BlueMazza

Ahh. I took it that he would stay away to hopefully null any protests and allow everyone to enjoy a game of football (the whole point of the club lol). Plus, he kinda isn't in charge anyway is he? The Administrators run the club for now and can sell it (can't they?)

Yeah I think I've missed that part too

Full statement posted

right click and save image as a jpeg or png file, then upload as a photo? That's how I do these things anyway lol

Taken from RFC site

http://audioboo.fm/boos/672578-mccoist-s-rallying-call audio link to part of McCoist's conference

I wonder if he'll focus solely on Rangers, or if he'll also discuss Ticketus deal, the issue with Pritchard etc. It's a big tangled web.

Well this should be interesting...

Wow talk about goose bumps! Fantastic words from Super Ally. Look forward to seeing the supporters reaction tomorrow

http://wedontwalkaway.bigcartel.com/product/we-dont-do-walking-away-support-ally-shirt This has just been posted on twitter, thought I'd share

Ah but at least STV's headline says The administrators for the club say the manager will have an input into any redundancies in his squad. The DR make out it's a foregone conclusion (which it might be but they don't know that yet) **54th post. I may stop here hahah **

So where is the benefit of being a secured creditor then?

I agree. I don't understand why it's not reported more that at the time the EBT's were considered legal.

I've just read this on STV: The administrators also confirmed that Ticketus are not secured creditors, meaning that Mr Whyte is the only one in the process of trying to agree any creditors voluntary agreement. Am I reading this wrong or are they saying that if they can verify the validity of Whyte's secured creditor status, then he is the only one who has to agree to the CVA? So potentially he could say he would settle for 10p in the pound and therefore every other creditor would have to as well because they aren't secure? Or, have I just reached a new height of accountancy confusion?

Tbh although I'm obviously biased, I've always felt Rangers have conducted themselves better in media terms than Celtic. They whinge and whine and mhoan about how everyone hates them and is against them and their conspiracy stories. Even though the media are attacking, Rangers themselves still hold their dignity when discussing matters.

I agree with that. My biggest concern is the smear on Rangers. And sometimes playing so close to the line of the law goes against you, so whilst the intention to ruin Rangers won't have been there (I can't believe it if he is genuinely a life long Rangers man) that is what he could have ended up doing. There are enormous risks to the strategy, if that's what to call it.

Former Portsmouth and Leicester chief Mandaric has just emerged not guilty from tax evasion charges alongside Spurs manager Harry Redknapp. LOL, from one tax evader to another. Maybe they think Rangers is some sort of tax haven?

No, I don't think he will. I think he will take the mantle of Scotland's Official Bad Guy even if potentially he did do the right thing. Ugh I just can't decide!

That's a very good point actually. So is administration actually protective for us and potential buyers?

So the parent company is connected to Rangers but as it is solvent, can't be looked into during the administration process? Is it possible CW put the money there to protect it? Then if there is an agreement with all creditors, the money is moved over to pay what's agreed and we come out? That seems to simplistic to me

Great posts. Yesterday was the most galvinised I've felt about Rangers in a long time and if anything, we'll all come out of this stronger as a club and a fan base.

Knighthoods are normally only removed when the receiver is jailed if I recall correctly. Fred the Shred was a special case - and tbh I don't think I agreed with that either as I don't think he was solely responsible. It might stick in people throats a bit but I'm not really for removing Knighthoods etc when they've been given out. It takes the sheen out of the entire process.

Oh I agree with that, it's become a favourite hobby of some sections of the mhedia. I just hate seeing our great club almost shamed when those who matter most - the players, staff, coaching team and fans have done sod all to bring this on us.

Oh and they cut out the best bit of Ally's quote about 'we don't walk anyway'

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/02/17/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-told-he-ll-have-to-select-players-to-get-the-sack-86908-23754191/ OK so the Record have turned on Rangers recently I get that. What I'm wondering is, where has this come from, when the Administrators said yesterday that redundancies were not a given and also if it IS true, would you not expect Ally McCoist to have input anyway? He's the manager, he has to be involved surely? I hate the media I do. I should stop reading it I know. But then I'd have a lot less to get angry about. So, non news story to 'thicken the plot' and is it done to undermine confidence in the Administrators?