Bluedell

If it was an non-exec director then they would probably want some level of due diligence carried out before they were willing to commit, but they may have carried it out already or bought someone else's.

Advocaat didn't sign any cheques. Murray was in sole control of the budget and only he can be blamed.

Both FF and RM did themselves no credit over the whole Muir debacle and it looks to me as if both are still at it.

It's not something that I want to go into TBH. We're not near administration, and I don't see the point in getting anyone worried at this stage. It does however highlight the immorality of many prepacks.

1872, surely?

No doubt. Very busy. I didn't sit down and do a detailed review of the number of home games included in turnover year on year. What's your estimate?

Again that's the big question. It will be presumably be difficult to prove that everything was done exactly as recommended. I'd agree that the likelihood is that there is a better claim against the tax advisors than the auditors.

Disagree. It's obviously a very technical area and if GT reviewed and had reasonable grounds for thinking that the tax scheme stood up then they will be OK. It can all be about interpretation and there tends to be shades of grey. There isn't necessarily a right and wrong on this. I'm very involved in some complicated corporate tax planning and I have a reasonable argument for everything that I do, but that's not to say that there isn't a reasonable alternative viewpoint. Auditors can't see into the future and they can't be held liable for a company losing a court case whose decision could be almost 50:50 as to how the judge interpretates the law and interpretates the facts of a case. It comes down to emphasis. For example, let's say there is a question of image rights. Rangers say that 25% of a contract relates to image rights and HMRC claim that it's 5%. A court subsequently finds that 15% is reasonable, and there is an additional 10% for rangers to pay. Can a firm of auditors be held liable for thinking that 25% isn't reasonable and 15% is? As long as they have a rational explanation for it and they can prove that they gave it due consideration then they would be OK. However if they argued that 95% was reasonable then there could be claim against them. It's all questions of degree. If the facts of this case, of which few are known, are that GT came down at the 95% level then there may be a case against them but I tend to think that this will not be the case.

Good to see that Boss and I agree with our estimates of net debt.

Struggling a wee bit today. Got a lot on this morning then I'm away. If I get a chance......

I've just had a quick scan but my initial thoughts are: 1. Despite having CL football this season, we may end up making a small loss (�£2m?) for the full year. 2. Debt looks like it is around �£18m-�£19m, �£6m lower than it was in the previous year.

which is a bit concerning.

The Albion Car Park was sold to PPG for �£2m around 1990. It was then bought back on a long term (125 years) lease in 1995. Given the nature of the lease, it can be treated as if we own it. The finance lease set up in 1995 is however still payable.

Nothing specific, but just that there isn't that much cash behind the deal. Perhaps I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but there's normally some positive vibes being put out about these deals, but they aren't coming through this time.

The rumours seem to not to be that promising, but I guess all we can do is wait at this point.

Phil McGillivan. A bitter Scottish Celtic fan who usually goes under some other name and pretends he is a different nationality for some reason. You're best ignoring him.

The debt is a moving target, and I'm not sure that there was ever a commitment or requirement for it to be wiped out completely. I'm more interested in what our facilites are to be moving forward and how we plan to stay within them, particularly given the apparent commitment to spend �£5m net on players each year.

Fair enough. There have been plenty who have commented that have an agenda, and it appeared that you also had one. Not what you said, but OK. Still seems strange that someone who doesn't support Celtic and doesn't have an agenda would go to the trouble of doing an article. The only people who care about the �£71m on the balance sheet are LBG and I would assume that they have already heavily discounted it when analysing the group. I can't believe that they accept the valuation of the stadium, for example. Given that Rangers appear to be stand-alone then I don't see what there is to get excited about. It's just adding numbers together given the relationship between the club and the rest of MIH. I presume that they can also see the potential downside of no CL football over the next few seasons, so do they really want MIH to hold onto a company that is likely to make losses? On the cross guarantee point, it would need to be disclosed in the accounts, which it is not, and AJ also stated that there was no guarantees with other parts of the Murray Group. To attach something, you need to go to "advanced" when replying and then you should see an attachments option under "additional options". As for your other points, they are largely based on your statement that the deal is being done based on the contingency remaining within the club. You obviously have or are trying to imply that you have inside information. If you do have some then you are in a better position than me, but I can't understand why the deal is not dead. I don't agree with all your assertions but there's no point debating them if a decision has already been made, as it makes any discussion on the reasons fairly meaningless. As for the school question, it was a joke that obviously caused a woosh moment.

It seems that they have had another go. It seems it's not only journalists who are lazy with their reporting as we shall see. It's astonishing that anyone thinks that LBG's main focus and concern is Rangers when it's obvious that PPG has been their main issue. Is the author suggesting that LBG subscribed for an additional �£150m of MIH shares due to their concern about Rangers? I'd agree with that. It's so much of a non-story that it's hardly worthy of mention, but it seems to have provoked a reaction in the author for some strange reason. Totally wrong. Rangers' assets are not subject to cross guarantees with other MIH companies. A very nice explanation for an irrelevant situation. If only the author hadn't made that small incorrect assumption and wasted so much time proving a point that is totally irrelevant. MIH's holding in Rangers is currently around 85% but what's 23% between friends? No it doesn't actually. The MIH shares are what are being bought, so MIH would receive the whole �£6m. I think by now we can assume that your guarantees are worthless. Nobody has any idea as to whether this is the case or not. Anyone with a degree of financial acumen would know that these guarantees are standard in any takeover sitution, and not in any way unusual. This may or may not be the case. I have no idea, but neither has the author. MIH are continuing trading and have been looking at new developments so LBG are hardly turning off the tap. Also, the contingency currently exists within MIH so are LBG really that worse off if Rangers are sold? Standard stuff when dealing with any HMRC case. This is what I can't understand. Surely it's a fairly clear issue? Either the contingent liability stays within MIH then what is the problem, or it's stays within the club and it's unacceptable to Whyte and he walks away (which he presumably would have done months ago if that was the case), or he is (worryingly) happy to accept the exposure. Again we don't know the situation, but if the author's assertion is correct then why is Whyte still floating around? Can't wait. :grin: What school did you go to?

Yes, I'm sure they would try and claim this is a playful reference to Rangers fans.

The IRA targeted people based on their religion and based on their nationality, so how can support for it not show malice towards members of the religious group that they targeted?

What's a good anti-virus programme? I've been using the free MS one on a laptop and it seems to work well.

And yet Frankie was today able to get the bank to confirm that "Suggestions that Lloyds Banking Group is blocking a deal to acquire the club are baseless and without foundation." without too much difficulty.

That would be my take on it, although it doesn't seem unreasonable for a buyer to come along and expect Lloyds not to require the whole amount given that they are apparently spending so much effort ensuring that the club is able to meet its commitments.