Bluedell

I've got a few left. Cost is £65 plus P&P, or could meet before the game on Sat. PM if interested.

This is the original leaflet, mate.

I find it a bit strange that you are trying to organise a unified bidy but have already decided that fan ownership should be an aim of this organisation. I know many fans who don't agree with this aim so you are trying to set up something that they would not join. There is already an organisation that has fan onwership as a priority and I'm not sure that we need another. If you really want a unified organisation then you may need to consider dropping this point.

I doubt it would work like that. The company still entered into the agreement and anything Whyte is found guilty of is unlikely to affect the debt. I can't believe that Ticketus did not have detailed knowledge of what Whyte was up to and as such I can have no sympathy for them. There may be people at Ticketus who may have acted immorally if not illegally, but the cash still was transferred and individual acts can't take away the debt. Directors can be found guilty of acts of fraud but unfortunately it doesn't cancel out transactions of their companies in most cases.

It wasn't paid. The fact that the debt was underwritten by Whyte is irrelevant. Rangers owed the cash. If you look at the date of the Ticketus agreement, I'm sure that you will find it was post-Whyte takeover. The Ticketus cash was largely used to pay the debt that we owed to LTSB, replacing one debt with another so I don't think that the Ticketus debt can just be ignored.

Rae thinks that we should be punished for the actions over a number of years. Ally thinks that we should be punished for the actions of a 10 month period. they are talking about 2 totally different things but because they both use the word "punish" you think that they agree with each other? Wow. You really don't understand what either are talking about.

If you issue a statement then it can be read by all of these. Either information is confidential or it isn't. If it isn't and it can be disclsoed on Wednesday then let everyone know.

Why can't they just issue a statement that is open to all fans and not just those in supporters clubs? That's a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Don't know what the rules are in that respect.

So what happens to the PLC when Whyte doesn't agree to transfer his shares to Miller? What connection will there be between the PLC and the newco?

So there was not a fans' organisation to defend the rights of the season ticket holders and it was left to the club to do so? Not very satisfactory.

Laudrup and Gazza were better players than Cooper but Cooper was arguably more skillful.

The administrators are not doing a great job. They stated that Craig Whyte was an irrelevance when that's clearly not he case. He still controls his shares and the administrators have done nothing to change that. They have set numerous deadlines and missed most of them. They continuie to delay and delay and come up with a whole load of excuses. They come out with a number of statements about the situtation of the 3 bids, some of which are subsequently denied by the parties involved. You may be relaxed about their actions but many aren't and their delays are causing problems for our club.

When you are trying to sell a company, you give interested parties confidential documents as part of the due diligence process, and they sign a non-disclosure form. It's standard practice as Murray well knows and is trying to muddy the waters based on something that he would have given full permission to do.

Of course it is. Ticketus advanced the cash to Whyte's lawyers before the takeover to be used as proof of funding. There's absolutely no chance that Ticketus would have done that without knowing what Whyte was up to. Or do you really believe it's normal business practice to advance cash to the lawyer of someone who has not bought a company yet?

The only bid that is openly wanting a share flotation is the TBK/Ticketus consortium. Surely getting rid of Ticketus through a CVA is better than still owing them cash post-CVA? I know that you are trotting out the liquidation propaganda but if Ticketus (and HMRC) are only left with an option of CVA or liquidation then they will end up accepting whichever HMRC want to go for. We should not be giving them another option of getting repaid by a share issue, particularly given their complicity with Whyte over his takeover.

It's not allowed as we were told that it would not get used to pay creditors, but that didn't stop the guys who run RFFF from doing it before, so who knows what they will decide. Paying the small creditors may not generate enough headlines for them.

Don't know. You'd need to check with the RST on that.

The bank account is a larger amount than the creditor which suggests that any interest is being kept within the account.

I'm sure that you'll find that they are held in the RST's Gersave bank account.

Gersnet site? You sure?

I was referring to the membership fee and not Gersave. As for the cash sitting in the Gersave account, yes, I think that the RST could have been a lot more proactive in approaching the club and getting it invested with them.

Yeah, the RST's admin is crap when it comes to that sort of thing. They are not good about keeping stuff up to date. However I doubt that it's got any impact on the security of the cash. As for the OP's point, if you look at it as a stand-alone question from a member then it could be taken as genuine but when you take it in conjuction with his other RST comments recently (and likewise other contributors on the thread), it's fairly obvious what his intention is. However obviously you may have a different opinion.

Where else could you have bought a Rangers share for a tenner? Don't think it would have beenpossible. You don't need to give the rights of the share or any shares to the RST. You can if you want, I'm sure, buit I certainly wouldn't dream of doing that.

Yes, but I'm not going to promote other websites on here.