bigy

Regarding the European point, that's only relevant if a CVA can't be agreed. If Bill Miller's plan works, and he can merge the old and new companies then there will be no loss of European football. I don't think a CVA will be as hard as many think. The only way anyone could turn down a CVA would be if the pot of money offered was less than could be generated from a sale of assets - but in this case all the assets will have been transferred!! It may take a while to pursue the legal channels to try and get the money from Collyer Bristow (sp) et al, but once that is complete there really is no reason for a CVA to be blocked. There may be difficulty in negotiating Craig Whyte's shares, but then if all he has is a shell of the current/old company, then it's completely worthless so why would he resist.

There's also rumours flying about FF and Twitter that Whyte has agreed to sell his shares for £500k. That would enable a CVA, so fingers crossed.

That's what I'm thinking. He's saying the right things, so let's just hope he can deliver!!!

My understanding, and again I could be wrong, is that a 'stand-alone' CVA is one in which a CVA is agreed without the involvement or approval of the administrators, whereas a normal CVA is one in which the administrators support the proposals. Not quite sure how after 3 months in administration a stand-alone CVA would ever be possible. ps - so possibly if TBK got Ticketus onside they'd have been able to agree a CVA direct with the creditors, and thus it would have been stand-alone, whereas now Bill Miller is proposing a CVA with the support and backing of the administrators.

Duff and Phelps, joint administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We would like to thank all parties for their efforts in seeking to submit bids which preserve the long history and success of the Club. "We are delighted to announce that today we have received an unconditional bid for the business and assets of Rangers Football Club plc from Mr Bill Miller which has been accepted and he is now the preferred bidder. Mr Miller now proposes to complete his transaction by the end of the season. "After many weeks of negotiation and deliberation we believe that the structure of the bid from Mr Miller provides not only the most deliverable outcome but preserves the history of the Club. Rangers Football Club will continue as the football club it has been for 140 years. "Furthermore, Mr Miller and his team have sought clarity in relation to potential footballing sanctions and the place of Rangers Football Club plc within the Scottish Premier League. Significant progress has been made and discussions will continue throughout the period which Mr Miller now enjoys as preferred bidder. "Very importantly, the bid also avoids the need for liquidation. All too often the term liquidation has been bandied about during the process without a clear understanding of what it actually means. "Liquidation means selling off the assets of a business individually to raise cash and therefore bringing about the closure or winding up of that business. This has never been on the table from any party in any form. There is no liquidation involved in this strategy and we cannot stress that strongly enough. "As we stated at the outset, one of the prime objectives of the administration was to achieve a CVA which would deliver a return to creditors. Mr Miller's bid meets this criteria. "In recent weeks there has been much debate about Rangers exiting from administration through a stand-alone CVA. However, the barriers to a proposed stand-alone CVA are now too high. "These barriers include, in particular, the absence of any bidder proposing unconditionally sufficient funds to enable a stand-alone CVA to take place.

Don't think it's been posted, but Sandy Jardine was interviewed by Chic Young on BBC Radio Scotland last night before the game, probably about 6.30pm so it should be on iPlayer. He came across very well, and insisted that what has happened is entirely Craig Whyte's fault. However, he says the story started around 4 years ago and said that it's a fascinating story, and one day he'll tell all, but not now. He was pushed but refused to go further. Will be interesting to find out what he meant given it clearly goes back to David Murray's time.

What does everyone make of this? Not sure what to think tbh.

Personally, I think there can be a lot of criticism of the RST and other supporter groups during this process. They jumped into bed too early with TBK without thinking through their proposals, and at a time when the support should have been united, proposals like the minimum £1k investment and involvement of Ticketus (which was hidden/denied at first) completely divided the support when revealed. On top of that, when genuine concerns were raised about TBK proposals, a lot became uber defensive by attacking other bidders rather than scrutinise TBK. These are criticisms of both TBK and the supporters groups. However, I think it would be foolish to suggest that these groups, including the RST and MD, have anything other than the best wishes of Rangers Football Club at heart, and the concerns regarding Bill Miller and Club 9 are legitimate ones. We don't know who Bill Miller is, what his plans are, or the motives of the likes of Club 9 or Andrew Ellis if they are involved. All we know is it involves a newco, and that is something that most fans seem eager to avoid at all costs. I think it's clear that the RST, and by association MD, are mouth-pieces for TBK, but I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that. If they are involved in meetings, and privilige to information which other supporters don't have, it's only right that they share there concerns with us. Maybe how some of this is done could be more refined, and at times it does come across more as propoganda than as legitimate concern, but these are difficult times for us all. The only other thing i'd add, and as someone who does post on FF, it is a really good forum, but it does attract the extremes of our support, and also people at the wind up. As a result it's often the reaction to what's written/reported that creates the hystria rather than the article or OP itself.

I wouldn't say it's hysteria, it's a serious question. Would Umbro, JJB and Tennents want to transfer given they'd be under no obligation to do so, and would Miller be able to get more money elsewhere. It's not a given that both parties will agree, and if they don't are Rangers taking on more debt by pre-selling?

But is it not Rangers who are pre-selling and taking on the debt?

The insolvency expert who done the q&a yesterday was asked if season tickets could be sold with all the uncertainties going on, her response was basically that the administrators couldn't take on the debt for various reasons, but the money could be held in a holding account. This doesn't tie in with the new strip launch, given the club are taking on debt for a product which may not be relevant. If Bill Miller, or anyone, takes over and forms a newco then all contracts with the old company are null and void. There's no contract with Umbro to male next seasons strip, no contract with JJB to sell it, no contract with Tennents to sponsor it, and hence the strip that has been launched and which the club are taking money for, and thus creating more creditors, is not next seasons strip and is being mis-sold. So the big question is why is this strip being sold??? Could it be Duff and Phelps are playing more mind games and actually still intend to sell to TBK?

No European football next season, and possibly for 2 seasons beyond that. A team that's at the mercy of the SPL regarding any punishment, and that would probably be uncompetitive in the league. A lot of them may be Rangers fans, but the likes of Davis, Naismith, McGregor, etc could easily find a mid-table Premiership team down south wanting to take them and give them a big pay rise into the bargain. Why would they stay?

Why must it be a newco? If Miller gives £11m and becomes the new company owner with all our assets, how are HMRC or Ticketus better off than agreeing to a CVA which gives them better returns even if over a longer period.

Why will it be Miller? Under existing rules SPL clubs can punish us however they want, and he can't live with that uncertainty. Surely if a preferred bidder has to be named it will be TBK.

In every press conference and every interview Ally is being asked about liquidation, what would happen, what might happen, what might never happen, and so on. It's easy to grab a sentence he makes off the cuff and make a headline out of it, but that doesn't detract from the seriousness of the situation.

But if the original bid is, as reported, £5m then that's a big jump. It makes you seriously wonder about the credentials of Murray and Kennedy that they're prepared to fuck around with our future. They've been in negotiations long enough, and must know what it takes to buy the club. So enough of the grandstanding from them, they should just get down to business and do it. The more they dick around the more of the support doubts them.

Spelling corrected. Smart arse!!

Could you not find out if Perez fancies buying us? Got to have more money than TBK given the paltry bids they keep putting in.

If the BBC story is accurate, and I stress if, it does again cast Paul Murray in a bad light and raises questions about him. However, given that he's clearly an articulate businessman, the logical conclusion would be that somebody, likely to be from Duff & Phelps, is feeding Paul Murray duff and inaccurate information. If this is the case Paul Murray has to come out and explain exactly what's been happening.

Defo - but they have said they hope to do due diligence and progress within 2 weeks.

Being confirmed now by various news agencies.

Any idea where we can see / hear any announcement by Kennedy first?

Brian Kennedy's PR guy has just been on FF saying a press release is imminent. No indication of what's in the release. Also saying 'haymaker delivered'.

Where did you see this??

The SFA have continually put the safety of referee's at risk by failing to deal with Lennon's constant tirade against the integrity of match officials. Time and time again he is let off with little or no punishment when he has questioned the integrity of referee's, and in doing so put their safety at risk with death threats against them on numerous occasions. And yet now the SFA want to pretend they're acting in the interests of their judicial panels personal safety by wanting to keep their names secret. The two don't add up - and as we all now know the SFA isn't fit for purpose, and Regan & co need to go.