calscot

It's got to be said that it's a massive improvement over the old board, some of whom had stuffing their pockets as a much higher priority than the welfare of the club - and that is something that is still continuing. They were custodians of the club and were ruthless with many employees jobs when in charge of cost cutting but when given six months to find another job themselves hung around and then try to bring the club to its knees when removed. To me, it seems the club would be better off now than if a few of the previous board had never been near Ibrox and that shows how incompetent they were. I can't see how you can be a custodian one minute and put the knife in the back and twist it the next? And it shows that the health of the club was something they never really cared about. Clearly in the cost cutting exercise there should have been in place an expedient way of removing highly paid executives? I can't see why they couldn't just find themselves a free transfer... It is telling that they were giving themselves huge pay rises in this time of austerity when they were the one's heavily responsible for the ills of the club. If their wage was related to performance they should have had a massive pay CUT. While White has not exactly come and waved a magic wand, most of his problems at the club were caused by the previous regime - including the tax case. The club is no longer being run as week to week affair and not under the thumb of some dubiously Celtic minded bankers who gave the impression of being hell bent on ruining us. Reasonable financial stability has been achieved (pre tax case outcome), squad stability has been achieved via new contracts for key players and some shrewd signings and the reputation of the club and fans are now being fought for. He may only have invested one pound but it seems to have gone a long, long way so far...

With regards to Fleck, he's still quite young and just turned 20 so there is still time for him. Only a couple of years ago there was a lot of talk about how Naismith was never going to make it and we should cut our losses on him - he was 22 or 23 at the time. I think that should give us pause. However, Fleck does need to start showing "something" to give a reason to persevere with him. To be fair to Naismith he'd shown a lot of potential at Kilmarnock and then had a terrible injury but there are quite a few similar examples - like Lafferty who is only starting to win the fans round after just turning 24. I think Fleck could benefit from a loan spell at a team at a reasonable level as we don't even have a proper reserve league any more, but going back to the example likes of Naismith or a bunch of other top young SPL players with many from Hibs - it still takes time to make it at a bigger club. Perhaps we expect too much from young players just because there are a smattering of examples of some top class players hitting the headlines early on in their careers - the Giggs, Beckams, Messis and Rooneys. But I think when you look at them, they are usually the world superstars, the best in their generation and they are few and far between.

You're not always paranoid if there is someone actually out to get you. You make sound that you should never defend yourself against a torrent of unwarranted criticism as that's being paranoid... I really don't see how the way Celtic have acted over the years applies to this.

I think E is the least likely and that Whyte will fight tooth and nail to avoid it. I think he sees plan D as the more realistic worst case scenario.

I think it's up to Ally to use his principles to decide what he does. It seems to me he did the right thing and has continued the tradition of our managers having a bit of class and integrity and totally opposite to those of another team I could mention. The Aberdeen player (I forget who) only showed himself up and McCoist's actions showed him up further. I doubt Brown will feel comfortable about the actions of one of his players in the circumstances. Must be a bit cringe-worthy for him. I'm not a great fan of CB but he does seem like a decent bloke.

If nothing else, the court case and the protest flag that there is some kind of problem to those high up in the BBC, and even if they are Celtic fans, it will still put pressure on them to look at those who are bringing this kind of attention to the corporation. If the reports are seen as completely innocent then not much will happen, but with the admission and apology for the McCoist interview, they have form that can't be dismissed. Like I said, even if the top brass are Celtic minded, those in London won't be and it will be unwanted attention on those higher up and pressure to do "something". Funnily enough they are appearing to "retaliate" with the latest court case being prominent on Reporting Scotland. While the story may be true, it hardly merited much of an airing and the usual Ibrox footage for negative stories was brought out. But for me, the more "reasonable" "fuss we make, the more pressure and scrutiny certain people will be under. The main thing is to keep it all as squeaky clean as possible. We want to look like reasonable viewers with a genuine complaint, not a bunch of partisans who object to anything negative to our club being aired.

My theory is that there are the following main scenario plans: A. We win the tax case - Whyte waives the 18M debt, the other tax bill and puts up several million for transfer fees plus some investment the stadium such as the big tvs. Rangers are now debt free and healthy financially. B. We lose the tax case and HRMC do a deal with us for say something like £15M - Whyte pays the bill, repays some future earnings but the club will have to pay back the £18M of debt over the next five years. Whyte has some millions to invest in the squad and stadium. C. We lose the tax case and HRMC do a deal with us for say something like £25M - Whyte pays the bill, repays some future earnings but the club will have to pay back the £18M of debt over the next five years and cuts will have to be made with limited transfer fees. D. We lose the tax case and HRMC refuse to deal and demand something like £50M - Whyte puts the club into administration and creditors including HRMC are offered so much in the pound for the monies owed. If they accept, Whyte pays some of the bills, writes down his own debt and over next five years the club will have to fulfill those reduced debts and cuts will have to be made with bugger all transfer fees. We will have at least a 10pt deduction and unlikely to win the league. E. Same as D but creditors refuse to budge - Whyte liquidises the club and uses the assets starts a new one using the Pheonix scenario. Liquid assets are stripped to pay creditors, Whyte loses most of his £18M but owns the new company. Rangers readmitted into the SPL with heavy sanctions and no European football for three years. Club will be stable but with reduced assets. Players will probably have to be sold and income will be reduced from no European football. Highly embarrassing for the club and a break in its continuity. Lots of slagging from Celtic and claims our haul of trophies no longer counts for the new club. In all scenarios I see Whyte as exposed to an "investment" of £25M to £30M - his "effective" purchase price for RFC. However, I could be totally wrong. Just trying to make some sense of things and the above seems consistent with what's I've read and understood that's been happening. There is also other significant but lesser cases such as the lesser tax bill and the two suing, former employees. Whyte may only have spent a pound so far, but the tax case is pivotal.

I don't know how new it all was but it was certainly clearer and more specific than most of the stuff I've read. Certainly one of the most interesting interviews with him I've seen. Well done, VB.

Seems to me that there is a strategy being worked on that is to protect both Rangers and Whyte from the possible repercussions of losing the tax case. Basically as far as I can fathom, Whyte has yet to actually put more than a pound into Rangers. After flicking the coin over the table to SDM all he has then proceeded to do is to take on Rangers' debt from Lloyds - but still as a loan. Since then as the OP points out he's raised working capital via offsetting future income and has also had to use this to offset frozen bank assets. I think he put some working capital in at the beginning but that still seems like a loan rather than a cash investment or donation. At the moment it looks to me like he's trying to run the club on it's own income rather than put any of his own money in and while that can look dodgy, it logically follows that the less money he puts in, the less the tax man can hoover up if the case goes against us. But to do this he needs the future income now for cash flow purposes and some capital investment. I can't imagine his long term goal is to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and completely acquire Rangers for the total sum of £1 and renegue on all investment promises. It could be his eventual effective purchase price is more like say £30M with that money invested either in waiving the club debt and investing in the playing squad, or use it to come to some sort of deal with the tax man. Until the case is decided, his wallet needs to stay in his pocket. It seems to me that at the beginning he was bullish about winning the case and so made promises that he has yet to deliver. After the financial hole created by the exit of Europe, he's shut up shop and the noises about the tax case have become less confident and the worst case scenario being prepared for. While that looks bad on the outside, such a stance could save us from going out of business. If we win the case then I suspect the dark clouds will disperse and the money will start rolling in, starting with waiving the debt. That's just a layman's theory that makes some kind of sense to me.

If we think about how we react to when they do the less savoury stuff. Are we offended - not usually; are we actually pleased - a lot of the time we are as it shows them up in front of the world. Think of their "Bloo stained poppy" banner. Were we "wound up" or almost gleeful that the whole of the country were enlightened to their obnoxiousness? If they were trying to wind us up then it was a spectacular own goal. Trouble is we score the same own goals time and again and rather than winding them up it gives them ammunition in their hate campaign against us. They lap it up. It seems to me that the less we do wrong, the more they are wound up - in fact that is why they are getting more and more desperate in their attempts to disparage us: because we've cleaned up our act somewhat since UEFA started taking action. If we're clever and give them no ammunition at all then that could send them into apoplexy and meltdown. At the same time we could be more witty and funny about what we sing and keeping it football related and above legal reproach - that would be much more of a laugh. Think about it, what's funnier, a clever comedian who parodies current events, or one that just continually spouts uncouth and un-PC comments about minorities? Schoolboys may like the latter but it gets old pretty quick never mind 50 years or more. But the biggest laugh would be watching them try more and more pathetic attempts to bring us down while the world shakes its head in total disgust at them.

The thing that gets me is how Chick has managed to earn such a large wage - when he first came to our screens, I thought he was a total joke who wouldn't last long - and his parodies on Only an Excuse were the only good parts of his career. Over the years he's not only become worse, he actually acts like he thinks he's a heavyweight reporter while bringing nothing but nonsense to the table. I realise people on the telly get paid a lot, but that's usually justified by them being "better" at presenting or more knowledgeable about the game and therefore more popular than others who covet their jobs. They get the cash as they bring in the viewers or readers. How anyone can think Chick does that is well beyond my view of his talents - unless he attracts fans from other clubs. How has such a loser been given so much exposure and far more money than he deserves?

I realise there are some idiot Rangers fans but where I share the "We are the people" sentiment is in thinking we're on the whole, a cut above in such values. The spirit of William Struth comes to mind and the notion of the Rangers Family. I see Celtic as a club that attracts and encourages those with lower values and their lack of dignity, respect and integrity is noticeable through almost everything they do on a daily basis. On that KDS site it seems every comment has hate and malice attached to it, whether it's about Naisy or the general comments which prevalently hateful spite towards those who they call, "huns". This is not a view I just made up to hate them with, it's one that has been modelled and formed by their abhorrent behaviour over the years. I've seen a lot of crap from some Rangers fans but to a massively lesser extent to the Tims. If we're the same as them then that will shatter my whole paradigm of how I see us. Maybe I've been sheltered on here, but I really hope it's not true. If KDS is reflective of our country as a whole then we really have become a carbuncle of a nation. I'd really like to think it's mostly just a large and vociferous minority of THEM.

If we had threads like that about them then I think I'd be ashamed to be a Rangers fan. But then, they bring shame on Scotland - it's only a small consolation that they don't admit to being Scottish.

Sorry but this is a such a strange reply that has so much irony in it, it could keep your shirts pressed for years. It bares absolutely no logical relationship to what I posted. You seem to just want to make up something to fight about because you didn't like my post and you're still bearing a grudge because I once said that no punctuation in your post made it very hard to read. Your paradigm of our communications is so far out, I can't see how we can converse with you unless I enter some alternate reality. I like a debate but I'm not into mere thumbing noses at people for the sake of it. I won't be engaging with you in future, you just don't make any sense.

I'm glad it's predictable, that means I'm consistent on moral matters. Not everyone may agree with me but at least they can see where I'm coming from. Yeah, just make up stuff and get angry about it... I don't bash Rangers fans, I criiticise people who I think are acting less than morally - most of the time that is Celtic fans but why should Rangers be exempt from criticism for not acting like decent human beings? If you feel that way, I think I might just be repeatedly hitting a nerve, which probably says something about what kind of person you are. Look, you use your dyslexia like a guy with glasses who starts a fight for no reason and then says, "You can't hit a guy with glasses." It's a pathetic attitude - use a spelling and grammar checker like everyone else and get over it. As for your ignorance, anyone can improve their knowledge if they actually make the effort; however, many people think they don't need to and it usually shows... You need to calm down and actually listen to the meaning of what people are saying. Try debating your point rather than just going off on one.

While I hope someone can step in to his place, I have to agree that Naismith has been our most irreplaceable player this season. He's been the creative spark that has lifted a good but workmanlike team to another level. He may not be as good as Laudrup but he was fulfilling that role and giving us that X-factor. He was sorely missed when he didn't play due to suspension and being rested for the League cup game. We can win without him but it's definitely more of a grinding out a result. It sounds horrible, but there are so many more players I'd be less bothered about losing. To me we have six must-play squad members and he's number one out of that elite group - a talisman if you will. Hopefully other players can step in and do a job - and it gives an opening to Bedoya and McKay who have yet to fully feature.

I would say it's neither the truth nor funny. Is it arrestable - no, is it slanderous - yes. Celtic may have been guilty of a cover up of one person's crimes but that was a hell of a long time ago and to use that now as a stick to beat them with is a cheap shot and lacks any integrity. It also cheapens the plight of those that actually do suffer and statistically, some are likely to be at the hands of Rangers supporters. There are plenty of sick Rangers supporters out there and a couple even sent bombs through the post recently. Do we all want to be tarred with the same brush? We find it sickening that Celtic and Aberdeen fans sing about the victims of the Ibrox disaster, how is it less sickening to glorify in the suffering of the Celtic paedophile victims? There is plenty of topical stuff to slag the general Celtic masses about without having to cheapen the club by this kind of petty name calling - especially when there is no respect at all to the actual victims - and their families who have to be constantly reminded in this sickening way. All it does is make people wonder who the real scum are. No wonder football fans are being labelled as an underclass, there are too many supporters without even a basic moral compass who give us an immensely bad name. Some Rangers fans need to crawl out of the manky gutter.

Could they be 2012 medals? At 12 pts ahead the SPL could be getting ready early...

I take it you regularly attend the kirk and try to live a life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted by Calvin? However, you also think that which colour of sock you like is an important part of that? And I mistakenly thought it was all about football...

That's just classic, well noticed!

How do you get a famous footballer to do a Q&A for your fan-site for diddly squat? You compliment them and give them "nice" questions. Simples.

You don't win the title with kids. That's why Man U don't play a team of kids. The one everyone talks about had an average age of something like 26 - similar to many of Walter Smith's teams (especially when you remove outliers like Weir). They only had one teenager in the team - a 19 year old Phil Neville. But getting a "rule" wrong once doesn't prove anything - there is usually an exception that proves the rule. How many sides full of "kids" has won the English championship in the last 120 years? For me, the ones who go on about winning championships with kids or "building for the future" are the ones who don't know what they're talking about. Just look at Arsenal...

WRT the tax settlement opportunity, it seems that we'd still be liable for the amounts plus interest but minus the punitive fines. That would still be what, £35M? I doubt we'd just pay that if we have a strong case for winning. I think it sounds like a bit of a scam from customs to dupe those who legally exploited the loopholes before they were closed into paying up rather than facing the risk and, which has been shown with their tactics against Rangers, the embarrassment of being investigated.

Bet he did!

I still find it difficult to believe we'll lose the case. Top lawyers at the time were pretty damn sure it was a legal tax avoidance scheme; the loophole has supposedly been closed since but it doesn't seem legal or constitutional to retrospectively punish a company for something that was dubious but legal at the time. The only thing I can seem them getting Rangers on is a technicality where the overseas trusts weren't done 100% correctly. However, I think the lesson is to keep everything on the straight and narrow when it comes to tax. The punitive charges also seem incredibly harsh when you don't know you're doing anything wrong. Perhaps instead of just a tax rebate we should get punitive damages when the inland revenue get it wrong...