CaleyD

Appreciate we've had a conversation on this before but I'm looking at this thread for ideas on how it could be made a reality at TCS and ask that we avoid the arguments about the rights/wrongs of current rules, stewarding etc and concentrate on what can be done within current parameters. What do we know about the situation? We know the SPL have given a green light to the use of the safe standing seat/barriers that are already used elsewhere. Any proposals outwith that would need to be considered on a case by case basis....for that reason I'd like to stick to ideas involving what is already deemed acceptable. We know that the North Stand isn't a suitable location as the structure is not suited to the installation of the safe standing seat/barriers. Like it or not, the West Stand is viewed as being suitable for away fans for bigger games and any proposals to use that area risk being met with a little less enthusiasm than elsewhere. We know that the cost per seat is around £100 (including installation). We know the club cannot afford to pay for these seats...not unless they have some guarantee that they will make the money back pretty much straight away. We know seats cannot be installed as a singly and need to be done in blocks. Accepting the above information/restrictions, what are the options? Location - We seem to be pretty much restricted to using the Main Stand...and given that we use the uncovered South Wing for some away games then I believe the most acceptable proposal would be for installation in the uncovered North Wing. Cost - As the club don't have the means to fund it directly then it falls to those who want it to pay. Would those looking to stand at games be willing to pay for them? I don't know what the club would be willing to consider in this regard, but for the sake of argument let's say that season ticket prices would be on a par with the North Stand and you had to pay £100 (one off in first season) to cover the cost of having your "standing seat" installed. Would people be willing to commit that money in advance to allow purchase and installation to take place over the closed season? Trade Off - In an idea world we would have such areas installed in the North Stand, somewhere behind the goal area, but it's not an ideal world and the North Wing of the Main Stand would not be viewed as a "prime location". Would people rather have no standing than stand there? What's more, as there's no roof in that area then you are going to get rained/snowed on. Let's forget the idea of having a roof at this stage, if we can't afford to install seats then we definitely can't afford to put in a roof!!! Personally I think those wanting to stand are more "hardcore" and a bit of wind/rain/snow isn't going to phase them too much. What's more, with the prevailing wind then a roof serves little purpose anyway. Would people rather have no standing than stand somewhere that's not covered? Possible Side Benefit - Whilst thinking about the above my attention was caught by the ongoing plight of fans who use wheelchairs/scooters and can't manage the steps in the stands. One of the suggestions to offer better facilities in this regard has been the installation of dugout type shelters, however these shelters aren't suitable for placing in front of stands as they obscure the view of the first row or two of seats behind them. The ideal location for such structures would obviously be in front of a standing area where they would not pose the same problem and we can kill two birds with the one stone. Would be good to get other people's thoughts on all the above and also any alternative ideas they might have which fall (largely) within the criteria/limitations that exist and which we're not likely to get changed any time soon!!! Once the thread has run for a while and people have had chance to read/comment then I'll pull all the info together and prepare a discussion document to take to the Supporters Trust and ask if they can then progress it with the Club.

I agree that it's not right and I imagine that ICT will be in touch with Rangers to see what the deal is. It's entirely feasible that the administrators could sign off on the payment of that money, especially as they will need all the friends they can get in the SPL when it comes to them either moving out of administration and/or going through liquidation and applying to rejoin the SPL. There's little point in us getting worked up, upset at or butting heads with the Rangers fans. What's more, could you imagine the carnage of 2000+ Rangers fans turning up a week on Sunday demanding entry and being refused or told that they need to purchase another ticket? Not a pretty thought and one that should be avoided if at all possible.

Two things.... First off, the Administrators won't give two hoots if the money is "ours", it sits with Rangers, is a Rangers Asset and will be treated the same as all other Rangers Assets. Any money due would simply be chalked up as another debt. Tickets were given to Rangers in good faith, Rangers fans have bought them in good faith and any dispute is between Rangers and Us and not Ticket Holders and Us. I very much doubt we would have any legal recourse which allowed us to cancel the tickets (as much as we might like too). Think about it another way. Arnold Clark get 100 cars from Ford on credit. I buy one of those cars and Arnold Clark go bust without paying Ford....Ford can't come and repossess my car. Secondly, the SPL guarantees the ticket money in circumstances such as this so our worry is not if we will get the money, it is when as I don't imagine the SPL will just write us a cheque tomorrow.

Cutting the cloth and/or making best use of resources available is not restricted to playing squads, but also needs to be considered and taken account of when it comes to all areas of operating within the club and I would far rather coaches etc were spending time developing the various teams than writing match reports. A similar situation arose in regards to reporting on first team games and a few people stepped up to the plate as fans/volunteers and we've managed to resurrect the previews/reports and also added to previous offerings by teaming up with MFR to use their audio interviews and have a cameraman who videos every game and provides footage which can be used for both highlights and as a training tool....and let's not forget the photographer who provides photos/galleries which are second to none. The exact same opportunity exists for anyone who wishes to volunteer to cover U19 matches by way of previews/reports/articles/results/video/photos etc for the official website. If it is something you can help with then please get in touch with me and I will happily assist in making it happen. For those who think that a setup that relies on fans in the above manner is strange or unusual, it's not. It's been working that way for years and I would confidently say that outside the OF (and even there to some extent) the vast majority of the media work done for official sites is done by fans/volunteers The official website has come on leaps and bounds this season and there's plans to keep on growing it and increase the amount of content. We've been working with the Community Dept to increase their presence on there so people are aware of all the great work they do and we will do the same with the other areas of the club in due course, but we do need more volunteers to assist with producing the content to go on there. The opportunity exists, people just have to come forward and help make it happen.

Despite all the comments against diving and/or going down easy, (at least) one of the clubs biggest ever culprits would instantly be viewed as a legend!!!

No...because it is not the employee who has broken the rules. It is the Contractor/Companies responsibility to deduct the relevant tax and pay HMRC. EBT's (Employee Benefits Trusts) work by "paying" an employee part of their salary by means of a loan. That loan is invested in a a Trust and all kinds of weird and wonderful conditions are attached to make it unlikely (although not impossible) that the loan will ever be recalled. Over and above this, employees are paid a basic wage and can borrow against the money they have invested in the Trust....the company then takes repayments for the second loan from the Trust which holds the proceeds of the first loan. By placing the Trust Offshore, they avoid payment of Income Tax & National Insurance on the EBT portion of their salary....although I believe some corporation tax liability exists on the part of the transaction done in the UK. The HMRC have disputed the legality of these schemes from the outset, rightfully claiming that they were "Disguised Remuneration", and anyone setting up such a scheme knew there was always a risk that they would be pursued for the tax that had been avoided. Legislation changed at the end of 2009 which put an end to such schemes one and for all and the pursuit of outstanding taxes begun. HMRC gave companies until December 2011 to sit down with them and agree settlement...they offered incentives for those willing to co-operate. From what I understand, Rangers FC refused that option and that is why they are now being pursued so vigorously. Why Rangers FC refused to co-operate and reach settlement is open to speculation, but I suspect it was in large part due to the fact that the moment they settled then money would be due....money which they do not have...and any repayment plan would have left Rangers owing money to HMRC and any club owing money to the Taxman is not allowed to participate in European Competitions.

Sad news indeed....enjoyed some great banter with Gordy over the years.

So, HMRC's action to force administration today was a result of unpaid taxes dating back to May last year and not the "big case". Is that an indication that their problems run deeper than the big tax case....or a deliberate "money saving" ploy because they knew the big case was always going to get them and the chance to pay off that bill at Xp in the pound seemed too good a chance to pass up? What about the frozen assets? I thought that had been done to secure payment of certain (possible) liabilities...do those frozen assets remain frozen to cover those liabilities if/when they fall due, or does administration mean that it's all back to being one big pot for everyone to fight over?

It's at times like this you realise just how screwed up the world we live in really is. Not one person here arguing that Rangers going to the wall would be a disaster for football or heritage reasons....it's all "let's forgive them for screwing the public purse out of 10's of millions because they bring a few quid through our door". That's all a bit like saying drugs are bad but they should be kept because addicts need them, and you can deal it on my doorstep so long as I get a the odd wee pay off!!! Maybe our economy might be just a little bit better and we'd be getting a few more bums on seats across the whole of the game if Rangers didn't think they were above the need to pay their dues and that money....together with the incomes it relates too....had been paid and spent where they were earned and not hived off into offshore accounts.

I think he makes a better man than he would a woman!!!

You are right, your conclusion is ridiculous, but it does not qualify as Reductio Ad Absurdum because you did not follow Scotty's argument, you instead chose to twist that argument into something totally different. There is no direct correlation between accepting the risk of a reduced crowd size and the desire/acceptance of playing in a lower league than a club is capable of competing in. As the rest of your post is unrelated to the topic of this thread and comes across as nothing more than a poor attempt at contextomy, then I'll do you a favour by letting it be and not drawing attention to it.

In order for reductio ad absurdum to be effective you must follow the argument being given to a ridiculous conclusion....not remove the prime objective* and create a whole different absurd scenario to counter the argument being presented. *the prime objective in football being for a team to play at the highest level.

You make the assumption that if Rangers NewCo was denied entry direct to the SPL that they would automatically be granted entry to the SFL....as I said already, this is by no means guaranteed and it could be argued that the SFL would be less likely to accept them when they know that they will waltz through the leagues effectively making it a non competition for the rest of the teams for the periods involved. What's more, would the SFL really want to bring all that comes with one or other of the OF upon themselves? I suspect that in the now engrained short-sighted nature of Scottish Football the SFL would actually welcome all of the above in return for an extra few quid in their pockets for a season or two....and that is why Scottish Football is so screwed up.

It would be hard to put an exact figure on just how much of the income other clubs receive is a result of having Rangers/Celtic. However, it;s easy to identify that of the pot that is shared the OF swallow a third of it....in essence, we could lose a third of the income and it would have absolutely zero impact on any other club outside the OF. As stated above, there's no guarantee of a drop in TV income, and it would be nowhere near the levels that some predict. Let's not forget that what TV gives with one hand, it takes away with another by way of reduced attendances due to being able to sit at home and watch and changed fixtures to days and times which are not practical for many. Very little cascades down from the SPL to the SFL as it is, so don't buy the argument that things would be much (if any) worse for them than that at present. Like it or not, Scotland...even with both halves of the OF...can't support the number of full time teams, or even part-time teams it has at the moment. Whilst I would not wish oblivion on any club, a rationalisation of teams competing in the countries top leagues would probably do more harm than good in the long term. And a stronger, more sustainable and entertaining product has the opportunity to rise from the ashes....at least it would create a chance for the long term future of the game here, something which the status quo does not offer. On this we agree. One question I do have is, "What would the media do without the Rangers/Celtic saga to report on week in week out?". There's no denying that a very large portion of the sports reporting in this country is made up of articles/stories and features based on these two and without that then some rationalisation of that would be needed. Would it be remiss to suggest that the media would have a vested interest in ensuring Rangers are allowed to continue in one form or other within the SPL and once they've had their pound of flesh from the administration story then things will quickly switch to a "Scottish Football Can't Survive Without Rangers" campaign?

IMO, that is exactly what will happen. They will then buy all required assets to allow them to continue at current location, with current name, from the administrators for next to nothing. The gamble (for Rangers) is on whether or not the new company would be given membership of the SPL or have to re-apply to start from the bottom....whilst it's unlikely that the SPL would allow them admission to Div3, that would also be at their discretion....and let's face it, they have far less to lose (and a lot more to gain) from seeing Rangers failing to exist altogether.

Fair enough on the Livi comparison. What will be interesting is how the vote goes in terms of retaining Rangers as an SPL club. Technically speaking the membership would be void if Rangers was wound up in it's current form and the share (which entitles membership) cannot be transferred as such (as per SPL Rules). That means that the replacement would need to submit an application for membership (or be invited). Not sure what the requirements of that vote would be....does it need only two clubs to block it, or two clubs to approve it or something totally different? Looking at the situation we were in when we got promoted (the first time) it needed only a minority to vote against us, and you would have to assume that any application from a new team would be dealt with in the same way....but won't hold my breath on that. On that basis, you would think that there's at least 2 or 3 clubs who will have the gonnads to keep them out....but again, nothing is certain, especially when it comes to (perceived) self preservation. Rangers have no money and upwards of about £80 Million of debt (if you include the tax situation). Nobody is going to bail them out to the tune of £80 Million....and it's hard to think of where they could get funding to satisfy a CVA at a level that the HMRC (or any other major creditor...Ticektus?) would find acceptable. I get the financial argument for keeping Rangers in the SPL....but what damage would it do elsewhere if all other clubs were to sell out to such an agreement?

Rangers were always going to go into administration....the only question was "when". Going into administration does not get them off on the Tax Case as they will have to agree terms with any and all creditors if they wish to exit administration...and you can be sure HMRC aren't going to accept 2p in the pound. The only thing it does really buy them is a bit of breathing space to come up with a plan that sees the existing company wound up (I think that is also pretty inevitable) and them getting the SPL to agree to transfer membership to whatever company takes its place. Bizarrely, the financial side of Rangers plight is of little/no consequence to "Scottish Football". The question now is whether or not the SPL bottle it and allow them to continue in the league (and face the inevitable court case that Livingston would file) or if the new company must re-apply for the space vacated in the whole setup and start again from the bottom.....that story will be far more interesting than anything else that goes on from this point forward.

ICT brought far larger crowds to away games when we were in the lower divisions as well....but football is more affordable there and people don't need to prioritise as much, you also don't have so many ridiculous fixture days and times as a result of rescheduling to fit with TV and things which also makes it easier to plan and travel. Assuming C*unty get promoted, they will be bolstered a bit by SPL novelty (in much the same way as we were) so next season won't really pose any true comparison. Again, assuming they get promoted (and stay up), let's see how they fair once the SPL has knocked some of the enthusiasm out of them by asking them to stump up for £20+ tickets every week, midweek games at the other end of the country, Sunday games (something C*unty have refused to play in the past) etc etc.

Do I think the courts got it right? Yes. Some might find it a little "convenient" that a club owner should gift such sums to it's manager via an offshore account...but there's nothing wrong in that. There's also nothing wrong or unusual about people holding offshore accounts in weird and wonderful names....something I've witnessed first hand from working in financial services. HMRC were chasing a lost cause from the outset and if anyone has done anything wrong, it is those who signed off on a mult-million pound investigation (paid for from the public purse) which was never going to return any other result. What's worse is that HMRC are no stranger to this kind of thing and I sometimes wonder if it is nothing more than publicity stunt and scare tactics....."We will go to any length to hunt down tax evaders" kinda thing.....and what better way to get that message out than pursuing someone like Harry Redknapp who was always going to guarantee them headlines. Just look at the HMRC comment following the case..... Chris Martin, of HMRC, said in a statement: "We have no regrets about pursuing this case because it was vitally important that the facts were put before a jury for their consideration. "We accept the verdict of the jury but I would like to remind those who are evading tax by using offshore tax havens that it always makes sense to come forward and talk to us before we come to talk to you." Even after they had been made to look stupid they still try to claim it was Redknaps fault because he chose to keep a private transaction private...not only was it private, but it was not of any concern to HMRC and with absolutely no evidence to show that the payments had been made for services rendered in this country or that the money had/was going to be brought into the UK then they had absolutely no right to put him through what they did....if I was Redknap I would be suing them for putting me through 5 years of hell. Total farce from start to finish.

No, but I do understand why some people would see it as acceptable/necessary with the way the game is played and the money that is involved these days. The line between what is acceptable and what is cheating is a very vague one in football. e.g. Hayes was deemed to have been fouled yesterday and Majstorovic was red carded and sent off...was it "cheating" to have accepted the free kick and try to score from it? Would the Manager/Club fans found it acceptable if we had just stepped up and deliberately played the ball out for a goal kick? I'm not suggesting we cheated in taking the free kick and trying to score, but there's probably legitimate argument to be had both for and against and the real argument would probably centre around the thought of "where do you draw the line?". For me the line comes at the point where you deliberately set out to win advantage by foul means...and that's a world apart from taking advantage of a decision (however wrong) that is given in your favour. I think the same can be said when it comes to "going down", it's one thing to set out to deliberately dive and quite another to "go over easy" or make no attempt to stay on your feet....especially since referees, especially in regards to incidents in the box where the attacker has been impeded/fouled, will wave play on in most cases where a player stays on their feet. Most of us will curse an opposition player who goes over easy and then get hacked off when one of our own has a chance to do the same and doesn't....so I suspect that opinions are formed on a case by case basis and are heavily prejudiced by whether it is going for or against us....but that's football, where rationality isn't high on the agenda when it comes to supporting your team.

And we could have it sponsored by Gillette!!!!

A little frustrated not to have taken anything from the game today, but that should not been seen as a negative against any of our lads. I coulda kinda see why we lined up as we did as there were threats that needed "bigger" cover that Nick Ross might have been able to provide in other areas of the park, but the trade off for that was Nick Ross up front playing the lead striker role. It didn't work out, but it wasn't for the lack of effort on Nicks part. He was quite literally bouncing off the Celtic back four in challenges due to his size. Gnakpa should be offering a more physical presence, but is a little too keen to go down when there's any hint of a foul on him....not diving, just making sure he gets the fouls. There's a time and place for that, but when you have guys waiting in the area and staying on your feet and knocking the ball across goal can provide a great opportunity then it does more harm than good. Both Red Cards were farcical, IMO and it was just another example of a referee getting a decision wrong against one team and then looking to even it up by giving another wrong decision against the opposition.....I'd also like to see the first yellow card for Williams again as I'm not convinced that was merited either. Had we got Shinnie and/or Tade today then I think it would have been a very different result.....but you can only p*ss with the c*ck you've got and everything considered I was pleased to see us making Celtic work for the result. If I had to be critical of anything it would have been the midfield getting too deep and allowing Celtic to run on to them on the edge of the final third. This made a tough job a bit more difficult for out back four....who all in all had a great game. More positives than negatives to be taken from the match.

I wouldn't mind Caledonia as an anthem....if someone could just jazz it up a little!!! I'll need to see if I can get in to check in the announcers booth as I did some remixes of Highland Cathedral and Caledonia, lost the files from my PC and the only copy I know exists on CD was in there.

How about some Maurice Dancing. (Yes, I know I spelt it wrong....think about it before posting)

Technically we're on Stadium Road!!!