jmo21

I see. In our case it never got that far, so that's why I misunderstood the situation

That's my question - so why couldn't they make the players redundant? If our players hadn't taken the cuts, some of them were going to be made redundant.

Anyone know why Portsmouth administrators couldn't just make Tel Ben Haim redundant? He's agreed a compromise now. What is the difference from when we were on the verge of making players redundant?

Did Ally not say Goian, Boca (and Edu) will not play if they are wanting to leave.

Erm.... obviously that is the position we want to take, but it also the one being challenged by HMRC and the SPL with the side letters as "evidence" against it. It says a lot, but nothing we didn't already know.

eh, kind of missed the whole point of my post. While the SPL strikers might not be great, they'd be testing McGregor way more than the part time 3rd divisioners would. Sharpness would be lost. Levein is still a dick, but I find it hard to disagree with him on that.

Nothing really new in those statements is there? It's always been his position that the way we (he?) handled EBT's was fine and above board.

It simply means our players will be tested less each week due to weaker competition. I think it's fair comment to be honest. You'll probably get someone saying "If Messi played here he'd still be Messi" etc, but I think you have to compare players of a similar level.

According to the bbc list, Dodds was one of the ones for whom thy did not see a "side letter". Whether any player thinks it was or wasn't a side contract is irrelevant. It's whether the tax tribunal or the SFA kangaroo court do. I still contend that if it was that cut and dried, the tax tribunal would have came back by now. Living in hope loyal!

My link via Scott Burns twitter

There is no "sporting integrity" comparison. Lemmon and Fartson tax affairs are completely outside of football. It is Rangers the club that is accused of the EBT fiasco, hence could have football repercussions, as well as tax repayment/fine repercussions.

Just saying "were there dual contracts" is not going to suddenly mean that something was done. Wishful thinking quite frankly.

Agreed. If any club spend outside their means, win titles, go into admin, then yes, you could say they cheated their way to titles. The main "cheating" accusation is still because of the EBT's (if found guilty!), and that is the 2 contract issue. That is actually a bigger "cheating" issue than the "money we didn't have to pay players" angle.

It's been done to death on here, and elsewhere, but presumably Whyte's advantage was to get his preferred admins D&P in. Relevant to the entire situation, but not sure how it is relevant to this thread.

If the EBT's are proven to be illegal, it is not the same as going into debt. Debt gets paid back. Being in debt is not illegal. Missing deadlines for your debt can get you taken to court of course. This is effectively what happened this season to force us into admin. Whyte refused to pay tax. HMRC moved to force us into admin, Whyte got there first. IF the EBT's were illegal, we could not have afforded to pay the higher wages, and some of those players may not have came here. Get it out of your head that debt is the same as illegal EBT's...... if proven of course!

Would have prefered Super to be there the first day back, or at least the first morning to welcome the players back and give them some words of encouragement. Hopefully not too big a deal though.

Andrew Dickson reporting that "Lee Wallace, Ross Perry, Kyle Hutton and Kal Naismith all in as well...."

@BBCLiamMcLeod: Naismith and Whittaker consider themselves to be under no contractual obligations to any party and say aren't employed by any party #Rangers

@BBCLiamMcLeod: Steven Naismith and Steven Whittaker release statement saying they will not be transferring their contracts to #Rangers newco

The biggest thing for me was the amount of players they had so called documentary proof of the side letters. 45 of 72 players/staff I think (the page where it lists them hurts my eyes) They didn't print the actual letters right enough, even though they did show emails. I wonder if they differ from the one printed in The Sun and are on headed notepaper?

Technically it would be the owner of the bus that has to pay the road tax and parking fines.

It's not about the history being taken away, or being removed or whatever. It's about breaking the timeline. They see a newco as us starting from scratch on zero titles (hence the 43-0 banner at the piggery or whatever number they're on is) Our existing titles would belong to oldco, and newco would start on zero, or so they would have us believe.

Are we happy we are in the situation DMurray and Whyte have contrived to land us in? NO. We only have 3 options: Do we want the club to be completely liquidated and dissappear? NO. Do we want the club to come back as a newco? NO, but this may be the only option. The only better option, short of a Saudi prince or Bill Gates taking over, is a CVA, exiting admin, cost cutting, and rebuilding the revenue streams. It makes sense to aim to get back into Europe. If it ends up with newco, we have 3 years to build, and there is no point paying someone like Steve Davis the money he is on to do that. I'd actually be over the moon if we built with a spine of Greegs, Boca, Aluko, Naisy. I THINK there is a good chance Greegs will stay, and while there are doubters, Naisy too. They are Rangers men. I think Jig will stay as well to help, while not being at same level as the other 4 I think his presence will be important. Keep the 4 of them plus Jig, and build with the kids around them and we may not win the title next year or the year after, but we will be going in the right direction.

From the ever appreciated twitter STVGrant As per UEFA statement doing the rounds, Rangers would be out of Europe for 3 years if they do newco then 'marry' oldco back with it. STVGrant As UEFA statement said, any change club legal form or company structure is " deemed as an interruption of membership". And the always appreciated Alex Thomson Taxman's position unchanged: they've not been involved, or voted, or been part of Miller plan. When contacted they'll consider the deal link2 SPL confirmed again late y'day 1. registration probe continues unchanged 2. No change to proposed penalty pts vote.

The longer admin for old co goes on, the more D&P eat into the £11mill pot. That being said, they are pursuing court cases for £25mill. How likely is for those cases to be won, how long will it take, and how long will the creditors (HMRC and Ticketus) be prepared to wait on the chance of getting more money? Could they cut their losses and force a CVA or liquidation immediately to get their hands on the £11 mill? What difference at the point does a CVA or liquidation mean to the amount of money they will get? Is it the same? more or less? Why would Miller need the old co to be merged if he already has the history, Auchenhowie, Ibrox, hopefully some players? What would Miller "get" by merging the old co back in? Wouild it just be to get into Europe instead of suffering a 3 year block due to new co? So many questions, and he hasn't even completed the purchase yet.