BrahimHemdani

Rangers could offer the game by game tickets at a discount.

Let's hope so!

It's not connected at all. The fit and proper test applies to Whyte himself being the owner or even a director of the Club. His honesty had already been called into question by a judge and lately by a sheriff, plus his failure to disclose his disqualification and now this revelation. The administration and possible liquidation of the Club are based on the Club's finances not Whyte's honesty, solvency or competence, which would be the tests applied in terms of his being fit and proper.

If it is proven that he lied by saying that he used his own or his company's money to pay off Lloyds and that was not true then he will certainly fail a fit and proper test for being dishonest, so wouldn't be allowed to own the Club. Exactly how the SFA would deal with that is probably causing Mr Regan nightmares right now.

I've said this on here several times in the past few weeks: 18 + 6 = 24, but I don't think anyone believed me; the Mail must have seen a bank statement or some other document proving it, that's all. On the 18th: The other £6M was going to Murray for his shares and then he agreed to accept the £1 so that the £6M could either be used to pay back Ticketus for 2010/11 or as working capital. Whyte is a supreme conman; effectively he bought the club by mortgaging the next three years' season ticket money and using it to pay off Lloyds. Lloyds are complicit as well, of course; it is obvious they didn't care where the money came from.

Thanks for trying, the intention was to give ian1964 some of the atmosphere. I'll know not to turn the phone sideways in future!

Unless Rangers were invited into the EPL (unlikely) the only way into the lower leagues is via the pyramid system.

£18M to pay off LBG. The other £6m was for Murray's shares and despite all that's said about him on here, as you know he declined and took £1. The £6m may have gone to pay the defiicit with Ticketus or been used for working capital. Whyte used the fans' own money to buy the Club, clever eh!

Fairly certain it was Whyte's solicitors in Bristol.

Correct, the Administrator said that they (HMRC) didn't want to put Rangers out of business (provokes questions from Hearts fans).

Nice work if you can get it. Might have been better if they'd both stayed there and taken CW with them.

Chick always bowls him softballs anyway. When is someone going to ask why he is playing a LB/CB in LMF (and part time CMF today), another LB who could play in LMF at LB to the exclusion of the first one and why it is that we have 5 genuine LMF players only one of whom can get in the team, on the right?

I think that Whyte thought that there would be some could cred if he employed an ex-player who had been CEO at the SFA. Other answers on the back of an old pound note.

He was in the Director's Box today; he is supposedly Director of Football, deals with transfers and the like. Since we won't be doing any transfers any time soon, I reckon he'll be one of the first for the chop.

Not stupid at all. I did you a long reply then lost it so here's the short version. In theory NO but in practice YES. They could say to players: we can't afford to pay your contracted wages so we can let you go or you can take a reduced wage. Some they will just make redundant: Gordon Smith might be one and either Durrant or McDowall. I expect Ally to take a big (say half) pay cut for the sake of the team, then others might follow. But expect to see a very different Rangers team in the next few weeks.

Leaving aside what the media may have said or their motives for doing so, are we talking about the same Mr Whyte who one judge called "thoroughly unfit to be a director" and whose evidence in a Court of Law was described by a Sheriff as "wholly unreliable". The same Mr Whyte who failed to disclose that he had been disqualified as Director within the past 5 years which would have immediately rendered him not fit and proper to be a director of a Scottish Footbal club, never mind its Chairman? I wouldn't like to be sitting on that fence.

Much more than a possibility, brace yourselves for next week............ Ally will be told exactly how much he can spend on player's wages and left to make the choices, with the exception of Bartley who is a cert to go back to Arsenal unless they pay all his wages.

I think you have hit the mark there but a patsy no chance. The guy's a megolomaniac, does he look like anyone's patsy to you?

Not a chance, doubt if you will ever see him again at Ibrox.

That is correct; only "controllers" or others giving investment advice (known as R/I's [registered individuals] or "approved persons") require to be registered. However, as has been demonstrated in Mr Whyte's past he has "controlled" companies of which he was apparently not a Director.

You may well be correct but if so the solicitors would be in deep shit. But if you are correct and what was released was the floating charge itself, then that would negate the whole purpose of the document which is to release part of the assets from the floating charge. So I take the first line as a kind of preamble not a statement of what is being released which are the "season tickets/proceeds" as clearly stated. Either way Rangers would still own those assets, would they not; at least at the point in time that the document was registered?

These are public records, you can obtain copies for a fee.

Ex Chairman - a Freudian slip perhaps or do they know something we don't?

Not necessarily. Firstly IMHO Craig is correct, "tickets" are defined as "season tickets" (for the four seasons from 2011/12 - 2014/15 (incidentally proving CW to be a liar). So this document does not refer to anything other than season tickets. What this document does is separate and release the "season tickets" and the "ticket proceeds" i.e. the income from the sale of the specified number of tickets from the floating charge over the assets of the company. I believe that the reason that there is reference to "Designated Accounts" is that the season ticket money goes into a separate bank account, called Rangers Hospitality Ltd which is linked to the normal bank account (which is still with LBG). This means that the company would be free to pledge those assets i.e. the future value of the tickets or indeed the tickets themselves to any other company say in return for money upfront. The document does not say what Rangers have done with these assets. However, if the statement from Octopus is correct, they have purchased tickets for the current and the (presumably unissued) tickets for next three seasons, which means that if they are issued (for the next three seasons) then whoever buys one would be paying Octopus not Rangers or if they were paying Rangers then Rangers would owe the money to Octopus because they own the rights to the tickets. Although Octopus say they do not lend money, in effect that is what they have done; they have lent it against the future sale value of the tickets. For this to make commercial sense they must have bought the tickets at a significant discount to the face value. If Rangers were to ask fans to buy tickets weekly in future (as I think Leeds Utd did in similar circumstances) then it would appear that whoever has bought the "season tickets" could whistle for their money unless there is some other agreement in the background that compels Rangers to offer at least the specified number of "season "tickets". Even then Rangers could encourage sales of tickets on a match by match basis, say by selling at a discount to season tickets and then all that revenue (sorry bad word) would belong to the Club. More to the point perhaps, if it wasn't Rangers FC who "sold" the "season tickets" and therefore as the Aministrators suggest there is no legal charge against these assets for that money in other words Rangers FC still "own" the tickets , then Rangers may not have any liability at all. Lastly, does anyone seriously doubt that Whyte used that money, however he acquired it, to pay off LBG and is that not why the Administrators can't find it?

I'm not sure that "temporary free membership" is an option. E-membership most always would be free but simply "registering" would not make someone a member even temporarily.