BrahimHemdani

I think I am right in saying it cost us around a million a year, Kaunas cost us �£10 million.

Well all this is well rehearsed and I know you will disgree strongly but I beg to put the opposite view. Without Murray, I do not think we would have seen top quality players like Hately, Goram, Laudrup, Gascoigne, Klos and Ronald de Boer perform in light blue. We were a goal away from the CL Final in 93 and we had an outstanding team in Advocat's first two seasons with the likes of Numan, van Bronkhurst, Mols, Reyna and Albertz. I totally accept that things started to go downhill with the purchase of Tore Andre Flo but I don't fault Murray for ambition and he recouped a large slice of that money with the spectacular purchase and sale of Boumsong. Yes it got out of hand but he did dip into his own pocket or the pockets of his companies to bring us back from ther brink. Yes he made a wrong choice with PLG but he brought Walter Smith back and Kaunas apart that has been a pretty successful, including the UEFA Cup Final. Lastly, the current financial position to a great extent (at least �£10 million) is due to the ridicluous loss in Kaunas and Murray can't be blamed for that. I have spoken to a great many fans on our travels and I haven't met one who does not think that overall SDM has not been a good thing for Rangers Football Club. I share that view but confidently predict that I have given you and a great many others plenty of amunition with which to disagree!

Also, if the deal was going ahead who would AJ be meeting Whyte or Murray?

Apart from anything a very nice person and as you say people forget he brought Souness...............

or never, most likely for Whyte and certainly for Ellis; credibility if he ever had any, shot.

and to announce that the deal is off.

1) Agreed because my information is that the bank are looking for (operating budget) cuts that sources close to Ellis say are "unsustainable". Also we cannot budget for CL income next season whether we win the league or not and without it the Club will run at a loss as it did in 2008/09. 2) Agreed but least likely of the two scenarios. If Frankie is correct then most likely scenario is Club will announce later today that the deal is off and the results will be published tomorrow or Monday; they will then spin it to show we are doing much better financially, won the LC, can win the League, qualify for qualifying rounds in Europe, new manager in place, young players coming through etc etc.

Shame, he is a good guy and had them playing attractive football.

Suggested to me today that he is a publicity seeker, who made some dosh on penny shares and is in over his head and now trying to blame all and sundry as the deal hits the rocks. That is why LBG sought to distance themselves by agreeing to accept �£4 + 1 Million on instalments.

My information is that SDM set the deadline of today not Whyte as is stated he has other issues to resolve and whatever you say about Mr Murray, I think it is clear that he wants to ensure that whoever takes over the Club does have the necessary wherewithall not just to clear the current debt and even that is not clear (as �£5 million will still be on the never never). Informants in London say that Whyte does not have the money some of which is tied up in Offshore companies. The �£1 million LIBOR differential is also being paid by instalments. It is suggested that Ellis is putting up some property as collateral for his 25% share. It is also suggested that some if not all of the alleged �£5 million a year would come from developing, some may call it asset stripping the land in the south west corner e.g. the car park, hinshelwood flats area, etc. My information is that Murray's share is now down to less than �£5 million with under a million for other shareholders who want to take up the offer if it materialises and that Murray's share would go back to Whyte if Rangers have to pay a tax bill of that order or more (which is highly likely). As of an hour and a half ago the latest I had from a source close to Ellis was that the deal is not going ahead but it still looks like going down to the wire. Clearly Rangers want to tie in any sale with the announcement of the interim results and that is another reason for the time limit.

Correct on all counts, Frankie.

The �£4 million is the leases for the car park etc.

You are correct.

I am certainly happy to accept your comments in the spirit they are offered and perhaps I led the comment the wrong way. However, this was not newspaper talk, it came to me from a friend who has a direct contact with someone who had spoken to Ellis the previous night and was simply another way of comfirming the truth of the main story. The same source told me when Ellis was house hunting here at the time of his own failed bid last year. I accept that saying that he will be here and saying that a deal is about to be signed are not the same thing but it was informed comment not speculation and as you say there was in intenion to mislead. I am sorry if you took it any other way. I always try to deal in facts, those who know me will affirm that.

I am over in North Carolina (though my bags still seem to be in Glasgow or London ) and can't see a link to a live stream on the BBC, if anyone PM me with a link, it would be much appreciated, thanks.

I am told that Ellis will be in Glasgow next week with a view to the deal being concluded next Friday as suggested on this thread. He is still the junior partner (25% loan from Whyte) and is not putting in any hard cash. I agree with those who are sceptical about the �£5m a year from Whyte unless he is going to somehow turn assets into players; I have heard nothing to suggest that he will be digging into his own pockets and we don't know how deep they are anyway. I will try to find out what Whyte said to Mortimer, if anything.

�£30 here, you must have a VIP seat!

#1 I am embarassed that Rangers as a Club are so impoverished that we have to make excuses to sign a player (even on loan) who whose recent actions (allegedly making a racist comment to white ball boy during Blackburn's match with Everton in 2009 and allegedly abusing QPR player James Mackie as he lay on the ground with a broken leg earlier this year) never mind his history of spitting render him unemployable in England and probably most other countries in Europe. #2 His actions on Wednesday - interfering with a trainer on his way to treat an injured player; running over to the touch line and making whatever comments to the Celtic management team when the game was stopped; directing what I will politely call dissent at the referee so as to get a second yellow card and hence being ordered off at the end of the match; having been ordered off, effectively refusing to leave the pitch; defying stewards and a high ranking police officer for which he could easily have been arrested whether it was an act of defiance or not; all of which behaviour is totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned. It matters not one jot to me that Lennon has been guilty of similar and indeed worse offences; what concerns me is the actions of players in royal blue jerseys. Unlike some who sit around me in the stand (present company excepted!), I will always support any player in a Rangers jersey, but Diouf should not have that privilege and I won't support his actions. If he was abused on the pitch and the referee heard it and took no action then Rangers should report the referee and if he was abused in the tunnel or otherwise off the pitch then Rangers should report or should have reported the circumstances to the SFA for investigation. But I do not believe that any of his actions were caused by any such abuse (which was his excuse for abusing the Everton ball boy) nor would I condone any such action if it was claimed to be as a result of such abuse. Thank you and Craig for pointing out that there is no appeal against yellow cards; of course as a referee of the old school, I hold that there is no such thing as a "second yellow", since the only available punishment for persisting in misconduct after receiving a caution (first yellow) is to be ordered off! In my day you were not even allowed to speak to a player after cautioning him, lest the supervisor would say "what were you talking to him about"? Nowadays you are deemed to have received a second yellow card, so I take your point. And Smith has effectively stated Rangers views on the "offences" which is probably as far (and perhaps too far, time will tell) as they can go. Incidentally Andrew Waddell (who made somewhat greater progress as a referee than I) and I were the first two referees in Scotland, and quite possibly the world to trial the use of red and yellow cards on the red blaze pitches at Cardonald around 1970. When he told he about using them I thought I had to physically give the player the yellow card so didn't quite understand why I only got one!

I have a lot of respect for Bain but it is a pathetic statement for a number of reasons: If Rangers players were abused in the tunnel at the last match Rangers should have reported the incidents at the time. To suggest that in the white hot cauldron of as fast and furious an old firm derby as I have seen in a long time that the referee was somehow inlfuenced by comments made by Celtic some months ago shows no understanding whatsoever of what it takes to referee a match in that atmosphere. If Rangers feel that any of the red or yellow cards were not justified then they should appeal the decisions using due process. However they might want to reflect on the fact that whilst Whittaker's first yellow may not have been merited (and certainly worse challenges went unpunished throughout the game) and Bougherra's second was clearly wrong (so he would have a strong case) he should have been sent off for the challenge on Hooper and Whittaker's second also was close to a red card in it's own right. Rather than spill out the usual claptrap about what they are doing about fan's behaviour, Rangers should utterly condemn those fans guilty of destroying seats and in some cases taking pieces away for whatever purpose one shudders to think and say that in future the way to deal with this is to ensure that police and stewards are positioned IN the stands as supporters leave at the end of the match. They should also utterly condemn the ridiculous police tactics at Springfield Road/London Road which almost led to a pitched battle after the match. Instead of saying that Lennon now knows McCoist's views, Rangers should state that the conduct of Mr McCoist, however out of character and whatever was said is not acceptable and he should be disciplined accordingly. There is no point in condeming the actions of players or fans if the management team cannot give a proper lead. The sight of Walter Smith having to physically restrain Ally was as unedifying as it was worrying for the future. Rangers should state publicy that El Hadj Diouf was given an opportunity that many others would die for when no one else would take him and not only has he let us down badly but he has brought great discredit on our famous club and he should be sent back to Blackburn forthwith. Why Walter let him out for the second half when it was obvious that he was a disaster waiting to happen, is completely beyond me. (As I said to my friends at the time what was more likely: EHD making or scoring a goal or getting sent off, simple really.) I don't mind losing, well I do mind losing rather a lot, but when we do I want everyone associated with the Club: players, management and fans to accept defeat in a proper manner. Only when we reach that standard can we criticise others.

I'm a night person and last night wasn't so good, when I eventually managed to get up the London Road and home (no thanks to Glasgow's finest) I needed a large brandy. I did promise an update and am sorry to say that the source has clammed up and the best I could get today was a pretty useless, "the talks are ongoing"; as I said I know there was a meeting on Tuesday but I cannot establish who Whyte and Ellis met. When I was Secretary of RST I spoke to Ellis' then representative in Guernsey twice and was left in no doubt that Ellis knew nothing about Rangers and saw the situation of the debt/bank etc as "an opportunity" to buy our assets at a knock down price, develop them and sell on in five years time. I have no reason to suppose that Whyte sees it any differently. Ellis simply didn't have the money and his "backers" pulled out when they realised that it was Glasgow Rangers not Queens Park Rangers. I am fairly sure that Whyte stated early doors that Ellis 25% participation this time round would be in the form of a loan from him (Whyte) presumably to be repaid out of "profits". It seems that Whyte sees Ellis as some kind of football expert or figurehead and that alone must call his judgement into question. My source is meeting them again in a couple of days when hopefully he/they might be more forthcoming; if I get anything more before heading to Eindhoven on Wed I'll be sure to post it here.

The tax issue as such is not important, the settlement with Murray/Rangers is what is important and clearly that is what is at issue in the current talks.

Thanks for your confidence, the meeting info is rock solid but the why, where and who, I should have tomorrow.

:grin::grin: They lost their best sources when they lost me.

I have it on very good authority from a friend of a friend who is close enough to have dinner with Ellis and Whyte that they are currently i.e. as I type this, in talks to finalise the takeover. I should know more tomorrow. Personaly I remain sceptical that any deal could be closed this side of the tax issue being resolved and that the outcome of that small matter might so radically alter the Club's finances as to render it impossible, but you never know.

Truly a tear-jerker of a video. He was the only one who was on the same wavelength as de Boer, seemed to know instinctively where to go for the pass; whereas I always remember de Boer pointing out to Lovenkrands where he was going to send the ball and our Peter still didn't get there.