Bluedell

I'd disagreee with that, although it's not something I'm going to get into today.

FoCUS is just the police. I'm sure other clubs have also had meetings with them, but they would not attend our meetings with them.

We didn't agree the TV deal then we wouldn't be playing now. Was it not part of the deal which allowed us to play this season? I don't think Green had much choice.

Correct on both, although he did work for a bit in Glasgow over 20 years ago so he'll know a little about the rivalries here.

Update: an email has been received from Marian MacLean to confirm that they will be going back to a reserve position for a 6 week period starting with the QP match on Oct 20, to allow our fans to self-police accordingly. Where instances of offensive singing or behaviour take place, then they have a duty to act, but if there is nothing wrong they will stay in a reserve position. Confirmation was also received that they are going to create a FoCUS website within the SP website. And confirmation that they are taking our concerns on the use of the word Hun back to the PF and that they will get back to us when they get a response.

Not necessarily. A simplistic example to explain is that imagine a company breaks even every year and has net assets of £5m then it would be worth £5m. If it then had a share issue and raised £20m, it would then have net assets of £25m, and could be worth £25m. The amount raised by the share issue does not have a impact on the pre-issue valuation of the company.

I hope it's not any who are looking after my pension.

Banks and the main financial institutions won't touch it. Far too risky. Any venture capitalists interested would be in already. I think it's just down to us fans.

It would appear that we don't need the cash right now, so the timing is one of the big questions.

The Working Group had a meeting with FoCUS (Football Co-ordination Unit for Scotland) officers this week. In attendance from FoCUS were Marian MacLean the 2IC at FoCUS, Partnerships Officer Inspector Matt Gemmell and Operations Sergeant Eleanor Murdoch. There was an agenda drawn up by FoCUS which included the following; Role of FoCUS at deployments Smoke bombs/Flares/pyro Offensive Singing Alcohol on buses Online hate crime This was pretty much in line with what we had asked to speak to them about, but it is fair to say the nature of discussions meant that we jumped about from any strictly set agenda throughout the meeting. A major discussion point was the stopping of buses on the way to every one of our away matches this season. FoCUS said this was carried out by the local force but contradicted themselves slightly by admitting it was part of Operation Osla (not sure on the exact word) in which FoCUS want to set these things in play. Some stats regarding stopping of buses this season was given. Brechin â?? 12 buses stopped, 4 people reported. Peterhead - 13 buses stopped, 5 people reported. Stirling â?? 18 buses stopped, 2 people reported. The point was made that while there is a 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 ratio generally (their figure), buses will continue to get stopped. It was pointed out that if you say an average of 40 people are on each bus, then the statistic is nearer 1% of people stopped were then arrested/reported, and we asked if this was really good use of resources. The cold fact is that they see drunk fans as potential troublemakers in or around the ground, and as long as they continue to get buses pulled in with plenty of drink/empties on it then the process will continue. FoCUS are very keen to set up a meeting with bus convenors to discuss this matter. We will take this to our RSC reps and ask their opinion on this. It was put to FoCUS that they need to have better PR to manage supporterâ??s perception of FoCUS and their tasks. Most fans will see FoCUS as the special Police unit set up to film and then jail fans for sectarian singing, and are only interested in the old firm clubs. FoCUS explained that they deal with known pockets of fans, and gave the example that they have been following Ayr Utd fans at every away match as they have an unsavoury element within their support. It was again suggested that they should have a lot of information and statistics about what they are doing, what games they have been at, what arrests have been made etc on a web page either within Strathclyde Police website or a stand alone website. This would help with the perception and image problem of FoCUS and would help fans understand what their role is, and would assist fans with what FoCUS can help us with in cases where we are mistreated or abused at our matches. FoCUS advised that they only go to matches at the invitation of the Match Commander, or in certain cases as a particular exercise to try to identify fans that have caused trouble at a previous game. An example of this was when some fans were stopped before entering BF1 at a home match this season and asked for ID and their photo taken on camera before they were allowed access. This was as a direct result of incidents at our previous away game in relation to sectarian singing which looked as if it came from the BO/UB groupings at an earlier home and away game. FoCUS confirmed that they have been to, and at the moment intend going to, every celtic game both home and away, and will continue to do so as long as offensive behaviour continues. This remains the case for us as a club also. We informed FoCUS that we have been working hard in the last few weeks with our support to try to eradicate crowd-surfing, smoke bombs, and the rare occasions of offensive singing that has crept back in small doses this season. BO/UB have been working hard on this in particular and we have seen at our last home and away match a considerable improvement, which FoCUS agreed on. At the Stirling match there were no smoke bombs for the first away match this season. We informed them that we will continue to try to eradicate this from our support but we indicated that we have 7,000 new season ticket holders this season who either are new to coming to Rangers games or have not been for a number of years, and that the landscape has changed considerably since they were last regular match-goers. It has been noticeable to us that there is a much larger percentage of young supporters going to games, especially away games, and we believe that this requires more work on educating fans who were perhaps not aware of the high standards we try to adhere to and we would say we got to last season. FoCUS were happy to accept that we were working hard on these issues and they were happy to look at them taking a reserve position at our next few home games and to allow us the opportunity to self-police and to work on these things from the inside. In relation to offensive singing, FoCUS have said that they have on tape instances of Rangers fans singing Follow Follow with the FTP add-on, and Super Rangers with the offensive line included, from both home and away games this season and were disappointed that this had crept back into our songbook and reiterated that these are arrestable offences under the new act and that anyone caught singing these will be arrested and prosecuted. When asked for clarification on offensive singing, the list remains the same as we were advised in March, but FoCUS were keen to ensure we were aware that the PF are taking the view that all terrorist organisations songs, either in favour of or against, is now illegal. This includes all versions of the IRA and UVF and it was indicated that there is a desire to eradicate all songs which either glorify or decry terrorist organisations. We asked for FoCUS to take our concerns again to the PF regarding the offensive term Hun which is used commonly as an offensive term for a Rangers Supporter and also Protestants. At the moment the PF would deem the word Hun (and Fen'ian for that matter) not to be illegal on its own but when used in context can become offensive. When the word bastard is added to Fen'ian it becomes criminal. When Fen'ian is used in context of being up to your knees in their blood it is offensive, but not on its own. Similarly being called a hun is not illegal but Hun bastard is. We have asked that this be reviewed and gave a very strong case for it to be outlawed in its entirety. The legislation is about offensive and Hun is deeply offensive to all Rangers fans. Unlike Fen'ian we donâ??t call ourselves it, or have songs about it. We hate it and we want itâ??s use to stop in todayâ??s society. We briefly spoke about online hate crime and the advice to our supporters is simple. If you wouldnâ??t get away with saying it in public, donâ??t say it on the internet. FoCUS will work with forums to identify people who use offensive language online, where it has been brought to their attention via a complaint. FoCUS do not go looking for this, it is only when brought to their attention. We would ask forum admin/mods to continue to be vigilant on these matters. It was put to FoCUS that the 2 page article they done on Supt McAllisterâ??s appointment regarding the return of casuals was not helpful or accurate. It was suggested that the paper took some of it out of context but it was accepted that it didnâ??t help and that FoCUS would try to ensure a better PR image going forward. At the station incident at Annan it was a four way police operation involving BTP, G Division, FoCUS and D&G police. Information had been obtained and had been verified that known trouble makers were on a train heading for Annan. It was decided that an operation was launched to meet them at Annan and advise them that they were being watched and not to try anything. Unfortunately this meant around 60 Rangers supporters were forced to give personal details and have photos taken as a result of this. During a lengthy discussion about this, contradictory information arose from what we had been told by local police, and the clubâ??s security and we will continue to try to ascertain what exactly happened that day, now that we have another view on it from another angle. It was agreed that we would continue communications between the group and FoCUS, and look to take the issues raised tonight forward in the near future.

I don't recall Green saying a share issue would be under-written but I don't see how practical it would be. Who would under-write it and what would the costs be? You would lose half your cash before you start, I'd have thought, although I'm no expert. As for the investors getting their cash back, there are 2 ways: 1. They sell their shares. We will need to see how the issue is structured but it could be that the prospective investors are paying a premium compared to the original investors. 2. Dividends. Hopefully we will not go down this route and it will be interesting to see what the prosepectus says. We would have to be profitable before we did this and have lots of spare cash lying around, and I don't think it will be an option.

I have said from the start that I think a share issue this year is too early. Your position will be replicated by many others. There is not a lot of cash floating around and it is far harder to raise cash than it was 10 years ago. It may have been better to wait 18 months with a hope that the economy improves and the current management have more of a track record.

To be fair, they do say from 5pm today.

Green said last week that the share issue would not be under-written. I don't see hte point in it being under-written anyway. The costs involved would be prohibitive given what the club has gone through and the fact that it is a high risk investment. Green has also said that no cash from the share issue would be going to the initial investors, which makes sense as nobody would invest if the cash was just going to flow out again with no benefit to the club. There's a big thing on the radio about it being used for working capital, but given the timing there's not much else it could be used for.

I'm sure nobody is arguing that it has existed during the full 140 years, but it did exist during various times. It is you that appears to be claiming that it never existed. Are you claiming that it did not exist at any point during that 15 year period, for example? If you search hard enough, I'm sure you would come up with someone that played a couple of reserve games during that period, but that hardly supports your argument. However, given the population of RCs, there was less of a chance statistically that Celtic would have the number of Catholics in their team than there would for Rangers to have none, so they also actively signed people based on religion. I'm sure there's nothing I can say to make you change your mind, and I don't know what age you are, but it was accepted by virtually all back then that the policy existed during that period and I have seen no evidence to suggest that this belief was incorrect.

How many played for us between 1970-1985 for example?

You were close...closer than CG! You would ignore the VAT as it would be reclaimable.

It was was sold by Rangers Development Fund in 2002 for £950,000 plus VAT.

It was me. Let me check and I will get back to you with the details.

There's plenty of evidence that it did. We shouldn't try and argue that there was no policy in place when it was evident that there was.

Is that not baseless speculation? Staying in the SPL was never offered, was it?

The only non-exec director who got paid was John Greig. He got £1250 in 2009 and £15K in 2010. Quite a lot in 2010 but it's hardly going to break the bank. This shows an lack of understanding of the figures. Celtic reallocated some income into merchandising to make it appear that they earn more than us. I think that you can take on board the high level messages, but wouldn't pay too much attention to Pritchett's detail. He obviously didn't fully understand things.

Some good points but a lot of inaccuracies as well.

I guess it's where you draw the line. The change in the colour of the strip and the badge that happened to Cardiff or a change in the name is unacceptable. I'm not sure where I draw the line on it. If we were to change the stadium name to the Tennants Ibrox Stadium, would I have a major issue, if it was financially worthwhile? Probably not. If we just changed it to Tennants Stadium? I would be uncomfortable with it, but depends on the financial situation of the club. I would have done it a year ago if it stopped administation. It now seems less appealing. If it happened to, say, prevent the sale of the stadium then I wouldn't have a problem with that, as the sale of the stadium would be unacceptable. We have already sold off part of our strip when we allowed sponsorship. That was one line that we crossed without a huge problem. I have sympathy with the view that the name of the stadium shouldn't be changed but can't say I totally object to it.

Good idea. We'd then need to have the irn blu colours on our strip....