AMMS

What have Annan done wrong?

Aberdeen and Hearts owe most of their debt to their owners, as such it is unlikely they'll collapse. St Mirren, although currently debt free, would need to seriously reduce their overheads if Rangers leave the SPL, that's why they might have a problem. Bear in mind almost every club has already got players, managers and suppliers on contracts that are already in place. You can't simply renegotiate, that's what Motherwell were trying to explain to their supporters, for all the good it did them.

Okay. Lookers, the English based PLC motor group, are in advanced negotiations to buy Lomond Audi Group. Due diligence is complete and as such Lomond Audi are not allowed to sign any new contracts that could materially affect the value of the company. Whilst the deal hasn't been signed yet Lomond have informed staff of it and it will almost certainly go through in the coming weeks. This story is bullshit, the deal expired, the new owners might want to renew, they might not, until they are either in place or pull out of the purchase nothing can happen.

Okay, I'll leave you to post the pish from now on then. Happy now?

Oh, don't be bashful, go on, a long post explaining the finer points of employment law, and from an expert too, think of the rep you'll get!! I'll rush to the cliff and stop all those people I panicked from doing anything silly.

Yes, maybe you should. Or, you know, you could just continue to criticise others.

Fair cop, see my post above.

Yeah, fair enough, I'm premature. If/when we go into liquidation though this is what will happen, the newco transfer wheeze won't stand up in court if challenged.

No. We're in liquidation so TUPE doesn't apply. If we were in administration it would apply but not liquidation. All employees will be entitled to redundancy payments from the government based on their length of service although these are capped. The 'newco' can offer all of them jobs but they don't have to accept them.

Ironically the word Auchinleck is pure Gaelic - field of flat stones. They don't speak much Gaelic round there now but they must have at one time.

I love it when people pick fights with 37,400 odd post Manticore, I think it's the only reason I still come on here. I've virtual man love for the ageing internet pugilist, I've never seen him bettered yet. Pretty poor show that blog, if you don't like FF don't buy it/visit it. It's really not that hard.

Australians can't resist alliteration, naming them Western Suburbs Rangers will explode the Australian mind. They need to call them Wanderers or Wolves or Wombats or something beginning with 'w' or the country might spin into a social and economic decline. I've voted for Rangers just out of badness really.

Not true. They have to do what's best for the creditors, when are people like you going to understand that? Duff & Phelps couldn't give two fucks what happens to us after they are gone.

Because it is not Duff and Phelps job to do what's best for Rangers but what they think is best for the creditors. Green is bad news, if he's who is fronting it, and so the 'respectable' one, fuck knows what the rest of them must be like.

Got to say if that's the reason he's pulling out we've got off lightly. He's clearly got no idea about the 'robust' nature of British football fan culture.

Not sure I agree with the 'Scottish journalism is among the best in the world' line, a bit self congratulatory, but other than that he makes some very valid points and overall I agree with him. As an aside why did you describe the Caledonian Mercury as "not a great source"? It was started by the Scotsman online team who were made redundant due to cost cutting at Johnston Group. it was a crazy move as the Scotsman website was outperforming the rest of the paper at the time. As online news outlets go the Mercury is as interesting any other Scottish based 'publication'. If that's not damned with faint praise.

Audi supply 'company' cars to the club, I imagine some of the management and players might be able to stretch to a second car too.

I guess I'm suspicious of anyone who invests that much time in blogging about a club he doesn't like, that's not healthy. I read his anonymous piece in the Guardian a few months back and didn't buy his 'exposing negligence and corruption in football and the media' spin. I think he always hoped to damage Rangers and to an extent he succeeded. I am embarrassed it took a Tim to bring all this to light though, we should have been watching more closely ourselves. I hope we learn our lesson.

Bluepeter beat you to that gag by about 12 minutes.

What was unfair or imbalanced?

On the whole yes. It has some sensationalism which it didn't need but there was little in it I thought was inaccurate or misleading.

Oh I think he came expecting to uncover the footballing equivalent of Watergate, I also think it's increasingly clear he won't. Whether that's because it simply doesn't exist is open for debate. Channel 4 are a UK wide broadcaster, they aren't 'English' we've as much right as anyone else to their time, they've an office in Glasgow too. I'm not sure how they are funded is relevant to this thread though? I don't understand what you mean by Rangers being priced out of football? Look, I accept that I'm seen as Alex Thomson's apologist in chief on here, fair enough. I'm not though, I simply don't feel we should dismiss him, and anyone else that's somehow seen as not being 'one of us' out of hand. By all means criticise him, and anyone else, for not adding to the sum of our knowledge or for squandering the resources at his disposal, but try and not adopt a knee-jerk reaction to everything he writes. I'm not singling you out for this, the point is a general one. As I said in my earlier post on this thread, what in the piece linked to did you take issue with?

I agree with you, very little. Perhaps the Hugh Adam stuff, but he's mainly reported what's known rather than uncovered much that wasn't. We're the biggest thing that's happening in British sport currently, probably soon to be eclipsed by the Euros and then the Olympics I expect on a UK wide basis at least.

Okay, i'll bite, again. What in that link are we taking issue with then? I get that a lot of people don't like Alex Thomson because, rightly or wrongly, they see him as aligned with Celtic supporters, fair enough, but what in that link from the OP are we in disagreement with? As a support we've developed this knee-jerk reaction to news, any news, if it is delivered by someone we don't like or it is saying something that doesn't fit with current thinking, no matter how informed or otherwise. There were howls of abuse on here when the first report of the 'big tax case' came to light shortly after we won the league last season. Likewise when it became clear dirt was being found on Craig Whyte many of us went into total denial because we were convinced it was being done by Tims out to discredit us. Thomson might have a tattoo of brother walfrid on his arse for all I know but try and ignore that for a moment, what he's saying is this deal stinks, it has created more questions than answers and looks like an attempt to engineer a way of not paying most of our debts whilst remaining in the SPL. What am I missing here?

Sorry, I disagree. He might prove to be a superb owner, shrewd, capable and energetic and exactly what the club needs, none of us know. What we do know is that we are right to be suspicious of anyone who wants to own the club but isn't a supporter (we should be suspicious of supporters too frankly). I'm not saying protest against him but we should investigate him as best we can, we should encourage the media to investigate, we should demand the SFA investigate him before he is allowed to own our club. If he's put off by that then we're better off without him. If he stands up and explains why he wants to own our club, what he expects to get out of it and his words are backed up by his actions and by his past then we all know where we stand and get make an informed choice regarding him. Currently I know as little about him as I knew about Whyte this time last year. I want him to know he's being scrutinised, that we're watching him like a hawk, that if he's simply here to try and make money then he better be up-front about how he intends to do that and why we should support him. Why would you accept anything less?