calscot

There will be upfront costs before the club can be run within its means - we may even have to buy a whole new squad. You also need cash flow or you go under no matter how well a business is run and how much it break's even. If you buy a run down taxi, you still need to service it, buy new tyres, insure it, tax it, pay for your licence and put petrol in the tank before you can start earn money to break even.

So what is a debt free Rangers worth? It's not a money making business and so bans from Europe etc have no effect - you just have to run the club within its means. However, there is the immediate need to invest in the club which adds to the purchase price - it's a doer-upper. Although some of the money for that could be raised by the fans. I would say you'd want to pay an amount, including investment, that you can realise in a later sale. Basically you just don't want to lose money. Previous highest price has been £6m, last price was £5.5m plus costs and time. Green will not want to sell without a significant profit and the consortium will not want to pay over the odds. If pushed to guess, I'd say about £12m which agrees with the previously proposed amount by GovanAllan.

One thing that strikes me about McColl's wealth - is that as far as I can see it is liquid. It's all very well to say you own businesses worth £500m but you can't actually spend that money - it's like equity in your house, you're worth that money but you haven't got access to it. Also when it's tied into business it can go from £500m to very little very quickly - just ask David Murray. When that is the case you are protective of your worth and don't splurge it unnecessarily. But from what I gather, McColl just sold his business for 700 odd million. Now that's like selling your house for 15 times what it's worth and having the cash to spend. His money is safe and Rangers are relatively a bit of cash in his back pocket.

If we based decisions on this kind of thinking we wouldn't be able to make any decisions at all. The answer is we don't know anything. We don't know who will be best for the club. It's the same with any big decision in our lives, we don't know if they are the right ones. So what do we do? We look at the facts, what we know about people and their reputation. We are far more comfortable going into business with people who show credibility, who we know are not shysters and definitely have the money to back their bid; and also people we trust - people who we are confident we know have our interests at heart and the business as whole and not just their own interests, or how much money they can make from us. Thinking about that it's obvious why we prefer a Walter led consortium of well known, very rich, Scottish businessmen to Green's band of unknowns who are just looking to make a quick return. We might not really know the future of what will happen and who will ultimately be best - and we will never even be able to know that. But we are not fucking stupid!

Before people jump on him for proclaiming his love of Rangers - if it's true, what do you expect him to say?

Firstly, the "you've" was generic and not personal as in "you've got to be silly to put your money in a Greek bank". Secondly, it's as it says: if you're affectionate about something you'll spend money on it, if you're not so affectionate you will spend a lot less. Pretty simple. That was related the whole thing about the bike. You often spend proper money to give yourself a chance to succeed - unless you don't really care. You can take it any way you like but if I wanted to call you a taig why would I write it in a such convoluted way that actually means something in support of my argument? Unless I'm some sort of genius at veiled insults... Also if I wanted to call you a taig, why wouldn't I just call you one? Why would I then try to change it to mean something else? Like I said, you seem to be jumpy on the subject and looking everywhere for it - like other comedy sketches where two people are having a normal conversation and one suddenly and aggressively says, "did you just call me a ...?" That's not how you came across before but this makes a bit more sense although I still disagree. I agree that getting some advice a la Walter Smith is fine, but it doesn't mean you need to use the players. Souness raided England remember and they were players of a far higher standard than the rest of the league. It may be harsh reality, but the reality is definitely a lack of loyalty - the glory hunter hypothesis. How can you be loyal and not renew your season ticket when your club needs you just because your in a lower division? This is not normal relegation by Dunfermline, this is a one off catastrophic event, and the solution is to return as quickly as possible to the top flight - all we need is loyalty and with 40k+ fans it's pretty much a fait accompli. That's a different argument to what we've been saying. You gave the scenario that we could have players at ANY level. But anyway, just because we can't keep the same squad, doesn't mean we shouldn't go for the best we can afford - and how much we can afford depends on our fans. Perhaps but there is no prescription for this, it's a strange scenario. But you don't get to play in the SPL because you are not a cut above the 3rd division. I'd put money on the best side winning. It doesn't always happen but over a season it's a good bet when there is such a big gap of ability. I see the point but don't see the need. I'd rather have the better players. That's not disrespectful, it's based on obvious probabilities. Rangers finish comfortably ahead of the other SPL teams every season - with the same type of team (which we're using in this scenario) you can't expect anything else from the 3rd division no matter how much you respect them. There's respect and there's just going over the top. I always respect the other team on a game by game basis - just read my past posts. However, over a season I'm not going to pretend that Rangers would struggle to win the 3rd division. There is just no point. That could change if we buy lesser players but not normally. My point is that if fans are loyal we will be able to afford a team that would challenge for at least second in the SPL never mind div 3. Not quite the same thing. Yes a proper Rangers could finish 3rd or worse in the 3rd division. It could happen but it's very unlikely. If you knobbled the team then it becomes far more likely. For liquidation, Rangers were knobbled by HMRC, SDM and CW. No, you said a team "of any level" would struggle in the 3rd division. The "any level" implied those teams would also. I disagreed and consequently found your assertion to be false. Just as I did for Rangers. There is a level that would win it reasonably comfortably, I would want to go for the highest level we can to surpass that instead of going down to their level.

It's fact that it's your opinion, I agree (well as far as I know). I was hoping you'd back it up somehow with a reasoned argument... but hey... A lot of people thought Alex Ferguson wasn't up to the job at Man U in his first season... just shows you. McCoist has not shown enough in the circumstance to suggest there is someone better out there who we can afford and who will come to Rangers. Advocaat, Eck and PLG have shown that the glib expectation that previous reputation is a guarantee, is a fallacy. All three performed worse than McCoist in their last season without his horrendous circumstances.

Isn't living in Monaco a tax avoidance scheme? What a bastard!

I'll just add that if there was no tax case, we'd have had bidders queuing up to buy Rangers for £24m - £18m to Lloyds and £6m to Murray. Some front-loaded investment in addition would be a no-brainer.

Can I just point out some things again. We would not be in this situation if: 1. HMRC didn't have a very obscure tax loophole that depended on "discretion". 2. HMRC cracked down immediately on aggressive use of that loophole. 3. HMRC didn't expect companies to pay unclaimed tax from up to 12 years ago. 4. HMRC were proportionate in their claim compared to the crime, their complicity and the affordability. 5. HMRC wanted to maximise the return for the taxpayer. 6. HMRC didn't single us out to make a high profile example. That's quite a few things to answer for. All they needed to do was quickly say to Murray, "naughty boy, stop that" and I'll bet he would have behaved. Instead they contrive a situation to kill our club. If HMRC were social services, there would be a lot of sackings right now: "What? You knowingly let this go on for ten years without saying anything? And now the child is dead after you personally pulled the plug?"

Sorry Craig, but you're arguing semantics here. How verbose do you want me to be? You're pretty much saying what I meant by "running on empty". He was running the club as long as he could without putting in a penny ie "filling it up" - and not paying tax extended the range. Surely you know what I mean? Or do I have to go on? I've already mentioned that everyone, including Whyte expected a decision a long time ago... I'm lost here. It's irrelevant to my scenario as he probably expected to lose the tax case or was planning for that. If we won the tax case, according to Whyte it would be irrelevant as HMRC would "appeal, appeal and appeal again." The guy went for broke - literally. Administration was his end-game all along IMO. The point is: without the tax case Whyte would not have been able to buy the club AT ALL. Murray and Lloyds would not have been so desperate as to sell to a guy like him - they'd have listened to the board. I've explained time and again about why I think HMRC are ultimately guilty - you haven't once rebutted those explanations, but do I have to repeat them? HMRC should NOT have had tax loopholes based on "discretion". They should not ignore aggressive use of loopholes for 12 years without complaint before suddenly changing the rules asking for all the back money times three which they know the company can never afford. They should not single out a company to kill to make an example when it would benefit the taxpayer to make an affordable deal. You may argue that that's just the way it is but it's not an argument for what we are discussing. We are discussing blame, and it looks to me that HMRC are guilty of creating the whole problem. Do you really think what they did was morally correct? I see it as incompetence crossed with entrapment. It's like having a sign for free parking on condition of some obscure discretion, letting people park there for 10 years and then retrospectively charge them £60 a day and then triple it with interest and penalties. You apply it to any other situation and it's plain wrong. In fact if it was someone occupying your house for ten years, they'd now OWN it. I don't know why you don't get that. At worst SDM was at worst just a naughty boy - he wasn't some super-criminal deliberately breaking the law like a violent bank robber. He thought he'd found a clever loophole which was legal. I'm sure you must have used some kind of loophole yourself at some point or know people who have. People do it all the time with expenses etc. It's bad but not really that bad. HMRC makes the rules and he just tried to play cleverly with them but HMRC don't seem to respect their own rules. It obvious to me that Craig Whyte thought he had a solution that was highly immoral but could just work and make him some money. He's like the rats and pestilence that come to a city or the looters after some government bombs it. You want to blame them instead of the stupid war. I don't know how to explain it more and can't understand why you don't get where I'm coming from as your arguments don't give a more fitting explanation for what's going on. They just make it sound completely random ie Rangers were doing fine, then Craig Whyte came along and killed the club because he felt like it... If you have a better explanation than mine then explain it to me, and if I see that, I'll adopt it no problem. I go for the explanation that make the most sense, not one just because it is mine. Please convince me!

What we need is a statement of intent from the fans. There is only one bidder we will now accept.

I will happily buy into a share issue led by Walter Smith. My money won't be going to Green and co.

You really think that is a fact? Really? Based on what? One season which had the worst off-field problems in 140 years? Where despite a 10 point deduction we finished a comfortable second? But forget about evidence or reasoning - you say so, so it must be a fact...

Can I add that I'm severely disappointed by how much or little a lot of fans care about the club. They'll spend hundreds of pounds travelling and drinking at a UEFA final but when the club needs them in less glamorous circumstances they start shuffling their feet. The amount spent in Manchester must have been something like £20m but we'd never raise that in a share issue to own the club and the amount raised by RFFF was tiny in comparison. There's a great amount of moaning but when it comes to doing something positive, say putting a hand in the pocket or even just refraining from singing banned songs, there's a lot less effort.

Ally takes a 100% pay cut to help the club, many fans who "care" about the club just as much say they won't pay full price for season tickets or buy them at all if we're relegated. Who "cares" more about the club again?

Can I just say that surely it was in the public interest to form a verdict to the tax case a hell of a lot quicker than it has. In fact it's been ridiculous and they have been so slow to have made themselves irrelevant as the company no longer exists. Tax law in our country is truly pathetic and just not fit for purpose.

I prefer to see the bigger picture. I believe Craig Whyte did what he did to pre-emptively avoid the big tax bill and make it irrelevant. HMRC were gunning for us and have shown their intention - they wanted a big name example and they have achieved their goal. What Craig Whyte did was a last ditch battle for survival, the big tax bill was the war. It might not be the best example but if someone has a terminal disease and they illegally take an experimental drug might cure them but then die from poisoning - is their death just to do with the drug or was it in effect, really the disease? It's a simple explanation that fits very well and I'm surprised so few get it but if that's not the scenario then please explain the last year to me. I can't see what could else could have caused the last year and I can't think of any other cure bar winning the tax case and HMRC leaving us alone. It's also very strange how the tax case should have been resolved by April at the latest and yet it still hasn't published its results. I think Whyte was expecting a decision around then and so was running the club on empty just in case. If the tax case went for us then he could have paid the tax bill and carried on, albeit handicapped by the Ticketus deal. If it went against us then he hoped to solve the problems with administration and a CVA as there is no way we could pay that tax bill. In the end you might look back and think that if we hung on there may have been enough time for a cure invented to save us or that if we didn't go the Whyte route we'd have died with a bit more dignity and less vitriol against us. But Whyte took that gamble and lost. Sorry if I'm verbose but I'm not sure whether you just don't get where I'm coming from or whether you get it but disagree for good reasons that I don't yet get.

Boardman bikes are pretty good and get great reviews. Their top bikes are about four grand and they win a lot of competitions especially triathlons and iron man. The team carbon is pretty good, not the best frame but excellent for the money. It comes with SRAM Rival groupset and Ritchey parts. I've upgraded the wheels, tyres, seat and peddles and got the weight down to 7.5kg. No it just depends on your perception of expensive and cheap. You won't see many people in cycle races with £300 bikes - it's pretty easy to spend well over £200 on a service. The front fork alone on my mountain bike would set you back about £400 and that's bottom of the range for Fox. The seat, peddles, wheels and tyres for my boardman set me back £700 and that's shopping online at well below rrp (the wheels rrp were £600). Even my Brompton was £750. Check out your local bike club and you'll see few bikes below a grand and their will be loads that cost well over two grand. You may be poor but I doubt it; you probably just have other priorities... If I said a car that was £4500 new was dirt cheap, would you agree? He was saying to hire Div 3 players - on average that will get you half way up Div 3. To have a good chance to get to div 2 you really need div 2 players or better - after all two div 2 teams join you in relegation...

Pretty much exactly what I was saying, you were just messing with what the race was. I don't know why. Bloody hell, you are a sensitive soul. Where is the taig accusation? Actually you remind me of the story which could be about anything but let's go for a German trying to infiltrate the British forces. The sergeant gets suspicious and lines up the troops saying, "Men, we have a German in our midst", and immediately the German shouts, "I'm not a German I'm British!". You're certainly right about not understanding much of my post. Perhaps you should read it again. You said, "For me it isn't a lack of ambition that means we'll need to sign some Div 3 players, it's the opposite." It's all there in the thread... Are you retracting that now? I think there is a massive difference to the pre-Souness days. The whole club lacked ambition and the audience dwindled - although Celtic weren't doing much better. I'd even go so far to say the whole of Europe was in a bit of a slump which allowed the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd to be big players there. This is desperate times where we need a show of loyalty. We need to SAVE the club and get it back to the top - a lot of people are showing they just don't care enough about that. I don't think so. Even with years of downsizing the squad then going through a horrendous season, being deducted 10 points, losing three games post administration, we were still comfortably better than all the top league could offer outside of Celtic. The gap between Rangers and the rest of the SPL outside Rangers has been pretty big for years. If we kept the same level of team, I can't see how that would be harder in Division 3. It just doesn't make sense. It may not be a walkover every week but winning the league comfortably should be highly probable. That's without any disrespect to Div 3 - they can't hope to finish above a team like Rangers. BTW you're also implying that Man U, Man City, Barcelona and Real Madrid would struggle...

Seems to happen all the time and is even happening here...

I don't think many of us are all that naive, but it's still interesting to explore the possibilities, even if they are unlikely.

The players could leave for other SPL teams that will qualify for Europe like Heats and Motherwell... If they don't mind the pay cut. There's also foreign teams in smaller countries who could offer them the same kind of perennial qualification and trophies as we do, as well as a similar wage...

When you think about that it could be a good pre-retirement for them. So many players who want to play on in their twilight years have to drop the divisions and play for less than salubrious clubs with questionable facilities, in a ghostly atmosphere, playing with players well below their ability and losing games due to their inadequacies that you can't single handedly overcome. It can all be a bit depressing. However, a Rangers vets side could face the twilight before retirement with dignity - despite being older, having the ability to play well above the opposition, famously and romantically taking Rangers back up the leagues while still playing at a big club, in a big stadium in front of a large crowd, enjoying excellent training facilities etc, etc. With the disparity in talent it could be exhibition football - like the Harlem Globetrotters and highly enjoyable for everyone. If you've already tested yourself at the highest level, why not relax and just have some fun? For division 3 we could even bring back some from retirement who have kept themselves in condition. How about Laudrup as player-manager if McCoist does resign? I'd pay top dollar to watch that...

I can see it being a good thing for the Dutch league. In fact we could really do with an Atlantic league or the smaller countries will become totally marginalised by the huge TV deals in the big 5 countries. But imagine a league with Ajax, PSV, Feyenorrd, Alkmaar, Twente - and Rangers? We'd sell out Ibrox and the TV rights and I'm sure it would give them a boost...