It doesn't seem obvious to me.
If Rovers paid 4.4 million with a promise to pay a further 2.1, how can Rangers giving us 2.3 million with a promise to forget the 2.1, be construed as us getting our 4.4 million back?
The only way Rovers can get 4.4 million back is if Rangers cough up that much cash.
What is the point in Rovers giving us £2.1 million, cash, in August, for us to simply hand it back over again as part of the Ferguson deal. Assuming of course there is a "deal" at all.
Right, let's say I owe a mate £20 ok? One day, I turn round and say I'm selling my DVD player for £100. He offers to take it off my hands, but he offers me £80 for it, taking into consideration that I already owe him £20. I would accept this, as there would be no point in him paying me £100 for the DVD player, only for me to hand him back £20 of it instantly, which is money I owe him. It would, therefore, have been simpler for him to say "I'll give you £80 and forget the £20 you owe me". Do you see?
Again, real life scenarios work. And please remember, the £2.3 million figure mentioned is fictional and was used merely in my examples in posts on page 38/39.
Cheers.
Of course there is no point in Rovers handing over 2.1 million only for Rangers to hand it straight back.
Also I understand your DVD player analogy as both you and your mate end up 'equal'.
However, your original example of Rangers paying Rovers 2.3 million (just an example I know) is not reimbursing Rovers back the full amount of the 4.4 million already paid.
In that case Rovers end up short, unlike you and your mate.