flyingrodent

Christ. If you don't want to answer inconvenient points, you could just say "Sorry, don't fancy that one".

I don't remember anything about Harper McLeod, but I doubt it's important. You might find this surprising, but the cops and the Crown don't often publish figures on how much they spend on unsuccessful investigations either, and there's no general clamour for them to do so. It's their job to investigate criminality where they have good reason to suspect that it's going on, just as it's HMRC's. Well, I'm not exactly correct here - every now and then, the odd suspected criminal who's been prosecuted and the charges found unproven makes noises about the taxpayers' expense, but very few people take that seriously.

You'll have to excuse me here. You mean Rangers must be due to pay the SPL's costs for e.g. hiring Lord Nimmo Smith and so on? I'm not sure that's how it works, although I wouldn't weep if it was. Old and New Rangers aren't on the hook for e.g. the millions it's cost the taxpayer to investigate your former owners' rampant financial jiggery-pokery, for example.

Looks like your previous owners have proven LNS wrong then, and the fine will be paid. Maybe a tiny measure of justice there, although I'm not confident the SPFL will spend it on e.g. youth development. And, what about this 250k costs?

And is there a reason to think that this will negate either the terms of the agreement or the fine itself? I can't see why it would, but it's not exactly my area of expertise.

I think you need to take a look at what "in practice" means in that context, Ted. You'll notice that it's not an instruction.

It's going to be interesting to see how the NewCo argues its case in front of the arbitrators. The easiest way to dodge the fine would be to say - we have no connection whatsoever with the deceased entity known as "Rangers FC", but that would be a catastrophic propaganda blunder with the fans, likely to cost the NewCo far more money in the long run than just ponying up the quarter-million right now. I actually think they'd have a fairly strong case that they're not liable, if they chose to make that argument. If they want to keep the zoomers onside though, they're effectively going to have to fight with one hand behind their backs by restricting their argument to the agreement with the authorities. I'd say we're about to find out just how attached the money men at Ibrox are to the continuation story, and how far they see their investment as a long haul to be protected.

Yes, why would a fan of an infamous basket case of a club, currently the laughing stock of the entire country due to a string of appalling results and off-field shenanigans, be at all jealous of a financially secure side currently enjoying a period of long-overdue success? Definitely a not-at-all-jealous-type post IMO.

I'm willing to concede that New New Robo-Rangers may be ready to compete for the top tier title by 2055. Possibly.

"Your Grandchildren Will Be Seltic Fans"

Yup. IIRC, McCann bought 100% of a going concern that had huge capacity to modernise and then expand - that's why he was able to invest, build it up and leave it as a stable and strong institution, while also making a vast return on his cash. Any attempt to emulate that at Ibrox is going to end up looking more like a geezer trying to sook a basketball through a hosepipe.

That kind of thing right there - of which there's much more hidden away, I expect - is exactly why it's almost inconceivable that even some miraculous blue version of Fergus McCann would be able to turn the NewCo's fortunes around. It sounds like there are so many legal constraints and exceptions and binding agreements on the club that it's effectively stuck in one of those horrible spring-loaded traps from the Saw movies, with all the blades and razorwire. Any attempt to extract the club alive seems likely to result in it being disemboweled, flayed and quartered.

Bit of a tough one coming up for the SFA if King ever manages to acquire a controlling share and wants to take a role at the club, I would've thought. Once upon a time, the OldCo's fans were adamant that the authorities should protect clubs from being taken over by people who weren't fit and proper for the role. I wonder if it would be seen the same way, now that there's a potential sugar daddy with a dubious history in the offing?

Given they've immediately ploughed the McLeod money into paying the wages and the lecky bill, I doubt there'll be much action for them in the transfer window, unless it's more sales. OTOH, you can never tell what bizarre tactic is coming next at Ibrox but it's usually insane and suicidal, so I wouldn't be astonished if they went for an all-or-nothing, spend-spend-spend strategy in an attempt to fill the stadium and save their season.

There's certainly plenty of potential cash available to be raised from the supporters, with the right cajoling. Plus, given the unpopularity of the current board/executive, you'd have to imagine that e.g. Mr Custard could walk through the door and start blethering about "traditions", and the funds would flow in. The long term situation - assuming that there is one, given the huge deficit - looks a bit rosier for them now. In the short term though, the team on the park look like they'd rather be anywhere other than playing for this club. The new manager will have to find a way to turn that around quickly, because the team looks like they're in a death spiral at the moment and nothing will ensure empty stadiums quite like regular defeats. (No doubt they'll win 11-0 today or something, just because I said that. I have quite a history for making statements like Nostradumbass).

I think we've all seen enough of these shenanigans to know what a bit of light at the end of the tunnel usually means, but it's certainly better news for the NewCo than they've had in a long time. The big question here is - can the club attract enough supporters to survive while also living within their means? The only way it can possibly balance the books is to get hugely more bums on seats while also getting rid of the big money players and bringing in cheap journeymen and Championship-level veterans. In the short term, that's likely to mean waving farewell to promotion this year and convincing fans to pay to endure a lot of frustrating draws and painful defeats. We've seen just how much enthusiasm there is at Ibrox for watching a team that doesn't win week in, week out, and it's pretty limited. I suspect that the only thing that's going to keep the club afloat is a huge propaganda push, like the one at the start of the Journey - convincing the supporters that attending games will get it right up What's Left Of Scottish Football. I anticipate that the board will soon hit new heights of orange-tapped WATP-ing, because the product on the park isn't going to get punters through the gates for as long as the match reports regularly feature the words "Rangers Nil". That's assuming that this whole thing isn't a desperate last-ditch attempt to ensure that Rangers Men get a say in the imminent liquidation of the NewCo, of course.

Christ. If you're laughing now, imagine what you'll be like if you get another 4-0 pasting in your next game, sell even more players, and then e.g. Campbell Ogilvie announces that he thinks Old Rangers definitely didn't die. You'll all need medical treatment.

I'm sure that some "Rangers men" buying a small chunk of the company will sort everything out. Very little ever went wrong round Ibrox way, back when there were Rangers men in charge.

Down 15k from world record-breaking attendances, though - still pulling in large crowds by Scottish standards. You're lucky if you're getting fifteen thousand punters away from fvck-all, this season. Like I say, maybe you're right, and it's the off-field shenanigans. Or maybe, just possibly, there's some kind of link between the regularity of defeats and The People's desire to watch them.

Very noble and, since you surely know your supporters better than I do, you may even be right. On the other hand, it's very noticeable that Rangers (the business) was also and obviously being plundered by a bunch of pocket-stuffing thieves back when e.g. you were skooshing the old Third Division, and the crowds held up very well. You'll remember there was a lot of talk about it - plenty of bragging and GIRUY about record-breaking attendances, in fact. Now that you're routinely getting pumped, there's been a huge, precipitous fall-off in attendance. Maybe it's just that it's taken this long for the extent of the robbery to sink in, but it is a noticeable coincidence that the walking away began not with the thievery, but with the embarrassing scorelines.

Not sure about this. Frankly, I think that if the team were winning week-in, week-out the board could run the club's business affairs as if they were a cross between Howard Hughes and the Mafia, and very few fans would give a damn. It looks to me like it's not so much the off-field turmoil that's keeping the Rangers fans away, so much as it is the strong likelihood of embarrassing results. And TBF, it's like that for most teams - my own included - although not quite to the same extent.

It's getting quite predictable, how these huge rows about what is and isn't sectarian always blow up after a major slapstick incident involving the Newco. I suppose it's all that's left these days. "More people watch New Rangers than watch the entire top tier" is long gone, as is "The Championship is the most exciting league", "The Premiership isn't competitive" and "When we get back, you'll be sorry".

What did you expect the CEO of a public company to say? "Now that Rangers are dead, we are hopelessly fvcked and destined for penury"?

I was doubtful at first, but it's the five question marks that convinced me.

I'm sure Lawell will be moved by a sudden spirit of humane generosity at the sight of a Rangers chief exec crawling and begging for favours on all fours. What Celtic fan wouldn't be?