Ric

Not how I read it. For me the SFA want the CoS to throw out the case, leaving things as they were before Rangers started the action, thus meaning no work needing done by them. Considering the SFA guidelines state that they have the authority to hand down just about any sanction they wish to a member club and that the sanction handed down was reviewed by a very prominent QC during an appeal process, I can't see how the CoS could rule in any other way.

Finally! A Jubilee to celebrate!

Oh, so close, although that is transfer fees they list, not the actual money spent on players which includes wages, however if that is actually what you meant then fair enough. It's not how I read what you wrote but that's just one of those things about ambiguous statements on forums. Edit: That page does throw up an interesting statistic, and one relevant to the topic.. Balance of transfer spend over five years Aberdeen ... £900,000 Celtic ... £177,000 Dundee Utd ... £1,109,900 Dunfermline ... £208,040 Hearts ... £11,123,000 Hibernian ... £14,828,000 Inverness ... £679,000 Kilmarnock ... £2,518,000 Motherwell ... £2,780,000 Rangers ... -£13,135,000 St Johnstone ... -£39,560 St Mirren ... £375,600 It's pretty incredible that Hibs have done the best out of all the SPL clubs. OK, they did sell almost a whole team but it just goes to show. However the statistic that really sticks out is Rangers who managed to lose £13m in terms of players in and out. Maybe it's just typical of the OF you say? Well no, Celtic more or less break even.

You do speak some utter shite. I realise this is a Rangers thread but unmitigated mince like that should not be allowed to go by unchallenged.

Unless the "nod" that Green thinks is not really the one that HMRC gave. Green: "HMRC, will you be open to looking at a CVA of 4p in the pound?" HMRC: *nod* Green sees that as an acceptance of the value (or should that be quantum? ), while the HMRC see that as being willing to look at it without pre-condition of acceptance.

Does anyone know the situation with the legal action that D&P are taking against Collier Bristow? It seems to be part of the CVA offer, yet there doesn't seem to be a clear date for a ruling. Also, and forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't this Craig Whyte's administrators suing Craig Whyte's lawyers for the actions of Craig Whyte?

Poor old Sammy, going by RM he is a combination of a "tarrier", a BBC plant, an extra off River City and guilty of money going missing from the bus he was involved in. Six pages of pure hate.. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=221056

It is utterly essential that there is full transparency. If no names are provided then you will build a conspiracy amongst the Rangers support who will claim that not naming them means there weren't any.

Surely that is an irrelevance. It's how they paid for the players, and in turn the number of players they were able to bring in. If you have simple analogy of £20m and each player is a £5m then they can afford 4. If they pay only £2.5m then they can afford 8 and at the same time operate a questionable scheme regarding payments to public bodies.

Forgive me, as I don't regularly swallow low brow trash Scottish red tops, I favour facts over explosions. It would, imo, be somewhat lacking in journalistic integrity for the players not to be named as this is a key element to the programme tonight. In fact not naming them would leave the BBC open to taunts of "you just made it it, you can't even name the players" from the Rangers support.

So the EBT players shouldn't be named as they were just doing their job, yet those on the first SFA panel had to be named because they were doing their job? The duplicitous nature of some of the Rangers fans who play "lava floor" jumping from once claim to another regardless whether there is hypocrisy or contradiction. They fly loose to the wind in terms of who is to blame and who they should be loyal too and all the time the journalists lap up their cretinous ramblings in a hope of getting a good back page.

I have a slight issue about Shiels claiming Killie should be applauded for simply following the laws of the land. There is obviously a minority of idiots at all provincial clubs, but thankfully most clubs deal with them quickly and efficiently, but I don't see how he can claim that Kilmarnock are in any way a better role model than the other provincials. What next, should we congratulate Killie for not condoning rape, murder or kiddy fiddling? Having a club free from prejudice, racism and bigotry should be the bare minimum expected. Although reading some of the comments from Killie fans on here regarding Ayr and their support I don't think Shiels is right.

Johnston's comments are now up on the BBC.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18170192 Shameful stuff, and is akin to recording himself with a rangers branded dildo shoved up his arse then placing it on YouTube. It's quite clear that Kilmarnock would go under should there be a reduction in the monies available to them if Rangers were either removed from the SPL (or removed from the SFA). He really should be honest about it rather than claiming he has Rangers' best interests at heart..

It's fair to say that Gibraltar is a shit hole, a bit of Spain ruined by blatant tacky Britishness, the only good thing about it is you cross an airport runway when you enter/exit. I don't think I have ever been so disappointed at visiting a place as Gibraltar. What that says about Ibrox I don't know.

That would be you then, as to continue the meaty metaphor, what you've just written is mince or should that be haché?

I can only believe that this must be funded by people in HK, as it is beyond belief that Rangers consider it not possible to pay the local paper shop a couple of quid but utterly acceptable to send players on a junket to the other side of the planet. Incredulous would be the apt description if this is coming out of their own pocket. Mind you, the levels of arrogance are not confined to the Far East. I believe Rangers still spend nights in hotels for games that take place in the Central Belt.

You should have just posted the link, there is not a chance in hell I am reading that mess, far too long and not properly formatted.

Makes sense to cancel the Ticketus deal and convert it back into a cash debt. That way they can clear it via the CVA.

It is stunning to think that there are still no figures in the public domain from Sky/ESPN in regard to what a TV deal would be should the league contain Rangers or not. It seems to be a key point to all this talk of teams going under. Rangers and the SPL seem very keen to fire out the repeated line that 5 or 6 teams would go to the wall, but just what are they basing that on? The fact that without Rangers there would be no deal or that without them it would be reduced. It's fair to say that Sky/ESPN would naturally look to reduce the monies paid should there not be OF derbies, nobody could really blame them for that, but to what extent still seems to be shrouded in mystery. I just don't understand how any club can claim they will be losing £Xm when they are not in the possession of the full facts. Houston has gone on to say something akin to suggesting they would lose a £1m. How does he know this? Has he been told by Thomson? And if so, who told him? The biggest issue here is that nobody trusts Doncaster. Certainly not us diddy fans who consider him an OF puppet desperate to do anything in order to keep the status quo, and his duplicitous lies were shown most brazen when the idea of a 10 team SPL was on the go, while the Rangers fans now consider him "on the list" in some form as he's not actively come out to support them (although personally I would say he has, albeit not implicitly). The bottom line is that of any people involved in this; Doncaster, Topping et al, are the ones who will have the clearest view regarding what the sponsorship money will be either with or without Rangers and the very fact that there has been absolutely no indication of what that would be makes me highly suspicious.

Yeh, that's the $64m question isn't it? Considering the almost unanimous stance from all clubs stating they need Rangers in the league in order to balance their books who will be the one to kick Rangers out? It was heartening to see the SFA not crumbling under pressure with the embargo but I can't see the SPL showing such a level of bravery, the members (or the board, whichever takes the final decision) will be too concerned about the short term financial issues. Could someone tell me what date the SPL vote is for? And do we all think they will continue to postpone it until Rangers either CVA or liquidated so that they won't be seen as biting the hand "that feeds them".

.. er, yes.. of course that is the case. In fact I am wondering if there is a single Scottish club that feels it got market value for their player when they moved to Rangers.

Er, I have considerable doubt. I couldn't care less whether Chic Young posts to RM or not, or what he posts if he does, but what you quoted has little similar in style and has numerous grammatical and spelling errors.

I think it can be taken as written that Doncaster will be lobbying the pro-OF SPL in order to "retain the brand" or other similar taglines. As we all know, lobbying involves taking a grain of truth and building a massive amount of spin around it to suit your argument. It's clear from Green's claim that 5 or 6 SPL clubs will go out of business if there is no Rangers in the league, that this information will have come from Doncaster as I don't believe Mr Green has neither contacted each and every SPL club to confirm the situation, nor has he been privy to their accounts. It's made all the more interesting considering Sky/ESPN hasn't provided a bid for the TV rights without Rangers in the league.

To be added.. - For every £5 Celtic spend, we'll spend £10.