der Berliner

Rooney could throw in two months of his wages to keep us going for a couple of months ...

Methinks the admins were in talks with Kennedy for the whole of Saturday and it has been said (bainer over at FF) that today will see more changes to the TBK bid. IMHO, BK should just do it, put 6m on top of the old bid in straight cash and off they go. That said, I'll take no sides here. Far too much assumptions on the Miller bid, with hardly anyone actually knowing how his dual-company stuff is or will be working. Way to much scare-mongering involved from day one, not least by those who have no clue (nor detailed info) about it - i.e. the sports press folk.

You know for sure that Bill Miller was involved in any deal concerning Wednesday?

Did the admins said themselves that they will only consider an unconditional bid? Or was that in fact a media spin? I would expect that some conditions need to be met ere a deal can go through, yet, the severity of these conditions might be the bone of contention. As of the numbers mentioned ... who gave this confidental info to the media? Is it just more assumption or hearsay?

He did state that the Ticketus deal is secured against one of his companies. Thus I wonder if the admins declare the deal none and void, will they hunt Rangers for their money or - given that they may want to deal with us in the future still with regards to ticket sales - go after Whyte?

There are a few things that do not really add up. D&P essentially got the "o.k." from the judge to rip the Ticketus deal up if it is in the best interest of the club/creditors. Whyte constantly claimed that the Ticketus deal was being done and secured against one of his companies, but not Rangers. Essentially, while Ticketus made a deal with the Rangers owner, apparently before the actual sale of the club and not being the owner of the club just yet, how is it that Ticketus could have any claim untowards Rangers? Ain't all their claims are essentially towards Whyte and/or the company who secured the deal?

Just found this and I think it is worthy of a seperate thread: We will never walk away

That FF admin, BTW, was the Grandmaster himself, a.k.a. Mark Dingwall.

As we have seen. And this could well end up with the lawyers sued going into insolvency et al. If there'S a chance though, themfolk beyond the Clyde would go bonkers if we actually even snatch half of that money despite being crippled. All that said and wood touched, so far we are no newco and maybe we'll have at long last some good news with regards to TBK and Kennedy.

Fate will walk along as she pleases, whether we stay awake or not ...

Remember that D&P are still looking to get 25m from Whyte and his lawyers (not necessarily in that order). :-)

Sky Germany recently bought the Bundesliga TV rights for some Euro 650m, a new record. They also show the big games and highlights from the grand leagues of Europe over here, as well as the odd Old Firm game. Sky took over the ailing German pay TV supreme Premiere, who were screening the Sky games previously. How much of the Sky money will go to the clubs remains to be seen.

In the cold light of day ... if they snatch a CVA, get the house in order, pay the staff and players according to their former contracts, we would essentially start next season with much the same squad like this one - bar Jelavic, but with a strong team spirit and some great prospects. I would hope that the transfer embargo can be reduced via appeal and the 10 point and income deduction garbage does not make it past next Monday. If it does, you'd hope that the Rangers support will give certain away grounds a wide birth while taking up more Rangers TV / radio subscriptions than ever before and thus bolster the club's finances instead of handing the money to those who harmed us.

Cometh the time, cometh the burst. IMHO, apart from a chosen handful of teams, the EPL teams and some of the contenders of the Championship live well beyond their means, when you'd take away the Sky-deal. While the rest of the world's team live from gate receipts and usually rather low TV contracts, the EPL is bathed in Sky-money much like ManC is bathed in oil-money. If the sheikh decides enough is enough, or e.g. a sun-storn stops Sky's satellites from working for a couple of months ... well. IMHO, the EPL will see its own "credit crucnh" one day. Maybe not anytime soon, but it will come, no doubt about that.

I think such surveys can go out of the window, especially if 40+% are made up by the Scum. You could as well ask the local people about building a mosque in the area and 40% of them are active members of the Roman Christian/Anglican community. (No insult intended, BTW.) These surveys of your average football supporter is as useful as having a straight-faced talk after an Old Firm defeat on here or FF. There is little rationality involved. First, we need to see how we get out of administration. If the newco route is the only option and the SPL decides on penalties, I would assume that the Rangers' suppoort, as was muted by Jardine today, will start a boycott at certain away grounds. Just to get them a taste of what they will face if Rangers are no more. Likewise, I'd only give the minimum number required of away tickets to visiting teams. On the other hand, Rangers should invite non-Scottish teams for friendlies at Ibrox to generate income. BTW, wouldn't it be sweet if D&P actually suceed with their claim of 25m and we are suddenly budgetted for 2 or three seasons in advance. (Then again, I'd expect that Collier Bristow (?) will simply go into admin / insolvency themselves ... )

I will ask the same question that I asked the day after we went into admin: why was he allowed to get away with not paying PAYE and VAT for a time necessary to make it a 9m bill. If you or someone else fails to do this, you get a couple of letters within a fortnight or two, ere something more "interesting" happens by from a court.

Very hypothetical alls this, but since you ask. As I wrote, the attendance figure are our job. I would assume that ticket prices will drop, but whether the Bears will manage e.g. 20k at Ibrox is in our hands. I think the wages of Albion Rovers et al are not exactly our concern. Our concern is to get back into the SPL and thus we have to get or keep players capable of achieving this. If they beat the rest by 5 or more goals each week and get promoted before x-mas, all the better. The 5k was just an example. If decent people accept less, so be it. BTW, it could well be that D&P rake in 20odd million in November, which would go a long way to finance the team, even if we don't get all of that money. Will stop the ifs and buts and maybes for now though. We can dispair once we are actually there, which is a long way off.

Income drops? Most income will be generated via attendance figures, as it is now. So it is up to the Bears to follow the team. There will sure be a wage cap introduced, e.g. 5k for top earners. Hence the wage bill will be less and the "upkeep" of Ibrox and MP are paid for. If not, a membership scheme or share issue could do the trick. Or some money out of the owners' pockets, for a change. There never was a draw of a lower league and sure none to make money. Maybe you keep from twisting other people's tongues. As for these proposals ... in the current climate, nothing would surprise me. That said, if the follow through with this, they sign up their clubs' death certificates along the way.

I beg to disagree here, as, apparently, did the gaffer. A bit above someone said: we should instead "be more co-operative to the SFA". What sort of request is that? Rangers FC has always been co-operative towards the SFA. Apart from Whyte that is. So far and ever since at least 2008, it is the SFA who has hardly been co-operative to US. And if somesuch as the embargo is being whipped up out of the blue, people like McCoist or McCulloch have a right to act like they did, as it is their jobs that depends on these decisions of them bampots at the SFA at the moment. Not to mention the existence of our club.

What gave them the right for the transfer embargo? Ain't that a new one for a SFA tribunal? Is that in their powers? What was Sion done for by the Swiss FA?

I doubt that the admins ever said something with regards to the HMRC being easy to deal with. They only told us that the big case is not as much a stumbling block as some may perceive it, since it will be covered in a possible CVA. And I for one do not fall for all the mumblings about them not doing things quickly enough. For that, IMHO, is rumour-mongering by people not full aware (if not to say understanding) the legal implications a complex administration process carries along the way. I for do not claim to do so, so I'll give the admins the benifit of the doubt.

Pandering? McCoist was almightily annoyed at the SFA and IMHO was threatening that the club may actually do this and thus get the SFA and the SPL in all sorts of trouble.

Why would HMRC oppose?

Obviously, the share stuff needs to be dealt with. The same is the case with the EBt verdict, both with regards to HMRC and the SPL stuff. And soon. Mind you, a week ago we were close to a deal, now the bidders have to consider that no players can be signed for 12 months, the club may get demoted to a lower division and/or faces a points penalty for a number of seasons. You'd have to have some hard guts to stomach that. Obviously, if you do, you'd become immortal.

Prime news-monger McLaughlin will be there, twitter-machine in hand ... no doubt about that.