT going to be as clear cut as you suggest. It is not a case of us either being clearly guilty or clearly innocent. There will be a massive grey area and it is already proven that we will not get a fair hearing, given the appellate organisation has already been discussing our punishments, and we have seen the way that they are blackmailing us to accept a previous illegal punishment. They came up with a punishment that no other club that has gone into administration has faced. It doesn't matter if we were operating within the rules. They are working towards finding us guilty anyway and this is a way of preventing it.

Let's face it, you'd be complaining if Green was kicking Regan up the arse.

So you are also ignoring the fact that most of the information has been disclosed?

"The transfer ban has been strongly resisted by me, the management team, the Directors and supporters." I guess that will be ignored by a lot of those with an anti-Green agenda?