Bluedell

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.

Yeah, looks like we will still owe them the £1.6m post CVA.

yeah, it's nice to see that there's an incentive to avoid a newco, although as has been poiinted out, HMRC may make a non-financial decision.

I haven't gone through either bid in detail, and am happy to be corrected. It's the amount in the pot that's what's most important to the administrators and not how it's funded. Playing devil's advocate, what's different between this and TBK's plan of getting Ticketus to finance the deal? Also, we don't know for sure if TBKs had a similar scheme to get their cash back with their latest proposal. There may have been some element of repayment factored into their planned share issue.

Is that not what the Green bid is doing as well?

That's always a possibility and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Does the CVA not realise around £2m more than TBKs?

Schedule 4 sets out it quite clearly. Estimated Funds Available for Unsecured Creditors CVA 4,967,284 Newco 953,284 Liquidation Nil Who would vote against a CVA?

I've been looking at it for only a few minutes and I've found mistakes.

I haven't seen the details of TBK bid and therefore can't comment. However wasn't TBK bid meant to be paid up over a period of time and partly subject to some future events? Were TBK able to offer proof of funding, both for the CVA and going forward? There can be lots of reasons why the "headline" figure may not appear to be as good but when it's broken down it is a better deal for creditors. Not saying that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Yes, the £5.5m goes into the pot for the creditors of oldco. Not sure about the fee question.

The RFFF badges are now available to buy over the Internet. Buy one and support the Fund which has performed vital work providing a safety net for the club during the administration process. Buy online - www.rangersfansfightingfund.com Registered supporters clubs can order badges for their members and be invoiced for them later. Please email FightingFundBadges@hotmail.com for details.

Surely they have had their chance?

I can't listen to the clip but if the CVA fails then it's a newco and the assets get transferred to the newco, presumably for the £5.5m.

No. I don't believe I said that. I basically don't know what should be done and was asking a question. We all want to avoid a newco. We all want to avoid another Whyte situation. There's a fine line whereby ensuring the latter could bring on the former. I haven't heard the rumours (unlike the Whyte situation) other than what's been on here and can't judge how genuine the rumours are and how much of a fuss we should be making. Hopefully those who are more in the know can guide us.

Perhaps it's just terminology. Yes, everyone should be asking valid questions but I'd say that there's a difference between that and "crying out blue murder". These people are not emotionally involved (yet). It's just a business opportunity and while asking valid questions will not be an issue, demanding full answers or threatening season ticket boycotts (for example - not saying you were suggesting that) may result in them deciding that the risk is not worth it, in which case newco beckons. People who are genuine walk away from deals for all sorts of reasons all the time.

And risk possibly our only chance of avoiding a newco? Really? Genuine question.

There are a lot of nudge, nudge, wink, wink warnings about Green, most of which may appear to be coming from camps which have not been successful. I guess that there is a feeling of frustration as it's difficult to decipher what's going on as nobody is coming out and saying precisely what the issues are (apart from Leggat - Dalglish, Low).

No, but I'm not making any claims about whether the action will be adequate or not. Wow. That's some claim. You have an opinion on ALL self-regulatory bodies? I've seen plenty of examples where adequate action is taken. I've seen some where the action taken is over the top. My experience is that they are like everything else. A few not up to it but mostly good., but I couldn't claim to have an opinion on them all.

I hardly think so. So basically you don't know what evidence will be laid before them and you don't know what rules have been broken but you still believe that the action taken against them will be inadequate? Very Leggatesque.

No you said that it was unlikely to take action. If it find something and doesn't take action, as you suggested then how can it not be a cover-up? What specific rules should they be found guilty of breaking?

You did when you said it would be highly unlikely to take action against their own.

The suggestion that professional self-regulatory bodies are highly likely to cover up for a (relatively small) member and put the reputaton of the body at risk is not realistic.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I think that the whole crux of the case. If they have evidence then we're stuffed. If they don't then we could win. It probably doesn't need to be a contract, but a letter or email could be used against us.