Bluedell

Let them buy the tickets. We get 40% anyway.

So you boycotted it on a matter of principle. One person can boycott a game. You did.

So you boycotted a game before when they screwed you personally but you won't do it when they screw us as a club? You felt it worthy of a boycott when they screwed you out of £20 but not when they attempt to put us out of business and are part of the theft of millions of pounds from the club?

Although none will admit it, there's an element of selfishness from those who ignore the calls for a boycott. It's easy to just go to the game. It's harder not to go when you really want to go.

THe SFA have shown that they can give Rangers into trouble for anything. However can't see why they can be forced into accepting and distributing tickets.

It seems a bit hypocritical if Green will not support a boycott but he will refuse to take Rangers into the SPL. Don't understand the diifference in approach.

I think a large part of the problem is that it is the same person who represents the RST on all committees - Assembly, RFFF, RFWG etc etc. The Board should share these responsibiliies around a lot more. This is one of these no win situations. This view is perfectly understandable but if the RST don't agree to have the minutes approved by the club then there is no meeting. Unfortunately there is no easy solution and it's my view that it's better to have the meetings and give a watered down version of the minutes to the fans than not to have the meetings. The RST have struggled to get people to stand for board positions at times and to limit people to only 4 years may cause problems. I think that there definitely should be some limit but I think that 4 years is a bit on the short side. Changes to consitution - agree that members should be fully advised prior to any changes and consulted where necessary. Co-opting members onto the board - a necessary function but anyone co-opted should be subsequently ratified at an AGM and have the same election and terms of office as other board members. Agreed. Part of the problem is again finding people willing and able to do this difficult job. David Edgar was generally very good at it and Mark Dingwall has done well recently as well. The challenge is finding someone else to step to help out. The "septuagenarian" never spoke as RST spokeman but rather as Secretary of the Association. It causes confusion when you have an RST board member as spokesman of another organisation. Agreed.

He's taken stick for writing a lot of crap at times. Don't see why we shouldn't criticise one of our own when deserved. He does write some good stuff but the quality has been extremely variable. Thankfully there appears to have been an improvement recently.

Another crap article by a sub-standard journalist.

So you are saying that the people in supporters clubs are not a reflection of the support in general? I think that you're probably right in respect of your claim about masons but would suggest that 15 years ago, I wouldn't be confident at agreeing with it.

Over 75% of my supporters club were masons.

I know what the rules were. Section 14 detailed what had to be done where a refunds MUST be made. The rules don't say what happens in other circumstances and it is a huge leap to infer that these are the only circumstances that refunds can be made. As you admit, it's only your interpretation of the rules. Look at page 2 of the rules document "The shares are bought and held in the Rangers Supporters Trust name. However fans are not locked in and can extract their money or shares at any time." It's clear what the intention was. As I said previously, there is nothing in the rules to preclude other refunds and if there's any doubt then rule 17 can always be used "The decision of the Administrators in any dispute or question regarding the Scheme affecting any Member will be final and binding on the parties concerned."

Hadn't realised it was as bad as that. Hope he makes a speedy recovery.

Jumping to conclusions I've been critical of the RST in many posts. I actually believe that the RST has not been as successful as it would like due more to fan apathy rather than the trust issue, particularly in respect of the off-line community but wouldn't disagree that trust is still a major issue, and it may be a major factor in respect of the buyrangers.org campaign that the RST are trying to promote.

No new deal has been publicised, so presumably there has not been one signed. Can't think of any reason why the IPO should delay it, other than delaying the announcement until nearer the IPO to increase the feel-good factor at that point.

It's not a fact. The rules don't state that.

Point me to the rule that stated refunds of contributions were not allowed other than on death. Rule 14.1 states when contributions MUST be made but they are not precluded from being made at other times anywhere in the rules.

HMRC still had a big enough debt to be able to reject the CVA.

HMRC still had a big enough debt to be able to reject the CVA.

I'm sure that they would not want to limit themselves to just the period that Whyte was in charge, but given the deliberate non-payment of tax during his time they would take a much stronger view on that when deciding about a CVA than a potentially dodgy tax avoidance scheme. They want to discourage others from funding their business through tax non-payment and then starting up again in a pre-pack.

I'm inclined to agree with GS on this. It was more the non-payment of the PAYE/VAT that made HMRC decline the CVA rather than the BTC. It appears that an earlier verdict would have made no difference to the CVA.

It is unclear from the post what part of the quote "was rubbished". The account was administered by the RST for many years. There was talk of it being changed but I'm unaware as to whether this was put in place.

The RST administered the account. What is the big deal? The Gersave members paid into the account and the cash was held there on their behalf.

Any details as to what the issue is?

I find this quote to be most intriguing.