Bluedell

BUS tycoons the Easdale brothers marched into Ibrox yesterday for a summit with Walter Smith â?? and came out with a seat on the Rangers board. James Easdale, 42, who arrived with businessman brother Sandy, 45, is expected to be named as a club director in an official announcement today. However, under-fire ex-chairman Malcolm Murray will STAY on the board for now â?? despite efforts to oust him by a powerful group of shareholders. The deal was cut late last night and means a damaging extraordinary general meeting â?? a nightmare scenario for the club â?? will now NOT take place. A source said: â??Thereâ??s been a week of tense talks and itâ??s been agreed that James will become a director. This has to be great news for fans as it will bring some much-needed stability over the summer.â? The move comes after last monthâ??s demand from major shareholders Blue Pitch Holdings to put Easdale and London-based investor Chris Morgan on to the board to push through a reform agenda at Ibrox. But as part of last nightâ??s deal, Morgan will NOT become a director. And Phil Cartmell â?? a board member loyal to Murray who Blue Pitch wanted rid of â?? will also stay. Sandy and James â?? who own Greenock-based McGillâ??s buses â?? already have a significant stockholding in the Glasgow club. They now want to take on the bulk of former chief executive Charles Greenâ??s stake to tighten their grip on the Light Blues. Under-fire Murray was accused of leaking secrets before Smith replaced him as chairman last week. But an insider said: â??Murray is a Rangers man and some of the board are reluctant to sacrifice him.â? The Easdales have sparked controversy with their power grab because Sandy was jailed for 27 months in 1997 for a £1.5million VAT fraud. They aim to buy Greenâ??s Rangers stake despite revelations he promised one-seventh of his shares to an Isle of Man-based hedge fund. Laxey Partners, run by Colin Kingsnorth, 49, has agreed to take 714,285 of Greenâ??s shares. But thatâ??s a 1.1 per stake, meaning Kingsnorth would not be classed as a major shareholder. Last night the club declined to comment http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4958908/Bus-tycoon-becomes-Rangers-director-and-Malcolm-Murray-stays.html

Aird has a Canadian parent and a Scottish parent, so it's nothing like McCarthy, who has 2 Scottish parents.

It's a shame (but no surprise) than no Scottish MPs saw fit to raise the question.

Someone buys 1% of Rangers shares and it makes front page of the Daily Record? that is disturbing in so many ways.

The Thread is fantastic. You have to wonder at some people taking the article seriously. There's a real woosh going on there.

Not when the smaller one is inherently loss making with little room for expansion and where their customers insist that you get rid of the company's biggest asset or else they will stop using you.

You've got to love the spin that Scotland is better than Italy because we get less income from TV.

Can't think of too many fans groups that would be doing that? Nothing is the full truth at the moment, and hasn't been for years.

Dunno. I saw Vidmar's post and everything seemed (to me) to develop from there. McMurdo certainly blogged again about it following that. McMurdo says that he had mentioned it previously but don't think that it generated the same level of talk as Vidmar's rumour, although I could be wrong. I guess it also depends on the credibility that you give either source.

Vidmar on FF.

The senior people on the main forums largely know each other, and where they don't they know who they are, so there isn't really much degree of anonymity. They can work together on occasions as was seen with the RFFF, and also the RFWG to an extent (the VBs withdrew from that but it wasn't due to anyone's specific presence).

I'd disagree. Many of the non-Internet season ticket holders I know tend to have different views on issues to the Internet community. Perhaps it's a different age range, perhaps it's not having the same exposures to all the arguments, not sure but it can be different.

Whether we should or should not have been put into Division 3 is a different argument IMO. It happened. If we get invited into SPL 2 it's nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of a previous decision and only due to finance.

If we as a club are to take something that we haven't earned then why don't we get put into SPL 1? If they are that desperate to have us up there then why not go the whole hog? Why should we take the scraps that the SPL are handing us? I don't want anything from the SPL scum and I would seriously consider not renewing if we accept an unearned invitation to SPL 2. I've had a season ticket for 25 years and this would be the first time I'd ever consider not renewing.

We might be fighting Whyte for the next 10 years because of Green's actions. It was Green that signed the director's form appointing Whyte to 5088. It was Green that brought 5088 into the group etc. it was Green that lied to the support about his involvement with Whyte. He may be cleared of specific issues but there is still a lot unanswered.

Presumably we would need to give the appropriate notice to the SFL so it couldn't happen next season anyway. Also would they be willing to waive the illegal transfer ban? Doubt it, and if they don't do that then it has to be a non-starter, and that's before you take account of the other good points already made on this thread.

Oldco couldn't be saved due to HMRC. Nothing to do with SFA or SPL. What specific actions by SFA and SPL against Oldco can oldco shareholders take action against?

Most of the punishments were on Newco and therefore I doubt Oldco shareholders would be able to take action against the SFA or SPL.

Murray was on £60K, Smith on £50K, no share options.

This is a letter sent to all bond holders by the club. A reasonable approach, in my opinion. Bond letter.pdf

I think that a message that we as a support may consider our positions is something that needs to be said and as such the UB statement has a lot more impact. The RST/RSA statement won't make the directors stop and think whereas the UB one might.

If the bondholder is a season ticket holder then he would have the option to purchase his seat again, surely? The club aren't going to prevent existing season ticket holders from renewing their tickets. I was a bondholder and have never had a season ticket for my seat. I sit elsewhere. I don't think it's an issue if the club say that they are not going to offer me the chance to buy a season ticket in front of the guy who purchased it for last season. I think it's fairer to offer season tickets to existing season ticket holders before bond holders if they are different people. As for the "seat for life" that is referred to in the OP, was that really the case for bonds? There was a 35 year period mentioned. The club had the option of repaying them at which time the right to buy a season ticket would presumably disappear. I'm losing out as a bondholder but I support what the club are doing. It's much better to give the guy who bought a season ticket last season the option rather than someone who put cash into the club 22 years ago.

It may not be now. I believe that in the last case involving Rangers fans they pled guilty. There is now a strong argument that they should not have done, particularly with this ruling. A different conclusion may have been reached by the judge if Celtic were playing Hearts or Rangers so I doubt it's giving carte blanche but it appears to give fans a bit more freedom than they had previously and it will be interesting to get the reaction of FoCUS.

Hmm. That interpretation of the law could potentially give the fans of both teams free reign as surely singing in a stadium full of your own support is unlikely to incite public disorder.

Would presume that the underlying reason is jealousy.