Bluedell

This has been going about since before Whyte even bought the club and I fail to see that there's any substence to the rumour. Everything about the financial situation of SDM and MIH and their relationship with LTSB suggests that it's pile of crap.

I'm happy if the OF game doesn't go ahead..... However the sensible conclusion would be to keep the beggars away and therefore significantly reduce policing costs.

if you look back the word was dropped after the first day or so.

My understanding is that the word "financial" was used in error by Whyte's PR team, Hay & McKerron, which was part of the reason that they ended up being pushed to one side for club business in favour of Media House.

Firstly, the RFWG would like to go on record in thanking the supporters for their excellent backing of the team not only in the last couple of weeks but during the entire season. We have been heavily praised for our behaviour by the clubâ??s security team, the Match Commander, FoCUS, and at meetings of the JAG at the Scottish Parliament. We are the most proactive supporters in Scotland when it comes to dealing with supporter behaviour, and we should be rightly proud of our achievements in this area. These have also been very difficult times for all Rangers supporters and it was inevitable that there would be a lot of raw emotion at our first match since going into administration, a match that we managed to sell out completely even though the 10 point penalty basically wrote off our chances of retaining the SPL title for a 4th consecutive season. We discussed this with the club security and Match commander last Friday before the match and we were all happy that the match passed generally without incident, which given the circumstances was again a credit to the Rangers supporters. The atmosphere was electric at the recent match against Kilmarnock, and the capacity crowd backed the team both before and throughout the match in great spirits, despite the way the result fell for us. Given the above, it has come as some surprise to hear that we are to be investigated by the SPL for offensive chanting at that match for one or two minor incidents out of the entire match. Even more amazingly given that the SPL have chosen not to investigate other clubs, Celtic especially, for their deeply offensive and sectarian chanting and singing. We can happily provide the SPL with a list of their offensive singing and chanting over recent weeks and asking why there has been no further investigations against that club, given they were warned earlier this season for the very same thing. We have therefore written to Neil Doncaster at the SPL to ask for a meeting to discuss the recent events, as all we have asked for from the outset is a level playing field where every club is treated equally, and we as Rangers fans are having difficulty seeing the equality in recent events. Whilst saying all this, we do not condone the small number of isolated incidents of offensive chanting at our match last weekend, and we are sure that our supporters will ensure that no repeat of such incidents take place at our upcoming matches.

Welcome, Broxibear

That's the issue. Our fans cleaned up their act but hear them getting away with it week in, week out, and it's only natural for some to think that they can get away with it as well. Parity is what is needed. The police and the authorities are largely to blame for Saturday's problems.

Donald Findlay cocked up the defence of the "why don't you go home" chant and we now can't use it because of that. He didn't do much defending of us while he was a director and I doubt he'd start now. He's not the guy to do it.

Blatter isn't the person to bombard. It's the police, the Scottish press, the radio stations, your MP, your MSP. the SFA, the SPL, etc It shouldn't be done just in a week when we are highlighted. They are at it every week and they should be getting reported every week.

So what would you say was the wage savings between then and now? £7m worth? That would bring the operating loss down from £17m to £10m I guess if I was doing an estimate, I'd probably come in under £10m. However I reckon I'd come in nearer £10m than £5m, although that's with 15 seconds analysis and I haven't sat down and done more detail. At this point it doesn't seem too relevant.

I think he's just saying that any debt to Whyte just gets waived. He isn't suggesting the reversion back to Lloyds/MIH. However I've suggested that we don't actually owe Whyte anything/very much so AJ's letter may be a moot point. [technical speak] I think that Whyte was planning to deal with the Ticketus cash off balance sheet if it had not been revealed and perhaps the auditors were not aware of it. The revealing of it will hopefully prompt an entry in the club's books netting off the inter-company balance set up when the bank loan was paid off. [/technical speak]

You are still a shareholder. If the club emerges from administration unscathed then you should still have your shares.

He has not. The numbers don't stack up to suggest that he has. The problems have been repeated many times, but I'll state them again. 1. There's the issue that he used our money to finance his purchase of the shares. That's theft (whether it's technically legal or illegal). 2. The club was promised £33m from him and it appears that he has not put in a single penny of it. 3. There's the issue that our £10m shortfall each year has suddenly become an £18m shortfall because he has decided to misappropriate our club's income for his own benefit. Your "so what" comment was very dismissive of these points, which as I said have been stated numerous times on numerous threads, although if I read you correctly you are saying that you didn't mean it in that way? Either way, if anything I said was uncalled for or uncivil then I apologise.

Fair point, mate. However I'd say that I'm judging his performance and his comments from a slightly different persepective from you. He has previously made comments about the amounts that Whyte is owed and the administration process that suggest to me that he hasn't sat down and fully analysed the club's situation. He may or may not be right about the legality of the situation (I don't actually recall him specifically saying anything on that) but I just don't think he has come to grips with the intricacies of our specific position and therefore may not be in a position to make a definitive judgement.

IF he used the Ticketus money? Why IF? He's admitted it. The administrators have confirmed it. Why are you still questioning it? As for the financing of the club, yes, it wouldn't be too hard for me to sit down and work it out (Ticketus balance, last year's CL cash, some season ticket money, not paying HMRC and other creditors), but what would it prove? As for your dismissal of the press, virtually everything they have printed about Whyte has been proven to be true (despite some over-exaggeration). You can keep dismissing it as hearsay and lies ( although Whyte's lies only seem to be "lies" in inverted commas) but it doesn't change the facts. As for him using our season ticket money, you just dismiss it with a "so what". If that's your attitude to the club's money being used for used for Whyte's personal gain and that it will leave us with even bigger problems in future years then I guess that you probably don't understand the situation or are so blinded by the "Whyte can't do any wrong" position that you aren't looking at the facts rationally.

I've never figured out why they never appeared in the club's accounts.

I wasn't that impressed by him. He seemed to have a lot of general knowledge but didn't seem to have the level of detailed knowledge about what's going on as I would have expected. I'm sure he's good at the high level stuff but if he really knew for sure that there was nothing wrong with what Whyte did then i would ahev expected a lot more flesh on the bones. His opinions seemed to be mainly based on supported his opinions from the previous time he was on, where he was making judgements based on a lot less information. He has already claimed that our accounts contained nothing surprising and a few other things that that haven't been totally accurate. I didn't put a great deal of stock on his replies.

The Record is far more trustworthy than any of the scum on that site. There's absolutely no suggestion that the directors were ever considering the disposal. All that happened was that a letter would have been received from Arsenal and the facts were recorded in a regular internal report. The rest is the usual spin and misinformation from RTC.

Would we expect the administrators to go into the Trophy Room and start selling off all the stuff in there? The fact that we were £70m in debt and Murray never saw fit to sell them suggests that they are not just another asset to be disposed of at the drop of a hat. Yes, the administrators COULD have sold them but their objectives are totally different from those of a Chairman of the club and for Whyte to dispose of them just because he won't meet his commitments is despicable.

The legality or otherwise has yet to be proven. MD on Scotland Tonight was certainly implying that it was illegal but I'm not sure that anyone with expertise has given an opinion with any authority. I don't believe it's the same as the Liverpool and Man Utd situations as I don't believe that the future income of the club was actually used to buy the club, but I'm not an expert in either of them.

What assumptions? Whyte has admitted that he paid off the bank loan using our future season ticket money. The administrators have confirmed that Whyte paid off the bank loan using our future season ticket money. The fact that you put the outrage that a majority of supporters are feeling down to hysteria whipped up by the media is actually quite insulting.

Our operating loss (befoe interest, tax and gains on player sales) in 2009 was £17m. If you use that as your starting point then £10m doesn't seem unreasonable.

What was the error?

Muir did seem very pally with CW in the directors' box during the first couple of games, but hasn#'t been seen since. I'm not fan of Muir but I still tend towards him not knowing. whyte's MO seems to be to for nobody to know.

Possibly but why not pay the principal, which may have meant Whyte putting his hand in his pocket.