BrahimHemdani

My understanding is that several interested parties including Mr Whyte have approached those you mention and others who are naturally biding their time.

Agreed but seems to be acceptable to Lloyds Bank!

As most people know I am no longer on the Board but a Board member told me Ellis spoke to S Smith twice in the past week.

I believe so but with the backing of Bain and Johnston. McGill and Muir just want (the bank) out. But surely you would want a guarantee of long term investment, otherwise what's the point? Clearly Whyte doesn't even have the dosh to take out all the current borrowings e.g. the car park leases and the �£1m for the interest rate differential both of whcih are goiung to be "financed" i.e. borrowed. It's my belief that he doesn't have the other �£20m or so in cash, which means he has to borrow it against property or other assets; so in essence the Club becomes indebted to him (or his bankers whoever they are) rather than LBG. I'm not sure I see the point of that either. At least at the moment the vast bulk of the borrowings are on a term loan that we only have to pay off at a million a year. Who knows what the terms of his borrowings would be?

The latter. He has no credible plan to provide ongoing finance for the team. Certain members of the Board believe that that can only be achieved with fan involvement. To that end Ellis is reported to have been in contact with RST again but they were unable to do anything previously with the Chiarman's Club, Park, King, Ellis or McColl, so it is hard to se where they would be able to raise that kind of money now.

Putting together information a number of well placed sources: Commercial aspects of the Whyte deal are done to Lloyds satisfaction Whyte has still to convince anyone that he has along term capital plan Ellis was rumoured to have left the building but he is saying that there may be something new tomorrow (Wednesday) or Thursday; but we've heard all that before. The possible new bidders may be an inside job!

Agreed, my comment was meant to be ironic!

Because they've been drinking all day and don't know what they're doing and even if they did, they would probably see it as an act of defiance anyway.

We need Bartley to replace Weir and someone else to replace Bougherra or else it'll be Broadfoot.

Absolutely not, nothing offensive about it whatsoever.

Perhaps not but they'd have a lot less to shout about.

No one could accuse you of sitting on the "fence" nor can anyone ask you to get of(the)fence. " I'm merely stating that many of those who shout loudest about their offence actually take no genuine offence at all and simply want to get one over on Rangers fans." That may or may not be so but the fact remains, no sectarian songs, no offence - genuine or otherwise.

I respect your opinions but I strongly disagree. Singing about being up to your knees in anyone's blood IS offensive and there is absolutely no need for it. Nor is there any need for any FTP add ons. I have been a Rangers fan for more than 50 years and I don't feel the need to sing sectarian songs to "express (my) identity and feel pride in our heritage".

I agree that if UEFA either don't have or don't follow their own reports then you have a case against them but that still doesn't condone the behaviour of fans who bring the rest of us and our great Club into disrepute. People in glass houses and all that........................ That said and whilst the report itself does seem a bit odd to say the least, UEFA would not be the only organisation to use outside agencies to assist them in doing their job; the government do it all the time.

I'ver said it before and I'll say it again, it doesn't matter who reported us, what matters is that if the songs weren't sung (and they most certainly were in Eindhoven) then there would be nothing to report. Rangers will get absolutely nowhere if the defence is attacking whoever compiled the report; in fact I would venture to suggest that it would be counter-productive. Simply issuing repeated warnings and appeals to travelling fans, handing out uselss bits of paper when you collect your ticket are nothing more than window dressing. Positive action by refusing to give out tickets to fans who are falling down drunk, official Rangers stewards IN the crowd not just outside telling you where the nearest hot dog stand is located, plain clothes local or Scottish police if necessary, TV monitoring and banning fans who misbehave are just some of what is needed if Rangers are to be taken seriously in this respect.

I am not familiar with the web site or the writer but this is an outstanding piece of journalism that clearly differentiates right from wrong. When I first started following Rangers in the late fifties and early 60's Follow Follow was the THE song but since the middle got hijacked with "f*** the Pope in the Vatican, it is well offside. Perhaps Rangers should try bringing it back with the correct words a la the wee blue book as Craig suggests. Also it might be worth trying some community singing with song sheets but some one other than Andy Cameron to lead the way!

The point is, where does that leave us? There wasn't a whole lot between Rangers and PSV over the two legs but Benfica were far superior on Thursday night. The point Calscot makes about Brazilian players is very important. I shudder to think what would have happened to us with Weir and Whittaker in central defence against those sharp strikers. That said, we have beaten Sporting (admitedly way down the league this season) twice in the last three years so all is not lost.

Something has definitely gone wrong with Edu this season, seems to lack confidence, constantly gets caught in possession or gives the ball away. No doubt Ness is a great prospect as is Hutton who seems stronger and can send a pass across field no problem. But if I was a player (which I was not) the first man I would want on the team sheet would be McCulloch, always there to take a pass, always directing traffic and never lies down.

Most definitely TBB and FTP add ons were sung in Eindhoven, I don't particularly recollect the Famine Song but then I agree it's harmless so it may not have registered. I have only missed one away European game in the last six years and there is no question that things calmed down in the wake of the fines for Pamplona and Villarreal but there is equally no question that it has started up again with a vengeance. It would be idle to speculate on the reasons for this but my feeling is that it began again in Bucharest at the Unirea game and certainly the atmosphere in Bursa was the worst I have come across - what on earth were Rangers fans doing hiding their faces with full balaclavas, taunting the oppostion fans with cries of Besiktas, days after a supporter was knifed to death. I was ashamed, after the wonderful welcome we got from the people of Bursa. I know that that is violence I am describing but my experience is that sectarian chanting and violence often go hand in hand. I am NOT saying for one minute that everyone one who sings a sectarian song is violent. Far from it. It is also the case that most violence is perpertated ON Rangers fans rather than the other way around. What I am saying is that violent behaviour seems to instil a sense of "we don't care" that is sometimes manifested in the songs. There are also a fair number of complete morons who think that it is in order to chant f*** yer pope on gaining entry to foreign countries and in some cases on attempting to gain entry and in airports and on scheduled airlines. How these people are able to travel with impunity is beyond my comprehension. I am convinced that Rangers know who they are or could easily find out with a few well placed cameras and enquiries. My feeling is that in Eindhoven, there was a sense that we are in an Orange/Protestant country so anything goes and to be fair the locals were joining in the songs in the bars. What such fans forget is that the match is being televised around Europe, so anything does not go. It really doesn't matter who is doing the reporting, the Pope or the Chief Rabbi, if the songs weren't sung there would be nothing to report. Why can't Rangers fans support the team by singing true Rangers songs and forget the sectarian nonsense. I enjoy using football as an excuse to travel to new places, see the sites and chat to opposition fans and I am bitterly disappointed that the lack of thought and what is quite simply brazen sectarianism on the part of others looks like it is going to curtail these trips next season. The qualifyers often take us to unusual places e.g. Podgorica in Montenegro and it is most likely that those are type of games we will miss. My guess is that we will be heavily fined and get a one or two match away fans ban and another few games suspended sentence. Lastly, do those who sing the songs ever stop to think how great it must be as a player running out on a foreign field and seeing a sea of blue tucked in the corner or how high up in the stands and how bad it will feel when they are not there.

MF, I respect your right to your opinion about Mr Murray, though I must question the language you use to describe him from time to time. However, as fan who clearly has the best interests of the Club at heart would you not consider that it would be better to go to Ibrox to support the team both with your money and your voice than sit at home, particularly when I assume that you could afford to go along, which unfortunately many cannnot in these difficult times and the team need all the support they can get? (Sorry about the construction of that sentence but you'll get my drift, I'm sure).

As Bluedell and Craig explain clearly, there is no chance of Rangers succeeding with a claim against the auditors, if the auditors relied on professional advice Rangers obtained from their tax advisors, lawyers etc. Equally, in order to succeed with a claim against those advisors Rangers would have to show that they were in some way negligent in the advice they gave at the time they gave it. That is to say the advice was obviously wrong or the advisors failed to exercise due care in giving that advice, such that it was either wrong or not appropriate for Rangers circumstances. In any event it is likely that any such advice will have been covered by a caveat such as "this is our opinion based on our experience and understanding of the law but it it is only our opinion and not a substitute for a ruling by the Revenue or a court". Furthermore if EBT's were accepted practice at the time and had not been challenged as appears to be the case that would give strength to such opinions. The fact that they have been challenged some years later, does not mean that the opinions were invalid at the time.

It's odd because previously the line was that Murray has to decide what's right for him and the Board have to decide what's right for RFC, so presumably he is saying that it IS right fro RFC.

I agree that the position of the Club, not just financially, is not where any of us would want to be. Yes, it has been a roller coaster. I also agree with the list of players you mentioned of the Holmes/Souness era. The sole reason that I did not mention them was that I thought I would be criticised on the grounds that some part of the reason that the English contingent were here was that English Clubs were out of Europe at the time, so it was not just financial in terms of fees or wages.

Excellent points about the major managerial mistakes, if I may say.

I knew my comments would get you going! I totally accept that it is impossible to know what players may or may not have been here if Murray had not been (here) and equally that your measure of judgement is valid, all I am saying is that I was able to watch some outstanding players during his tenure (RdBoer having the best out and out football brain I have ever seen) and that overall I think Murray has been a good thing for Rangers. That said I also agree his time is well past due and he acknowledged that three years ago.