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.

So Green's people didn't really buy ALL of the assets from D+P..

No the rfff were responsible for and financed that and those controlling the club agreed otherwise it would never have got to court.

That's the sound of a different drum that many have closed their ears to, you would have thought first murray and then whyte would have sharpened their ears.

Bill McMurdo writes. Youâ??ve got to hand it to David Murray. He knows a cash cow when he sees one. And there are few better at milking it. Murray is set to receive another payday from Rangers supporters when the Charles Green consortium purchase Edmiston House from him. With money invested from loyal bluenoses. I would say gullible bluenoses but itâ??s up to people what they do with their money. Anyway, Minty will coin in again on the old Rangers social club. The spin on it is that Murray has graciously agreed to sell Edmiston House to the club. The reality is that there are no other buyers and Murray will bite Rangers hand off to offload the building. But it looks as if Edmiston House isnâ??t the only nice little earner the â??Knight of the Realmâ? will be making thanks to the open wallets of Rangers supporters. Apparently, Charles Green recently told a gathering in the Members Club at Ibrox that Rangers intend to buy the Albion Car Park ground for £1.3 million. The club currently lease the land for £300,000 annually. Guess who will benefit from this wee deal? Now earlier this year Malcolm Murray â?? remember him? â?? stated that the Green regime bought the assets of RFC, including the Albion. Now, although Rangers can list leasehold property on their balance sheet, it is not owned outright by the club. So the Rangers chairman was covering up the reality that Rangers do not own the Albion outright. It looks like the Albion is very possibly still the property of Minty or his family, even although Green mentioned buying it from Lloyds TSB. That is up to the club to clarify. However, several things should be ringing alarm bells in the minds of Rangers supporters and inspiring them to ask very probing questions of the regime presently at Ibrox. Firstly, who does actually own the Albion car park ground and why has the Green consortium always inferred it does? Secondly, how much of the proposed G51 development involves land or property owned by former owner David Murray? Thirdly, how much money in total will be used from the share issue to pay David Murray for things like Edmiston House and the Albion? These are vital matters I am sure every Rangers fan would want to know and certainly deserve to know. If Charles Green and his backers really want to destroy the niggling doubts many fans still have they must be much more transparent and make things abundantly clear they have no connection to the David Murray regime. Raising money five months into their tenure to give Murray some ker-ching moments is not the best way to go about this. I am sure Rangers fans will balk at the prospect of doing what they have done for decades now â?? stump up their hard-earned to prop up and maintain Mintyâ??s empire which is built on greed, debt and the milking of cash cows like Rangers Football Club. As I have been saying for quite some time now, David Murray is the man responsible for Rangersâ?? woes in recent times. How galling that the fans he left twisting in the wind are once more shelling out to give him another payday. However Charles Green spins itâ?¦ Bill is a regular contributor to the CRO. He can be found on Twitter at @WilliamMcMurdo and via email:bmcmurdo@thecoplandroad.org

McCoist and Green have publicly stated they will not accept the stripping of titles, how are they going to stop that happening if the spl say it is happening, rhetoric shouting and bawling, stirring up the masses or something more concrete and legal ? or do you think realisticly we should just bite the bullet, I don't. The investigation will receive no co-operation from Rangers, however, with chief executive Green branding the probe a 'Mickey Mouse event' and warning he will fight any attempt to strip titles via the courts. 'I stand by what the club have said, 100 per cent,' McCoist said. 'You know it's not a decision that has been taken lightly. 'We took advice on it and I was fortunate enough to attend the meetings. We have taken a stand

We have the second highest wage bill in Scottish football we should at least expect value for money, having said that Arsenal have an estimated wage bill of £143 million, money can't but me love nor success. http://tinyurl.com/c6canht

I asked a question a few pages ago, what does anyone expect Green to do if they did strip us of titles, I expect plenty of tub thumping and rhetoric but little else, but I don't believe they would be stupid enough to risk antagonising the support any further, if not the owner.

The court didn't tell the panel to decide on anything Glennie told them that which they had imposed was ultra vires beyond their power, the panel could have decided no punishment was the best way to proceed. What exactly does Hector have to do with anything ? Between your oft repeated delusion/delusional and possibility arguments, there may possibly be life out there but not as we know it, only one way to find out.

So there we leave it, you think expulsion was a possibility I don't. Who did the court support ? what was the idea of going to court a day out ?

I believe they the sfa/spl and their brief paid attention to the rules or lack of them when the Judge ordered them to, sadly for us Green capitulated even with the support of the court, strange decision.