4MenHadADream

Me too. Have a rep

Nice to see him back amongst the goals, always really liked him since his Atletico days. Maybe just getting back just in time for Spain at the Euro's too

You from Cardross originally?

Cardross, near Helensburgh

My worry is that we end up with TBK, but but within 3-5 years under the weight of the sanctions, transfer bans and lack of European football we end up back in administration due to a lack of funding. I know they plan a share issue, but their figures seem a little optimistic. If that were to be the case, I would rather take my medicine now in the form of Miller's bid, and hopefully leave administration as a far cleaner company. Other than a if TBK can provide a successful share issue (to which I will contribute then they are far and away my 'preferred bidder', but I just worry about our future in the medium-term with them, once the euphoria about getting rid of Whyte/saving the club wears off.

Genuine quesion and as such it could be way off the mark, but just a thought. Given that Ticketus will now join the queue in a potential CVA (I think ) does their removal from TBK's deal suggest that the level of liability to HMRC will be such that they cannot individually hamper a deal for a CVA? Or is it simply a case that they couldn't not be dealt with so the deal was abandoned or a third option that they will simply pursue Whyte personally?

It is because there is technically no liquidation of the oldco. Under Miller's plans, there would be a shifting of assets away from the club whilst the debts are sorted and then a move back if his plan is successful. It probably could be classed as a hybrid newco, but not really liquidation

Apparently Kennedy is to make a statement at 4pm

This. I voted no, I think they will reduce the sanctions, but there is no chance that they will be overturned

Speaking of which, has he even been cited for the semi-final and it's aftermath yet? I can't recall anything, perhaps I simply imagined the whole incident

It's certainly open to interpretation, and an avenue of investigation that is definitely worth pursuing. I just think that a climbdown over another legal issue would be mightily embarrassing for the SFA and as such I would think they would spare no expense in defending their position. However, on the other hand, perhaps in their desperate attempts to see us punished they were a bit light on the detail of the charges. Fingers crossed for the latter

Aye, lucky enough to have the SFA on a leash

As Boss pointed out earlier he used the word "transparency" in the same statement as trying to justify the "anonymity" of the Panel. Madness

Cheers. Such a vague term though, and the STV guys have since weaseled out of the SFA that offences charged under this rule are at the SFA's discretion, so it quite literally could be for anything then

What does Rule 66 entail. Must be pretty serious if only one charge brought on a 12 month transfer embargo?? I assume it might be non-payment of taxes

No bother, but I would hasten to add, that is simply my interpretation, I could be way off the mark. Indeed, I hope I am

My point is that Rule 1 appears to be a general rule stating that expressely a CLUB cannot break the rules set by SFA/FIFA/UEFA etc. However, Rule 2 says that any club representatives cannot breach the rules referenced in Rule 1 ("in accordance with Rule 1). So as far as I see it they are saying that the Club can be dealt with under Rule 1, which cannot be proven that we broke, but Rule 2 (which is exactly the same as Rule 1 except that it deals with individuals) was broken by a club official, for which the club is being held responsible, so therefore in the SFA's book we are in breach. It does amount to them admitting that our "wrongdoing" was due to the actions of Whyte, but it still maintains that as a club we can be held responsible for his actions.

Cheers . Sounds like the message is getting through

Looking at it again though, is Rule 1 not a rule dealing with the club as a whole, whereas Rule 2 is dealing with individuals involved with the club? i.e. the in accordance with Rule 1 is only the fact that individuals representing the club broke those rules set down by the bodies mentioned, whilst the club didn't, hence the guilt on Rule 2 and not on Rule 1

You wouldn't imagine that a governing body could be quite so amateur. But then blind hatred will do that

Has this been confirmed or is it still a rumour?

The transfer embargo would still stand I think, as the SFA would still have the power over player registrations regardless of whether we are in SPL/SFL

Sadly this is the problem when those making big decisions on Scottish football have their names published. The majority of fans simply wanted the names for the sake of transparency, but unfortunately some see the need to take it too far, which ultimately undermines our cause, as now this will receive all of the press coverage instead of the real issue at hand. I would also like to add that I don't recall this level of scrutiny from the media or the SFA when we had referees and their families private details (addresses etc) being published and threats of violence being made.

Complete waste of time, they are only there so UEFA can say that they are trying to eradicate mistakes in and around the box without resorting to video footage. But the fact is that they rarely if ever appear to make a contribution.