Rangersitis

There can be an investigation following a successful CVA. The spokesman claimed that it would 'restrict the scope'. Without further clarification as to what he was specifically referring to, it's all just supposition. HMRC appear to have been vindicated by their decision as the BDO pot appears to be far bigger than the £8.5m that Green and his cronies were pretending to offer.

That passage does not cover what you originally claimed. For a start, Whyte had not been there for 'years' and neither had he been guilty of tax fraud as everything had been recorded. The non-payment by Rangers was a civil matter, not criminal. You could have included the following tract from the same STV article that you linked. That is where the historical non-compliance aspect would be covered.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Whoever comes in, I hope that they haven't already indicated to the club that they want to hold on to the players who escaped the recent cull. Other than the inexperienced younger players, they all need punted.

Paul Clark and Charles Green. Jesus wept!

Each to their own, but I will wait for them to come good on at least a few of the numerous promises before deciding on my next move. It has been an inauspicious start.

The BTC had no relevance to the CVA as the HMRC didn't include it in their claim. The proposal failed because their vote against meant that the 75% needed for approval couldn't be achieved.

No, the intent of HMRC was to recover the monies which they were owed by RFC, not Craig Whyte. If prior to February 2012 Whyte had sent them the total that you claimed he owed, Rangers would still have suffered the same fate. HMRC's guidelines on CVAs are quite clear. They will not support proposals put forward by companies with a history of poor compliance and late payments. The ongoing disputes from the time of SDM helped lead to the failure of the Voluntary Arrangement.

Individuals who have a bit about them will make their own decisions on what to spend their income on with very few relying solely on a couple of legal decisions. I dare say that the court action taken by SD this week would have been the route that most large organisations would have followed if they feared that confidential and sensitive information was going to be made public.

Exactly. The BTC wasn't even relevant in the club entering administration. That was down to a further £9m which had been deliberately withheld from HMRC.

Well, there is a discrepancy somewhere. I shall leave it at that.

Is the average season ticket priced at over £400? King stated at the launch that 45,000 sales would bring in roughly that £12.3m.

Thanks, Frankie. I knew that the supply problems in 2008 had curtailed sales. It makes sense that figures around Advocaat's time would have been high due to the brand 'bounce' across the world. I don't think anyone apart from Adidas and Nike have that sort of pull.

The first two words would have been plenty.

Yes, that was my whole point.

If there is nothing more than a vision, then it won't be. A large body of the support have been scunnered by a succession of empty promises and will not be swayed by noise emanating from the RST or RF.

There is little doubt that shirt sales have fallen dramatically over the years, but in what year was this figure of 500,000 sales achieved? Couldn't find reference to it anywhere.

I didn't say that it wasn't true or that the motives were the same. I was commenting on the fact that the style of the message and the lack of substance that accompanies it are not a million miles apart to that which Green employed so successfully.

Have Rangers actually given notice that they are terminating the arrangement with SD?

He hasn't said anything new, nor has he provided anything tangible for the unconvinced to enthuse over. The only thing that is missing from that piece of recycled Traynor nonsense is a reference to the Champions League anthem! Same rhetoric minus the Yorkshire accent.

There is no repayment date on the first tranche within the agreement, but from 2017/2018 all sponsorship revenue goes to RRL.

What is it with this claim of 'in perpetuity'? There may not be a specific percentage charge on it, but there are costs involved when it is not paid back.

It was 'the club' which signed off on the deal. Unless they have proof of wrongdoing by SD, they wouldn't have anything to challenge them on.

The club pay for any unsold shirts. It's a fine gesture, but pretty futile at the end of the day.

It is. Perhaps not in the last three seasons because of the circumstances of being entered into the bottom league, but being in the second division of a footballing backwater on merit, that can't be wrapped up any other way.