der Berliner

So no-one wants to liquidate us, but everyone blames someone else that this might be their plan? Do they know more about the respective confidental bids? Oh, btw, ...

So from the reply above, Club 9 Sports is no longer involved?

If you refer to Germany? Nope, no info whatsoever. As I said at the time, it hit the news when it happened ... and the "world of football" moved on. For there are more "important" issues, such as national league titles (Germany, Italy, Spain, England) to cover, the odd muttering of Blatter or Platini, a superstar article on Messi et al ... these kind of things. They did a bit of unbalanced reporting (Phil Gordon being the "main British correspondent") on the Old Firm game over here, but there it stops. The Singapore-based chap answered above.

We do not know for sure what the admins are looking for, but they sure try to cover their hides from all angles.

@ srongorm ... you're sure you quote him here? Can't find that tweet?

In short: Delete some of the simpletons' replies and comments. Regarding stereotypish lies (e.g. signing policies) and nonsensical pro-Hooped Horror "banter".

You could, though, admin some of the replies. If the press and Strathclyde's finest have no issue with a certain behaviour, this need not start to get a hold on this blog et al. May all the "anonymous" Hooped Horrors cry as they might ...

I'm not sure whether I understand what you are talking about.

Unless I am mistaken, should all ills come to pass, the admins may decide that it is in the best interest of all (creditors) to rip the TicketUs deal apart, as they noted after the judge's half-ruling on that deal. Essentially, all we can do is wait and see. By the looks of it, the best deal for the club (sic!) is that of the Blue Knights, said without any knowledge about the Singapore-bid. (For who knows whether they can't strike a deal with TicketUs too?)

Posted this earlier today in a different thread: On a sidenote, there is much speculation about what liquidation means. An FFer's (and my) take on this is: We wouldn't start with zero titles though, the company gets liquidated, not the club. Rangers Football Club plc (company) owns Rangers football club (club) New company (e.g.) Rangers Football Club 2012 (company) buys Rangers Football Club (club) Rangers Football Club plc (company) is liquidated. New company Rangers Football Club 2012 (company) now own the Rangers. Rangers (club) have never ceased to exist so we still have our history intact, next time we win the league it will be 55. Its still the same club formed in 1872 and still the same club who won the ECWC in 1972. Just owned by a different company. And while we are at it, IF the SFA / SPL accepts the NewCo owned club, yet lays on penalties for previous financial "misbehaviour", they accept that the "New Rangers" are indeed the "Old Rangers" and thus, the history as such also remains intact. And further ... try to check out what happened to Fiorentina. And then try to convince anyone that the Viola of today aren't the Viola that we played against in the 1960s, the Viola managed by Mancini et al. This club folded in a heap, was resurrected as a totally different club and took over the mantle of the Viola later on. Rangers and their history will only cease if the club is being wound up and players, Ibrox and Murray Park being sold to pay off the debts to the creditors, IMHO.

I would assume that Ticketus is still working along with TBK, but not (as far as we know) with the other two (though we still know next to nothing about the Singapore folk). Should TBK get the green light, I would assume that he takes Ticketus out of the CVA (which should ease that instant pain somewhat) and deal with them somewhat later, possibly using them as a "bank" for the time being. It might not be ideal in many ways, but IMHO far better an option than to annoy Ticketus with getting the club into liquidation and trying to work on from there ... remember that we would still need someone to sell the tickets, and someone to provide a sound "bank facility".

Unless I am mistaken, Whyte does not "sign off" the accounts, does he? At least not in the sense that is implied here.

Yep, it is, one could say, cheap talk now (not least since we won anyway). While I admire his dignity and will to clear Aluko's name, he could easily have said so at the time (and accepting the brunt of the Motherwell support's opinion on such game-defining matters. McCall would have been proud of him though.). Maybe next time he will, though I'd hope that it won't be against Flying Stokes and cart-wheeling Samaras.

There are a couple of issues coming to a close in April, one is the deadline for the HMRC decision, the other is the first admin report.

Methinks any serious bidder has been shown all that there is to know about the club's finances and debts. The admins said that they made the data available, so that any serious bidder knows what he has to put into the club in terms of finances, takeover and running included.

On a sidenote, there is much speculation about what liquidation means. An FFer's (and my) take on this is: We wouldn't start with zero titles though, the company gets liquidated, not the club. Rangers Football Club plc (company) owns Rangers football club (club) New company (e.g.) Rangers Football Club 2012 (company) buys Rangers Football Club (club) Rangers Football Club plc (company) is liquidated. New company Rangers Football Club 2012 (company) now own the Rangers. Rangers (club) have never ceased to exist so we still have our history intact, next time we win the league it will be 55. Its still the same club formed in 1872 and still the same club who won the ECWC in 1972. Just owned by a different company. And while we are at it, IF the SFA / SPL accepts the NewCo owned club, yet lays on penalties for previous financial "misbehaviour", they accept that the "New Rangers" are indeed the "Old Rangers" and thus, the history as such also remains intact. And further ... try to check out what happened to Fiorentina. And then try to convince anyone that the Viola of today aren't the Viola that we played against in the 1960s, the Viola managed by Mancini et al. This club folded in a heap, was resurrected as a totally different club and took over the mantle of the Viola later on. Rangers and their history will only cease if the club is being wound up and players, Ibrox and Murray Park being sold to pay off the debts to the creditors, IMHO.

No-one can sign a player till the transfer window opens. Circling and makeing bids for players under contracts might result in serious punishment, not least given our cicrumstances. I for one do not believe that any of the players who accepted pay cuts for the club and fans will move anytime soon, surely not before they know the outcome of the administration process.

Really, IMHO much of what has been written about either bid is to a large extend hearsay and assumption. And if your repeat the last time and again, in some people's minds (not least the press') this will become fact. FACT is that we hardly know anything about either Club 9's nor the Singapore bid.

Let's drip a few hysterical notes every now and then? Who's next tomorrow? Davis? Bocanegra? Has the transfer window opened?

So some insider told them that the Singapore-bid is out of the running too? I'd assume that we will hear quite a few hysterical stories before Wednesday. While I am at it ... and the sooner we are out of admin the better of course ... why the sudden speeding up? Like the deadline for next season - and that should be the main concern here - is days and not months away. Sure the admins do cost the club serious money, but WE want the club in safe hands first and foremost, not those offering "the next best deal" for this or that creditor.

Maybe this should be send to the administrators and the Rangers staff?

While I asume he took the habit up from a movie he played a part in, this is something that will always show the dignity and stature this current manager of Rangers FC carries about himself: At the end of the Old Firm clash (go to 1.40 mins)

Regarding the above ... Out of interest, bar a handful of media assumptions and the odd quotes of the Blue Knights' spokesman, have we actually heard any substantiated news (with quotes) from either Club9 or the Singapore consortium (SC)? ALL we get is hearsay and assumptions, again evident in this article: Who thinks this? Suddenly, all "examine scenarios" with liquidation being a part. While these assumptions is news with reards to the BK's, it is also news about Club9 (who were set to go for liquidation from the off) and, of course, the secretive SC. Again, has anyone actually spoken to the latter? Who told the press somesuch? That is, Club9's prefered option ... an option that makes no business sense at all? Who told them about the value of Club9's bid, info that sure is confidental? "Suddenly", a CVA is still an option for all three, which conflicts a touch with the stance about Club9's plans. The rest is just an info about what would happen should the new owner decdieds to liquidate the club. And remember that we have next to no idea about the SC bid at all. So liquidation is not the most likely outcome according to the administrator, yet all people and not least in the press and on here assume it is? When every businessman with half a brain would see that liquidation is sure not a route that gets any great revenue ... and fame and glory for years to come. Why would one risk that route? A question people - not least in the press - fail to ask time and again!

The Herald has this article ... AGain, we have next to know info about the Singapore people, yet the press "understands" what they are looking for.

I was mildly surprised to read the BBC's report on the game ... and it was rather decent as well.