Mountain Bear

I hope it works out well for your family member. In the absence of evidence that he's up to no good, I'm prepared to judge Green on how well he delivers on promises such as this.

Does it change your views on Green at all?

To be fair GS, you said in a previous thread that there WOULD be redundancies in order that Sevco could make their £2m profit p.a. He's now saying there needn't be. Surely that's positive news?

1/3rd off for adults and 50% off for kids. Not sure if there are any exceptions to that rule of thumb.

Good point. I'll amend it if I can.

Perhaps. So, what's your vote?

I had two, but I'm going to bring my younger lad along as well, especially at 50% of last years juvenile prices.

I note Charles Green's comments today that if the support gets behind the club, there will be no redundancies. So, now that we can actually play matches and we know the rough prices, I thought a quick poll about season tickets might be interesting.

I hope so its soon and a big one. I think the SPL may delay their commission until the FTT verdict is announced. Does look like a witch hunt if the SPL find us guilty and the judges then rule in our favour in some or all aspects of the tax case. I've no inside knowledge to base this on, but it would be the obvious thing to do from a PR perspective.

It struck me as being rushed and full of contradictions. They're trying to have their cake and eat it when it comes to Oldco sanctions. If we believe we are the same club (we do), then we can't argue that the pre liquidation sanctions shouldn't apply to us now. As for the "New Rangers" gaff, getting it wrong twice, but only correcting it once is just amateurish.

They would have no legal claim to any money from the newco. Absolutely none.

My glass is half-full tonight: 1. Scottish Football has publicly acknowledged tonight, through the imposition of sanctions, that we are the same Rangers that we have always been, history intact and unbroken. End of story. 2. This weekend we will take the first step on the footballing journey back to where we belong - the top of Scottish football. Bring it on! 3. For the disrepute charges, all we had in our defence were pleas of mitigation, our guilt was not in dispute. In any EBT investigation hard evidence will need to be presented. We did not knowingly cheat anyone and we obtained no more advantage from our actions than any of the many other clubs in Scotland that spent beyond their means. Above all, we are innocent until PROVEN guilty and i for one will not acknowledge the legitimacy of any judgement that is not evidence based, proportional to any wrongdoing and completely transparent. We will be watching you SPL and we will remember what you do next....

You're right about being banned from holding directorships, but I think the SFA's rules allow them to block club Directors if their associates are not fit and proper, so i'm pretty sure they'd be able to find a connection between the majority shareholder and the board of his company. Anyway, it ain't gonna happen.

In fact I'd be surprised if he's not barred from holding directorships in the uk in the near future.

I think he might fail the SFA's fit and proper person test this time...

Presumably implying that CG is in cahoots with Whyte, as the Newco has no obligation to Ticketus, meaning the only reason for doing it would be to prevent Ticketus from pursuing Whyte's personal guarantees. Unless I've missed something, that is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I've heard so far - Green & Co would have to join CW in hiding in Monaco!

I'll agree with you that certainties are in short supply when it comes to Rangers.

As it's Sunday: "God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

Some, but a lot fewer.

If everyone renewed their season tickets, we'd make £2m profit without the need for redundancies.

I think it's badly flawed in many respects. We can't have our cake and eat it, as No12's post rightly highlights. Moreover, the SFA's compromise of delaying implementation of the registration ban, makes it a far less severe sanction than previously. Risking suspension of membership (or worse) by going back to the Appellate Tribuneral to "fight" the disrepute sanctions would be ludicrous IMO. If we're going to play hardball, let's do it about something that matters, ie any moves to strip us of titles.

Agreed. I never expected to pay standard Div 3 prices. My one slight concern is what happens to any profit, will it be retained to build our cash reserves, or taken by the owners as a dividend. I've no problem with them making some return on their investment, but I'll want to see progress on and off the park at the same time. If that happens, I'd be quite happy to continue paying SPL prices for 3 years, so that we can invest (prudently!) in players which will allow us to challenge for the title when we get back to the top flight. Hopefully, some of the young lads will have made the grade by that time too, so we won't need wholesale personnel changes.

You may be right that it's the title issue that is the sticking point and I agree that's a different case, but like the SFA with the ban on player registration, the SPL articles give them a great deal of flexibility. In effect, my reading of them is that they could make their agreement conditional on anything they want. In terms of whether / why we need them to agree to anything, i'm no expert, but having skimmed the relevant sections of both bodies' articles of association, I'm sticking with my theory from my previous post. It's the individual affiliate associations which provide the SFA with a list of their members each year and no club is allowed to be a member of more than one. These shares are passed from club to club as part of the normal promotion / relegation process and not issued then cancelled. Time will tell if there's a real issue, but some clarity from Neil Doncaster would be nice, given both the SFA and Rangers have both issued statements.

The issue (if indeed there is one at all) may be that under the SFA's articles, member clubs are not allowed to be part of more than one affiliated association (ie SFL / SPL) at the same time. Even though the SFL has agreed to have us, that may mean that the SPL have to agree to "transfer" our membership in order that we meet the SFA's rules. What it would mean in practice if they didn't is beyond me.

I believe they have to agree to the transfer of Oldco's share to the SFL. The BBC say all three administrative bodies plus D&F and Sevco have to agree to this. Sounds like they (SPL) are blackmailing us, in the knowledge that we have to reach an agreement next week. What possible right can they have to SFL media rights? If that's the way they want it, we should make it clear that any corporate sponsors considering the SPL will be boycotted by Rangers fans unless this nonsense is stopped now.