MrSifter

Bravo, completely agree. I'm not expecting us to stay in the SPL (we've had no good news at all throughout this saga) but I really do wonder if pure hatred will beat business sense and self preservation amongst the other clubs and I include the Shettlestons in that.

We could quite easily sign up a team capable of winning Division 3. Very easily indeed. The wages outside of us and the taigs in the SPL average £1,500 per week. Division 2 and 3 I'd be amazed if the better players were on even £300 per week. I'd suggest that most Division 1 players would jump at the chance to play for the Rangers on £1,000 per week and take the drop to Division 3.

We'd lose players but so what? We've lost players in the past. We could sell those players, apologise to them and thank them for their service in what was a most difficult time. In Division 3 and 2 we could pay 22 full timers £1,000 per week and still win the league at a canter. I'd suspect we'd even win Division 1 at that level - a playing staff wage bill of circa £1.2m. Our income would drop substantially for three years but that is life. If we cut the price to £10 per match then I'd suspect we'd get at least 20,000 at Ibrox each week. We'd also still have companies prepared to sponsor us. I'd hazard a guess we'd turn over between £5m and £10m each season. The Club could also get smarter about hiring the stadium out to other parties to generate revenue.

The Club has been punished for the misdemeanours. 10 point deduction £160,000 fine Ban on signing new players for a year Denied entry to European Competition for at least 3 years If the old holding company had the CVA agreed then we'd still have had millions of pounds written off our debt. In fact creditors would've got about 3p in the £1. The distinction between CVA and liquidation is minuscule yet CVA meant no SPL sanctions whereas liquidation means anything goes?

Wouldn't we all.

That's the very point Mo. If Green was clued up at all he'd come out and say something along the lines of:- "The Club is very contrite for the misdemeanours under Whyte and Murray. Following the liquidation of the holding company we're hoping to work with the rest of Scottish football so these things never happen again. To achieve this we hope to be in the SPL next season. If the other Clubs feel this is inappropriate then we will be disappointed. However, in the interests of sporting integrity, we will immediately apply to the SFL to Division 3 and work from there. If this is the case, I know we can count on our tens of thousands of fans to sustain us."

The other SPL Clubs appear to want their cake and eat it too. If "sporting integrity" is sacrosanct then why would we parachute into Division 1? As far as I can see there is absolutely no integrity in that at all. What is the rationale for Division 1? If they just want to punish us then I could understand that move but they have taken a holier than thou approach to the situation. Green should make it clear to Sky and the other chairmen that if they do not want us in the SPL on a level playing field then in the interests of sporting integrity we will apply to join the SFL from Division 3. It's time we started using their own language to turn the screw against them. Let's see how many of them are still there on our glorious return.

This is the thing, amidst all the screams of "they must be punished", no-one has actually articulated what the Club has done to merit further punishment than the sanctions already doled out. Transferring the share in the SPL from the old holding company to the new holding company is an administration exercise if the other members decide this is acceptable to them. Why must this come with additional sanctions? This appears to be double jeopardy. If they decide they do not want the share transferred then Rangers FC can apply to SFL Division 3.

What does this mean? We won the appeal and yet can apply to the SFA to ask they inflict the penalty anyway? Can Richard Wilson articulate what the Club is to be punished for? The holding company went into administration and subsequently is to be liquidated. The Club was punished with a ten point penalty. The SFA said the Club had brought the game into disrepute. Large fine and transfer embargo (subsequently ruled illegal by an independent judge). EBTs - these have not been ruled illegal yet and regardless were in the R&As every year that was submitted to the SFA and SPL. Dual contracts - this case has not been heard so innocence is assumed until proven otherwise. Can anyone articulate what it is exactly we've to be punished for?

Given the farce of the cancelled Dingwall march it's amazing how similar he is to Gordon Brown. Bullys Liars Briefings behind people's backs Releasing of deliberately false information Setting their willing lackeys loose to brief against and attack others Inability to take or accept criticism Going to ground when bad news comes and never answering questions, waiting for it all to blow over Busted flushes

Never heard that about Auchenhowie but I was of the understanding David Murray owned the Albion and leased it back to Rangers.

Has Paul Murray been named as part of Smith's consortium? PM strikes me as a back office nerd, uncomfortable in the limelight as opposed to a deal maker.

Source? Seems a stretch if you look at it from a business point of view.

Apologies, I don't get what you're driving at?

Completely agree (Christ, you and I should stick to talking Rangers), that's what is troubling/puzzling me. Smith doesn't just give up, it's not in his nature and like you say add into the mix they appear concerned with the plans of the current owners then why just walk away?

Everyone will have their own theory but I cannot believe Smith was as naïve as that. I also cannot believe that Park and McColl thought they'd get the Club, stadium, training ground, players and other assets for £6m.

The statement was restrained but I drew the same inference as you did. I've no doubt Smith has the Club's best interests at heart. This being the case, why just give up so easily? I also find it hard to believe Smith would allow himself to be used and be part of a consortium that just threw in the towel so easily.

I said earlier that Smith's statement was opaque and it's left to the reader to draw his own conclusions. A few things strike me as odd. Walter Smith is not a rash man, in fact he's incredibly thoughtful and restrained. Walter Smith is a winner, given his first statement why would he just roll over on this? The consortium must know that Green bought the Club for £5.5m and that due diligence would be around the seven figure mark. An offer of £6m would unlikely cover the costs of the Green consortium. Why make it in the first place other? Why was returning the Club to the control of Rangers men like Smith and Park vital a few days ago but not now? What will Walter Smith say to his friend who was crying down the phone to him?

No, I don't speak spastic.

Even the Murray fanbois won't defend him these days. Instead they say nothing after years of eating his sh!t and telling the rest of us to do likewise.

The problem I have is that statement is so opaque not much can be drawn from it either way.

There is a bloodlust for punishment and I think a suspended sentence makes sense if there has to be a punishment. I'm still not sure what we're being punished for. The issue is the powers that be rarely make sense when reaching a decision, particularly where Rangers FC is concerned. Any Club that votes "no" to us should never receive one penny from the Rangers support ever again and I mean ever. The Club should take a lead on this by refusing tickets for away games. Likewise if it's a Cup game where the gate is split we should not sell any tickets at all. Afterall, we have to maintain our own integrity. I only wish I could have some faith that our support would be disciplined and united enough to see this through.

I really think Sky will, in private, use this as a stick to beat them with. The other clubs simply cannot afford much of a reduction in their income. Can they afford to lose 50%, 30% or whatever of the TV income? If we end up in Division 1, I do not want us promoted in our first season so any subsequent TV deal collapses in its entirety.

I never said it can't be done. The problem they will have is administering it. If we are suspended for one year we cannot re-enter the league anywhere other than Division 3 as I believe any other Club missing out on promotion would take it to the courts and most importantly of all - the other clubs have made it clear sporting integrity is paramount.

If we're suspended for one year, what league will we re-enter? They can hardly suspend us for one year, have a top division of twelve then relegate one as per normal and not give the winners of Division 1 the spot. That lacks, ahem, sporting integrity.