Bluedell

I think that we'll need to agree to disagree, Calscot.

What is being injured at a friend's house got to do with anything? It's an employer/employee relationship. The right thing would have been for the club to pay him his redundancy. If the club lays off a lot of staff tomorrow do you expect the club to wait to see if they get new jobs before deciding whether whether they "need" any compensation? Are you saying that they are not friends of the club if they accept a pay-off? Whether you dislike him or dislike his actions, your argument is still not based on fact. Avoiding the tax issue WAS the main reason, although there was also the fact that the club was inherently loss-making. There was no contravention of the loan repayments, but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong as you claim I am. Vote of confidence from who? His peers? it seems that he has. From the punters? With all due respect, do they know the first thing about being a CEO? They'd probably show their lack of knowledge by describing him as a yes-man or puppet (sorry, couldn't resist:) ) I think that this speaks for itself. . I think he did fairly well given the lack of information available. Resign and kiss and tell? On the resignation is it better to try and change things from within or run away and have no influence? No correct answer to that but I can't criticise someone for taking the former approach.

No, Bain had a beef with his employer and sought compensation from it in the same way as you would. Whether Bain's compensation is excessive is another matter but he was entitled to something. That may be your opinion but it looks like it's based on a dislike of Bain rather than anything factual. THere was no contravension of the loan repayments. It was still being paid off at £1m pa. Yoiu need to separate the loan and the revolving credit facility. Bain wasn't great at his job and he was overpaid, but you're getting a wee bit carried away when you suggest he's an enemy of the club. Revenge? He's a business man not some sort of thug. That's a totally ridiculous statement. He's not a great CEO, but I'm not sure he could be described as incompetent. He appears to have operated under strict guidelines while Murray was in control, and seemed to have performed his duties as he was instructed. You and I may not have liked the way he did it, and there's a few areas that I took great exception to him, but it doesn't make him incompetent. His performance seemed to improve once Murray's shackles were off and he seemed to perform better, although there were still areas where improvement could be made. Who is complimenting Muir and Lloyds (apart from you)? Are you sure HMRC don't deserve to be complimented, or at least buttered up? Our club is still at risk and throwing them a bone is not a bad tactic. Neither of us know what negotiations have been taking place since administration and you don't have enough information to make any judgement on it. As for AJ, you call on Bain to have come out and criticise Whyte but you don't give AJ any credit for doing so. The bottom line is that the club could get a better and cheaper CEO than Bain but hysteria isn't going to help the whole process.

I'd argue that most of his cash was used to fund the building of Murray Park. I just fail to see what he could claim on, and if he was going to do it he should have done it before now. I just don't see it happening.

I agree on these bits, but that doesn't mean he is not still the best option that we have. He has put cash into the club and does not appear to be after a quick buck that some others may be.

The big tax case relates back to 2000. I don't think that King can sue based on a tax avoidance scheme that was probably done in good faith but ultimately may have found to have flaws. Hugh Adam suggested that there were payments prior to that but I'd suggest that if they actually exist that the payments did not come from the club and therefore did not affect the club's accounts.

because it is preferable to certain parties? I'm not sue what he is trying to say was wrong with the accounts in 2000. I'm not aware of any suggestions that the accounts were wrong.

How do you know that? Edit - OK now see it.

We have been down to our bare bones recently and Wylde couldn't get into the team.

Don't worry, you look equally as bad in real life

If you're speaking as chairman of SDS, I don't believe that you should be using term like fairness. It is not for the chairman to decide what is fair and what isn't. I dont think it is fair. It may be more even, but that doesn't mean it is fair.

They contacted season ticket holders and bond holders to say that they have been appointed but have not acknowledged bond holders as creditors, AFAIK.

But you said that HMRC would only be willing to do the CVA if we had paid the £9m. Why would they have an opinion one way or the other if we had paid it?

Ticketus say they aren't a creditor and I don't believe Whyte is a creditor. Are we really going to do a CVA for the remaining creditors? It's always possible but the administrators haven't contacted the creditors yet so i believe that we're quite a bit away from that anyway and with season ticket cash to come in, I don't see any reason for it.

But if we have won the tax case and paid up the VAT and PAYE, why would we need a CVA?

I think that we are saying the same thing.

I thought that the whole issue about our EBTs was that they are a contractual right?

The country of registration would largely be irrelevant. It'd be any agreement that would dictate the primary law.

I think it earned around £800K at its peak. The National Lottery killed it. Rangers do have their own Lotto but I don't think it's as successful, brining in £300K-£400K. The higher prizes of things like the Euromillion are much more appealing.

I think that's a fair assessment, Z. We had brought the debt under control to an extent. We still struggle a bit due to the lower capacity but it's not so marked these days due to their lower crowds.

He may have good information but tends to spoil it with stuff that is difficult to take seriously. Hopefully he is right about this in principle and he's just got some of the facts wrong, but his scenario seems very unlikely.

These alleged payments could not have come from Rangers as they did not appear in the audited accounts. Perhaps doddery old Adam is claiming that they came from some off-shore company? If so, which one? Presumably one that he wasn't a director of so how would he know anything about it?

We are a public company, not a private one. Most current season ticket holders have not been offered future years' season tickets, so how can existing ST holders have a say in something that they have not been offered and something that they have not agreed to buy? The club has got no obligation to sell tickets to existing ST holders so I fail to understand this point. Presumably any agreement drawn up by Ticketus would be under English law and not Scots law?

Withey is still the club's company secretary, although I'd hope that he can be removed as quickly as possible. I had some dealings with BB recently and had a problem with them. Thankfully they haven't had the cheek to bill me for their work (yet).

The financial position of one company within their group is not that relevant, as I mention in the last post on that thread. They are doing about OK financially. Many people have been forecasting major problems for them for a few years but it doesn't happen, partly because they have ensured a sound financial footing at the cost of 3IAR!!! They have some sellable assets and could always get rid of the LB or the Israeli boy or even Hooper, particuarly as we may not be in a position to challenge.