Jim McLean's Ghost

I can kind of see how he could come to that conclusion and haven't the circumstances of this season shown English to be correct. Lennon with a Scottish cup in the books was given a bit of time to right his ship when they were trailing in the league by 14(?) points. If Celtic had lost at Killie maybe Lennon would've got the early boot. I don't think Rangers would have been quite as forgiving on McCoist as he is such an unproven commodity and although the fans back him he doesn't have the same cult following that Lennon does.

Only this morning Stewart Regan was criticised for having having an opinion on Rangers administration, now he is getting it in the neck for not answering a hypothetical question which he doesn't even really have the authority to answer.

Ok you are going to have to point out the bullshit. Other than the title it seems a well thought out piece and actually doesn't make any grand statements. Competition in Scotland was better when Ibrox and Celtic Parks were dumps and tyrannical managers like Fergie and McLean could effectively enslave youngsters with iron clad contracts. Clubs have run up massive debts chasing unsustainable levels of success. The only point I would disagree on is that the number of Scottish managers isn't due to the lack of competition but rather the lack of money.

Is there a liveblog for this or am I better sticking with @STVRaman

Didn't think that was right though. I thought you had to be unemployed at the end of the most recent transfer window to be able to sign for a club which is why lots of players ask for a release on deadline day.

Where can sacked Rangers players go? I think transfer windows are open in Scandinavia and North America for the start of the summer football season. Australia might still be open and possibly some South American leagues. Anyone got any firm knowledge on this.

Phone your carrier and ask. Some do it for free, others charge so depending on who you are with it could be easy or be a hassle. Orange are the worst, they charge £20 processing fee and won't unlock a phone that hasn't been registered in your name for at least 3 months.

More like a league cup draw because they keep on promising it will be on a certain date/time then changing it on a whim.

You seem to be of the mindset that the OF are oppressive dictators. We saw in the 10 team SPL debate clubs were far from united. Celtic and Rangers were for it due to more chances at glamour friendlies. Aberdeen, Hibs and Accies were for it; Motherwell and St Mirren were on the committee that drafted it. United were most vocally against and Killie, ICT and Hearts voted against the plan. When the topic of a 14 team league came up only 3 clubs were in favour (Killie, ICT and Hearts) so let's not go down the road of pretending that Rangers or Celtic are holding the cards when it comes to reconstruction. The simple fact is all the clubs can't agree. If the SPL chairmen "bend over" as you put it they will be doing so knowing that they can't endanger the existence of their own clubs to get one over Rangers.

And that is why you and I aren't earning millions in the City.

Why wouldn't insurance touch it? Ticketus are a reputable company and have had many similar investments insured, moreover do you think that a business like Ticketus invests £24M of clients money without insurance.

Especially weird since the whole reason Paul Murray was booted from the negotiating table was that he was unwilling to take on the tax liabilities unlike Whyte. There is no way David Murray will be invoking a clause that potentially puts £75M in tax liabilities back around his neck.

Is that true? I thought that only applied in England. The league can intervene on debts between clubs but I'm not sure players have any protection as football creditors. Back on the Ticketus front. If it does all go tits up, I'm sure Ticketus are insured with someone like AIG or Lloyds and they will pick up the tab on a claim.

How does a bank lend you money for a mortgage to buy a house you don't own?

If Rangers don't sell the required number of tickets that Ticketus own in season tickets (they probably own 15,000 to 20,000 for each of the next three seasons) then Rangers will be obliged to sell the remaining ticketus owned tickets as individual match tickets first for walk up/pay at the gate type fans before they can start selling tickets that Rangers still own.

That is not how ticketus works. Investors make a 30% margin mainly because of tax breaks. Big clubs use this system quite a lot instead of banks so the actual margin on tickets must be competitive with available loans. Ticketus actually buy the tickets for a named event. It isn't some vague notion of owning a seat in a stadium, they actually own season tickets for Rangers FC for the next four years.

All ticketus purchases are insured. If the Rangers deal goes tits up then they will be able to make a claim against whoever they insured the investment with.

That is a ridiculous notion. Ticketus do not own Ibrox (at least not yet). They made it quite clear they purchased tickets for Rangers home league matches for the next four years to the tune of £24M. Those tickets were sold by Craig Whyte, which he is perfectly entitled to do. However the tickets will only be valid for Rangers games. If you want to say they will be valid for a phoenix/continuation club then who knows? I would probably say yes since I don't think Whyte is that devious... maybe. How big a sting will ticketus be to the future. Let's say they have £30M worth of tickets (probably an over-estimate) for the £24M bulk buy to sell equally over 4 years, that is £7.5M a year. A Rangers ticket costs £25 so to cover that is 300,000 tickets which works out at approximately 17,000 per game. That still leaves 34,000 available seats for Rangers to sell to as long as they are still pulling in crowds over 40,000 then they will still be the second biggest team just further behind Celtic.

Ticketus say on their website that investors should expect a return of £1.05 in return for £1 invested plus a boat load of tax breaks. I don't know if anyone has posted this link but it gives a quick run down of what Ticketus is, how it makes money and why you would invest your money with them. Plus it talks about guarantees they put in place for their deals Ticketus FAQ

Airdrie United are in no way related to Airdrieonians. The company that currently exists as Airdrie United FC was previously Clydebank FC. Airdrie United didn't keep the same SFA membership as Airdrieonians, they bought out Clydebank, renamed the club and took their SFA membership. Other than the stadium they have nothing else in common. In the Rangers case the current outlook is that a "Phoenix" club would keep the same SFA and SPL membership and essentially be a continuation of the current club similar to the Leeds example.

I don't think Rangers are able to legally pay these debts unless they are essential to Rangers being able to operate. Administration is a protection from debt collectors and more than likely United and GAIS won't get a penny until administration ends, whatever route that takes.

Why is that risky? Rangers already owe millions, a few more on top won't make any real difference. I think Whyte's strategy is that right now HMRC doesn't own enough debt to block a CVA. If HMRC can only claim £9M before they get the big tax case heard then Rangers could be carved up before that leaving HMRC trying to get money from a company that no longer has any assets or cash flow while Rangers FC are still playing at the same stadium with the same owner.

The SPL's hands are kind of tied because of the way the media contracts are written and the general indebtedness of the league. Clubs can't afford to lose the money that is in the TV deal especially clubs like United, Killie and Aberdeen who are all on strict budgets and paying off debts. Hearts are financially tricky as well. Dunfermline are millions in debt, admittedly to their owner but shutting stands shows their predicament. St. Johnstone, St. Mirren, Motherwell and ICT have little or affordable debts but their balance sheets would take a whack which isn't good when they sit on the knife edge of break-even. That leaves Celtic and Hibs on sound financial footings. Hibs have some debt but their problems are mostly on field. Celtic posted a £7M downturn yesterday, a mild profit but looking towards a loss at the end of year results. So when it comes down to it which chairman is going to stand up and risk his own club to get one over Rangers? If you answered MadVlad award yourself a point. An agreement will be reached to allow Rangers to stay in the SPL, points penalties and European bans are negotiable.

If Rangers sell there assets to other companies and are liquidated the big tax case just goes away unless HMRC have some recourse against the individuals who oversaw the scheme.

The fit and proper person aspect has never been tested before. It is the only possible way the SFA could issue some sort of punishment and in this case it would be against Craig Whyte and not Rangers. Can the SFA force him to sell his controlling stake or can they just force him to resign as Chairman/Director/Officer roles? And at that point failure to comply would probably mean lapsing membership which would leave Whyte up shit creak, so the SFA might still have routes of attack.