der Berliner

All I heard was 2m and 4 year deal ... then again, one should check his twitter to see what the lad has to say himself.

And they could have made that a 36 months embargo with no-one stopping them either. Grabbed from thin air.

You do wonder when agreeing on these new contracts ... was the clause for the pay-cut and a subsequent easy-transfer stuff indeed tied to Whyte still being at the helm? So theoretically, if Green takes over and the contracts switch back to normal on June 1st, we might at least be able to get some more serious money than what the vultures will give us now. BTW, pretty poor opportunistic showing by the rich-EPL teams. (And yes, I would say that if we were looking at other teams' players too.)

Matter of fact, he said "could" and thus the headline is misleading. Generally, he's been pretty fair and unbiased over the process, as opposed to his counterpart at the SFA. IMHO, the shyte-throwers need some negative headline ahead of possibly better news for the club and thus they give it to us from all angles.

Honestly, aside from Aluko, McCulloch, and possibly McGregor, I'd have Naismith when it comes to players NOT leaving. Going by their body language and the way they spoke about the club lately. IMHO, Jela begging Naisy to follow him has been taken up by some doom-monger and transformed into a bad story on the eve of possibly massively good news. (And yes, I've heard enough player talk by now to know that what they say one day and what they do the next ain't exactly matching up.)

But is it really football matters that the SFA are imposing? Or is it something about employment matters for companies. That is something D&P and the club look to clarify. There was another article in today's Scotsman saying that the SPL have no right to punish us further for being in admin, even if we are still there next season or a newco happens by - under current legislation. A team suffers a 10-point deduction per administration event and thus we will not go into next season with a 10-point penalty, since it is the same administration event. Like it was the case with Motherwell. The SFA has already penalized us, so it would be rather strange if they impose something else for the same matter. What may be levelled against us is the double-contract thing, but we'll have to wait and see. ...

Snatched from FF Grier puts the record straight. If true, the BBC might be in for some bashing.

New York Times report on the game.

Ain't that a bit of word-pinching? As the saying goes: If you look hard enough, you will find *enter your horror-story of choice*

Just make sure that you don't end up chosing that "Wrong Turn", or you may end up being the topic of the scrapbook for the 4th part of that series ...

Honestly ... what sort of right has FIFA on club and national matters? They hardly know the insides of this matter or the rules the SFA are trying to utilize. And I would hazard a guess that not even they will blindly follow any decision that a member association imposes within its respective country. What we have is a journo who wants to bluff us into more obedience because of other cases FIFA looked into, who are, though,totally unrelated.

Get the wood and the torches, we'll all burn in hell. Again. Or maybe not.

We bought quality and that quality did cost money (and why would quite a few of them come to Scotland and the SPL anyway?). Never hid from that and over the course, we got lots of silverware. Compare that to the Championship and EPL teams who threw money about like their is no tomorrow with no return whatsoever in their trophy cabinets during these last couple of decades. And do so still. EDIT: That, BTW, is the reason why e.g. Dave King should simply bugger off. He spent money on Rangers to enable them to buy quality people and win trophies. This is what they did, that is his return. Did he really expect that he would get his money back or the like?

It would be good if someone with a vast international exeprience like him could come over and work, for the time being, as a coach for the young guns.

What gives it a touch of credence is Green's quotes:

Sayest the Daily Record

All about "targets", IMHO. Why would they tell the whole wide world about sending letters to the creditors, which is essentially something internal. The API announcement was in relation to certain press releases and more mumbo-jumbo by the BBC et al.

That said, you do have enough people wanting first hand information on a daily (if not shorter) basis ... either from the admins, Paul Murray, Brian Kennedy, Bill Miller, and now Charlie Green & Co..

The point is that you openly assume that he is, I do not. At least not by default. As for the BBC ... yes, they uncovered some strange and true stuff about the Wyhte deal and a few of the chaps you mentioned. That again does not by default tell us that the latest programme was also filled with true stuff. Hence I used the words half-truths and assumption above. You apparently make your own assumptions about these half-truths then ... and fair enough.

Just imagine, for a few seconds, if the IPA finds nothing. A short "We are sorry!" by the BBC ... after dozens upon dozens of headlines besmirching our club's name. Bringing the name of the club into disrepute would make a nice case.

It is kind of strange tactics by you here. You throw shyte at Grier and D&P and whatnot on the basis of e.g. BBC-presented half-truths, assume the rest and if someone points out that half-truths are just that and your assumption may (as in: may) be wrong and there could be a simple enough explanation, that someone is marked the "head-in-sand-and-all-will-be-fine" fellow. As I said, it looks like you made your mind up and I would reckon that nothing D&P say or do will change your opinion. They are tainted and so be it. It does, of course, suit your general doom-and-gloom attitude quite well ... which is, BTW, as you may agree, no insult. Just for the record - and I said that quite often - I'm hardly convinced by the work of the administrators. But at the same time, hardly anyone knows how their work is actually done, what they do 24/7. I for one do assume that with each letter they write and each person they speak to, they will have to cover their backs twice over, so no shame will come to their name. That is legal shame, btw, not that common bile spouted at them where-ever an admin has to work. And while we are at it, while people kindly assume that the BBC legal team checked all of Daly's finding twice before setting the heather on fire, do people really think that chaps like Grier with years of experience in that very business would stumble blindly over the sham Whyte conducted? And then putting his name and that of his company at risk again when appearing on TV? Anyway, we will find out soon enough. Some will perhaps dance a jig if theiy are correct in their assumptions, I will not. For at the end, my club suffers and there is no joy to be had here either way.

No, they signed players while stil under a FIFA ban from doing so. Then they used said players in competitive games, the results of which within the Swiss leage were pending a final result. UEFA, after first registering the palyers correctly for the European cup competitions later on (after possibly being told to by FIFA) withdrew these registrations and expelled Sion for utilizing players they should not. (I would assume the Sion wikipedia page covers that bit. Obviously, the Swiss FA followed UFEA's exampled, penalized them with 30odd points and whatnot ... (talking about crows) Thinker . As has been said, if the penalty was within the legislation or rulings of the SFA, fine. If it is not, anyone (as in: anyone) should be able to question any unwarranted penalties.

I see you got your mind made up then.

I haven't seen it in writing myself, but methinks that it will not be that easy and repercussion for "in spite" court-cases will be "interesting". But we have a valid case here and a conflict of authority and rulings.

That is not the point. The bone of contention, I would assume, is that people imply that Grier knew how Whyte will use the Ticketus money, i.e. for buying Rangers, rather than financing the first few months. That is something Grier denies and IMHO it does not matter that he worked on other aspects of the deal with Whyte, for so too did Ticketus and they were also pulled over the table.