Bluedell

So we play before Celtic 3 times and they don't have any games before us. An advantage to us? I presume it would be if we win. Puts extra pressure on them.

I can't see how that would happen. The fans are contracting with the club. The club can't give the cash away and not expect HMRC to be able to claim on it.

You have to take these things in context. The correct context hasn't been given in this article. The auditor's qualification is because they didn't consolidate their investments. Given the nature of their business I can see the logic in the director's argument on this. Having your accounts qualified isn't the end of the world. It depends on who is using them. If it is only the directors and shareholders and they are happy with the accounting treatment then what's the harm? As for the going concern issue, they invest in companies with problems. High risk, high return, I guess. Countryliner seem to have had debts written off and repaid the bank the sums due and have returned to profitability. I don't see that mentioned in the article. I'm more concerned the stories about whyte having to go round the HNW fans to get the cash to complete the deal than anything in this article. He may have skeletons, probably does, but the issues raised here just don't seem to be that major, although I have spent limited time looking into it.

Are the refs upset? Are you trying to say that a player from, say, St Johnstone will know it's OK knowing that he'll get hit with a Ã?£2,500 fine? Bougherra was found guilty and was punished. Let's not forget that point. Apparently Murray didn't report the incident in his ref's report, so it's Murray himself that the refs should be annoyed at and not the SFA. Edit - the Evening times are reporting "the official’s report says that the player did so “in a pleading gesture not to be sent off”. It did not, therefore, constitute violent or threatening conduct. The Committee also heard evidence from Murray which downplayed the incident."

It's possible that the renewal level will have an effect on whyte. Certain people within the club are saying that they exepect a further drop in renewals next season, so i presume Whyte is aware of that also. renewals tend to continue after the deadline date so i guess all that they will be able to tell is a trend and not the final number if he waits until 2 May. However some may be waiting until after the takeover until they renew so it could be a bit chicken and egg.

The RST are not being paid by Rangers to represent them. The RST are no a client of Rangers.

Yeah, got mine. Around the same price as last year.

And so it starts. What a dreadful article. No he is not. So what? Why does Whyte require to be authorised by the FSA? Not sure what the story is here but it doesn't seem as straightforward as they are trying to make out. LM Logistics Group was put into administration 10 months after it was set up. Whyte was a director for just over 3 months. Merchant Corporate Recovery made a profit of �£825K, and has security over the assets of LM Logistics and therefore MCR believe that they will recoup their �£230K investment. The accounts of MCR don't show the loan of �£661K, so I'm not sure if it is another inaccurate fact or of it was amde after MCR's year-end, but I would have thought that the auditors would have required mention of it, wich they did not. I don't see the problem here. Companies that are no longer required get struck off all the time. I've got no idea whether Whyte is kosher or not, but I'm certainly no clearer after this mud-racking article.

It seems that the likes of Clark and Young want the referee's optinion to be ignored. As for the strike, the SFA followed the referee's views and Clark thinks that the refs should strike because of that?

It's possible. They would have that option.

Do the rules say that bans have to be served concurrently? What was the wording that allowed them to get away with it? Or was it just that the ban should start immediately?

Agreed. I asked him how the �£5m transfer funds were going to be funded. Obviously doesn't have a clue. Is Whyte going to have a share issue every year so that he can put in his �£5m? Is the cash going to be borrowed etc?

He got tore a new one on FF yesterday for his lack of understanding of Whyte's financial situation. He's still talking crap. He has had very little information. He just posts with the viewpoint that everything about any potential takeover is bad and it'll never happen.

I'd disagree. How can you serve a ban when you don't miss any additional games? I'm surprised that they didn't ask for all 4 games to be served concurrently as well.

I guess some questions are too difficult while he lets through some irrelevant stuff.

Yeah, Gersnet will be Frankie. The wife's jewellry was said with a fair amount of sarcasm, Ian but I'm sure you knew that. I've sent in a question, but haven't seen it pop up yet.

A lawyer can't speak on issues involving his client without his client's agreement. Given the relationship between McBride and Celtic, he must have been speaking on their behalf. He is not a random Celtic fan. He is Celtic's lawyer, speaking on their behalf.

Reminds me why I stopped buying the Herald many years ago.

From what I can gather, Whyte had to prove that he could get the money to buy the club, which he appears to have done, but it's the proof of future funding that is the issue...and perhaps proving that he could get the money is easier than actually producing it? The problem is that the rumour mill is out in force and it's difficult to know what to believe.

The problem is that not all the questions about the financial viability are coming from SDM/MIH.

So Lennon didn't actually serve any ban for his attempted assault? What a disgrace.

TLBR got 2 bans of 4 games, but Celtic were trying to argue that he could serve them concurrently. what was the outcome of that? I recall the SFA apparently sending a threateniing letter to Celtic, but did the SFA eventually cave?

Which is what I've also heard from more than one source. How can he provide �£5m-�£9m of funding for transfers if he is struggling to provide proof of funding at this point?

It would be unacceptable for any new buyer to do that.

Yes, he shouldn't be blamed for Lennon's behaviour. Good to see that common sense has won out.