Bluedell

Possibly. I had always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the guarantees to Ticketus were not provided by Group. Surely Ticketus would not be in the position that their security could be overridden so easily if it is Group? For QWhyte's security to stand up there needs to be a verifiable debt in place and I'm not sure that it exists (despite my earlier hypothesis) and if it does then it possibly would fall down under these circumstances as you suggest.

Perhaps Liberty Corporate is the company that gave the guarantee to Ticketus? It could be that a debt has been set up that Group owes Liberty. If Liberty have to pay out to Ticketus then Group has to pay with its only asset being Rangers shares. Perhaps there's some waiving of the guarantee if Ticketus go ino partnership with TBK and they may control the destination of the shares. Not sure if this stacks up but I wouldn't be surprised if Ticketus feature in there somewhere.

It would be easy enough to find Rangers minded business people to fulfil many of the roles. I could name quite a few candidates. However I doubt that KPMG would have that as a primary concern when identifying recommendations.

They're the ones proposing to hand it over to a mob like Ticketus.

PwC I believe.

Is that the royal "we"?

Last time an accountancy firm recommended a director, we ended up with Donald Muir. The fact that the potential owner doesn't know any of the proposed board doesn't fill me with confidence.

Hopefully any sale could still be processed and Ellis can go after Whyte for his percentage of the proceeds.

I'm surprised that they have got behind Ticketus so willingly so perhaps they won't have a major problem with this either.

So we move from the situation whereby Ticketus have no security to them having security over our beloved Ibrox? Not happy if true.

That's the issue. It is not the Rangers brand that needs improving, it's the SPL brand. The Rangers brand could be increased 10 fold and we'd still be an irrelevance because we are not in the EPL.

They are happy with that way of thinking. That's why the Green Brigade are allowed free reign with their bigoted banners and the club are happy to play songs mentioning rebelling against the crown. They WANT their supporters to think like that.

One of Leggat's best articles for a while.

No, because I don't believe that they would block it.

the decision would be a purely business one. Which option maximises their return? CVA or liquidation? If it's CVA then there's no way they'd go for liquidation. They are obliged to go for maximising the return for their investors. If it's liquidation then HMRC will want to go down that route anyway so what Ticketus wanted becomes largely irrelevant. The whole "we'd be as well liquidating" argument comes across as a scare tactic, and is disappointing. There are other reasons and these are not clear despite the assurances of openness from the BKs.

Like BH, I question the Ticketus issue. Why is it a pro to take them out of the CVA? We get them into the CVA and we emerge from the CVA debt free. We take them out of the CVA and we emerge from it with £10m+ still owing to them, the repayment of which will presumably come from the share issue to the fans. I know that the RST think this is "stunning" but I'm yet to be convinced that £10m debt is better than no debt.

He does it with Rangers articles but it's non-Rangers stuff that I occasionally read. I don't read newsnow or the Sun or the Record so it's good to have access to the stories.

Yes, as there are some articles that are "news" to me, and they are in a sub-forum so out of the way.

I don't see much being made from overseas markets. Perhaps a bit from North America but not millions. SE Asia practically none as we are not down south. It's not really an area that should be of prime importance when we are assessing bids.

I have not been contacted by the administrators, other than the initial letter that went to season ticket holders and bond holders. I have emailed the administrators twice about the bonds, including one with a plan to remove the bond holders from a CVA. This was 5 or 6 weeks ago. I have never even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement to either of my emails. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why the administrators are not interested in removing £7m from a CVA. The bond holders do not get first priority. They are just treated as normal unsecured creditors. rbr, the bond holder rights have now ceased, I believe. Perhaps a new owner may wish to reinstate them, perhaps for a nominal fee? I think that we have to register our claims to be eligible for a payment and I think that the details are contained in the big document released yesterday.

for the second time, morality is not involved in the calculation of the amount due to Ticketus. It's you that's going on about it in other respects, which I have made no comment on. You really should stop putting words in people's mouths.

Whyte hasn't been charged with anything? What relevance does this have? Neither has Murray. Does that excuse Murray's actions over the years, or can that be used as a defence for people's support of him? I also can't believe that you'd put Bain in your queue ahead of Whyte. Whyte has done a lot more damage to our club in 9 months than Bain did in 10 years.

Are people really that concerned about who is organising this when there are much more important issues at stake? Would people really put their dislike of the RST before the club? It's disappointing that this had to be posted.

Not as such. It'll be the net assets of the club.

No, it wasn't as I've already explained. As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of it and making up stuff. Rapists? FFS.