calscot

I meant sell McGregor in the next Transfer window...

At the end of the season we will hopefully be out of administration, under new owners and looking to win the league. While I can see us letting Papac, Bartely and McCulloch go, Aluko and Little may be good enough value and quality to keep. I could also see us cashing on MacGregor while keeping Alexander as first choice. If we can sort out our money problems once and for all using administration and new investors and at the same time restructure the club to close up any unnecessary leaking of funds, then I would be confused if we weren't in a position to directly compete with Celtic financially, and therefore on the pitch - which in the main should be our goal these days. Whether Celtic like it or not, we are both tied together for the generation of income and the only way that could change would be to escape the confines of Scottish football either to the English leagues, Atlantic league or European league.

That's the problem with administration - your credit rating becomes virtually zero. Everything becomes COD or cash upfront and then your cash flow can completely stall and put you into liquidation.

I think the reasoning behind such theories, is that the most common theory about Whyte just robbing us in broad daylight, makes about as much sense as a pile of crap... He seems to be doing it in front of our eyes but nobody can see how he will get away with it - he'll surely suffer some kind of retribution?

Funny thing is, this has far more plausibility than most conspiracy theories...

In this scenario there is no full measure of "real fans". It doesn't matter - what counts is that there are fans who are willing and able to put money into the club whether they go to games or not (or a specific game). Some aren't willing and many aren't able. There is more to being a fan than going to the games - which requires money, free time, location and logistics as well as many other factors. However, there is a fact that has been smashed into our faces - the club MUST be owned by the fans. There are now no ifs and buts now - we have seen the actual and potential extremes which can happen to club under the ownership of one man. The question is not now of whether we should, but a question of "how?" We need to follow the Dortmund model once this mess is sorted out. As I've been saying for years, football is inherently broken - and we have become one of the early sufferers of what is looming over the horizon. Perhaps, as a tiny sliver of hope, we can sort ourselves out now and get into a strong position when the shit really hits the fan for the rest of European football.

Can't see how it can be "accurate" in the slightest if fans who don't get to the match can't have their say.

It sounds like a speculative story spun to sound like fact - they've asked the police a question like, "What would happen IF Rangers don't pay the bill?" We don't actually know whether they will or not and I'm sure the deadline is not there YET.

He's not allowed to be sceptical about sources of information? I think you have to decide what kind of poster you are... It's very difficult to respect someone's information with an attitude like that. Just makes you look like a mudslinger rather than someone with insight. Even mudslingers get it right sometimes...

PS I think the suggested amount has to be substantial or it will never take off the ground. If it was a tenner then we'd need about 2 million subscribers instead of 40k at £500. I think Celtic had 12k subscribers and raised £9M.

I believe Fergus McCann's share issue had a minimum of £650 and that was in 1994...

What, like the Queen?

I think most people know that straw polls are inherently flawed as a highly accurate reference but it can still give an indication of whether it might be worthy of taking the market research further. I really don't think we're all as naive or as thick as you like to suggest... It all depends on how the data is treated and analysed.

Seems to me that Celtic fans pledging wouldn't be doing themselves any good - it just looks like more support for Rangers fan ownership, and I can't see where any joke would be in it. I can't work out what they'd gain and the sheer pettiness is mind numbingly pathetic.

Bloody hell 57 people have pledged since I did a ten minutes ago...

Pledge done. Anyone willing to divulge what they'd be pledging? It would be interesting to know what others are willing to contribute. I realise we can all afford or are prepared to invest differing amounts and it's not a competition and no shame on having a lower amount than someone else. I also realise many people like to keep it private. The default was £500 and coincidentally that's exactly what I feel I could afford and which is a substantial enough amount - and something like a grand would be just a bit too much with plenty of other things to pay for and on the wish list. There's also the point that this is a financially bad investment - we stand to lose most of our money but it's about saving the club and not for financial gain. I think you basically have to pay up and forget about the money - having a share of a healthy Rangers is priceless.

I can't understand what you're talking about. SDM took over a club in rude financial health and winning everything on the pitch and starting to do well in Europe. Who is to say that David Holmes and the Malborough family could not have delivered NIAR when they were already doing so well and remember Celtic were in freefall and the New Firm in decline? I can't see who our challengers would be even if we spent a lot less - but why would we if we were in the black? From what I've read on here, we were still in the black after NIAR, then Murray bankrupted us after appointing Advocaat. In four years it looks like he overspent by about £100M including tax avoidance - even though the amounts being invested in the club were huge... By not paying tax in the normal way, he's now made us liable for up to another £50M. Two league titles, four trophies and slightly above average in Europe in four years, isn't anywhere near enough reward to balance the following ten years of money problems and now administration.

Got to totally disagree with this. Nobody criticised as we were told we could afford it. I'm sure we would have criticised if we knew the extent of the finances. You can't criticise what you don't know about. I don't know how people don't understand this - it's just too obvious to even start explaining. Imagine you agree with you wife to spend your ten grand of savings on a dream holiday with her organising it. She then treated you to an amazing holiday with first class travel and five star luxury while telling you she was in budget - would you complain? Imagine then you come back to you're now 100 grand in debt and have to sell the house? Would you accept her excuse that it's your fault as you "didn't complain at the time"? Our biggest fault was trusting him with the money and believing his smoke and mirrors.

So is Whyte's endgame to hold Rangers fans (both super rich and potential small investors) to ransom? He surreptitiously buys the club with its own money puts it in the shit and administration, gets a CVA, is paid and pockets a fraction of his supposed credit and then threatens to liquidate the club unless it is bought from him for an addition market fee - even though he didn't pay more than pound himself? As a triple whammy he siphons off the balance of the ticketus money and a whole lot of other income and assets...? If that is the case the guy is completely evil and will be one of the most notorious Scots in history. Maybe that's when having some nutters in our support could come in handy to dispatch justice. But it's really hard to believe someone could even have the balls to do something like that, never mind the will. Surely that can't be true?

While your pretty much right here, both teams actually have had their negative publicity about it and the biggest difference is probably that they didn't hide it and lie about it or break any covenants in the deal for buying the clubs. I think the press is a bit more lenient on rogues who are up front about it - mainly because there is no hidden story to reveal and sell papers.

Just go to a few less games and spend the same amount on tickets - Rangers will get the same income, except perhaps interest. The fans would actually save money on travel and sundries... If it's for real then surely missing a few games for the same money is worth your club not having £24M stolen from it?

It's a bit of a prerequisite though...

Surely what Ticketus have done must be against some trading law or other? I can't see how Rangers can be held responsible for a debt that was created by someone who, at the time, had nothing to do with us. In my mind that says that the club owe nothing - and the debt is all CW's. If he is removed as owner, then he can't use our cash to repay the debt. It would be like buying a house to let and being liable for the previous owner's mortgage and having to pay them future rental income in a financial transaction you had nothing to do with...

PS It seems to me that if no-one buys any season tickets in the next three years, and instead everyone does pay as you go, Ticketus will no longer have any claim on RFC for a single penny and will have to go straight to CW's secured company for the money...

The thing is, any lies he's told will be revealed with time, so is he just trying to buy time with them? Or has he so tangled up the finances of Rangers that he believes the ultimate truth to be undiscoverable? ...or something else...