Bluedell

It was trolling and it got the reaction it was looking for.

Doesn't seem that long ago that I was at the 25th anniversary dinner which was up at Viccies. A great night. How time flies.

So what was the point you were trying to make?

We know who they are as well. They aren't hard to miss. They have contually broght pro-IRA and sectarian banners and in Celtic Park and no action has been taken by the club or directors. The directors will continue to shame themselves by taking no action against the Green Brigade.

It was a a long term lease for the value of £3.9m.

For the sum of £2m. There hasn't been any confirmation of that. It appeears to me that it's just unfounded internet speculation. As I've said above, the Albion is on our books.

Not as far as I'm aware. I haven't seen anything to suggest that. There was a long term lease. We had a commitment to pay it off, paying a relatively small amount each year. The press reported that the lease was paid off by Whyte as part of the debt clearing exercise. Whether it's now freehold or still leasehold is unclear.

Going concern in respect of the following 12 months was presumably never an issue before. There has only been one set of accounts since it emerged (I believe) andthe directors and auditors were probably confident that the tax case would not be finalised within a year so it wasn't a problem to sign off.

You can see Murray Park appearing on the books of the club in the 2001 accounts and it has never disappeared from it. Also if you look at the Land Register for it you will see that Rangers were registered as owners on 28/10/99. As for the War Memorial Trust, from memory it relates only to a very small part of the land, but so what? that kind of thing is fairly common and it's got nothing to do with Murray. As for the Albion, that appeared in our accounts in 1995 as a long leasehold property and is still there. I'm unaware what arrangements were made between Whyte and Murray when the deal was done, but I'd be surprised if it is still not showing as a fixed asset in our balace sheet when the accounts are eventually released.

He doesn't. They are both in the books of Rangers. He has never owned Murray Park.

Sounds like it's not a million miles away from the EBT plan.

CW said that HMRC wouldn't negotiate due to recent high profile cases where HMRC have been criticised. Did he also say that He can't deal with HMRC? When did he say it? Do you have a link? Sorry for the questions but I've only heard RTC saying that we can't deal with HMRC directly and I'm a bit sceptical. Where in the takeover circular does it say that MIH is dealing with HMRC?

So how does that mean that Murray hid it from the rest of the board?

It was great but we were outplayed in many games and had a large degree of luck along the way. It obviously wasn't a classic side. In 92/93, we could have given anyone in Europe a game and I was confident we had the team to beat Milan in the final if we had got there.

Did he? How do you know that he hid it? Edit - also does anyone understand what the small tax bill was about? I don't recall ever reading what the details were.

Do we know that Rangers can't negotiate for themselves? What proof has there been to that? In respect of MIH's involvement, it looks fairly minimal. It looks to me as if most of it was in respect of Rangers. I therefore can't see why MIH would insist on Rangers not being able to deal with it. The scheme was set up in 2000, which was a different time from now. You could get away with a lot more off-shore than you can these days (post 9/11 when the financial world changed significantly). It could be that nobody thought to revisit the scheme and it's likely that they thought that they had got away with it in the past so why not carry on using it. From the very little I know about the scheme it seems that it was never that sound and depended on the argument that payments were discretionary. What footballer would be happy to receive discretionary payments? Surely their agents would insist on it everything being contractual? The Rangers case is different from the Portsmouth one, as far as I'm aware, as the Portsmouth one was based on image rights.

Jelavic was scoring for Rapid and had scored against Celtic, and wasn't really a gamble. I'd also heard of Hooper as he had been scoring down south. I agree on waiting to see what he does, and hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised. Good question on why we signed the others....and who decided on them as well. If you had signed some players, you'd make damn sure they got a chance. if someone else was making the decisions, a manager is less likely to go out of his way to give them a game.

Ness and Edu could be a possibility, and may work brilliantly but I get the feeling we're not going to see young Jamie for a while due to his injury problems. I don't see edu and Hutton as a pairing that would work.

It's got to be McMillan at right back rather than Ortiz, surely? Ortiz doesn't have the pace, and doesn't look like a full back to me. I'd keep with Papac at left back, despite his honking performance at the w/e. He generally has looked more secure than Wallace in that position. Not sure why you've kept Davis in and dropped Edu. Edu has generally been better than Davis for the last few months and if anyone needs dropped than it's Davis. Your midfield looks a bit light-weight anyway. I prefer Aluko playing wide rather than in the free role behind the striker.

I was hopeful when we signed Ortiz, Bedoya and McKay. I now can't get excited about us signing any midfielder that I hadn't heard of before we expressed interest in him.

He may not be as good as Jelavic but he's better than Healy.

:yay:

Here's a question. For those who remember both sides well, which of the 92/93 team would get into the 72 team? Goram? McCoist and/or Hateley? Gough? One of the big things about the 92/93 team was that it was a great team, not a group of great individuals, but it'd be interesting to get people's views on it.

Another argument for the 92/93 team being better is that 54andcounting and 26th of Foot are of an age when their faculties are starting to go and therefore can't really be relied upon.

Could we be looking into this too much? Perhaps Betts has just resigned for Whyte's other companies because he's got a new job and therefore had to resign from Rangers as well and Whyte felt that Ellis was the logical person to appoint as the other director?