Calgacus

Problem is that if anyone puts money in just now, it will simply benefit Whyte, as the owner of the Limited Company. I can't see a way forward unless someone, either the administrators or a minority share holder is able to strike down the security that Whyte holds over the Club's Assets and/or he is divested of his majority shareholding, (is that possible?)

Adams well known dislike of Murray possible makes him a less than reliable witness. The EBT case has been going on for a while, why has he only now spoken out?

or it's the old make it sound worse than it is so that when it does happen people are relieved because it isn't as bad as they thought it was going to be

but who is their client and who are they holding the money for? If it is the Club then the administrators will be able to access it, since they now run the club. If it is one of Whyte's other companies, then they either need instructions from that company or a court order, before they can release it. They don't have a choice.

google his name and and then make up your mind about how good a lawyer he is

How much will anyone at Ibrox know about what the administrators are doing? I imagine that they will have their own staff who will be dealing with everything connected with the administration, such as tracking down the money, while Rangers staff will be getting on with the day to day business of running the club. I'm not sure the Club's own staff will be told very much about the progress or otherwise of the administration.

as was mentioned in the thread on the Daily Mail story on Monday (I think, it was, there is so much happening, so quickly) this can be illegal, but would Whyte really be that stupid? who knows!

In the Grand Scheme of Things I don't think Europe is significant. It's more important to get things done right and get the club on a proper footing. The media's obsession with the European Deadline is just another example of their short term view of looking at things. I suppose deadlines are good for whipping up stories.

The problem is, even if Whyte looses his preferred creditor status, he still owns the club, and unless he is somehow deprived of his shareholding he will remain owner. All the administrators could sell is the assets and goodwill of the business which then puts us into the phoenix scenario, which I think most of us would prefer to avoid.

what inappropriate tweet. I've been so caught up with the administration that I've not been keeping up to date with anything else

it's interesting, if you book and pay for a holiday and the tour company goes bust, then you've lost your money and have to claim compensation from ABTA. If you pay for a three piece suite and the company goes bust before it is delivered then you lose your money and count as an ordinary creditor. So possibly the same might apply to ticketus and the season tickets. One things for sure, the Lawyers are going to have a field day!

so they've bought assets that don't exist yet? and what if the club decides not to issue season tickets for those seats and simply issues tickets on a game by game basis?

No one has any problem treating the trophies won before 1899 when the Limited Company was incorporated as belonging to Rangers when they were won by Rangers Football Club, which legally speaking was a different legal entity from the Limited Company which took over from it. If the Limited Company is Liquidated and a successor Company takes over the business and carries on the Rangers name, I don't see why titles won by the old Limited Company like those won by the original club shouldn't belong to the new Limited Company.

McDonald and guys like him are, for better or worse, part of the peace process. The past has to be left behind, its to big a weight to carry and still be able to move into the future. What the article doesn't say is that McDonald was one of the delegates at the Irish National War Museum when the Queen laid the wreath last year, so apparently the UK and Irish Governments don't have a problem with him, just some random Irish person living in Scotland.

Maybe he's just missing being in the public eye as much since he "sold" the club to Whyte. He would be well aware that going to Auchenhowie would set tongues awagging

Its not a criminal trial so there won't be a "conviction", its a tribuneral, its purpose is to determine whether or not HMRCs assessment of the tax liability is correct. Its not so much about evidence more about the interpretation of the tax statutes and the whether what was done by the club falls within one of the permitted tax exempt schemes. Trying to avoid tax is perfectly legal, though it can be expensive if you mess it up, tax evasion is illegal and CAN land you in the criminal courts. As far as I know, no one has suggested that Rangers have been involved in ta evasion.

Is it wise to spend a couple of million pounds on someone who is getting on a bit and won't have much of a resale value?

oops meant to say Floating Charge not Floating Security in the second line!

I don't think it is anything important and simply follows on from the earlier assignation of the catering contract to Close Leasing.To keep things simple, the Bank of Scotland had a Security called a Floating security over all the Assets of Rangers, which the Bank transferred (assigned) to Whyte's Company when he bought the Club. Subsequently, the Club granted Close an assignation of the catering contract income. This is a type of security but as the asset is already subject to the earlier floating charge, for it to be effective, Whyte's company had to agree to the Floating Charge to be amended so that Close would have first call on the catering contract. This is what the latest notice is about. It doesn't seem to be anything new.

of course it's bigotry - how could anyone expect a "weedgie" to get a fair deal in Edinburgh!

It is difficult to understand how the Prosecution believed they could get the sectarian aggravation to stick, as far as I can gather from the reports, there was only one witness who said that the accused had said anything sectarian and in Scotland you generally need corroboration. Perhaps they hoped that the jury would simply assume it was sectarian because the Celtic Manager was involved. All in all it was a pretty spectacular own goal by the Fiscal.

Mario Kempes for Valencia (I think) a good few years ago

personally I was amused that he was "off the ladies" and his pal would be "up the back" or maybe I've got a dirty mind

I know we don't like to mention him, but his latest twitter perhaps confirms what everyone suspects... GrahamSpiers Graham Spiers @ @hezzmacgolf Wow. That's quite a feat. If we played, I'd be off the ladies, you'd be up the back. 2 hours ago

In a funny way we might not be all that worse off if Bougherra was to pay the club �£1,000,000 for his contract. If we sold him for �£3,000,000, some of it would go to the agents involved, wouldn't Bougherra be entitled to a percentage ?(unless he actually submitted a written transfer request, which rarely happens), he might also demand a payment for leaving early and not simply letting his contract run down and going on a Bosman next summer and the buying club would want to pay by installments.