Thinker

Well, on the bright-side, if a newco takes the historical penalties with it, then no-one can reasonably argue that the rest of the history wouldn't also be transferred. Hopefully a CVA will make this irrelevant anyway.

Yeah, the domestic cups mean money, which we need. - nothing to stop an away boycott though. Winning any of the trophies would annoy the "authorities", and an even more perfect "screw you" than winning the league would be to win the treble. Maybe I'm dreaming, but you've got to be in 'em to win 'em.

Green's explanation was that he didn't want to get our hopes up - he used a metaphor regarding a big teddy in Harrods IIRR. So, he's pretty much confirmed that a good chunk of the potential investment is conditional, to the extent that if the conditions aren't met and if we'd seen "what we would have won" we'd be p!ssed off. The cynic in me thinks that's an easy claim to make if you're pretty sure we won't meet the conditions (i.e. a CVA and win TBC). I don't see why he can't name the definite, unconditional investment though. Unless it would be a disappointingly low figure or from dodgy sources.

I'm loathe to agree with Regan, but I do think the SFA should check that Green is on the level. Is that why he wants to know though? The paranoid part of me thinks Regan only wants to find out so that he can put the kybosh on the deal somehow and come up with some way to penalise us for it. The other paranoid part of me wants evidence that the 20 investors do exist. As it stands it would be easy for Green to say, sometime in the future, "Yes we did have 20 investors but they only wanted in if a CVA was agreed / if the transfer embargo was lifted / if we won the BTC. Since we didn't, it's only X." The non-paranoid part of me died a couple of weeks ago.

It all depends on the fine details of how the EBTs were documented. Hopefully SDM had sense enough not to put anything that sounded contractual in writing. Either way it was obviously dodgy and he must have known he was taking a risk. He's guilty of "reckless endangerment" at least.

It would be nice to have a "worst case scenario" outlined though. If the transfer embargo isn't lifted, and if a CVA isn't reached, how much money would be invested and when? That's what I want to know. We need a cash injection just to keep the squad we have. We need some info to know there's a commitment to see us through this no matter what crap the various authorities, football and financial, might chuck at us.

Yeah, it's important to keep a bit of perspective. The criticism of Green and McDonald from Sheffield seems mainly to be that they did a poor job and made bad decisions - it wasn't anything on the scale of what Whyte has done - i.e. taken the club for a joyride, crashed it and ran away. This is an obvious understatement, but we badly need someone who knows what they're doing to steer the club though.

If I recall correctly, Whyte claimed he had to withhold the PAYE/NI because he couldn't use the money that was ring-fenced due to the BTC. My worry is that, should we win the BTC, HMRC will appeal and we'll still have the threat of a potentially huge bill (and therefore the ring-fencing) hanging over a post-CVA Rangers. Also, again - if I recall correctly, when HMRC were dealing with Leeds, they dragged their heels past the end of the season so that Leeds ended up with a points penalty the following year. Only then did they agree to settle. They could have made the decision earlier but wanted to make a show of how awkward and troublesome they can be if someone tries to diddle them. The difference between that and forcing us into a newco is that HMRC will lose out on money if they go down that route, whereas they had nothing to lose by getting tough with Leeds.

The same Shaffield United fans who dislike Green for "selling the team" hate Mike McDonald for being a profiteer, so I don't find this encouraging. Maybe from D&P's point of view Green's offer was unconditional, but there are a lot of worrying ifs from my point of view: IF the transfer embargo is dropped there will be a war chest. IF a CVA is agreed we'll have 20 rich investors. What happens in the IF NOT scenarios?

You're probably right that Duff and Phelps do "want rid". It's an unfortunately similar situation to when SDM was being pressured into a sale by the bank (if that's really what happened). The seller doesn't really care too much who buys, and there's no-one in a position to check that the buyer has the club's best interests at heart. Just got to hope that they do. Admidst the spin and the scaremongering how can we judge?

I'm pretty sure you're right and they'd get zero, but the suggestion is they'd do it "to make an example" of us. Apparently (and I'm only going by office chat so this could be complete nonsense) HMRC have a list of situations in which they won't accept a CVA, and unpaid PAYE is one of them. It's a unique situation though, so maybe they can see sense and compromise. Their choice is take something, or take nothing and force a newco just to p!ss us off.

It's hard to rate the chances. IMO it's pretty much like Green said - it's up to HMRC and how bloody-minded they want to be about it. I don't think there's a good precedent for it though.

The problem I have with all of this is, with the factionilisation of our support, the many outside influences that wish harm on our club, and the sensationalisation in the media, how can we know what to believe? How do we tell the wise words of warning from the attempts at character assassination?

D&P aren't allowed to put the long term interests of the club before the short term interests of the creditors. It's always been that simple. We were never going to have a say in this. All we can do is watch the guy closely and try to keep him honest.

) I've just bought two myself. I'm ready to run over straight after the draw.

There's clearly a far, far better chance of getting a CVA with a newco, and more importantly it relieves the urgency. We don't have time to get involved in the protracted court battles that need to be fought against CW and ticketus, and having these issues (hopefully temporarily) dealt with by another corporate entity is one of the major plus-points of the plan. It would appear that the amount of financial damage HMRC could do the newco via this route is very limited - although they may try to trash the oldco and "destroy our history" in an attempt to make an example of us.

Sadly, Champions' League qualification is becoming a bigger and bigger ask these days anyway. For teams like ours, who aren't in a lucrative domestic league, it's a massive gamble to spend money on quality in the hope of getting into the groups. And the consolation prize of Europa league football is a poison chalice - less financially rewarding, unglamorous ties in the far reaches of the UEFA zone that are more of a drain on resources than anything else. Building a team that's good to win the SPL, and considering European TV/prize money a bonus is, depressingly, the sensible way to go. I live in hope that, in the future, the internet will free us from the SPL-negotiated TV deals and we'll be able to set up our own PPV service.

I know. This has become a kind of sick version of groundhog day.

Desperately trying not to get my hopes up again.... Nope, to late... Their up. I want to get off this roller coaster.

I'm not so sure Celtic would get their own way. The other 11 SPL clubs would turn on them if they got the upper hand in the vote. I agree with you about Scottish football not having much of a future though - but that would be true even if none of this crap had ever happened. We've seen a marked decline in the team over the past few years - which should have been much steeper if SDM had been sensible with the cash. At the moment English Championship sides can outbid the Scottish champions, so a move to England would clearly be the way to go financially speaking. A buy-out would speed things up but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of shafting someone else's club to save ours. It's a bit of a risk to say the least though. For example, Scottish Independence (heaven forbid) would seriously screw the whole thing up.

It's a pity Queens Park aren't playing at home on Saturday cos there would be no way they could object to a crowd showing up at a football stadium. They're at home on the 5th of May though. Nothing to stop us buying tickets and getting inside Hampden legitimately so we can make our feelings known.

Will crowds drop like a stone though? There's nothing like being the victim of an injustice for galvanising support. Personally, it makes me more determined to stand by the club.

As long as there's a rangers playing at Ibrox I'll support them. The tradition won't disappear. People who hate our club will try to claim that "technically" a newco has no claim to that hiistory. I don't care about their opinion.