Bluedell

BH, it's made up of reps from the fans' groups, singing sections and main websites, hopefully showing that we as a support can work together.

Then that changes things. Tell us more on the Muir thing

There has obviously been a lot going on with our club in recent weeks and while the issues we have been working on are important, they obviously pale into insignificance beside the very future of our club being threatened. However we believe it is time to give you all an update on what has been happening within the group over the last few weeks, and what is coming up. We would be happy to receive any questions or to explain anything that is written below. OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR AT FOOTBALL ACT As this became law on 1 March, we had a meeting with FoCUS chief David Brand in late February to discuss the latest views on the impact this would have. Obviously we have covered most of the issues before, but the interesting new information that came out is that they have informed the celtic fans groups and the club that the singing of â??oh ah up the raâ?, â??boys of the old brigadeâ? and â??roll of honourâ? are amongst the songs that are now illegal and will lead to arrests and prosecutions. From our side, only Build my gallows was added to the â??bannedâ? list for the line â??I fought the IRAâ? which under the new legislation is not allowed. Any songs which glorify loss of life or serious injury (Durrant) is now illegal and we should be mindful to ensure that FoCUS are made aware of any offences by our enemies are chased up. At the moment the word â??Hunâ? has no case law against it, but it is deemed offensive and sectarian by the police, who will be pursuing case law as soon as possible to ensure this is made illegal. Every case taken against an individual for â??hunâ? has been admitted and so therefore there has never been a live case went through the courts. Hopefully this will change soon and we understand there are cases pending in this regard. MEETING WITH SPL We recently met with Neil Doncaster and Ian Blair of the SPL to discuss their recent investigation into our club after the Kilmarnock game. We were disgusted that our club was being targeted again while Celtic, particularly away from home, have been singing pro-ira songs at every match this season with no record of them being investigated. We were assured that investigations are commonplace, but are not routinely reported, and that our club had no case to answer in respect to the Kilmarnock match. It was added that our club are by far the leaders in tackling offensive behaviour and our improvement was very noticeable and we were commended for this. A much more pertinent question is that why was our game and subsequent investigation reported in such a high profile way, while the same media has been ignoring the other investigations the SPL have undertaken this season. RANGERS FANS FIGHTING FUND Several members of the Working Group are also involved in the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund. As has been publicised this has been launched recently in order to keep the club going during its period of administration. This is in no way related to the Save Rangers pledge fund that we are sure many of you will have signed up for. This fund puts money directly into the hands of a committee of Rangers supporters to pay certain running costs of the club and to essentially keep the club afloat whilst the lengthy process of administration and bidders for the club continues. We are aware that many RSCâ??s and fans are undertaking fund-raisers in the coming day and weeks to put money into this fund. It is vital that our fans understand that our need is NOW and we would urge all fans and RSCâ??s and groups to raise cash and get it into the fund as soon as possible. We have been guaranteed that not one single penny of this money raised will go to the administrators, the lawyers, or Dundee United and celtic football clubs. We can completely trust those in charge of this fund, and a new website will be launched next week and more news of this will follow soon. UPCOMING MATCH AGAINST CELTIC We were amazed that with the mathematical chance of celtic being in a position to clinch the tainted title with victory in the match on Sunday that the game goes ahead as scheduled. We were under the impression that the SPL and the Police had made a vow to ensure this never happened again after the celtic shame game of 1999 when the celtic fans could not behave themselves in light of us winning the title in great fashion at the ground. Given that it has been decided that the game goes ahead, we must ensure that we uphold the principles of integrity, decency, and sportsmanship that our rivals could only dream of, should the unthinkable happen and the title is clinched on Sunday. We must focus our efforts on ensuring that if the game goes ahead without major incident, then there can no longer be a case made for a title decider to be off-limits in the future, and we will surely have the chance to enjoy another victory at the home of rivals in the coming seasons. Those that were there will remember it as a most satisfying experience, and one we should long to see again. We have been assured that the Police and Stewards will be taking very great care to ensure that no offensive banners or flags are allowed into the Broomloan Road stand on Sunday, and any that do get in are taken away as soon as is practically possible. UNION FLAGS ON SALE ON SUNDAY We are sure most of you will know about the sale of the small hand-held Union flags being available on Sunday to Rangers supporters attending the match. A minimum donation of £2 is required and all proceeds go directly to the fighting fund. We would be obliged if you would ensure your members are aware of this and encourage them to please give generously to the collectors. This money will really make a difference to our club. PROPOSED MEETING WITH THE SFA We have written to Mr Regan at the SFA to ask for a meeting to discuss various matters relating to recent events and we hope to be able to report back soon when this takes place. Anyone wanting to propose questions for this meeting are asked to email them to any of the committee of this group.

I don't think that the circumstances are comparable, but if someone came in, invested money, and then left the club on a firm financial footing for the support then on the face of it, yes.

So he was happy to invest £4m, turn the club over to the supporters and continued to support it subsequently by agreeing rent out the ground for another sports team that he owned. Some people are never happy.

I'm not holding my breath that he will come up with anything tangible. Soft loans? Probably an urban myth.

What has Sky got to do with SPL voting? F*ckwits.

What a lot of crap. Perhaps Ally should have resigned too? Maybe Jim Hannah? What about Steve Davis? or the tea lady? None of them knew either so should he not be questioning them too?

Apparantly King was still a director as well, dsespite what had been previously announced.

Fair point. I presume that the evidence to suggest that it was not operated correctly only came to light relatively recently. I obviously can't say for sure but that's the way these things tend to work, in my experience. they find a problem with something and it allows them to go back and investigate a lot more. If they were done properly then there is not a problem. Whether something is discretionary or not is not merely a technicality. Even if we are sucessful there was still an element of risk about the whole scheme. I've quite a bit of experience of tax avoidance schemes and the issues here are fundemental. It's possibly something that's worth taking a punt on if it's small scale but the potential expsore is something that should have been taken into account and it's something that I would have been recommending against if I'd been involved. I'd refer you back to my second comment above. It's not really the same. The tax man takes a different approach. Perhaps I'm not looking at the fairness of it, but it's something that I've come across on many occasions within my working life and just accept it. they aren't dioing anything different from what they do hundreds of times each day. See above. EBTs are OK if they are operated correctly. They are discretionary. If we did not make all the payments on a discretionary basis then it can't be HMRC's fault. The rules were known by SDM at least. Ignorance is not an excuse when you're going into an area of complicated tax planning. Still don't see it as a morality issue, but I guess we're just different. That's not the way it works. It's the company's responsibility to collect the tax and they become the ones liable. That's the approach that HMRC take in all cases like this. You may disagree with it, but them's the rules. I need to shoot off but I think that the points I've made cover the rest of the issues. I think that you are looking at it "fresh" and I am looking at it from a viewpoint of dealing with tax avoidance and HMRC over many, many years. Perhaps I'm not in a great position to assess the "fairness" of it but perhaps I'm in a better position to assess the "reality" (for lack of a better word) of it.

When did they say it? Not doubting you, but I'd just like to see what else they said at that point as I may have missed that. Saying that, I would expect HMRC to appeal, depending on the reasons for their argument losing.

Whyte said that therefore I'd suggest that it's not particularly reliable.

They have put some information out there but it's very woolly on the details. They have not explained how much of the club Ticketus will own, for example, and how exactly are Ticketus going to get their cash back. I'm afraid that you are correct on the other bids. However a lack of information does not mean that it's not going to be good (or bad) for us.

Many were using the same argument as their support for Whyte a year ago. The one thing that has been proven is that we need to examine all bids , including the BKs, with a fine toothcomb to establish which is best. To make a decision now without all of the facts seems premature at best.

I want to support the deal that is best for the club and I currently don't have the information to make that decision. The BKs have failed to answer many of my questions and I don't have any information on any of the other bids so it's impossible for me to make any decisions at the moment. I didn't invest in the last rights issue as I, along with many others, saw it as SDM's responsbility to sort out the mess that he had made. It's going to be a similar dilemma if Ticketus are involved and if they are to receive proceeds from any share issue (even indirectly). They are part of the reason we are in this mess (along with Whyte and SDM) and I have major reservations about them getting a penny of my cash. The big decision comes when there's no other option and there's a choice between paying Ticketus or losing the club.

HMRC are not going after us because a loophole is closed. It's because the loophole was not applied properly. So what should HMRC do if they find out tax is not being properly paid? Just ignore it? I'm not sure why HMRC should take into account a change in owner or the "loyal following" Surely HMRC has to ensure that the proper tax is collected? It's HMRC's fault that we didn't apply the EBTs correctly? What's immoral about it? This issue is all about the amount of tax that highly paid footballers pay. Firstly how do you know that we don't owe the tax? Secondly are you suggesting that the Government should be looking to decrease the tax that footballers pay?

As there's a "no comment" from an Ibrox official rather than a denial then I live in hope that it does exist.

I don't believe this is referring to the Parkhead touchline incident. I think it's the Ibrox tunnel incident which didn't involve Ally.

Should stage 3 not be stage 1? What happens if Ticketus don't renegotiate? Are fans going to invest if they think that some of their cash will just get used to repay Ticketus? Does this mean that the whole concept is flawed?

I'm not saying that I'm right either. There's no proof either way. However there are usually some signs and I just haven't seen anything.

Sometimes there is a delay in them appearing for some reason. If you go back after a few minutes they should be there.

That'd be Leggatt who supported Whyte, no he's against Whyte. That'd be Leggatt who's against Ticketus, no he's for Ticketus. Most of his blogs are baseless. He may be correct on the odd one or two (difficult to tell) but he's blatently selling a pro-BK agenda at the moment and therefore isn't that objective.

So we would owe Ticketus nothing post-CVA if we don't go for the BKs but we still owe them if we do go for the BKs?

What do the administrators have planned for us? 1. Artilce today by Stephen Halliday "That agreement was not forthcoming when Duff and Phelps released their own statement, leaving considerable room for doubt over whether Rangers can come out of administration through a Company Voluntary Arrangement with creditors, as preferred by the Blue Knights, instead of liquidation." 2. Duff and Phelps have not contacted all creditors to establish the level of debt and asking them to register themselves 3. Duff and Phelps have been ignoring emails from creditors, and not even acknowledging them. 4. I have not read one opinion from anyone who has stated that Duff and Phelps will be able to remove the shares from Whyte. If they are unable to do that then surely and bids must be for the trade and assets and Rangers will be liquidated? None of that is conclusive in itself but points 2 and 3 do not seem to be the actions of someone who is planning an imminent CVA. Does that mean that liquidation is still the game plan?

Very interesting, BH. Thanks for posting.