Bluedell

No it's the granting of it that needs to be discretionary. If you can't do that then all else fails.

The argument is not just as simple as is it a loan or not. There is also the discretionary element of it which your scheme doesn't address plus some other issues. There are also tax issues in respect of loans. A demand for repayment isn't proof that it was a loan. Do the trustees have the ability to demand repayment anyway, or is at the recipient's discretion? I'm not sure about that point.

There's a number of problems with that. 1. If we are guilty of tax avoidance with the EBTs, calling in the loans doesn't take away from the fact that tax wasn't paid at the time. It would not stop the BTC. 2. The scheme would be seen prima facie evidence that the loans were linked to the club and were not discretionary given the amounts would match. 3. The players may not (probably would not) agree to it. Are we (or the trustees) going to start taking our ex-players to court to get repayment? 4. It's the trustees that can ask for the loans to be repaid, not the club. He did. Not sure if I understand? is this in conjunction with the loan repayment scheme? If the BTC didn't exist then there would be no problem in getting rid of the shares. If it does exist the support would not touch a share issue.

When did they deny it?

Surely there was never any doubt that D&P knew about the Ticketus deal?

We don't need players who go out to deliberately injure the opposition at our club.

AJ's problem may have been that he didn't have any firm evidence about Whyte. He would not have known about the Ticketus deal, which was key to discovering what Whyte was up to, and therefore everything was conjecture.

We will need to progress as far as we can in the Scottish Cup. No matter who buys us, we will still be short of cash and will not be in a position to boycott any cup competitions. The commercial realities are such that Division 3 would also not be a voluntary option for a new owner. Every penny still counts going forward.

That bit is wrong. He can still be considered the floating charge holder and not be on the list of creditors.

Don't think so. I've reopened it. We have had a few instances in the past of threads randomly closing and this may fall into the same category.

The big tax case?

Can't blame anyone for thinking like that. I'm very sceptical too, but Green seemed fairly positive. Surely someone has to tell us the truth at some point.

If the CVA papers are issued on Fridaty and everything is completed within the 6 week period then we can get out of administration by the 4th August deadline.

A decision must be given by creditors within 14 days. I believe that the administrators are obliged to leave it open for the full 14 days to allow all the opportunity to respond, even though there are only 2 that are significiant.

Part of the problem with this is how you define turnover. Celtic may make £3m from £20m of turnover and we make £3m from £3m of turnover under the JJB deal. Why should Celtic be able to have a greater debt when we are generating the same profit?

You have been paying players that you can't afford. You are getting rid of your debts going forward and don't need to keep aside some of your income to pay them. It's quite right that teams going into administration lose 10 points as has been done in the past. Where it is unfair is that they can pick just one team and decide they have brought the game into disrepute and put additional punishments onto them.

But we can't have as Rangers F.C. plc was only formed in 1899 and Rangers doesn't exist if it's not that company according to some.

That's the bottom line. He may not have got in even if he had wanted to anyway.

The club are waiting for the written findings from the panel before deciding their next steps. I believe that further action will be taken by the club, but not sure what that will be.

Surely after condemning them, the next stage is to look at how it was allowed to happen and what can be done to stop it? If there were police and/or stewards nearby, I'd like to think that action would be taken, but perhaps it's felt best under these circumstances to leave them to get in with it in case it inflames the situation? Either way, there's nothing wrong in examining the role of those who are meant to prevent this and just because there were idiots causing damage, it doesn't mean that the police and stewards were not failing in their duties, and by doing so it doesn't in any way take away any justified criticism of those who carriedn out the acts of vandalism.

Has anyone defended the actions of these fans on this thread?

We aren't getting back the £18m. The cash was paid to Lloyds and cleared the debt due to them Ticketus are owed their cash and will need to settle for pence in the pund and write off the rest, less whatever they get from Whyte (good luck with that). Not sure if that answers your question?

They are looking at 2 separate issues. We did use EBTs. there is no doubt, However the BTC is aboput whether they were used properly or not. The SPL are looking at whether there is evidence of dual contracts. A different but potentially related subject. The evidence should be quite clear. If they find us guilty then they should be able to produce a copy of one that was issued and signed by a player (and proves SDM is a liar). If not, then they should find us not guilty. However they may take a different approach and reach a decision without concrete evidence.

So if they see or hear damage being done, they just ignore it?

Rangers pay for damage so it's coming from our club when we can least afford it.