Bluedell

The roads around Glasgow will be a lot safer now that the alky has left

Congratulations to the Queen on her diamond jubilee!

No. It would be ring-fenced. The CVA will be completed (or not as the case may be) well before anyone pays over their ST cash anyway.

What's the real difference between a 6 month ban and a 12 month ban? The summer is the main time for bringing in players and we are hardly likely to be in a position to bring in more players during the winter. if a 12 month ban was so unacceptable I doubt we would be happy enough to accept a 6 month one, unless it cae into affect from 1st September.

Why the RFFF? Is that not beyond their remit?

Did Leggat actually write that article? It's a big improvement on anything else he's written on this subject.

The SFA are meant to be neutral in this, which was surely the whole reason for an "independent" panel but they are showing that they are showing that they are anything but. I predict a 2 year year Scottish Cup ban.

You could be right. There seems to be a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.

The guy is a total loonball. I guess then that the emails could have come from him, particulalry as he may think that they show him in a favourable light.

Don't totally follow/agree with what's being said. £2.4m should be used to fund the CVA, surely. They bring in debentures, but surely they are going to deal with these in the same way as Green? Football creditors - I presume that these will require to be paid by the club going forward under both scenarios so bringing them in again just confuses the issue. My way of looking at it would be the apparent way that D&P are looking at it and not the way WM way. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that Walker Morris are trying to over-complicate the financial situation, although it's difficult to judge from a snapshot email.

Would Whyte leak them to the guy who did the hatchet job on him last year?

So where does it appear in the bid? The issue on running costs is unclear. There is mention of it in the D&P calculation but I presume that the £3.6 deficit (or whatever it was) related to costs to date and was not on-going costs. Basically yes, but then both bids are effectively paying the admin fees out of the CVA.

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?43508-Rangers-administration-questions-as-club-move-toward-creditor-meetings&p=329774#post329774

So you'll start describing the TBK CVA bid as £1.5m?

But it doesn't take away from the fact that Green is putting up £8.5m. I know GS is very pro-TBKs but it isn't help to spin incorrect information.

My take in it is that Smith is speaking on behalf of himself only and not thinking about the implications for the club.

It's not less than 5. It's £8.5m. The creditors then approve how that £8.5m gets allocated.

Had another look at the proposals and would say the following: 1. The Green bid is £8.5m 2. TBK bid is £5m (plus £0.5m for Whyte's shares - unclear whether this goes to the CVA or Whyte so not sure whether to include it) plus some other cash relating to the CL that would need to be ignored at this point. GS, you say that TBKs were paying the fees and trading losses out of their own pockets. I disagree. The important paragraph is So TBK are saying that they want to buy debtors of £3.5m and out of this they will pay the admin's fees. However it appears that at least over £2m of these debtors are being left for the CVA by Green so the impact ends up being the same, does it not? It still seems to me that Green's bid is around £3m better than TBKs.

Can you show how you reach that? I haven't done the sums in detail, so if you've done it, it saves me.

Quotes. Not random phrases. The 20 investors? Was that a lie? He didn't fully explain it initially but it doesn't mean that he wasn't being truthful (depending on what he said). As for the £20m, has that been proved to be a lie? Do we know for sure that there isn't £20m in an account somewhere? Shifting deadlines? C'mon. That happens all the time and D&P have the most control over them. I'm not saying that he hasn't told any lies (i haven't followed it as closely as some) but I'm not aware of anything that he has said that is definitely a lie.

I'd prefer it if it were Regan only. Bringing Lawwell into it just muddies the waters and takes the attention away from Regan.

Have you got quotes of what he has said that are lies?

But make sure that it's the Rangers fans themselves that actually fund the £4.

Fixed that for you

I was referring initially to the previous deal that fell through when Ticketus pulled out. Edit: I'd argue that it was arguably worse than this one, so TBKs don't have a huge moral ground here. I'll remain sceptical on that.