calscot

Reading that is says: The Perth side's opponents only qualified after Besiktas were banned by Uefa from European competition due to financial issues. However, the Istanbul club has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, who have yet to issue a decision. If Besiktas are successful in challenging their punishment, Bursaspor, who themselves won an appeal against expulsion at CAS last week, would step in. I hope St Johnstone fans show their sporting integrity and boycott the game - or will they be hypocrites as usual?

Not many people remember Third Lanark these days...

To prevent another newco situation any time in the future could we set up two companies (a bit like Celtic)? One runs the team and has the SPL share when this is regained and the other runs the rest of the business and basically hires the team to play at Ibrox. A bit like a theatre and a permanent show - like Cats. That way if the parent company goes bust the football club part stays intact and probably just becomes a creditor. It would probably need a cash reserve to pay players wages for a certain amount of time if the worst happens. Not sure about all the ins and outs of business but it sounds workable to a layman. In fact if it's plausible you have to wonder why Whyte didn't do this before he went for the melt down strategy.

Just read about the Chelsea pitch thing - sounds like an excellent idea for us - without the loan of course and at a cheaper price.

I think the pitch thing could work in tandem as it means actually buying the pitch which would mean it could never be sold even if another Rangers umbrella company goes bust. And as you practically own that bit of pitch it could potentially raise more money and be something that could be traded.

Didn't know that existed...

Sounds like we need something like that million dollar web page which charged a dollar per pixel for advertising. We could have a webpage which breaks the pitch into 724500 10cm x 10 cm patches and you can buy patches for £20 and it gets your name on it/them. The webpage could have a click-through for each patch on a google earth type image and be searchable to find your patch(es). You would then have a trust that owns the pitch including your pitches on your behalf. The pitch is then leased to the club for a nominal fee. You get to vote on any decisions the trust makes about the pitch. You could even visit ibrox and taking one of those measuring wheels, find your patch(es). That could raise almost £1.5m.

Nobody thinks he's out to destroy us, but the impression is there that he may rip us off and the signs are that he probably puts a fast buck ahead of the good of the club.

One of the biggest farces is that the boards are being pressured by the fans who feel Rangers have to be punished and one of their biggest reasons is due to the EBT's which they have been programmed to see as "financial doping" by Celtic. However, we haven't even been found guilty of wrongdoing and may be exonerated... Celtic had one EBT and then paid the tax. That to me is an explicit, fully PAYE'd, dual contract. Where are the cries for them to be punished? After all, is that not a grievous crime? Either, like us they they may be guilty because they made a mistake (we just made more but how is that worse when our mistake wasn't pointed out for 10 years?) Or unlike us, they didn't make a mistake and had a deliberate, bona fide dual contract.

Weren't Celtic kicked out in the war years due to flying the swastika and doing pro-nazi chants?

I thought it was normal accountancy... but then a lot of accountancy stinks. :fish: To pay creditors the best amount, debt have to be collected and put in the pot. The creditors then share the pot... I can't see the problem in business terms. In football terms that's another story and it could affect our transfer credit rating.

Yes but doing so would be against "sporting integrity"! So actually that shouldn't be allowed if that is what is being decided upon. The other clubs are treating it as a punishment - for what is a question that cannot be answered, even by them. They are clueless and just hitting out pretty randomly at someone they don't like. When you say "any other team" I think you're wrong - would they not vote themselves back in? If so then they are hypocrites of the highest order. You cannot ethically think, "one rule for me and another for anyone else", which is precisely what is happening. Which shows how much of a farce it is. Even on that Coach Trip program they have to openly give their reasons. I can't see the SFL putting the countries largest club to death out of spite. Why would they deliberately induce something worse than Third Lannark's demise?

What's missing from that graph is that Dundee are hardly likely to produce an average gate - it will be well below - extremely so when it comes to Hearts and Hibs whose averages are bumped up by their derby games. Attendances against someone like Dunfermline should be used. The losses will be much higher except perhaps for Dundee Utd.

Speak for yourself! There are plenty of good bears who would NOT act like this if it was the other way around. I don't remember ONCE anyone from Rangers putting a boot into Celtic when they were down - laughing maybe but that was about it. There may not have been much opportunity and the circumstances were different but there was no attempt at all to harm them. That's probably why they flourishes so quickly afterwards. I don't remember much hate or even much appetite for them disappearing - even though they were hardly a big football rival at the time. There is not the same vehemence in much of the Rangers support - although that is probably changing now. Can I also say that I'm disgusted by such an insulting post.

Just what football reasons are we being punished for? I cannot think of one. There is not one football reason. It's all business reasons at best and self interest and petty reasons are more likely.

I would guess that £240 a year for nothing in return, while others do nothing and get the same, and the owners put in little themselves and make a large profit, would put most people off. For £240 a year you should be getting shares in the club to that value. We all want a successful Rangers but like the low turnouts in the elections, which is effectively free, most will not see themselves as making much of a difference, and they can save themselves £240 a year with their apathy. All it will seem like is that the money will replace money that should be spent by the club and THAT money will just line the owners' pockets. Can't see it working.

. It could make a difference - if they vote yes and Rangers still get voted out then they will lose the Rangers ticket sales PLUS Celtic's.

I don't like Nacho's comment and don't think he should have said it, but I've been led to believe that as a group of football fans are not a race or religion, you can call them anything you want without breaking any law or moral code - so what is the fuss about?

PS The main thing is that the major shareholders' shares are diluted and the fans gain more percentage every year - unless the big guns match the fans share issue.

The value of each share would go down every year unless the value of the club went up. So over time you'd lose money. However, you'd still own the shares and they still count for votes. But, that's still better for the fan than a membership fee that is worth nothing at the end of the year. Not sure how you'd get round the fact that each subsequent year you would be paying £25 for a share that's worth less than £25 when the equity is divided by the number of shares. Perhaps you need to buy say 100 shares for £25 in the first year, and then the second year you may get say 110 shares etc. That way your voting power decreases with time if you don't keep renewing - which is probably a good thing.

Instead of membership, how about a share issue every year? For example you value the debt free club at say £20m and transfer that equity into £25 shares, then every year fans can buy one share each for £25 and each share gives you voting rights for which there is something significant to vote for every year to keep people interested. If 80k people a year buy a share then after 10 years, the fans would own half the shares and more than half from year 11 on. The club would also have an investment of £2m per year which could be ring fenced as a transfer fund. £25 is only just over £2 a month which many could afford and the amount is quite nice as a birthday/Christmas/Fathers day present. At least this way you are getting something tangible for your money - a share in the club which should retain some value and can be sold or given away. You just need to put in covenants where nobody can own above a certain percentage of shares.

JJB deal would be good to break as we already had the up front money. A bit mercenary but they've been pretty rubbish and lost us money.

PS It seems Walter's consortium, Dave King and the RFFF are all reasonably satisfied so maybe it's panic over... However, vigilance is still necessary.

They withdrew because they DID get assurances. The statement was badly worded. The point was they didn't have these assurances at the time of the offer and so at that time they were worried enough to try and gain control of the club.

By the very nature of the EBT's, there was no paperwork for SPL/SFA... According to Murray and his advisers, they weren't contracts at all.