UCF2008

How can budget be cut if he's talking about signing players for Sept 1st?

Just like he said recently after Green left, he'd been given a budget for next season that he was happy with. He now has doubts if that will remain the case. Green boasted of a £10m transfer kitty and I think Ally's only saying he needs it to get his hands on as much transfer funds as he can. We all know there's no way he's getting £10m to spend.

Yes, cut the squad down, try to reduce wages in contracts, introduce more youngsters and see the team flourish ...

I don't think he needs ten million to get out of Div2. I doubt he does either in all honesty. At the same time I don't think it's unreasonable for him to hope for a few million to invest in rebuilding the squad. Especially if that job's to be completed by the time we get back to the SPL. It's not his decision though and just like managers in all walks of life he'll spend the budget he's given.

From the soundbytes he's been giving us since Green & Ahmad departed it seems as though he at least suspects his budget has been cut significantly for next season.

Completely unrealistic and I struggle to believe this came from within the club. Wherever it came from I think it demonstrates a clear agenda against the current coaching staff and absolutely fails to acknowledge our current situation.

If you put any club in the world in the bottom tier against part time opposition, attendances will dwindle. Some of our attendances this season have been remarkable given the level of opposition and have rightly been reported as such around the globe simply because the expected drop didn't happen...yet.

The fact remains that the novelty factor and determination of our support to back the team through thick and thin will only stretch so far. Ibrox won't be empty any time soon, but the numbers will fall and there's nothing a change of coaching staff and football philosophy can do about that.

Players worth 8-10M were given written guaranteess they would be sold for fees of 1-2M.

This left them free to negotiate larger than normal signing on fees much the same as they ended up doing anyway. We could have got at least 5M for the traitors the week they tuped.

Was that not in the terms agreed with D&P which would have been void if their contracts reverted?

Or was this a written guarantee Green claimed he made?

Something I've been wondering. Had the players contracts rerverted back to their original terms before being TUPE'd?

Stevie Smith? Feck me I forgot he even played for us. He wouldnt get near left back with Wallace currently there so no thanks.

 

Boyd - No thanks. Enough said about him.

 

Miller - Jury is out, I think he could do a job for us though.

 

Novo - Hand down yes.

It's a tough call. I think all of them might struggle to deliver what we would expect of them. At least the good aspects of their game from their previous spells that is.

I think their experience would be invaluable in bringing through the youngsters, but the more of them we bring back the less game time the youngsters will see.

It depends on wages. If both are willing to play for buttons then I'd like to see Boyd and Novo back in September.

Fair enough. Admirable of you, I guess. I was a glass half-empty dour Scot from Presbyterian stock plus lashings of my own inbuilt cynicism before David Murray turned into the first of many monsters so you can imagine how dark, twisted and bitter my heart is now!

It's not good news. At least not to the extent that many were hoping some squeeky clean moneybags was going to ride in to our rescue.

Aside from the alleged crminal links though it's not as bad as some are making out. They don't have the finances to throw silly money at the club to take it forward, but they don't have the finances for a takevover either.

They also appear to have previous history of investing in Scottish football for reasons other than financial gain. Again, they don't have the means to do so much in the way of our favor but at least they might not just be in it for the dividends.

Your faith in human nature is astounding! "I am just back to this news and would never in a million years have reached for the phrase "give him the benefit of the doubt..."

I was just trying to add some balance to avoid noising up our Green brigade. It was nigh on impossible to come up with a single excuse for him until that one dawned on me

I'm trying to work out why Green would sell to Easdale. Was his the first acceptable bid? Was he letting his ego get in the way of selling to someone he previously fought off like Kennedy or McColl? Did he want to stake a claim to having brought his purchaser on board?

Or to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he just keeping true to his word that no one would own more than 10-15% of the club? The Easdales don't have the means to purchase a majority stake afterall.

So we wanted Green off the board and out of a job but we want to dictate to him what he does with his shares?

 

Hmm.

I'd say we (and by that I mean you as well) would have hoped for him to do what was best for Rangers

I'd certainly have to consider that.

 

That's not a cop out answer, more that those senarios are so unlikely and horrifying I'm not sure how I'd react.

It's a scary thought. I've no idea what the implications would be. I don't think anyone can say otherwise with any certainty. We don't even know for sure what Whyte's end game in all of this is.

What puzzles me is how calamitous the statements and actions of the club have been over the past month. It's almost as if we're trying to hand the club back to Whyte.

it was to find investement in his company that later bought our assets. personally I don't think we should be paying that.

If it's proven Sevco 5088 doesn't belong to Rangers then we won't be.

again not paid by your guests.

 

green bought us he should pay the associated costs out his cut.

It's company startup costs though. We're the company and these costs (or most of them) will be reflected in our accounts. Green's just the guy who claimed he was running the show.

so we the fans should pay for the work done by green in buying us. even though hes got millions for doing it himself.

 

if your buying a house you pay for the survey not the people who rent it off you or come round for partys.

No but you might have agency fees to cover unless you sold it in the classifieds.

orlit are a company who are billing rangers for work they did for green.

 

but thats ok according to some.

The company owns it's own defunct takeover vehicle. Why shouldn't we owe costs for the organisation of investment in it?

Who are Orlit Enterprises?

The company from Singapore who were involved in brokering some initial investment in the Green consortium. Green claimed they were trying to extort money from the club and refused to pay when the bill they produced was significantly higher than expected

I doubt that to be honest it could all be part of the show. Has anyone really ever seen who's name is on the deeds of Ibrox as brown was shouting. That would be really interesting to see. I just don't think Murray was that gullible or easy to push around to be honest.

It's not that I don't necessarily believe Murray was well enough connected, but to be the criminal mastermind behind all of this you'd have thought that he could have avoided the whole tax case in the first place. Then there's the fact that Rangers represented a relatively insignifcant portion of his debt with far greater exposure to the peering public eye.

Do I think Lloyds needed to twist his arm to sell Rangers to Whyte for a pound? Maybe a little when he started to get an idea what they might be up to. He definitely wasn't duped as far I'm concerned.

Since Rangers are now claiming ownership of Sevco 5088 Ltd, does this not now confirm direct involvement of the club in any legal dispute?

So where we were last week looking at Green Vs Whyte, we're now instead looking at Rangers Vs Worthington Group?

UCF2008, before Worthington can take up the case for Sevco 5088, Whyte has to prove he owns it.

Read the statement from Worthington Group again. It makes it pretty clear they believe that Sevco 5088 is part of the package. It's top of their list of LFL assets. I expect they'll be fighting Whytes corner without Whyte needing to prove anything beforehand.

This only shows a connection between Whyte and Worthington, someone to bankroll Whyte's legal expenses. But I repeat ...

 

Where in the above statement, copied from your link, does it say that Worthington will sue RIFC? It says Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of LFL, and included in the assets of Sevco 5088 is a claim to assets of RFC 2012 PLC, etc. Because LFL claim that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of theirs does not make it so, they would have to prove that. Charles Green created that company. If Whyte wants to prove that his newly created company owns Sevco 5088 as a subsidiary then he will have to engage Charles Green, not RIFC. Also, because Worthington's leading counsel says there is a prima facie case to answer does not make that so either. We seen that before when Rod McKenzie of Harper & McCleod said there was a prima facie case to answer in the side letter case.

 

I tried to include your reply also, forlanssister but it didn't work. Both of you are making a case for a previous connection between Whyte and Worthington, but it still doesn't prove that either are going to engage RIFC in court proceedings. Whyte will have to prove a case for ownership of Sevco 5088 before there can be any causal link between him and RIFC's shares and assets.

You're absolutely correct in terms of any Worthington Group legal action. It's not going to be Worthington Group Vs Rangers. It would most likely be Worthington Group Vs Green & Ahmad. The problem is those two alone account for a 12.5% shareholding in Rangers.

Then if you take into account how the ownership of Sevco5088 in the event Worthington's claim is successful, you'd be looking at other members of the original takeover consortium and how their shareholding may be affected by the proceedings, then it's potentially a disaster for Rangers.

You're also right that just because they say they've been advised of a prima facie case to answer, doesn't mean anythnig has been decided. Whyte has an appaling courtroom record in all of this and on his own I don't think he'd stand much of a chance. I also don't think the Earley brothers would bring much to table on that front. Other parties involved in Worthington Group might however make a difference in this case.

How do you work that out?

Maybe because Worthington Group announced it to the Stock Exchange?.

http://www.investegate.co.uk/worthington-group/rns/diversification/201304170811385415C/

Off Topic, why doesn't he trust Ian Harte, Quote " I only trust MM and Walter"

I was thinking the same thing myself. Also why should we put 110% trust in MM? Because he's a Rangers man? Because the rumour mill tells us he and Green couldn't stand one another?

Who appointed MM as chairman? Was it Green, Ahmad or someone else? I honestly can't remember and can't say I would trust even that much coming out of the horses mouth if I was to go and look it up.

The only one out of the lot of them that I could say I personally trust 110% to try and do what's best for Rangers is Walter and even then it's all resting on good intentions and his understanding of the club's traditions. Neither of which have f**k all to do with how the club runs as a business. It really is a sorry state of affairs.

I would prefer someone who understands how to run a football club of our size, with all the demands involved. Someone unsullied by the Scottish game and authorities though.

David Gill would fit that bill. Conveniently, he'll be available in June as well.

...for a not so small fortune no doubt.

What about Campbell Ogilvie ?

He hasn't been anywhere nearly influential enough in fighting our corner, mainly due to his EBT shackles, but I think we need to retain as much of a pro Rangers view over at Hampden as possible.

It's already overrun by those of the other persuasion. The last thing we need to be doing is strengthening their position.

Also since he's been so easily gagged by Regan and co, I don't personally think he's the right man to take us forward as a club.

It means he wants his bonus paid.

Possibly. A month's notice would take him up to that point wouldn't it?