iconicman

The RST don't hold public meetings for all members to come to as far as I'm aware, so it would be hard for many to turn up. The old adage, together we stand, divided we fall comes to mind when you consider the supporters groups for Rangers. The Assembly should probably be the correct umbrella for all groups to rally round.

As far as my understanding goes, Rangers still owe the £18m bank debt to Lloyds. The purchase agreement was to assign this debt from Lloyds to Wavetower, and assignation is a legal term for transferring the benefit (i.e. the loan repayments) to another, the underlying contract does not change. So each time we pay £1m it goes now to Wavetower (or Rangers Group Ltd now). The floating charge would still be in place I would suspect, to protect Wavetower/Lloyds. Any other accountants who are in Corporate Finance care to elaborate? *Edit: In effect the assignation is a 3rd party contract between Lloyds and Wavetower, nothing to do with Rangers FC plc

I have no issues with being owned by Americans, I think it would actually be a good business move. I have issues with being owned by people who consider themselves 'turnaround specialists'. Once bitten, twice shy as the saying goes.

It never fails to amaze me those that will criticise other Rangers' fans when they stand up for the club. Regardless of what has happened in the past, their comments in the press and their letter to the SPL is welcome from me. Well done the RST.

A quite meaningless statement. As Duff & Phelps rightly found out, you have to been seen to be impartial as well as actually being impartial. A completely independent firm should have been hired for this most sensitive of issues.

The whole thing stinks to the high heavens and has left us the fans with this shit to deal with. What has yet to be answered is WHY Ticketus agreed to give Whyte £24m in 'bridging' finance for a company in dire peril of administration/ liquidation. Why? I smell a stitch up between David Murray/ Craig Whyte and Paul Murray. I fail to believe the sequence of events leading us here were totally coincidental and not fabricated. 1. David Murray manages to sell Rangers, repay Lloyds and remove ALL liability for the tax case under his stewardship 6 months before the tax decision was due, despite being unable to sell to ANYONE in the preceding 3 years? How amazingly fortuitous for him! 2. Craig Whyte buys the club for a £1, spends NOT one penny more, yet manages to get a VCT to give him £24m!? 3. Paul Murray rides to the rescue with the same company that gave Craig Whyte the money? The VCT is due to be wound up in the next 4 years, so Ticketus will need paying before then. Let me suggest what is going to happen here after everything takes it's course assuming TBKs win. 1. SDM has removed liability for EBT from his business MIH plc. 2. Lloyds have been repaid the full £18m they were owed, despite the terms being over 18 years, most companies would accept a discount for getting it early. 3. New owners buy the club for something like £20m 4. HMRC are then forced to accept around 40p in the pound in a CVA. 5. Share issue is raised and use fans money to repay Ticketus their £24m 5. Bank debt is raised to repay cost of buying the club and the working capital £5m to Ticketus So we started with Rangers being owned by Sir David Murray, owing Lloyds £18m and the taxman potentially as much as £75m (but more likely £49m). We end up with Rangers being owned by the fans (though it cost us £24m to repay Ticketus), the club has bank debt of £25m (CVA of £20m to HMRC + Working capital of Ticketus). And this is better? Really? We still don't have our own merchandising (JJB continues with that), we still don't own our own catering (Whyte sold that). The alternative? We liquidate the club, we buy the club for £20m in liquidation (share issue). We now own our own merchandising, we own the catering and we have no bank debt. Isn't that better?

Seems fairly straightforward that Whyte has done this deal to circumvent the CVA arrangement and maintaining his secured status, through guarantees to Ticketus. As it is not a loan then they are not bound by the CVA process, yet the whole point of administration is to remove liabilities via a CVA to have the business functioning properly. It's quite clear Rangers cannot survive under the current Ticketus deal, we went into administration while owning 100% of the season tickets, how the business is supposed to survive when we only have 50% of the the tickets for 4 years is anyone's guess. I'm sure this is the argument used by D&P. Liquidate the fucking club and start again honestly without all these greedy bastards with their claws in the club.

Doubt it, More likely the SFA prefer to do things by 'self-declaration' to avoid all that unnecessary hassle called work.

Just joined the site and you can already see the few that like to give each other a squeeze on here. Every board on the internet has it's own pathetic warriors, nothing different on this one. Anyway, to the OP, fully support your view that the more people can we get to attend games at this low point for the club, is all to the good. Forget what the enemies in the press think, they'll twist it either way to suit. A sell out will be twisted as to money we've robbed from the Charity, a low attendance will be fans not wanting to support the team. I've got my ticket and will be there.

Looking for some regular BF3 players to squad up with, prefer those that play Hardcore but can swap over to play easy mode if needed. Do people usually just post their PS3 id? How many play, any clans going?

Actually it only takes 7 player to begin and end a game of association football. Your comments are puzzling, you hint at incompetence, or favouritism or something else. Yet you won't come out and state what your stance is. Sniping from the sidelines is not helpful to anyone at the moment.

I hadn't realised we were out of administration really. Scoff from the sidelines all you want, you mock and criticise yet offer no alternative to what they should have been doing all this time. Got your number..

What action have they failed to take? Fulfill the fixtures? Check Agree funding until end of season? Check Chase crook for money? Check Discount his claim? Check Try to remove the Ticketus anchor around our neck? Check So what havent they done? Or would you have rather they made everyone redundant?

There is no fucking point coming out of administration with more debt than you went into it with. Something smells in this. And it smells like a carefully planned sequence of events to fuck over the taxman.

They have not recognised Whytes secured status and so far he has not challenged it. They are in court trying to remove Ticketus claim. Administrators job is not to uncover fraud or anything else, that is the job of the police. Their job is to get the business trading solvently and secure the best deal for creditors which is HMRC. We'll see where we stand if and when someone makes a formal offer. Rest assured if money is missing they will have notified the police regarding that. If you don't think it is poor journalism the you appear not to have Rangers PR issues at heart. Anyway my complaint has been made and I urge others to do the same.

That is usually the basis of administrators being chosen, however they so far have claimed £3.6m of money in Whytes lawyer account, ignored his secured status and maintained the playing squad. What's your point? How does any of that excuse Matt Slaters poor journalism?

Aye of his £1 stake

Perhaps but on a topic of Rangers that is not who I think the impartial readers will assume he meant. What gets on my goat is that BBC stories become a matter of public record, let this slide and see it come back to bite us later. There is a reason successful businesses defend to the last penny what is put down in print about them, unchallenged it becomes true fact.

There is no paranoia involved and whether you think Matt Slater is excellent is beside the point. Throw away lines like that harms our club. This is our national broadcaster stating that professional businesses don't want to work for Rangers for fear of retribution? And you think that is acceptable? Please enlighten us why D&P were chosen as it seems im out the loop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17430072 So this muppet for the BBC tries to summarise the 3 administrations in football at the moment, Port VAle, Portsmouth and Rangers. Port Vale is a model case and everything is hunky dory. Portsmouth is disgraceful for going into admin twice in quick succession but have straight talking administrators (HMRC appointed). We come to Rangers and after slating everything D&P have done and their lack of Scots law knowledge, he excuses them with: "There is one other point worth making about D&P's outsider status, however: no Scottish firms wanted the work because they feared for their windows." Shocking throwaway journalism, and sadly all too common with the BBC and Rangers. For the record I think every fan has been behind what D&P have tried to do. At least this time we have a name for the shit list, Matt Slater - Cunt