der Berliner

With regard to the Sky deal, I was under the impression that there is a clause saying that the Old Firm must be there and all their games are screened. Hence the debate about us not being in the SPL would blow the latter's TV deal out of existence. On a sidenote, Sky Germany bought the TV rights for German BL footie for another few years (methinks), spending some Euro 680m ...

As has been said above, if we could utilize him Bosman-style against the embargo, even better.

Oh yes ... they whipping the frenzy for the BBC programme up nicely. (Edit: Just in case, the remark refers to the article as such.)

Danny, I will only point out one thing here: Zagreb's group included: REAL MADRID OLYMPIQUE LYON AJAX AMSTERDAM One could always say a side is crap and should do better, but leaving the opposition out of the equation ain't a good basis for an argument. In that group, we would have been mauled into oblivion ...

Cast an eye on his performances ever since he stole the points for ICT with that penalty in 93 mins. at Ibrox a few season's back. I reckon he's very high up the Hearts' assist charts, delivers a wicked free kick and can get crosses in. At the same time, he's also someone who can bully a Brown or Ledley into submission. As I said, on a free and willing to come, we could do worse. His experience at SPL level would IMHO be helpful to the development of the younger players. BTW, still have a lingering feeling that Davis, Lafferty, and Whittaker won't be here next season.

Good news if they agree to the CVA. Now wait for the BBC documentary to put the boot into the club again later today.

Hardman with the ability to shoot and dominate a midfield. He'd probably get even more cards with us than with Hearts, but I wouldn't mind having him in the squad alongside (sic!) Hutton, Ness and Co.. BTW, we should try to at least get a quid-pro-quo transfer system from the SFA, i.e. if one player leaves, we can get one player as a replacement.

Whittaker? Sorry, but he made a total hash of a clearance he could have booted away half a dozen times, something that gave Malmö the lead. After that he (sic!) said we can turn it around ... and manages to get himself stupidly send off within 20odd minutes. That takes some beating. On a sidenote, a couple of the goals scored by Malmö as well as Maribor were quite sublime and I would wager that neither scorer has repeated such a feat again this season.

That is selective thinking and completely missing Zappa's point. The scum had the treble won off the field and suddenly stumbled over Killie and Hearts respectively. They stumbled quite a few times over recent years. As we did over Falkirk. It seems that your cosmos revolves around Rangers. That point of view is in dire need of change.

Just out of interest ... why do all people assume that this will "need" the exact time suggested for a CVA decision? A decision must be given within 28 days, right? What stops these people doing it in 12, 17, or 24 days then? Not so negative a headline?

Celtic has for years been as successful in Europe as we have been last season. People really should try to expand their memories to 24 months or more, not just the gloom-and-doom days.

It is all about realism and objectivity here. I'll happily hear your suggestions about our new team once we send this current rabble away.

Matter of fact, we can look for some pretty talented folk from the EPL or Championship reserves. Or look at chaps from the continent. These ManC twins also came from somewhere. A somewhere we can also tryy to "harvest". All that said, in recent months a good number of youngsters from our own, much neglected reserve and youth teams came in and produced "surprisingly" well. Hutton, Ness, McCabe, Perry, Cole, and McKay spring to mind. Add to that the "coming of age" of Little and Bedoya, plus the "return" of Ortiz. We sure have a team with potential and a chance to rear some younger players to greater things and finally "profit" from Murray Park as we should have done. First though, we need to get the financial stuff sorted, so Ally can think about re-signing players or look for young talent.

I would assume even the "verbal" agreement had some ifs and buts and maybes attached, who did not come to pass. Hence Green got the shares.

People should be in the clear what our perspectives in Europe were and are. We heavily punched above our weight in 2007/2008, no matter what name our standard bears, or how much support we have. The reality remains that certain top notch teams from top notch leagues will rule the roost as much as the Old Firm rules the Scottish game. You'd have the odd pretender, but in general, that was and is the status quo. Hence, you can hope for group stages or being in Europe beyond x-mas, but everything past that is essentially wishful thinking. Of course, no matter whom you have in your team, the opposition has to be taken into account too. As for the Scottish teams in Europe, I always "supported" them as - last but not least - their gain is our gain. I always supported the native aliens' opposition, as no matter whether the Hooped Horrors won or lost, we benefitted: either they rack up points for the Scottish (oh the irony) co-efficient, or there was glee on our part. Sorry, but I have solely contempt for this lot nowadays.

Maybe a linked thing then. A percentage of the turnover and/or a maximum of 10m, whichever is applicable.

Well, the timing of King's latest share demands was perfect. Does anyone actually start to wonder what these former Rangers employees and directors have in mind here? Continuously they drag not only the name of the club ever further into the mud, no, they also make sure that any takeover is dragged out even longer. Add to that the malicious TV and radio programmes ... and you wonder why any potential buyer has not long since ran away screaming.

Maybe they start a ruling that also states that a club cannot have more than say a 10m debt for a period longer of say 6 month. Else they gain an unfair advantage of teams that live within their means, e.g. St. Johnstone. But IMHO this will go the same route as Lafferty's Law. Once we are done for, they are satisfied and it won't be used ever again.

Can't follow your line of thought here? Some may agree that Whyte and Rangers mean one and the same and thus they go on with this "we" stuff. But it was not US who got the club into this crisis, nor was it the players, nor the staff in general. It was less than half a dozen of people who I would not include in"we" when speaking about this institution of football. Hence I also expect the SFA and Co. should be dealing with these people first and foremost ... and their lifetime ban from holding any position in Scottish football is just laughable. Someone could ban him from entering any Tescos within Scotland to the very same effect. If they want or need to to penalize the club, they should do it sensibly.

You wonder why these stars of old and Rangers Greats do not come up with headlines and articles stating that those who stay and see us through this period of turmoil would actually be granted immortality and legend status beyond the normal means of a football player.

Yep. Obviously, it makes another "good" negative headline.

Possibly worded incorrectly. It will not be an appeal, but the ruling as such challenged as it is against business/European law et al, i.e. impairing competition et al, having no precedence and may well be out of reach for the SFA to impose anyway? At least something to this line of thought. On a sidenote, with all the gloating from certain sections within the SPL going on ... unless I am mistaken, if we sue the SFA in a civil court, UEFA would have to suspend all Scottish clubs from any of their upcoming or running competitions (according to their own rules). Ouch.

Fair play rules are fine and well, as long as it is actually fair play. The SFA verdict, e.g. punishes the club and its support for the failings of essentialy one person. Hence one malcontent chap has the potential to ruin 140 years of history. If some measures need to be taken to avoid this at club level and association level, fair enough. But levelling out what comes down to be utterly draconian measures which are far too excessive and go without backing in the rules as well as any precedence ... well.

Am I right in assuming that we will appeal against the embargo?

Just out of interest, has there been any comment about our state of affairs from the likes of St. Johnstone, ICT, or Motherwell?