BrahimHemdani

and may god go with him, a nicer man you couldn't hope to meet.

Rangers supply gang sockets, doesn't sound like they'll be giving Mr Young a "plug" in any sense of the word, anytime soon.

You may well be correct, Zappa, in which case, it's a pity because I for one have had about enough of Chick Young's sycophantic repetitive "questions" that I can take in one lifetime.

As I said earlier in this chain according to the SPL webiste: BBC Scotland have nonexclusive live radio commentary rights for every match. BBC Radio 5 Live have the right to broadcast commentaries from up to 10 matches each season. The deal also enables BBC to screen terrestrial highlights from all matches and to stream up to 120 minutes of footage online via the http://www.bbc.co.uk website. Sportfive. There is absolutely no way that the SPL will take the BBC to task on this, they will (rightly in my opinion) see it as an issue between Rangers/CW and the BBC, they will only be involved if Rangers breach the terms of the SPL contract with the BBC.

You are correct but the ball is trundling towards the line and the goalie is on the edge of the 18 yard box.

Thanks Zappa. I agree or would agree 100%, on the face of it, it would be breach of Rule by Rangers (assuming there is a Rule that says that each Club must accept and facilitate any contract entered into by the SPL on their behalf)/ and breach of contract by the SPL, so yes could be costly indeed. Another own goal? I say would agree, because one thing we are learning about Mr Whyte is that he is a very stubborn man and another is that he tends to engage his mouth before he engages his brain e.g. I am taking legal action against the BBC for the content of a progamme that I have not watched and I am banning them from Ibrox (if that is indeed the meaing in part at least of "Withdrawing Cooperation from the BBC") without reading the SPL Rules or the terms of their contract with the BBC. My guess is that when that is explained to him, he will say something like I never meant to ban the radio or cameras but we won't be giving interviews or doing anything more than we have to do in terms of the contract.

Interesting question Zappa. I have found the SPL Regulations online: Commentary positions â?? Clubs shall have a minimum of 5 TV and radio commentary positions. Camera positions â?? Clubs shall provide a suitable gantry or gantries for use by television cameras and any other moving picture cameras in such an area of its ground and at such an elevation to allow for clear and unobstructed coverage of matches. NB â?? UEFA requires there to be one main camera platform exactly on the half way line. This platform must be at least 6 square metres. TV Studio â?? Clubs shall be equipped with a TV studio or have an area that may be used for this purpose. NB â?? UEFA requires there to be two studios available. OB Van area â?? Clubs shall have adequate provision to allow for OB van parking. NB â?? UEFA requires an area of 200 square metres. and this in their MEDIA CENTRE: BBC Radio Scotland/BBC Radio Five Live The BBCâ??s new deal runs through until the end of 2011/12. BBC Scotland have nonexclusive live radio commentary rights for every match. BBC Radio 5 Live have the right to broadcast commentaries from up to 10 matches each season. The deal also enables BBC to screen terrestrial highlights from all matches and to stream up to 120 minutes of footage online via the http://www.bbc.co.uk website. Sportfive I am not a lawyer, far less a media lawyer, but based on the above whilst Rangers might reserve the right of admission to Ibrox Stadium to whomsover and and on whatever grounds they chose (again within the SPL and SFA Regulations) they will be hard pressed to ban BBC Radio and indeed cameras from Ibrox if the BBC have a contract with the SPL for those purposes as they appear to have unless the BBC have breached the terms of any such contract, which has not been alleged so far as I have read (as yet!). So my answer to your question would be NO they can't but that might not prevent them trying and the issue would then be what are the BBC going to do about it. Presumably complain to the SPL and threaten not to pay whatever the fee is in the contract, then all the other SPL Clubs are affected etc etc.

I am not going to take a position on the actions of the BBC other than to say that if Mr Whyte wasn't as secretive about his past business affairs and current finances (however legitimate that secrecy might be), then there would be a lot less for fans, the BBC or any of the media to speculate about. However, it does seem to me that if anyone wants to protest against the BBC coverage of Rangers or indeed coverage of Mr Whyte himself, then the best place to do it is outside the BBC HQ at Pacific Quay. I don't see the point of protesting against the BBC at Ibrox if they are banned from there. The BBC won't be listening and I doubt that it would get much coverage. However, if the protest takes place at Pacific Quay and is of significant size then the BBC themsleves would be hard pressed not to cover it, for sure STV and perhaps SKY would to, not to mention the print media. Lastly, regardless of Mr Whyte's comments today, I don't see that bannning the BBC or banning employees from speaking to the BBC (the legitimacy of which would depend on their contracts) is either desirable or sustainable in the long term. The previous administration (sorry bad word right now) banned a certain Mr Speirs for a short period but sooon realised that banning journalists because you disagree with what they write is likely to backfire on you. I do realise that SDM's enjoinder, that if you don't like what they write don't buy the paper doesn't quite have the same analogy here as the BBC is a worldwide body but nonetheless there are other ways to protest, short of taking legal action, such as to complain directly to the BBC or Ofcom. Oh and since the comments complained off, were as many have pointed out directed at Mr Whyte, rather than RFC, I trust that Mr Whyte is paying his own legal bills in this case.

This is a massive own goal of Cha Du Ri proportions. As the only executive employees on the Independent Board Committee that opposed the bid, Bain and McIntyre were obvious targets, regardless of how they had performed their jobs in the past. Whatever your views on Mr Whyte, once he became the owner, he could hardly be expected to work with or continue to employ two of the key people who opposed the acquisition. The obvious and right thing to have done was to agree a pay off and it seems to me that both Bain and McIntyre are intelligent enough to have understood the situation and settled for a reasonable sum that reflected their salaries (and I recognise that part of the issue might have been that Bain's salary was in dispute) and length of service. Mr Whyte chose to go down another route (and it does seem somewhat disingenuous of him to accuse the BBC of "muckraking" when he is doing exactly the same thing in regard to Bain and McIntyre). He can hardly complain when they fight back with all the legal muscle they can command. Even at this stage he would be well advised to instruct Counsel to negotiate an out of court settlement rather than waste the Club's money in an exercise that is guaranteed to do two things: make the lawyers richer and drag the good name of the Club further into the mire.

Whyte was always going to have a clear out but I find it very hard to believe that either Bain or the very straightforward McIntyre would have done anything "irregular". Johnston may just have been making the point finally that he did not consider that the whole thing was in the best interests of the Club. Paul Murray's position was untennable and if King supported him or was going to support him then he was in the same position. Keeping McCLelland (who has a seat on one of the UEFA committees) as figurehead Vice Chair and John Greig both of whom will do as they are told is good PR but getting rid of Bain and McIntyre (which is obviously coming) just looks vindictive to me and as has been said they will likely be sacked and left to sue and there will be an out of court settlement with confidentiality clauses etc, which is cheaper than paying them off but very unseemly. Bit of a mess really, one can only hope the Board room machinations are over quickly so we can get on with team building for next season. But with Bain suspended who will be doing the negotiations, Whyte?

Perhaps so but whether you regard it is part of the purchase price (not really true, the purchase price is what he pays for the shares) or simply paying off LBG as part of the deal is not the issue; the issue is the status of that money.

A nice thought but a trifle premature I'd venture to suggest! What about the Champions League as well!!

"Debt free" is, was and always will be utter nonsense. Unless the good Mr Whyte is gifting us �£22 million or whatever, all that is happening is that we are exchanging LBG for Whyte and Co. Time will tell if this is a good thing for RFC. Clearly Mr Johnston doesn't think it is and I tend to believe him, unlike Bain & Co, he had nothing to lose and has plenty more to do with his time.

I think that's about it. Either Rangers are borrowing money from CW/Offshore Company (financed by who knows) against their assets or CW owns Rangers so can pledge Rangers assets to borrow money from his bankers (whoever they are) or Offshore Company or both? Clever eh.........

No statement on the web site since Wednesday, 17 November 2010 22:37 Rangers Takeover News The Rangers Supporters Trust welcomes as extremely positive the news that Craig Whyte has stepped forward and is buying Rangers FC. Welcoming the news, Trust Board member Kenny Park said: "This appears to be a very positive development for the Club and Rangers fans will welcome any initiative that stabilises the club's finances and enables it to move forward. We look forward to hearing further details of Mr Whyte's plans and working with him and his board as they build for the future and strive to continue Rangers' proud tradition of success."

RST might not be so keen on him in these circumstances.

I was there, I am convinced that he turned it on in the second half boosted by the Rangers support, I saw him look up in apparent amazement more than once. There were three guys standing next to me who had no intererst in Rangers, but had travelled from Paris just to shout "Allez Jerome!" which they did with great frequency. He made the goal with a pass to Bougherra.

I know exactly what they are but if I spill the beans a number of people including me are going to be in a great deal of soapy bubble, so I'm sorry but I think it will come out tomorrow. Best I can say is that IF they are resolved, I now expect the deal to be completed tomorrow, sorry I mean today Friday. (It's been a long day with Europa Cup, Bin Laden, Scottish Election, Rangers takeover [or not]) :yawn:

It appears that the Board did indeed reject the deal as it stood last weekend and as a result have been able to improve it, exactly how, no doubt will come out in due course. I think that Johnston has chosen his words very carefully. Saying that the deal has been improved for the benefit of the Club is some way from saying that it is a good deal for the Club. Personally I remain of the view that it is nothing of the sort. Leaving aside �£6 million to Murray for his shares; essentially all that seems to be happening is that CW/Offshore Company lends money to Rangers who use the money to pay off LBG, with say $5m+ left over this year for the war chest and who knows what in coming seasons. In these circumstances is the �£5m+ a gift or a loan, my strong suspicion is the latter. So what we need to have is a spreadsheet showing all the terms of the current borrowing in one column and all the terms from Offshore Co. in another. Chances of that..........

The "technical issues" are nothing to do with printer paper or offices being open or closed.

I stand corrected on the author. Still think it's a poor statement.

I assume you mean "Smith" as in "Whyte" or John Doe, not Smith as in Walter Smith unless he's been saving all his pennies over the years. :surprised:

I take your point absolutely, but the information about the deal being closed on April 18th was accurate at the time as I believe was proven by comments from CW, LBG and SDM. Equally I believe the information I have posted on this thread is accurate and whilst Johnston is not saying that they have rejected the offer equally they are making it abundantly clear that they are not prepared to recommend it as it stands. In both cases, however, the events moved very fast so what might have been an accurate statement of the position one minute might be quickly superceeded by moves from the other interested parties e.g. Paul Murray, and of course they are all spinning and briefing against each other. So yes we should all be cautious, most of all those who post new threads, but I stand by the information, which was indeed well-founded and not idle speculation.

Whoops, absolutely not. For RST read RFC!

Perhaps both of us? My information is that the Board did indeed reject the deal but have been put under pressure by SDM and whilst it is clear from the statement that they do not support it in its current form they may not stand in its way as that would most likely take the situation of a hostile bid into July which would be damaging to the Club. I am confident that I have not been used as the informant is a friend very close to the action at the LBG end but he is NOT on the Board of RST so not privy to every last detail.