der Berliner

Any news on the Euro 1.3 bn owed by the La Liga clubs to the Spanish tax player and in player insurances? Methinks "for the good of the Spanish game" the government decided to start a payback scheme in 2020 or the like. And UEFA nodded in agreement. It is obviously somewhat differently handled in Britain and by the SFA. Out of ... wait ... ah yes ... sporting integrity.

No, apparently Rangers FC has no chairman. Oh wait. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt that Malcom Murray is the chairman of Sevco Scotland Limited. Feel free to enlighten me though.

I said ... "So Murray is also chairman of that company? Interesting." Sevco Scotland is a company, AFAIK?

I was under the impression that Malcolm Murray is chairman of Rangers Football Club. The article states that he's chairman of Sevco. (As in: I hate these snipes when they intermix the newco with the club and vice versa, chipping away on our stance that we are no new club.)

Their statement made it clear that they would not have agreed to any CVA proposal though, which is the point.

HMRC could have made it plain from February onwards that they will not support a CVA. They waited till May, which cost the oldco a fortune.

Maybe I am wrong here, but Leggat accused Green of keeping information back from the SFA, which he did not, or will not. It all depends on the sort of information the SFA want at any given time. Furthermore Leggat accused Green of having Whyte somewhere hidden, which was rubbish, it seems? So what exactly shall we apologize for?

So Murray is also chairman of that company? Interesting.

The point still remains: he is doing it quite openly and gets all sorts of people to act here (it seems). He sure has a legal brain and whether something comes of it remains to be seen. It sure gets attention to what has actually happened at Rangers Football Club, something that is hardly being spoken of by the SFA, SPL, and SFL folk. Rangers FC was and is a victim, and a victim still victimized by the authorities.

Or rumour-making? How about ... - Green's statement regarding the 15% was made pre-CVA - BPH was the first main investor, handing money into Green's accounts, received their 15% while Green was working on the CVA - CVA assumed a certain number of investors, newco too. Newco was still out of the equation back then - CVA did not happen and a number of investors jumped ship - less investors at the time, more of the cake for the rest, i.e., the investment made by BPH was and is greater right now, with no other investors currently buying shares. Thus, the % of shares BPH hold for their investment right now is greater than the ammount of 15% mentioned pre CVA. That is not to say that this investment or part of shares will remain at 23%. In any case ... I for one do not care whether BPH (or whomever) holds 15 or 23%. If they start holding 51+%, you can start to worry, not to mention the usualy stuff of the Whytes and Murrays of this world. BTW, the SFA said that they look into the requested papers during this week, which leads to the assumption that either they have them already, or have been given assurances that their demands will be met soon.

When will Leggat focus on Celtic's companies, Hearts', Hibs', Dundee United's et al?

AFAIK some Swiss guy?

But HMRC et al will still get their due once Rangers FC plc is eventually liquidated?

If we agree to pay the football debts, will then HMRC come back to tell us that they want all the tax money too? It is not about being morally right or wrong, it is about what is legal or not, what can be asked of the company or not. If the SFA forces this upon us, it simply is coercion, as we woud probably go against law accepting this. And opening us up to claims by other creditors. How could Green accept this when his job is to be acting in the best interest of all investors and shareholders? What next? If Rapid et al see that the SFA coerces us into this, will they start legal claims that this is a precedence and they can come after us too? Where does it end? At best, the SFA can tell us that they retain any prize money from us until they can pay our football debts from it. Yet, while I am at it, when Motherwell went into admin or any other Scottish club leaving it via a CVA, did they have to pay any football debts afterwards?

Ach well, David. If private people want to invest via that Holding, people not wanting to be named, so be it. The SFA will want to know EVERYTHING that goes on at Rangers now, with CVs and all of every investor and director and whatnot. Fair enough and for good reason. Whether they have the right to do this and ask this is a legal matter, I would assume. And, while I am at it, if the SFA wants it from us, I expect them to announce that they will want it from every memberclub too. Set standards, guidelines and rules for all concerned and follow them thoroughly. Whipping up another standard for us and use a different for the rest will not work. BTW, we speak of SFA people closely tied to our opposition clubs. Which company would happily hand business and confidental papers to their competitors?* Thus agree to open the club to further harm by the opposition? *Yes, I know that we are not exactly competitive these days, but you get the meaning.

It is banned? I know that West-of-Scotland definitions have been subject to change of late, but I c&p something from the German board's "All you need to know about Rangers" section. EDIT ... just noted that the word is indeed "*****"-ed. Alas, you know what should be there. ****** Let’s start off with the definition of the word in one of the world’s leading publications on the matter: James MacKillop’s - Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology. (ODoCM, p.210) When a Rangers supporter uses this term, s/he does not refer to anything else but the terrorist group mentioned above or their supporters. No anti-Irish sentiments or the like, as modern day press- and media folk like to impart into anything the Bluenoses sing or utter. The Bears usually denominate the Celtic support as ******s (much like the latter call themselves too (sic!)), as well as anyone connected to the I.R.A., which essentially is nothing but a successor of these “******s”. The term as such is not religious or sectarian, unless used in the context of Roman Catholics of Irish descent. Other than common opinion, the latter is not the pre-eminent notion when common Rangers supporters address those of Celtic as ******s. For the Celtic support revels in the traditions of the "******" I.R.A. terrorists, glorifying their personnel and deeds in many a song. People who are responsible for the deaths of more than 1,800 British citizens. BTW, you can just call them scum and everyone knows who is meant.

Methinks we inquired about him pretty early and as opposed to some known Rangers fans in our previous squad, he is ready to wait till there is a final decision about our league and standing. He's made it clear that he wants to sign and thus, other suitors probably did not even try. IMHO, should we be unable to get him, he will be signed up by another SPL team or one in the English lower leagues, no problem.

Will Rangers have a say in the TV rights? That is, whether they will actually allow their games to be broadcasted. Just out of interest.

Well, we can sign him, but registering him is a touch difficult right now.

Get him signed and pronto.

Any transfer embargo is a illegal as it is not within the lawbook of the SFA, and b) it is restraint-of-trait. If the SFA goes on with it, it will be contempt of court as well.

If a transfer embargo is not a viable sanction for UEFA, how can it be one for the SFA. They are saying we shall play with 5 senior players and 8 youngsters, and possibly sign u18s only for a year? I call this restraint-of-trade. If they impose this ban on us, the RFFF needs to threaten to sue the SFA - at a minimum. And sue them if they actually impose a ban and ask for forfeiting the rights of legal challenges.

di Stefano does what any legally sound Bears / shareholders should have done months ago. Talking about screwballs ...

No matter what, should this be accepted the RFFF has to sue them for coercion. We are the victims of fraud, not the culprits. Now we will also become victims of coercion and shall forfeit the right to appeal as well? I say SUE THEM! NB ...

Someone should follow up his legal wrangle, so it cannot be undone by some legal technicality with regards to his private buying of shares.