Bluedell

Because he owns the shares of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C, company number SC4276, founded on 27 May 1899. The company may not have any assets going forward but it is what it is.

And after the cash is gone, he will either leave the company to sit there, sell to someone or liquidate it.

I don't think he is owed anything, so no.

What benefit is he getting from all this?

What's a stand-alone CVA? Edit: "A CVA is a deal offered to creditors where they are asked to accept a proportion of their debt in final satisfaction. They can be proposed without the company first going into Administration (known as a "stand-alone" CVA), although this is relatively unusual" As we were in administration, according to this definition a stand-alone CVA would be impossible. Is this double-talk from the administrators?

However they don't explain what the plan is. Is the only difference the fact that the assets are being sold off in one chunk rather than individually? What happens to the plc under Miller's plan? It may not be liquidated, but I don't see any connection with it and the newco going forward.

And lose valuable income for the club? What is the benefit in that?

I'm not saying D&P are devils. Just that they should not be making such decisions and if it was being made further down the chain, again, I'd suggest that the decisions are being made by people that do not have the authority to do so.

I was happy with the simple thank you that Sandy Jardine gave us last night. The fans have been good but there may be tougher times ahead and we may need to dig much deeper (either financially or emotionally) than we already have done. It's far too early in the process. Who actually made this decision anyway? The administrators are running the club. It has to be them. Do we really want them making this kind of decision? is this a smokesecreen for their inability to produce Whyte's shares? Surely it should be up to new owners to assess this kind of thing anyway.

How tacky. I don't like it. I've always felt it stupid when other teams have done that.

Yeah, there is a tendency to stereotype a forum based on one user, as was shown by the example that you gave. However RM were also at it yesterday slagging off FF due to one post. All forums have their good and bad posters.

I'm not basing my opinion just based on his recent statements. I know him and don't believe that he will stand as a director.

Yeah, I don't believe that Mark will be standing as a potential director if the fans do get representation. However he obviously will have a major say on who is proposed by the RST and has the ability to throw the support of biggest forum behind it.

I was bombarded by emails yesterday from Mark Dingwall, RST major player and FF owner as to why TBK are the best option and why Miller would not be good for the club. I will take one of the articles and try and assess it as objectively as possible. Firstly, I'd say that Mark has a lot more inside information than I do as he is obviously been talking to Paul Murray and the administrators and it's possible that he has other objections that he is unable to publicise, but that has to be set off by the fact that Murray appears to have offered the RST a seat at the table and Miller has ignored any advances by the RST. I don't see the relevence of David Murray to the discussion. However the point about Miller not knowing Scotland or Rangers is fair enough. Miller could be seen as coming in with fresh ideas and not put off by existing prejudices or assumptions but TBKs would definitely know more about us and what works and what is possible, but that in itself is not a particularly compelling argument. Good point. We have to question Miller's objectives. There doesn't appear to be money to be made so why get involved? That shortfall still exists and exists for TBK as well. TBK share issue may solve the problem short term but what happens after that? The fact that Miller did not want to engage with TBK's main cheerleaders doesn't tell me a lot. The fans will surely be paying under either option? The fact that Sport 9 are advising is a concern. Is Ellis involved? The fact that newspapers have said it doesn't mean that he is. There has been a lot of propoganda and misinformation published and this could be a scare tactic put out by another party. However if he is involved then this is a real concern. The RST have been pushing for increased overseas marketing for many years so I fail to understand why it's a bad thing. It shouldn't need tens of millions poured into it and to say so is just scare tactics. However I am also sceptical about the potential returns. There may be increased revenue but I doubt it will be significant, and not enough to make a huge difference to the club. I'd agree that it appears unlikely that Miller's plan will involve the existing plc and the idea of merging the incubator with it is fanciful given Whyte's reluctance to sell his shares but TBKs have the same problem. I guess It's possible but there's no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Why would Miller allow Whyte back in? I also believe it may be illegal. I know someone who did something similar and spent 8 years trying to avoid extradition. Agreed, but you dismissed objections and questions of TBKs are juvenile, so there is a some inconsistency there. In conclusion, there's not enough information for me to decide whether Miller will be good or bad. The lack of information is concerning but I'd rather Miller says nothing than make false promises like Whyte. My real worry is his objectives. Why does he want to do it? There's not enough to suggest that TBKs are definitely a much better option than Miller, although they are likely to be a safer option, not withstanding the lack of finance. We don't know if he is willing to put in any more finance than TBKs, which appears to be the major weakness in their proposal, so I guess all we can do is hope that the future of the club falls into safe hands.

If Miller does get control of the club, it'll be interesting to see his attitude towards the RST given they have been so vocal in opposition to him.

Is what you are describing not similar to a pre-pack, which is allowed and there's not much the creditors can do about it?

I presume that we don't have an on-line direct sales set up. Yes, we could easily get retail deals with other shops, but I'm not sure that they generate huge amounts of profit. I don't think that £3m would be easily achieved and based on figures that we achieved pre-JJB, when we had a network of our own shops, I'd suggest that we would earn less than that.

No. The amount of the write down and the amount due to JJB (if anything) are unrelated and would depend on the terms of the contract. I didn't check the creditors list to see if JJB are on it, but I presume that they are not as I don't remember anyone commenting on it. It could be that JJB are due some sort of repayment of the upfront sum but it may be set off against amounts due to JJB, which is why they are not on the list. It's impossible to say without seeing the contract.

Answers in red.

Maybe I'm being thick but does merging of companies happen? Are you and Darther talking about the merging of the trade of 2 companies and one company effectively ends up taking over the trade of the other? That may be called a merger but it's not really. It's just a takeover. Are we saying that the "incubator" will just transfer the trade back to the PLC once it's all cleared? Again I wouldn't call this a merger as such, but perhaps I'm just being pedantic. Or are you saying that company A and company B legally merge and become company A (or company C)? Does this happen? I just don't understand what the Miller bid is proposing.

How do you legally merge companies?

The assets of the company can get sold by the administrators to another company and that would not need the shareholder's permission. I don't think that they need to be acting as liquidators at that point.

Not really. It only rules out the subsequent "merging" of the companies that was just put in as a platitude. I don't think Miller cares if the "incubator" ends up just becoming the club, and I'd suggest that it was always the plan.

The problem is that we currently don't have the infrastructure to earn £3m pa ourselves.

Fans were happy to commit to buying shares post administration. I doubt they would have been as happy to put money into a pot to pay off creditors with little return.