Bluedell

In fact let's ask google what note 27 of the accounts says. It doesn't know any of the specifics and it ends up by saying "AI responses may include mistakes"....

FFS. So AI knows the finances of Rangers better than the auditors and the company directors who signed off the accounts as being accurate? The same AI who claimed "Donald Park" was a bus tycoon. 😂 I proven that the £5 million was paid and if you continue to base your view on a spurious AI link rather than the club's audited accounts then knock yourself out.

And it's frustrating when people just make up stuff about them.

Ah, so you know better than the auditors of the company? The £5 million in the accounts is just made up?

What underhand deals with the Parks Group? There was the sponsorship deal where they gave the club £5 million upfront, which seems fair enough to me, but I'm not sure if it's this that you're referring to or some other deals?

One of the main takeaways from today is that they still plan to have AGMs, which is good. Also that they will 'surprise folks' with (the players) they bring in. Sounds exciting!

Nice guy. I didn't know him that well, but spent a couple of evenings in his company and he was enjoyable company. I only bought No 1 a few times, preferring FF, but it was a great alternative. RIP The EA

So Rangers point out that other pundits on club TV have not been punished (Tom Boyd, Irvine Welsh presumably) and the SFA try and justify it by saying that they punished a Motherwell coach and in the other, arguably worse, cases they issued a letter, highlighting their inconsistency of dealing with Rangers. They try and confuse (and perhaps imply a threat) by referring to the warnings issued to Cerny, Sterling and Diomande, which have absolutely nothing to do with pundit comments on club TV. They claim that they will issue reasons for the fine, but they won't of course issue the reasons why Rangers were treated differently from other clubs. They are obviously rattled and we need to keep the pressure on with any other issues that arise in the near future.

The SFA statement, so we're not having to click the links: "We note Rangers' response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal. In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein. "The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that. Motherwell development coach Foster was handed a six-match touchline ban last September after branding the governing body's explanation for a contentiously-awarded goal by Rangers striker Cyriel Dessers against St Johnstone "lies" while working as a pundit for BBC Scotland. "Furthermore, to address the comments regarding 'rationale behind differing outcomes', we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the compliance officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a notice of complaint," continued the SFA statement. "This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the compliance officer wrote to (Rangers) to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande. "We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group. "We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency will publish in due course. "JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard."

Why are you concerned about the new articles? Presumably the new ones will be the model articles, unless you know something different? What reduction in transparency? Being a PLC costs more and makes it more difficult to issue shares. Also I'm not sure why you raised the points in this thread. A statement about a SFA fine has got nothing to do with our corporate arrangements. We can have a view on the statement independent of the points you raise.

Great statement.

Yes, we do. His value reduces significantly if there's only a year left, plus there's then the danger that he could let it run down and leave for free. Now is the optimal time to sell.

They've had a chance over the past 7 years. They've raised a lot of cash but it's now time for the current board to stand aside and allow people with fresh enthusiasm to take over. 7 years is a long time for those in charge to run the organisation and their enthusiasm has obviously waned. It's noticeable that the only communication over the last year (apart from the AGM poll) is to advise us that they met with Cavenagh. If meeting the owners of the club is the only thing that they can get enthused about then they're showing the reason that they're holding onto their positions.

Yes, me too.