bossy

I was not talking about the immediate task in hand but trying to look forward beyond that. The point I am trying to make is that historically we - and all other Scots clubs - have done a terrible job in providing quality catering and other services to our supporters and that, in my view, there is a significant and viable revenue stream to be exploited there whether the outlets are inside the stadium or outside.

Would Whyte have been deemed not 'fit and proper' had we not gone into Administration? I doubt it. Under SFA rules, Motherwell and Dundee directors were not 'fit and proper' when they went into Administration. Where is the punishment?

I have been to Patriot Place. While there are some shops there, it is much more of a drinking/dining/conference venue than it is a shopping one. And it is busy on non-match days because people see it as a place to go out to. And, as I said, it is about getting ideas from what others have done, not copying them.

Just a couple of points. We went into Administration and paid the penalty per the rules ... 10 point deduction. I accept that. Businesses that go into Administration, by definition, cannot pay their bills. So it is illogical to punish us beyond the 10 points for not paying bills. Both Motherwell and Dundee owed the taxman when they went into Administration. There were no extra punishments for them. Motherwell paid 20p in the pound and Dundee (I believe) paid 6p in the pound to their creditors. Any extra punishments? Nope!!!! The EBTs is another matter. I am far from being an expert on this subject but, for tax purposes, I don't think an EBT can be contractual otherwise tax would be due on it. Also, the little matter that they were disclosed in our annual reports for years and nobody at the SFA seemed to mind. I thnk that both the taxman and the SFA will have to unearth actual evidence that there were contracts to make their cases stick. My fear is that Rangers will roll over and allow these 'punishments' to happen. While I haven't seen the actual evidence, I cannot help feeling that a competent QC would drive a coach and horses through the SFA case. But it might have to go to the TAS or the courts.

Have a look at this ..... http://www.patriot-place.com/about.aspx This is what the New England Patriots have created around their stadium. Not saying that we should be copy-cats but there are some ideas here. Right now, we have 50,000 people who turn up half an hour before the game and are gone within 15 minutes of the end of the game. That is a huge untapped market that we do little or nothing to attract beyond the match itself. Rangers need revenue .... well, lets start with the low-hanging fruit.

SDM sold the merchandising because he thought that margins on shirts - which is where the money is - were going to be hit by cheap imports and by people like Tesco selling them cheap. He was wrong but his motivation, at least this time, was honest.

Let them bid on stalls in the various stands. And not just the burger people .... why not Greggs or Pizza Hut or even subway. Give the fans a choice and a bit of competition would keep the vendors honest.

The catering at Ibrox is shyte. We should not have a single catering provider. Rather, we should sell outlets on a piecemeal basis and encourage different providers to bid for them (e.g. pizza, burgers, etc. etc.). That would give the supporters a choice and the competition would encourage quality and price competitiveness.

I should imagine that Whyte is very motivated to avoid civil or criminal prosecution.

Because these 'suits' don't really want 'us' involved except as customers and we, the support, are more comfortable with a sugar daddy at the helm than in being involved.

It's put up or shut-up time for the BKs.

I suppose it sells papers. :meh:

The RST are not to blame here. Along with the other main supporter's organisations they backed the BKs. They did that openly and transparently. What has transpired today suggests that they were right to do so. To blame Miller pulling out because of a few banners and some nasty emails is stretching credulity. IMHO, Miller backed out because his business case didn't stack up. It really is as simple as that. Searching for scapegoats amongst other Rangers fans really isn't good enough.

This is a good example of the nastiness and vitriol that pervades various factions in our support. It is worth remembering that we all support the same team and that, right now, we need unity more than ever.

I think he felt that he could pick us up fairly cheaply, not too much added investment, cut costs and make his money back plus profit fairly quickly. His problem was that he does not know the industry, he does not know Scotland and he does not know Rangers. Not very professional IMHO.

It isn't all that uncommon to be a millionaire and especially in dollars. But to be able to burn $50 million, you probably need $250 million in the bank.

It is going to cost in the region of 11 million to buy the assets (assuming a Newco) and probably another 20 million of investment just to get us up and running again. So, after putting in 31 million or so, it is still going to take a few years to make any money and especially with various sanctions and no European football. Why would Miller, who has never seen us play and never visited Scotland, put in that kind of money with no hope of a return for at least 5 years? To be willing to make that kind of investment you actually do have to be a Rangers man (or woman).

Speaking as an American citizen (I have dual UK/US), it certainly does not bother me. The banners issue is an enormous red-herring. The truth of the matter is that Bill Miller - if he was ever really serious - has been scared off by the amount of investment needed to get us on our feet again and the difficulty of getting a return on that investment. It really is as simple as that.

I don't want Kennedy to 'save' us on his own because I never want to go back to the days of a single rich guy owning us. But, if he is willing to work with the BKs in the context of a broad based ownership model and one which includes a significant element of the support (via a share issue) then I am 100% in favour.

Maybe he is getting worried that he might be numero uno on the boycott list.

Perhaps the QC can sue the SFA for damages as a result of their negligence in the execution of their regulatory role.

In summary It is the responsibility of the SFA to determine who is 'fit and proper'. They have never formally delegated that responsibility to member clubs. If the SFA abdicates that responsibility informally, as it has done here, then it can be answerable for its failures. The rules on who is 'fit and proper' are badly drafted so that Whyte was able to answer truthfully (if economically) in order to pass. My conclusion: The SFA are punishing Rangers for offences that might have been avoided had the SFA done its job properly.

I don't generally like that site given the allegiance of most of its denizens. However, this particular contribution makes interesting reading. I can't help feeling that the SFA have deliberately announced this punishment while we are in administration because D&P are less likely to challenge them than an owner might be. If the SFA persist in punishing Rangers for the consequences of their regulatory failure I wonder if there is an opportunity for some of us small shareholders to go after the SFA for negligence.

The real hypocrisy of the SFA is their decision to punish Rangers for events that arose directly from their failure, as the regulatory body for Scottish football, to determine whether Craig Whyte was a fit and proper person. That responsibility lay with the SFA and they did not discharge it. Rangers are a convenient scapegoat. Of course, there is no mechanism within the SFA process to punish themselves or even to accept that they did anything wrong. Wait for the next stage of this, the EBTs. EBTs have existed for years, have been fully disclosed and the SFA knew all about them. I confidently predict that we will be 'punished' for using them even though the SFA had never questioned them in all those years.

In all seriousness. When I read the contributions of BH including the original letter and his subsequent efforts, I see an individual who is extraordinarily caught up with himself to the exclusion of what others might see as good judgement. The original letter is all about 'look at me I am an important client' and his subsequent publicising of it on a Rangers forum seems to be more about congratulating himself than any love of the club. I cannot help feeling that his actions are more about self-aggrandisment than anything else. Whether his intervention with Mr Bennett and his employer had a substantive impact on the decision to withdraw from the Blue Knights we will never know. Personally, I doubt that BH has sufficient funds under management to make a material difference to the fund that Mr. Bennett manages. One really has to question BH's judgement. Did he really think that it was a good idea to advertise on a Rangers forum that he had intervened to try to scupper a member of the Blue Knight consortium? Did he actually imagine that other Rangers supporters might admire him for his actions? There have been many criticisms of the Blue Knights but I think we all recognise that they are Rangers supporters who are trying to do something for the future of the club. In that context, BH's actions are a disgraceful act of disloyalty towards the Rangers family. BH may be a Rangers supporter. But his love for himself clearly transcends any love for the club.