bigy

New article from Rangers website. Has anyone heard of these guys?

I think for any figurehead to get involved in a bid when they don't really know the individuals involved is very risky. Perhaps once the deal is signed, sealed and delivered to all our satisfaction a figurehead will step forward.

The thing is, if you were arguing for Green then having massive funds invested would be the wrong move as the cost of a CVA is likely to increase if HMRC/Ticketus know you have the money. If you're arguing against him then he's failing to back up what he's saying. He's certainly not convincing, but it's impossible to come down decisively one way or the other. Unfortunately it's another game of wait and see, but the big risk this time is if he doesn't follow through with the agreement the other options have all left the room.

But UEFA's concerns seem to be that it is restricting a players trade and would be open to challenge. So Gattuso, for example, could take UEFA to court and the advice UEFA have been given is they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/8908065/Uefa-shelves-proposals-to-impose-a-transfer-ban-on-clubs-that-breach-its-financial-fair-play-rules.html

No need to apologise!! It's being too accepting of people and information that got us into this situation in the first place!! It's just interesting how people who attend the same meeting can come away with two such differing viewpoints. I share your concerns to be honest, I think Green seems to contradict himself far too much and until it's signed, sealed and delivered it'd be unwise to be taken in by any of it.

Seen this posted by Chris Graham on Twitter, it's from Wiki so not sure how reliable: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations#section_2

Frankie, what do you make of the comments from Rangers Media tonight?

Imagine the Scottish Cup final next year, Rangers v Kilmarnock or ICT or whoever, and we boycott the final!!?? The SPL showpiece event with no fans turning up!!

I know this decision is unprecedented, bias, and absolutely stinks, and as fans we should take action by boycotting all away games next season. However, how disappointed do you think the new owners are? They can steady the ship financially, they don't need to splash out cash on new players, and can concentrate on cementing our current squad on longer term deals. It gives us a season where young players are going to come to the fore. This is either going to provide us with a fantastic crop of young players going forward, or put our young players in the shop window for those who don't quite cut it. Either way it benefits us. As much as it's a sham decision, I don't actually see it doing us too much harm. If anything it could really help us.

Coisty's Cubs to win the treble!!!

We don't need Chamberlain or Kakuta though. I'm pretty sure when Sire Alex brought through the Nevilles, Beckham, Butt, et al that Man Utd fans thought the same, Hansen certainly did. I'm not saying McCabe, Ness, Perry, Hutton, Mitchell, Fleck, McKay, et al can win the European Cup for us, but they are good enought players. It's not like we're up against Messi, Ronaldo, Mata, van Persie, Toure or Nani. It's Brown, Mulgrew and Hooper, and in the fullness of time all of our young lads will stand head and shoulders above them. The question is, can they do it as soon as next season?

With the SFA upholding their sham punishment, it looks like we're going to be stuck with the same players and kids to see out next season. In some ways this will provide our younger players with opportunity to develop, but what realistically can we expect from next season if the current situation doesn't change? Our squad, assuming we lose no more players and without bringing in more of the youth team, is looking like: GK - McGregor, Alexander, Gallacher Defence - Goian, Broadfoot, Whittaker, Wallace, Bocanegra, Perry, Hegarty Midfield - Edu, Davis, Naismith, Aluko, Bedoya, Ness, Mitchell, McCabe, Hutton, Fleck Forwards - Lafferty, Healy, McCulloch, Little, Kerkar, Hemmings, McKay We still have an experienced starting XI within the above team, but obviously that's going to have to be combined with the youth players throughout the season. Looking objectively, we're very light up front although if Aluko can play like he did last Sunday then it's not so bad, but we would need Lafferty, Little and maybe McKay to step up to the mark. In midfield and defence though i'd say we're still far and away the strongest team in Scotland. I'd therefore fancy our chances in the league, particularly with the motiviation we'll all have. Any thoughts?

The sanction is not explicitly listed within the SFA rule book under the areas we've been found guilty, but there is a line within the rulebook which states something along the lines of 'any other form of punishment deemed appropriate'. The 12 month transfer embargo has been applied under that broad brush. Interestingly, one of the sanctions which was listed was exclusion from the Scottish Cup, but the SFA wouldn't want to lose any sponsor or tv revenue now, would they?

But, given EBT's were legal and fairly standard practice throughout business, how can HMRC defend prosecuting retrospectively? Also, in our case I think there's a huge debate around who's liable. Are Rangers liable as the employer of the employee who benefited, are Murray Group liable as the company who administered the scheme and made the payments, or are the advisers liable who recommended and set up such a scheme? I think there's a strong argument, from a Rangers point of view, that we made payments to a third party (Murray Group) who operated an EBT scheme. We were reliant on the third party to set up, administer, and run the scheme within the tax guidelines at the time. If they failed to do this then I think there's a strong case that it's Murray Group, and not Rangers, who are liable for the tax as it was and is their scheme. For example, i'm a small business and set up an EBT scheme for 3 of my employees through a building society. I make payments into the trust funds at the building society, and the building society in turn makes discretionary payments to my employees. I am 100% reliant on the building society to administer the fund correctly, and operate within the law. If they don't, am I liable or is the building society liable as the professional service with the expertise to operate the scheme? That's what happened to Rangers, and I have a strong feeling that when push comes to shove it'll be found that any liability falls upon Murray Group rather than Rangers.

Quite possibly, although I doubt he'll tell the SFA/SPL who's in it. The SFA don't have a fit and proper persons test, so in reality it's none of their business.

Still not a lot of detal, but saying the right things. I've absolutely no idea though how you can gather a consortium of 20 people from around the world and keep it secret for as long as they did!!

I don’t think anyone is, it’s just a case of waiting and seeing for us all. In terms of the CVA though is it the case that Creditors are going to get exactly the same in either scenario as £8.5m is in the pot for the CVA, and they’ll get £8.5m from the sale of assets, so either way they get the same money. If so, why oppose a CVA? Going forward is a different matter, as whether a CVA is agreed or not they need to lay down their plans for all to see. I don’t imagine season ticket sales will be through the roof unless assurances are received on that front, and unless fans can see that the consortium has the club’s interest at heart, so hopefully we’ll hear soon.

How do you mean? That the whole agreement would fall through and we'd be back on the market?

If the Green consortium has put £8.5m into a CVA pot, and has agreement with the administrators to buy the assets for £8.5m if a CVA can't be agreed, why would a CVA be rejected by anyone? I understand that the main reason would be if more could be realised for creditors by selling the assets in liquidation than could be generated through a CVA. But in this case if the money's the same, and if there's a binding agreement to sell all of the assets to Green if a CVA can't be agreed, why would anyone reject the proposals when it's clearly not going to benefit them? I do understand HMRC's standpoint if football creditors are getting preferential treatment, but is that the only real stumbling block?

I'm comforted by the size of the consortium. Let's give them a chance, and if they can get a CVA then I'm sure we'll all breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Realistically, what deadline's are there on a Saturday that have to be met when they've already done a full CVA? Probably a bluff imo.

To be honest, and it may be blind hope, but in my opinion no news is good news. If BK hadn't heard back i'm sure his media guy would be on FF or Twitter saying so. The fact it's quiet this morning suggests to me something's going on.

Looks like there's still hope for TBK - but it's getting bloody dirty!!!

Cheers again. Like everyone I just wish this could all be over. I still believe we'll come out of this ok, and in the long run it may even make us stronger, but it's getting harder and harder to keep believing it. ps - i've just bought 4 tickets for tonight's £35m Euromillions. If I win my press conference will be at Ibrox in the morning!!