frost

The simple answer is that they all are and were great, some were simply greater than others, but all who wore and wear the jersey are in my eyes simply the best.

So that was the nature of the work done by Duff and Phelps/MCR. But was it â??significantâ??? If we return to the list of factors to be taken into account in considering that question, Duff and Phelps would have had to consider additionally the fee they had received for their prior engagements, the impact of their work on the financial stability of RFC (if any), and whether their appointment as administrators would require them to review the work they had carried out during 2011. They would have been clear that an appointment as administrator would carry an obligation to report on the conduct of their former client, Craig Whyte. There can be little doubt that the Ticketus deal would have had a significant impact on the future financial stability of the club. Future revenue had been diverted to pay off historic debt to Lloyds Banking Group. The question of whether Grier knew that Whyte was relying on money from Ticketus to fund his acquisition is important because it implies a far closer relationship between the parties than was suggested by the original Report to Creditors, in other words, more significant in a regulatory sense. Such knowledge would also make it difficult to attack the Ticketus transaction. Duff and Phelps vigorously denied that Mr Grier or any other party in the firm had any such knowledge and raised proceedings against Mr Whyteâ??s former lawyers in this regard. However, Collyer Bristow are threatening to cite Mr Grier as a party to the action precisely because he knew about the structure of the deal. Duff and Phelps may therefore find themselves in the bizarre position of suing themselves. Insolvency is inherently unfair. Because there is not enough money to pay everyone who is owed by the insolvent entity, there are always losers in the process. Some people will get more than others. It is therefore essential that any insolvency process is conducted with openness and transparency and that the law which underpins the process and determines who the winners and losers will be, is applied fairly. There's also a public interest argument. Those who are losers in the process have to be assured that the conduct of those who were responsible for the affairs of the company before its insolvency is investigated objectively. If the investigations reveal wrong doing or negligence in the conduct of the company's business then appropriate action has to be taken and the relevant sanctions applied. Insolvency practitioners have to be able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently objective to bring the full scrutiny of the law to bear on those who were in charge of a company prior to its failure. If they cannot do so, public confidence in the process is undermined and that helps no-one. It is not for us to determine whether Duff and Phelps should or should not have accepted the appointment or whether the steps they took before doing so were sufficient to deal with perceptions of conflict of interest. Presumably they have applied the tests in the Code and are satisfied with the outcome. However, they are now answerable to both their regulator and to Lord Hodge, Scotlandâ??s senior insolvency judge. There will be a number of people who will have an interest in the outcome.

Some people are just to clever, can't see the wood for the trees.

Move on where ? for some reason that no IP that I know can fathom, D+P handed control of the fate of the CVA to Hector when the alleged debt/estimation was and still is under the auspices of the FTTT, when we get the answer to questions like that also why the original estimated raisable total of assets £41 million raised £5.5 million, there is a long way to go before we move on.

I would laugh if it wasn't so barefaced at least Dick Turpin wore a mask. â??4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (â??Sevcoâ?) to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares. 4.18 Having considered the offer from Sevco and compared it to other offers received for the Company / business and assets, the Joint Administrators determined that the Sevco offer was preferable because it: secures the best available return to creditors of the Company; and proposes a CVA in respect of the Company, the benefits of which are outlined in paragraph 2.10. 4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter with Sevco (â??the Offer Letterâ?) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the Company or a purchase of the Companyâ??s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity.â? They summarised the deal with Sevco: â??4.20.1 In addition to the £200,000 referred to in Paragraph 4.19, Sevco agrees to advance to the Company the sum of £8,300,000; 4.20.2 £8,300,000 will be available for draw down by the Company no later than 31 July 2012, but only once certain conditions (the â??Conditionsâ?) are satisfied; 4.20.3 The Company will repay the Loan together with interest on it on or before 31 December 2020; and 4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.â? However, a condition of all of this was approval by the creditors of the CVA: â??4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged [and we'll come back to that word] to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.â? The CVA proposals would have meant a return to creditors of a few pence in the pound in the pound. They were considered at a meeting of creditors on 14 June. 49 creditors voted in favour of the proposals and only six against. However, one of those voting against was HMRC whose claim was valued at over £94m, around three times the claims of all the other voters. So the proposals were rejected and in due course the assets bought by Sevco.

"In our current financial year, which ends on June 30, we will have had two seasons' season tickets, because next year's season tickets will go on sale in May. "By the end of June we'll have collected, so I'll have another pile of cash before this (financial) year ends. "Rangers is in such a fantastically strong position without the IPO." Clarifying his use of "I", Green added: "I am Rangers. I'm running that club, I'm making the decisions and I'm going to protect that club with my life. No-one's ever going to abuse it. "I've started to catch Rangers-itis. What I do see now is an opportunity to finish it and take it back to greatness. "I won't leave before Champions League music's playing at Ibrox. But I've already changed my mind once, so it may be I end up changing my mind until we win it (the Champions League)." Green says the player wage bill has been cut from £27 million ($41.87 million) to under £7 million ($10.86 million) and that Rangers is in rude health. He added: "The club has got cash, it's still got no debts. In terms of the monthly requirements for cash, we can't run out of money." The no debts is somewhat stretching credibility to beyond bursting point, silly me it's the new sort of debt called internal debt.

Goian & Bocanegra loans ?

What do you think your share (and money you pay) as issued and crafted by Green and his people will give you ownership of and a say in the running of, apart from being a nice conversation piece. A tug at the heart strings as opposed to hard headed business, as long as you don't expect to much other than emotional return everything will be fine, as long as the emotions are good.

Neilly Gibson Douglas Lamming's 'Who's Who' of Scottish internationalists says he was a "wing-half among the greatest in football history" and was one of the earliest exponents of the back heel ploy. He was born in Larkhall on 23/2/1873 and played for Larkhall Thistle, Larkhall Juniors and Royal Albert before joining Rangers in November 1894. With Rangers he won four league titles in succession (1898-99-1901-02), and three Scottish Cup Winner's medals - 1897, 1898, 1903 (though he only played in the first two matches of the 1903 Final). He also played in the losing Final of 1899. He won 14 full international caps and played 11 times for the Scottish League. All of these honours save his last full international cap were won as a Rangers player. His final cap came after he moved to Partick Thistle in 1904. He played 157 league games for Rangers, scoring 12 times and 35 Scottish Cup matches, scoring 10 goals. For Thistle he played in 102 league games and scored six goals. He also played in nine Scottish Cup ties for the Jags but scored no goals. Of course at this time there were many other competitions such as the Glasgow Cup, Glasgow Charity Cup, Glasgow League etc in which first elevens were often fielded and he played in over 100 such games for Rangers and around another twenty for Thistle. He received a benefit match at Ibrox against Celtic in 1904.

I think it is pretty obvious what he is getting at, if I buy something I expect to own it not someone else, why don't Green's people just do the honourable thing and buy it themselves after all we are constantly told they own the club.

Glad we got that settled.

James Morgan deputy sports editor has some very strange views on The Rangers creep will be right at home.

A person who owns a building and the ground on which it sits or any freehold ground is a freeholder.

Like the Albion that we do did maybe could have may lease but still own ?

I didn't say Green had nothing to do with it, you made that up.