Bluedell

The debt will be waived if the tax case is settled favourably.

No, but not sure how much credence to give it at this point.

There are some real mentalists who have made submissions. John McAree Mad Joe Martin Brennan

There are 2 issues: 1. Good financial management of the club - I think that we would all agree that we don't want to return to the boom and bust way of running the club that the previous owner instigated and we would like to be run on a sound footing and only spend what we can afford. We have just been knocked out of Europe and understand the need for belt tightening. 2. The cash that Whyte committed to spend as part of the takeover - it appears that he bought the club cheaply due to his commitment to spend money. That money could be looked upon as being part of the purchase price of the club and if Whyte can't afford to pay it then he should not have committed to spend it. It should probably be looked at separately from the day-to-day finances needed for the running of the club. Whyte can possibly get out of spending the whole �£5m by using an interpretation of the words that many didn't take. He is entitled to do that, I guess, but it's not what I'm looking for from the Chairman of Rangers and I expect a higher duty of care from a Chairman of our club than weasling out of commitments made to the support. We have been there before I don't want to go back to feeling let down so soon into the new reign. Mr Whyte has until tomorrow night to make good his obligations. We need a striker now, not in January. Time to step up and pay.

I don't know all the ins and outs. Any companies I'm involved with don't go into administration There would be a lot of pain (perhaps some players sold?) but I've seen a few pre-packs and the companies can often just carry on. I find the whole thing immoral as small companies can get done out of cash that they are due. Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me can expand on it.

One possible scenario is that the club are put into administration, appoint a friendly administrator, use any available cash to pay off the preferred creditor (Whyte), sell the club back to Whyte on a pre-pack administration basis, we get hit with a points deduction and finish second in the league and carry on as before.

What was said was as follows: As I said earlier, I don't take this to include wages, given the word "investment". As for the rest of your post, I'd agree with it as it's similar to the points I made in post 13, but my view on a detailed reading of the circular and the average bear's view would probably be different and I still stand by the point that Whyte has only himself to blame if the expectations that he created are not met, even if he can say that he fulfulled his legal obligations.

Yes, I believe that he would put the club into administration and the whole takeover was structured with that in mind.

He has created the fans' expectations with the document to the shareholders and the various media stories that his people leaked. He can't now complain that fans are disgruntled when he doesn't spend �£5m net on new players.

Good to see the H word being included. However it's concerning that anti-IRA chants may fall under the legislation.

Yes, also a very good submission.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/inquiries/OBFTCBill/OB59.pdf http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/inquiries/OBFTCBill/OB62.pdf The submission from Rangers is, on the whole, excellent and makes a lot of great points.

He used the term "investment" which suggests that it does not apply to wages. As for the tax case, it depends on what sums they are looking at. If it's �£20m+ then he's not keeping the cash for that as it's not getting paid. Administration and a pre-pack looms and the tax man would possibly get very little.

No, it doesn't. If we look at 2008/9 when we got put out by Kaunus we made a loss of �£8.5m before taking account of any player sales, writing off player purchases or interest. I don't think a great deal has changed since then so we would probably be looking at a similar loss this season. The on-going day-to-day funding of the club has not been clearly explained but if we assume that the bank will not extend us any further credit then Whyte may have to end up funding it (or getting the finance from somewhere else). Getting knocked out of Europe so early must be Whyte's worst nightmare but it was always a risk when buying us.

The commitment for this year is "to provide �£5,000,000 for investment in the playing squad". This may well have been provided. There is no commitment that the sum will actually be spent. In addition, there is nothing to say that the �£5m would be net. They may argue that any income received has to go towards costs and not netted off against transfer funds. They may argue that any signing on fees for Davis, McGregor and Whittakers' new contracts was part of the �£5m. It's Murrayesque in its phrasing.

Either of the 2 options..

I don't see much of a difference between some of the time under Walter and now. There were plenty of games last season that were as bad as Saturday, just like there were plenty of good performances like Motherwell last week. Ally has made some mistakes but so did Walter. So does every manager. I think that it's being over-analysed. I don't see the point in trying to pigeonhole Ally now or judge what kind of manager he is going to be. We are top of the league and unbeaten. Let's wait a few months and judge then.

If he could learn to look up and see who is in the box and where then his accuracy may improve.

We were obviously watching different games No wonder. the guy could hardly run at various stages of the game.

Has to be :sd: for me. The only outfield player to consistently play well throughout the game.

Zappa :tongue:

We are a British club. Your nationality is British therefore your national flag is the Union Jack, like it or not. There is absolutely no reason not to fly it. A majority of our support over the years have been proud to be British and have identified with the unionist cause, the flag has the club colours in it, our club has a lot of unionist traditions (Loving Cup, Save the Union campaign etc) etc etc. It seems crazy that British people are having to justify flying the British flags, but I guess that's today's Scotland for you.

There was me thinking that it was the Rangers fans whose freedoms that were being threatened. We are being criticised for flying our national flag, we are being told what our songs mean, even though it's patently obvious that they mean some thing different, the "bheasts" are the ones who glorify terrorists both by banner and song, and yet we're the Nazis and they're the Jews? Something wrong with your analogy, I think.

I'd argue that the Rangers fans working group has achieved a level of unity not seen for many years. There are representatives from all the major fans groups and websites there, generally agreeing on what needs to be done.

No you don't.