der Berliner

For the supporters' convenience I collected all the relevant statements from the Rangers homepage, so you do not need the click through a dozen pages of the club's site. Which is not to say that you shall not visit it regularly! Collected statements on administration over at the German board, updated reguarly.

IMHO, creating a membership scheme that is lead/fronted by some diehard and trusted Rangers men (e.g. Walter Smith) is the way to get the club forward. Membership can be structured along the lines of the Motherwell scheme, a certain annual income would be more or less secured and members will have a say - via their president et al - amongst the directors or next to the chairman. That is how (AFAIK) in Germany. IMHO, a share issue is a short time investment and while people may sign up for a 1,000 share or the like, their position towards a chairman or other directors would still remain "minimal". And we all know how much influence AGMs or people speaking on behalf of a bulk of shareholders have, not just at Rangers, but all over Britain.

BBC report: Ibrox Black & Blue ... tries to look at the Ticketus deal, Blue Knights and the "big tax case"

From what we know, they probably will not, Their problem might be though, that it was never Rangers', but now is Lloyds and inbetween it was Whyte's. He backed it up against one of his companies ... and thus smugly claimed that Rangers will be out of the equation. In a wry sense of humour, this appears to be the case, with Ticketus left to reclaim their money from someone else, not Rangers though. If I got that Scottish law thing correctly.

Speaking of shirt sponsorship and the way we have gained some "breathing space", we should look for pastures new here and get the "blue" O2 on board here. My working place over here is also called the "Blue Hall" and while there already is one in London (i.e. another "O2 World"), maybe any future owner might look for a deal with O2 and/or the owners of the O2 Worlds and lot of other sports arenas (and teams), the Anschutz Entertainment Group.

Maybe (!) they have convinced Murray that they will not sue Rangers over the deal, but Whyte & Co., and will be willing to "invest" the money again (assuming that they will take Whyte to the courts for this) into the club? Just as food for thought?

Fair enough. You would think that Murray & Co. are clever enough to see through this and have talked to Ticketus about their "precarious" situation though, wouldn't you?

So essentially, if Rangers can show that the Ticketus deal was a no-goer, Lloyds will keep the money, Ticketus will harrass Whyte (et al) for it and he can simply declare himself bankrupt. That would Ticketus with a 20m odd shortfall and none too happy. Will they want to deal with us again anytime soon (and if so, who does the ticketing)? Even if we blame it on Whyte?

After years of ignorance and apathy ... much debated on here and every other boards, chilledbear, nothing that brings Rangers fans together and let them show their support for the cause should be undermined. Whether it is small or large gestures, simple pledges or people actively doing something, the momentum should be kept and any future owner made aware that we don't want another SDM/Whyte scenario again. The sooner we get the fans together and create a membership scheme or share issue that is not solely driven by a chairman or board to raise money to distribute by themselves, the better. At least in my humble opinion.

I'm baffled at the constant and unrelented negativism. Paul Murray is the front figure of the so-called "Blue Knights", whom we still do not know. So why do people suddenly think he's alone in there with the supporters' groups? Ticketus backs them because ... they - after apparent talks - see them as possible partners and would give them their backing for a stable future. Ticketus could just as easily decide to play hard-balls and want their money back ... and let the lawyers (i.e. not part-timers on fan-boards - no insult intended here) decide who owns them their money. I for one would rather like to talk to and/or have the backing of people who may have a 24m claim to our future. While we are at it, these people represent just one of 5 or 7 interested parties, pending your source.

Why would clearing the Lloyds debt make him a "preferred creditor" when the money he used was not his own and none he could use as a loan et al. My question would be how much are Rangers are worth going by what Whyte paid. Essentially, he paid 1 pound to SDM for the shares, the stadium and Murray Park (et al). That is what makes him the chairman, right? The debt-deal with Lloyds and Ticketus is something that needs to be clarified.

A shrewd Rangers-minded chap would be good, since we not only need someone/-many with money, but also one who starts to defend the club on various levels.

Since it relates to the takeover and is a "rumour" from FF:

Maybe someone used Boss' account on RM and wrote some scaremongering story?

Now if that deal is indeed undone, what exactly does that mean for the club, Lloyds, and Ticketus? It seems the money never reached Rangers so any claims of either party is between them, but not Rangers, right?

Well ... ain't he the secured creditor because he bought the club (and thus the shares and Ibrox and MP) from SDM ... for 1 pound? He cleared the debt with Lloyds fair enough, but that does not make him the secured creditor, does it? And if so, why?

Ahem, "amid the crisis" they took the unusal step of cancelling the PC, but gave "no reason" why they did it? Does that line make sense? Not that I care what ahppens over at the Scumhut, but sometimes you wonder about the logic involved here.

I guess the freaks over at the TCS will working overtime now and seek for another bad rumour.

They are no mp3 files?!

Next time, please make that in mp3 ;-). I've been doing it with the 'No. 23 Recorder' for ages now, e.g. all Rangers games transmitted via Rangers World since about 2007.

BTW, do our players actually have contracts for the SFL? Over here, they sign contracts for the Bundesliga, but not necessarily the Bundesliga 2. Thus, once a club gets relegated, players do not need to fulfill their contracts if a club has not made sure that it is for all tiers of German professional football (we have Bundesliga 1, 2 and 3)..

A thread with this same information was pretty quickly closed over at FF. I for one would be surprised if e.g. Naismith (after his recent speech) would go this route. I wouldn't be surprised if Whittaker would.

Any results thus far then?

Can't actually follow that line of thought. Essentially they spell out all there is to know. That it is not all fine and well is not their fault and they just presents "facts" as they stand. I would assume that is their job and they would be in trouble if they do otherwise. Maybe we should relax somewhat (sic!) and don't see cloak & dagger manouvres all over the place?

I was more interested in the often-cited Leeds United 2007 (?) stuff, people saying that their "history" ended when the newco was created. I did not find anything about either, the newco or the "ending" of Leeds United as a team being run since 18xx. As of their attempts to reach the EPL. We have to keep in mind that the English leagues are far larger and far more competitive than the Scottish ones. A hypothetical Rangers with players being paid 1k+ a week should wipe the floor with these teams (over the season) and go on a string of promotions. You would need fans and a chairman/board with the stamina to sustain these wilderness years, of course. While we are not in Europe, we could try to initiate a Anglo-Scottish Cup, or a some US challenge games to raise money over a season, invite European clubs for friendlies and whatnot. Just as food for thought. All that said, I'm still under the assumption that liquidation in whatever form is not a likely outcome of this crisis.