bigy

I wasn't at the meeting so don't know, but it is possible that revealing the investors could have a detrimental impact on agreeing the CVA. If HMRC think the investors have more money at their disposal, why would they sell themselves short? As for the name of the academy, I think Walter Smith and Ally McCoist have to come into the reckoning.

How can we pay for season tickets before we know if a CVA's been agreed?

https://twitter.com/#!/StewartRegan Last tweet confirms the comment about saving it for reporting. if he's not reported it in my opinion that's worse, as after telling fibs to foreign referees, telling fibs about the meeting with Rangers supporter groups, and now potentially telling fibs about threats to Rangers players he's clearly not a man of integrity, or the kind of man who should be running Scottish football.

What's needed here is perspective. Hearts have continually failed to pay their taxes and faced winding up orders from HMRC, with absolutely no investigation or punishment from the SFA. We've not paid our taxes, but haven't faced a winding up order and are in negotiations with HMRC to reach a settlement over the debt. I don't see the difference, don't see why 'we need' to be punished, amd think a lot of people are too accepting of the situation. We're being punished because we are Rangers, pure and simple.

I don't know, but I think it would be a very strange decision and stink of vindictiveness. I think the problem they have is we already have the maximum fine, someone at the SFA judicial or appeal panel has already said suspension is too harsh, and the only punishment left is being chucked out the Scottish Cup. But, if they chuck us out the cup then Sky won't be happy as their viewing figures and advertising figures will take a big hit, so they'll look to renegotiate which will then impact on all clubs. William Hill could also see it as undermining their sponsorship due to the reduction in interest. Given that, the only option I can see is to pretend to be tough by kicking us out the cup or suspending us, but to suspend the sentence so in effect there's no punishment.

Either way, given the original panel have ruled it too harsh, the appeal panel can't increase it otherwise they'd still be over that barrel. I actually expect a suspended sentence. They'll do something to make them look tough, but suspend it for 12 months pending it doesn't happen again.

So people (media/tims) really think the SFA will hand out a punishment that would without doubt result in us going back to the civil court? The appeal panel already said suspension is too harsh, so we'd have them over a barrel. The alternative of course is it leaves us free to move to England!!

I'd buy Rangers, clear the debt, and appoint a really good Chairman / Chief Executive. I'd then keep legal control of the club, but launch a fan membership scheme where fans voted on board members etc and had a big say in the day to day running of the club. I'd also buy the old Edmiston House / Ticket Office building and turn it into a Rangers Museum and Conference Centre with all proceeds going into the club. Haven't really thought about it much though tbh.

The wording in these articles really pisses me off to be honest. It's almost like the reports are saying: SPL 'Did you have 2 contracts for each player and if so can we see them?' Rangers 'Yes, there you go, have both of them!!' SPL 'Thanks, you're guilty' Rangers 'Uh, ok.' It's so bloody ridiculous. The big tax case basically relates to whether the EBT payments were tantamount to contractual payments, not whether we physically had two contracts. That would have been wrong, and we're not that stupid otherwise the tribunal would have reached it's decision pretty bloody quickly. The way it's reported is so unbalanced and un-informative it's unreal. If only we had one decent journalist in this country who could report the facts of the case, explain the arguments on both sides, and let people know where the disagreements lie we'd live in a much better place. All we have is two-bob tabloid journalists looking for the next big sensation and not giving two hoots whether it's accurate or not.

Does William Hills sponsorship and/or Sky's coverage of the Scottish Cup not depend on our involvement? If we're not in TV viewing figures will be way down, so Sky's own sponsorship by Carling and advertising break revenue will be impacted, so can't see them being happy. It's probably the reason they didn't consider this previously.

gordonchree ‏@gordonchree #SPL clubs will now face penalties for not paying players on time and for not paying HMRC obligations on time

I think so. It's also worth noting UEFA themselves have said they won't use transfer bans for a number of reasons now, mainly that they don't think they'd stand up to legal challenge. Given that, I doubt very much they'd support or get involved with the SFA should they wish to pursue it.

I agree, the point being largely overlooked is that the CoS decided that it had jurisdiction because the SFA failed to provide an alternative arbitration route through CAS. We cited Ashley Cole whom CAS referred back to civil courts as FA policy at the time did not explicitly state that CAS could be used, and so the SFA have messed up. Are FIFA/UEFA/SFA seriously going to question the authority of a civil court who have ruled it has jurisdiction in this case, or attempt to punish us for using the only route available when any appeal of that will go to the same court? FIFA do see themselves as above the law, but on this issue I doubt they'd want to take the civil courts on as they will lose - and that's without us even bringing employment law into it. I imagine they'll just ask the SFA to close the issue amicably asap.

Serious question here, if FIFA rules 'frown' upon football clubs and players using the civil courts against Football Associations, both national and international, how does that fit with the SFA themselves using civil court judges on their judicial and appeal panels? Surely if it's to be 'free from outside influence', then the SFA were the first to break the rules by using judges on their panels?

David Murray has lied and i'm not one to defend him, but when he says he hasn't drawn any money from Rangers through his EBT's he is telling the truth. It's the same for Douglas Odam who was mentioned in the programme, since leaving Rangers he's worked in a number of Murray's other companies within the group, and the money he's been paid was through contributions from those companies, not Rangers. The BBC were aware of this, but chose to word their report in such a way as to leave it open to interpretation, which most people would assume was they were paid by Rangers. That's absolutely not true. The fact is that despite all the evidence the BBC have, they are unable to distinguish which employees in the Murray Group EBT were paid by which entity within the Murray Group. I doubt very much that they have any evidence to show that the payments made were at Rangers discretion or contractual, so hopefully that's a good sign for the outcome of TBC.

The fact is they can't distinguish between payments by Rangers and payments by Murray Group. Look at Douglas Odam for example, he left Rangers to work in another part of the Murray Group and would have benefitted from an EBT through that work. It has nothing to do with Rangers, but the way the programme presented it last night was that he was drawing money from Rangers. If they can't distinguish who's making the payments then how can they claim that the payments were contractual or at Rangers discretion?

Going back to the takeover, there was a clause for it to be void if one party fraudulently misrepresented themselves. Given it is pretty clear Whyte has why hasn't Murray implemented the clause?

The issue of professional independence is an individual one, not a company one, so Grier is a red herring in the documentary. That's not to say D&P have been good, but to question the independence is to question Clarke and Whitehouse as individuals and that hasn't been proven.

If we could support someone like Black to challenge the embargo on the basis it restricts his trade it would be worth it. NOr sure if it'd be top long a process though.

Maybe Trump could buy Aberdeen FC and turn them into a wind farm.

Did he say it was about EBTs? I thought he just said the SPL would be making an announcement on Rangers but didn't say what? If so, it could just be about fixture scheduling for next year given the uncertainty.

Forgetting about the article, if we're found innocent of all the charges against us is this likely to create a whole new frenzy in terms of who buys us?

http://local.stv.tv/aberdeen/news/102401-us-billionaire-donald-trump-considered-buying-rangers-football-club/

It's hard to know the script with King. Buying the shares for £1 wouldn't be a problem to SARS, but the £10m plus it'd cost to agree a CVA / newco and invest in the business would be. He certainly picks his moments, like when everyone was debating Whyte's shares over the last 4 months why didn't he point out then that he has first refusal? It'd also be intersting to see how HMRC dealt with an individual that's being investigated for tax avoidance in another country as I don't imagine it would go down too well. All we're needing is for someone to grab the bull by the balls, take control, and get this bloody thing over with. All we're getting is people prancing about pretending to be hard men when in fact they're just shadow boxers in ballerina outfits. It's gone way way way beyond a joke now.

Is Green the group leader/organiser though or just the public face of the consortium? I know he's contradicted himself a few times, but he has said he was asked by someone or some people to get involved.