der Berliner

Not patronising, Sir, just stating the obvious. What does it help if we go on and on and on about the very same thing ... apart that it drags all ever more deeper into the gloom and doom levels. We know that before the HMRC thing is done there will not be major signings or improvements ... for very obvious reasons. The sooner we acknowledge this, live with it (FOR THE TIME BEING) and get on with it, the better. The team has shown pre the Cup game that it is good enough for the SPL, for the time being. Hemmings comes back ... and with Broadfoot at least someone who can play at right back at an SPL level. The more decent enough people we get in the better. IMHO Cousin will be decent enough, for say 6 months. By then we're either in administration or we are not, but that is then, not now. Now we face the Pars on the weekend.

... not possible since it is a loan deal. McMillan will burst his gut against us though.

But lamenting about it each and every time we are not linked to a super-star will not change it ...

You've seen him play in the African Cup of Nations of late? . The source that needs no clicks "Considering" and "understands" are the main words here.

As I said before, people work with assumptions - if not to say hearsay - here, for e.g. throwing the Ticketus deal about, a deal that was made after the takeover (and, as Whyte stated, it is not only common practise all over Britain, but was also done by the previous board - though not that long.) At times, I really dispair how people go on and on with information fed by the press, but ignore what Whyte has stated already. As long as that remains the case and nigh all what Whyte says is regarded as dubious, there is no real basis for keeping a discussion or debate alife. Sure people will come out now and say that Whyte does not tell the truth and one has a right to ask questions and should not keep the head in the sand. But - really - the negativity surrounding all things Whyte - well bred and fed by the press over a long year now - has a hearty grip on many people and objectivity has long since disappeared in many a discussion. People, after being nose-lead by Murray & Co. over years, apparently transferred a good portion of this ill feelings to the new owner, being lead down the hysteria garden path by a malcontent media too. That plays exactly into the hands of all those who wish our club ill and makes a mockery of the well-known line "no-one likes, us; we don't care!". "We" care more about hearsay and assumptions from the outside than anything else these days. And that transpires onto the field of play and also affects the players and staff. Job well done ...

No, Ofcom has a long standing dispute with the BBC about their apparent "carte blanche" and this is more ammunition for Ofcom's claims. People just have to use it correctly.

This is ever more bordering to the ridiculous the more it gets on. Half-truths and hearsay from all angles, assumptions and speculation all over the place. I think I'll give it a rest till we get the HMRC verdict and see what developes after that. May the press enjoy their self-stired hysteria and may the Bears keep a clean head.

Making peace with the BBC? As in giving them the card blanche to simply go on with their mudstirring? The same tactics have IMHO lead to the sad statistic that Celtic players can commit twice as many fouls per game before receiving a yellow card than any other team. The BBC has an obligation to be impartial. We do not have an obligation to serve their needs, especially when they are not fulfinging their own obligations.

Unless I am mistaken, I answered this myself with a quote from the Circular? Bluedell Now wait, when exactly did we do this deal with Ticketus? Before or after June 2011? That aside, unless I am mistaken, we did/do not get the money up front either. As I said before, we pay out some 3.5m a month. Now add up all these months to the date you require (June 2011) and then up to now to see how much we/he/TRG have to spent. It is not that difficult.

Which cash? We/he had to pay all the players and staff too? I'm not the finance guru on here, I just try to make some more sense of the numbers than King & Co. do. Isle of Man, of course! No seriously, he/TRG/Rangers pay all the money, so whether or not the money is in the Rangers accounts or his or that of TRG does not matter. It might (IMHO) be held close to the chest in case the tax bill is smaller than what the press likes it to be. In any case, Whyte/TRG will not say how they do the daily financing of the club or how they prepare for this or that eventuality - much like any other company in the world.

What I said is that the current squad is probably not good enough to a) win the title for a direct entry to the CL qualifiers, and b) will not be good enough to do it in the future either. By bringing in some freebies or low-budget people as "replacements" for the strikers gone and missing, we may have at least a chance to retain the title and look at a brighter future than now. If we don't even draw a ticket though, we will not even have a chance to get into the CL. Going by the selling and loaning statistics, there sure should be some money about to finance one or two freebies till at least the end of the season. The loss would thus be minimal, the gain substantial. And, while I am at it, getting a few fresh faces in and perhaps retaining the title would give the team as well as the fans a much needed boost. (I was not asking for recklessly throwing money about.)

Whyte recently stated that we shell out some 3.5m per month to run the club. We have no bank doing this, nor any other facility, mainly due to the HMRC thing. Thus we need to be inventive. As has been said time and again, we signed and dealed 14 players in over the course of Whyte's reign too, with only two (Bougherra & Jelavic) bringing in any substantial amounts of money. These people and their agents all have to get paid, repair stuff at Ibrox to be done and whatnot. Contractors too want their cash now, bills being paid instantly ... because of the HMRC thing. And, as I said before, I do assume that Whyte has an account where he stores a certain sum to pay a small bill from the large case. Hence, all what I read of him in recent weeks makes a certain amount of sense. It is not exactly satisfying a state, but it makes sense. Will you get more answers from Whyte? Nope. For certain stuff is confidential ... at every company on this planet.

Again ... this is not something that needs to be carried out in front of the press and all supporters. Sometimes you do wonder what people actually expect here, e.g. (and taking it a touch too far, of course) Ally twittering about what he does right now, whom he is watching, who looks good and all? This is the age of instant and constant information and people apparently cannot live without that any longer. But this is just not reality. At least not when it comes to hard business. I for one rather read about any transfer target on our website, than days and weeks of (unfounded) speculation first in the media, then on the boards. Frustrating as the waiting game is though. BTW, just to keep the feet on the ground, people are not just waiting to get a call and stand ready for training. So even if we have a few free strikers in mind and got them signed up for a trial, they may just have to settle private issues and travel arrangements first. As I said before, keep the feet on the ground here.

Page 6 of the circular tells about that. In many ways, people who debate about Whyte and his intentions should read this before e.g. asking the 20m question time and again.

The point is that he - unless I am mistaken - never gave a date about waiving the debt. In essence, it is not looming over the club as the Lloyds debt was, so wether he waives it or not is not a pressing issue. But we can speculate all day long. First we need to hear about the tax case. BTW, the jovial tone Traynor presented would make him a persona non grata at Ibrox if I were Whyte. Maybe they think that because he's just 40 years old, they can patronise him like a schoolboy.

Fair enough. He does not say that he cannot bear that deficit though and was willing to pay a substantial fee/wages for Holt. That he does not want this deficit to stay longer than necessary or to grow is clear enough. But I do assume that he knows that should we retain the title, there's the prospect of a CL jackpot. Hence spending some money now and do it sensibly might actually get us into the draw for that jackpot. We could stay with what we have, yet, on current form, it means that we not even draw a ticket.

Unless I am mistaken, he did not say that there is currently a 10m deficit, but the income we generate does not equal the expenditures over the whole financial year. More a general statement that he was aware of when taking over, a deficit he targets to bring down in the longer run, not necessarily at the end of February 2012 for the running year. Not that he can do this by using the Jelavic money anyways. BTW, I do expect that as soon as we get the tax case off our backs on way or another, investors might be more willing to come forth.

The problem with the BBC is that they are self-controlled. No Ofcom et al making sure they stick to basic principle, only a BBC Trust looking into that, AFTER you have complained to the BBC directly and are not satisfied. It is essentially not very different to what UEFA did with Sion, i.e. asking an UEFA selected "independent" court of arbitration to settle the issue, rather than the Swiss law courts. You could as well ask the Vatican to act as an independent tribunal in a dispute between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Church of England. In any case, people have to make the first step and complain to the BBC, the BBC Trust and make Ofcom aware of BBC Scotland's antics. For AFAIK, Ofcom is challenging the BBC hard for their aloofness and "being untouchable" (when they long since have ceased to be solely dependent on license fee payers) ... and need ammunition.

*whack over the head* ... We've sold McMillan and have his wages. We've sold Jelavic and have his wages. We've loaned and released nigh a dozen and save their money. We offered 1m to Norwich for Holt and had a decent amount of wages set aside ... so please try not to follow the garden path the press as cut.

Well, according to transfermarkt, there are some 900 strikers out there, about 3/4 of which are very (as in very low-key) folk. But you also get quite a few Brazilians as well as Barcelona B players. (Interestingly enough also a few Rangers u19 strikers ... ) All without contract.

IMHO, Whyte has said what has to be said about the issue. If King or Traynor doesn't like it, so be it. Neither these two or, matter of fact, the supporters have any more "right" to know more than what Whyte has done. Guiding Rangers FC and their finances has never been done with the consent of the press or the support, nor their full and detailed knwoledge. King and Traynor just mobilizing the disgruntled masses and knock their press freedom about ... in the search of another story. THAT should be clear here.

As far as I understood it, that has actually happened when the amount was frozen in our accounts?

Methinks with regards to the small bill, he does not contest it as such, but the (in his opinion) far too heavy penalty ... after he found out about it and gave the relevant info to HMRC in the frist place. While the tax people can demand penalties to their hearts content, it does make you wonder that they go at us with all guns blazing here. When, as has been said, Vodafone et all got off the hook very lightly. (And yes, the penalty was imposed before HMRC got told to sharpen up late last year.) Since we know not much about the small deal, we as much as Traynor can hardly debate on a decent level about it. Since we have a right to appeal the penalty and it is not in our hands when the appeal etc. is being heard, I doubt that the fee as such will increase while it is in that state.

On a sidenote, here's McMillan celebrating his Pars deal. Maybe tells its own story ...

With regard to trials ... it is always about what the respective clubs want (position, role) and what e.g. Riordan asks with regards to contract lengths and wages.