der Berliner

From the Evening Times article on the game (sntached from FF in lack of a true link) ... Cully or McConnell pandering to the masses. It was all the bad refereeing, as we know. Even after the reporters had 24 hours to watch and study it all, they continue with that garbage and further the myth.

You read this and it feels like the STV chap explains to you why the ref caused the Hooped Horrors to fail.

A Lady in peril, how could I resist!?!

It says on FF.

IMHO, he has enough sense to see that if it is him who causes a Rangers liquidatiuon et al, there will be no place where he can hide. For some reason I do believe that he will be easier to deal with than what most people will expect.

I do assume that any CVA will be done with Whyte no longer at the club, since his shares will already have been given to the new owner(s). Else, there can't be any CVA anyways?

Yes, and we all think what they charge is too steep. Still, that is the going rate for high profile folk like them and other clubs and companies have been in admin for years (and not folded because of it). While everyone wants this to be completed sooner rather than later, a tricky administration period of three to four months ain't that long by comparrisson, I would assume.

I was under the impression that the Hearts penalty was given against Ledley, and deemed it harsh. Now that I've heard the above and seen it again, the decision is pretty clear. The behaviour of the Hooped lot was and is predictibly classless. How the SFA/SPL lets them get away with that is beyond a joke ... and maybe a call to the UEFA chap governing all refs is due. (Methinks that is Hugh Dallas ... )

The last thing the supporters groups should do is putting pressure on the admins. It seems that many people assume this takeover can be handled like a transfer. I do expect it to be a legal minefield which is trying to make the best out of the monetary minefield SDM, Lloyds, and Whyte left us with. The admins will have to follow their guidelines - strict guidelines - step by step and that needs time. I don't like that, you don't like that, but still, it needs to be done. Not everything can be adressed by doing a couple of phone calls to all bidders et al when e.g. that SPL proposal appears on the scene. BTW, as long as the HMRC case is out there, anything the admins do ahead of an announcement may very well go t*ts up once the judges will indeed make their verdict public. We just as well can wait on the verdict ...

It all is pretty murky, as he had claimed that he spoke to HMRC all year long, even before owning them these full 9m (which are, of course, a total owed after about one year in charge ... though you do wonder why HMRC did not go after him after the first couple of unpaid bills). Well, let's hope the judges get their act together and one variable goes out of the window.

That was because he felt that HMRC share a really mean dislike for him, not exactly us. We do not know how the talks with the admins and HMRC went with regard to the big case and possible appeals.

Just out of interest ... when did you join the legions?

IMHO, the only goal of the game was Skacel's. We'd be foaming at the mouth had the Ledley penalty been awarded against one of our players. Webster's "block" was of exactly the same "quality" ... the angle of the ref might have been different. No matter of the above though, they deserved anything they got from today.

BBC reporter snipes a bit at his fellow ... It's a Hearts v Hibs Scottish Cup final for the first time since 1896. Chick Young was reporting on that game and tells me the Jambos won it 3-1.

With regard to the above ... Scotsman article about the delay Even if Ng says that he does not want to speak to the SPL/SFA/whomever, he might be required to say that in written form, ere the admins can move on.

Well, we obviously try hard to see some faults here and if you look hard enough, you will probably see something that isn't there. Just trying to stay objective here. It could be real misjudgement of certain stuff, but also simple code of conduct behaviour, e.g. they need written commitments by all three bidders on any new stuff that happens by (SPL proposal, Ticketus decision, Whyte ruling) etc. before continuing with every step. I don't know the rules here and I simply assume that all the legal stuff follows a certain set of guidelines that needs to be followed carefully. Hence it could very well drag on because of small printed issues which are NOT obvious to the common reader, and possibly not even to Murray, Miller, Ng and Co.. Given the minefield SDM, Lloyds, and Whyte have left them with, I assume the admins cover every angle possible before making every single next step. I don't like it, you don't like it, but I'm not exactly surprised that isn't going on really fast ... especially if people remind themselves that some clubs have been in administration for years, not 3 or 4 months (with a light at the end visible, despite the mentioned legal minefield the admins have to cope with).

He's been to Germany or Spain recently? All that is required is a decent enough membership scheme with an elected "president" of the club's members, who holds a position of some power in the board or next to the chairman.

The point remains that much of what we talk about here is conjecture based on lack of knowledge. We are only getting so much info from the admins and the bidders, thus it is hard to know what is really going on behind these closed doors. I for one do assume that the admins as well as the bidders have talked to or will talk to Ticketus and that side of any deal has been evaluated. HMRC appears to be happy for the time being*, as long as they don't have to deal with Whyte any longer - which, of course, should be nothing of Rangers' concern, as both appear to have a previous. If HMRC uses Whyte as a beating club, certain people should ask certain question at HMRC's HQ. *That is, as long as someone pays their 9m+ VAT and PAYE stuff. We'll see what comes of the "big case" and how they react to that.

A concern indeed, still (and speaking purely pragmatically), I would assume that one tour to and from a game per week will not exactly cost that many jobs? These companies cater to more than just Rangers away supporters, I'd assume. On the idea in general, we can always try and check out who goes for that deal, boycot them, and still go to the rest of the grounds. And while I am at it, if people do indeed want to help the club, they could also pay one or two away ticket fees to buy a Rangers TV subscription or the games that are live on RTV, thus keeping the money in the club.

I still assume that Mr. Kennedy will save us from liquidation and jump in with the Blue Knights if need be. What irks is that while I can fully understand the concerns by the bidders, the sooner they get on with it, the sooner we'll be out of admin and thus none of the proposals will concern us. Unless the CVA goes down the drain that is ... Of course, having a meeting about proposals does not per se means that these will actually be put in place. If the admins are worth half their grain, they will make it clear to the audience that whatever draconian measures they'll put in place will fall back on all teams who will suffer in a future demise of either half of the Old Firm. For taking one OF team out of the SPL competition, either because it is demoted or made toothless, will see in a drop of interest on and off the field, creating a rat tail that will whip the rest of the SPL into ruin too.

Obviously, I'm not someone wanting to see teams with a small but grand tradition fall away. Since this was not started from the off, a foster-team partnership might be the call of the day (and I simply assume that not all SPl teams can sustain a B team anyway), where at least 5 players of e.g. Rangers play in each game for a foster "Clyde Swifts", if Clyde FC agrees to such a scheme. It would, in essence, be a localized yet extended loan system, probably easing the costs of the smaller teams while possibly getting them more gate receipts too - if decently promoted by both clubs involved.

On a sidenote, the usual way in Germany is that teams have a "B" team playing in the lower leagues, with both youngsters and reserves involved in competitive action all season long. That is, Stuttgart II and Werder Bremen II are currently slugging it out in Bundesliga 3, the other teams' 2nd strings are playing below that. The only restrictive that is imposed is that e.g. no Werder I and Werder II can play in the same league. So essentially a Rangers II team of reserve players and youngsters would play in SFL Division 2 alongside East Fife, Forfar and the like. It will be annoying to those falling away, but in the end all the rest will benefit from increased gate money. If that is impossibly, maybe one team can be picked as a foster team in Division 3 (e.g. Clyde).

The likes of Dunfermline reuire each and every penny they make from their games to pay their first team pros. How much do we think they can set aside to have a full team of u20s et al running next to the first team?

Then again, it is not entirely their fault, given the recent SPL statement and the constant if not blatant delay in the announcement on the "big case". As if someone pulls the strings to deliberately delay important actions for the club. (Out of recent memory ... Jelavic transfer just a wee bit too late for the CL qualifiers et al; Whyte's takeover and the departure of Boyd or was it Miller?)

For us, no matter who is successful, the days of judgement will come once the takeover is completed, the old folks are all signed up or paid in full again, new players are targetted and the club embarks on and is budgetted for a season without Europe.