Bluedell

I don't see how the bank could insist on it be included. Blackpool couild easily refuse to accept it as a clause.

My comments are in red below. Although I have been negative here, kudos to you for putting the OP together and having it as a discussion document, and some of my replies are to stimulate further debate.

I don't think Murray cares any more. We are relatively stand-alone as far as MIH are concerned and it's not going to concern him if attendances fall (other than from the point of the impact on the consolidated MIH accounts). He has washed his hands of us and he isn't laughing at us. He doesn't care enough even to do that.

I believe that the difference in the way that the OP and the bank are looking at things is that the OP is looking at our financial position as at 30/6/10 and 30/6/11, but no further but the bank are taking a more medium term approach to the finances and are looking at the positions in 2012, 2013 and 2014, based on the worst case scenario of no CL football in these years and ensuring that we stay with our credit facility, given that we have shown an inability to do it in the past. The OP highlights a small reduction in staff costs between 2009 and 2010. It has to be remembered that our loss before tax and before the profit on the sale of players (which can't be guaranteed) in 2009 was �£20million! When looking at our the bank views us, I believe that a 36-48 month scenario needs to be considered and not just the position at the best point in the current year. A far bigger question to me is why there are conflicting messages about the bank being put out by AJ and Walter. One of them is misleading the support and the support deserve to have the situation clarified (again!).

What will Rangers position be without CL next season....and the season after that...and the season after that? The ratios are all being done at the time of year when our financial position is the best. We were in the position around 2 years ago of being unable to stay within our banking facility and ended up being dependent on qualifying for the CL in the following season. The management of the club were shown to be unable to mainatain the debt levels of the club at reasonable levels on more than one occasion. I fail to see why we are suddenly the type of organisation that would get credit facilites "regardless". We are not a typical business and are not one that can be simplified into a few ratios, which do not take account of management, timings of cashflows, reliance on CL income, capex requirements and existing credit facilities. The fact that we were rated as secure over the last 4 years tells you all you need to know about how applicable it is to Rangers.

Is our league championship and potential CL entry worth only �£700k? Absolutely not!!!!

Thanks for the reply, BH. There are 2 other reasons I would offer as to why the survey is not representative: 1. It presumably only was completed by fans who are active on message-boards or else they may not have found it. This cannot be representative because a) the fans who use messageboards are not represenative of the support in general. Look at the lack of support for Murray on all messageboards and look at the support for him at the stadium. b) most of the guys I sit beside at Ibrox don't use messageboards or the the internet for football. Their views on a number of issues are different from many of the guys on-line. 2. 32% of the respondants are members of supporters trusts. Around 50% of people who attend senior games are OF supporters and I'd argue that less than 2% of them were members of supporters trusts. I therefore don't see how the sample who voted can be representative of the fans who go to games.

The timing of the issuing of the year-end accounts has nothing to do with the issuing of the half year accounts, which are normally issued in the last 2 weeks in February. They don't give any balance sheet information, so no information on the debt, and the profitability will look great due to the inclusion of all the CL income in them. They will not tell us too much.

I just can't see that decreasing the number of attractive games (eg against Celtic, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen) and replacinng them with Falkirk, Raith, Dunfermline is going to do anything but decrease the playing quality, decrease the cash and decrease the crowds. The product is more unattractive than it was 10 years ago and the idea of giving up my season ticket is no longer unthinkable. Make these changes and you push me much, much closer to that point.

What percentage of SPL club supporters want an expanded SPL? It's obvious that supporters outside the SPL would want an enlarged SPL, but they are in the minority. I'd suggest that of the people that attend senior games that only 20% attend non-SPL games, which suggests that the response is unrepresentative. SD should be doing such analysis in their press releases.

What percentage of respondents were OF supporters?

I'd disagree with that. Hutton did well in the CL after a shaky start. Ness started well but ended up misplacing a lot of passes, refused to run with the ball into space on a few occasions and resorted to going for the "hero" pass too often when there was better options. He did well considering the situation, but so did Hutton.

Why? Hutton comes into the team and does well. Ness comes into the team and does well. Fleck comes into the team and is anonymous.

Most of the coughing was deliberate. You are correct about the vast majority, but I don't think that the few idiots in their support should get away without criticism just because Rangers played badly.

It's not publicly available, so I'd guess that it's totally made up.

Totally agree. It's extremely disrespectful, and there is no excuse that's acceptable.

So we should worry about the team, but then you start worrying about Ally's shorts?

Did Lennon really avoid it by not coming down the tunnel until it was over as it appeared oon the clip I saw on the TV]?

Very sad news. RIP

Loovens can show the best haunts in the Merchant City.

Yeah, don't see any need to bring Cuellar into it.

Wait until the end of January and there's no pressure on the new owners to spend money.

Merry Christmas, Blue Nose Bears!

I wasn't implying that he was necessarily meeting with them at the same time. My point still stands. If him and Murray have agreed a price then why meet again? If they have not agreed a price then he shouldn't be meeting with Bain at this point. If I am selling a company, I don't want any prospective buyer talking to the management prior to a deal being agreed, and once the deal has been agreed it's over to the lawyers and I'm generally not going to sit down with the buyer again. Perhaps Murray does things differently, but it just strikes me as unusual and therefore makes the rumour less credible.

I can't see why he would be meeting with them both. If the deal is done then why meet with Murray? If the deal isn't done then why meet with Bain?