Bluedell

Did they? I couldn't say one way or the other and have no great love for either club, but what I do know is that the press up here take great joy in telling everyone what the Rangers fans mean when they sing songs (TBB, TFS) when the songs mean something different to many that are singing them. Perhaps you are right, but I'm not ready to accept what fans mean just because the press or the opposition fans say what they mean.

All fans will be able to buy shares when the club has its share issue. They can buy them from the club, apparently for a minimum of £500. However, as I understand it, what the RST are proposing is a membership scheme whereby fans can buy shares through their scheme. I believe that the 2 advantages of this will be that fans can buy into this for a lower amount and also the scheme will have greater power as it will have more shares than your average punter. It seems that the long term goal will be to get enough shares to buy the club.

Very sad news.

Which other ones are perceived as divisive? Are they also not to be part of the process? If they can be, then are there different levels of divisiveness and some are OK? Is there anyone lower in the RU chain than the Executive Administrative Assistant? Could they try and be any more insulting to the RST? The RU make great claims about democracy, but they fail to acknowledge that Mark Dingwall was elected at a democratic meeting and they want to insist that their own views overrule the RST's democratic processes.

It looked to me as if there was contact on the Valencia penalty. There were the 2 (or was it 3) Liverpool penalty claims but don't think that any of them were. There was also the suggestion that Evans should also have been sent off for the tackle where Shelby got sent off but I don't see it as a red. Shelby was never in danger and it just didn't merit a red card. Hey, it's good to be talking about footballing controversy for a change, partcilarly where we aren't involved.

I thought he got the sending off decisions correct and all the penalty claims correct. Perhaps he could have given Evans a yellow but that's being picky.

I don't think that he got much wrong.

Ah, we are talking at cross purposes. I was referring to the model that is being set-up to allow people to invest. That will need to be in place prior to people investing and it is that model that will be established by the RST. For example, will it be OMOV or will people get more votes depending on the amount invested? Supporter ownershipof the club comes much further down the line and we are a fair bit away from it.

But people don't have to. Many will not judge it on its own merits as a standalone project and will take account of their views, preconceived or otherwise, deserved or otherwise, of the RST. Whether it has the backing of other groups will be irrelevant in a large number of cases. Their dislike of the RST will prevent many from participating. For any scheme to maximise the participation of fans, it needs to be done outside the auspices of the RST. It may not be fair on the RST but there is a lot of distrust and bad feeling that is not going to disappear. I am unclear as to the meaning of the last sentence. The RST surely are deciding on the model that will be put forward?

I think that for the scheme that the RST are proposing that, legally, people have to be members to participate. It is a major problem given the divisive view that many fans have of the RST and as such they would have been better to have taken another approach. RU were correct to point this out, but their toys out the pram response, followed up with this amateurish approach to this statement, makes it appear that they are not ready to take things forward.

"RangersMedia would like to make some things clear about the statement released under the banner of "United Supporters Platform": We were invited to attend the meeting, and a junior member of our Admin team was in attendance; We did not agree to anything at that meeting, we were there on a fact-finding mission to see if it was something we could get behind; Following Admin discussion, we decided we couldn't lend our support to RangersUnite in this venture; We received the draft statement, and replied asking them to remove our name from it prior to issue; They failed to do that, and the statement was issued with our name on it. RangersMedia would like to make it clear that we do not lend our support to that statement, and do not wish to be associated with it. The aim of fan unification is a noble one and one we support, but we do not feel this statement accurately reflects the views of the Admin team of RangersMedia."

What is it with all the quotation marks?

Ulster_Bears ‏@RTID_NI @RangersUnite Kindly remove our name from your impending statement. Thanks. Retweeted by Alasdair McKillop

RangersUnite Statement 23rd September Written by Admin Sunday, 23 September 2012 21:18 Statement to the Rangers Supporter’s Trust – 23rd September, 2012 A meeting was held by various Supporters’ Groups and Websites in Glasgow on Saturday afternoon (22nd of September). Those invited were deemed as fit and proper to represent the majority Support; and are perceived as committed to Rangers Football Club’s wellbeing; and have consistently demonstrated this in both the short and long term. There were significant representations from the following Groups: The Rangers Supporters Assembly; The Rangers Supporters Association; The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund; Rangers Till I Die N.I.; *************; Vanguard Bears? Rangers Media Forum; Copland Road.org. RangersUnite invited these Groups with the sole purpose of uniting all Rangers’ Supporters under one Unified Supporter’s Platform; and considered them to have a shared purpose, that is, to have the best interests of Rangers FC and its Supporters at the forefront of everything they do. A Platform those Fans can both believe in and trust. There was a unanimous agreement by ‘all’ representatives that Rangers ‘will’ be stronger with both a ‘unified’ and ‘fully democratic’ Support. Therefore, we agreed that a Unified Supporters Platform (USP) is best placed to represent the support as a cohesive voice to help serve them with both ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency’ at all times. To this end, the meeting was an overwhelming success, and a further meeting is planned to clarify the joint strategy of the Groups. We will then be in a position to ballot the worldwide Rangers Support for their endorsement of this union via a fully ‘democratic’ vote. Rangers Supporter’s Trust (RST) was not invited to today’s meeting. The reasons for this are as follows: It has been deemed that RST are pursuing a ‘convenient’ plan for buying ‘stock’ in Rangers FC. They are pursuing this avenue with the assistance of Supporters Direct. In our opinion, the RST, at the present time, lack the credibility to be leading a fan’s takeover of the Club. The main problem with their ‘proposal’ is the caveat that, to buy Shares in the Club, ‘all’ Fans would ‘need’ to become members of the RST. We consider this to be both unwanted and unnecessary. We also feel that this ‘plan’ has elements of self interest attached to it. We, therefore, cannot endorse it. Certain RST Board members are also perceived as divisive within the Rangers Support – most notably, Mr.Dingwall. A number of groups also made it clear that they would not engage in the USP process if Mr. Dingwall was a part of the USP process. There was also a unanimous view that this antipathy was reserved to only some members of the RST Board (not to its Members). This ‘minority’ are perceived to have a self-serving agenda that is not in line with the vast majority of Rangers Fans. This assertion was unanimously agreed by all Groups who attended Saturday’s meeting. For the avoidance of any doubt, when we use the phrase ‘Unified Supporter’s Platform’, we mean ALL Rangers’ Supporters Groups, Websites, Blogs, Forums and Funding Groups who have the wellbeing of Rangers FC and its Supporters as core to its purpose. This is without exception, and to this end, RST will be welcomed into the fold ‘as fully participating equals’ at a time which is deemed appropriate by the ‘majority’ of the Supporter’s Groups who attended Saturday’s meeting. It is essential that all parties in the USP are happy to cooperate positively with each other. It was also made clear, by every Group in attendance, that all motives and actions of the USP should always be based on the welfare of the Club and its Supporters. We believe there are steps that the RST could make and apply in order to satisfy the requirements of the USP Group and be involved in the project moving forward. However, such was the strength of the sentiment throughout Saturday’s meeting that we feel concerned that failure to make the necessary changes could lead to the permanent exclusion of their Group from the USP. We sincerely hope that this can be avoided. In order to prevent the occurrence of this scenario, we would recommend RST to open dialogue with RangersUnite in order to clarify the ‘minimum’ standards that RST would need to fulfill in order to be integrated into the Unified Supporters Platform. We sincerely hope that the RST take up our offer of engaging in a positive dialogue with RangersUnite and would respectfully ask them to initiate this contact by email to our Executive Administrative Assistant at: eaa@rangersunite.com RangersUnite are asking that RST begins a new chapter in its history and attempts a ‘clean slate’ with the Fans. This is a vital opportunity to initiate that change. Whilst we realise this will be challenging and will require some tough decisions to be made, in addition to significant structural reform, we hope that, for the greater good of our Supporters, it takes these valiant steps. We look forward to your response. United WE Stand, Divided WE Fall

Proof that Rangers have already been found guilty and the "independent" committee is a sham.

Over 40s dating for me.

No. To put it crudely, fuck them!

We need a "wartime consigliere" and Ally's the man for that. Dropping a couple of points is the least of our worries at the moment. We can worry about the on-field problems once we have the off-field ones sorted.

Interesting enough, the current holders of the devalued SPL title, SC223604, were only formed in 2001 and have 5 SPL titles to their name. Not very many. Oh and

If they are going to shake hands, can they do it properly or not at all. This high grip thing that many do is not a handshake. Fecking annoys me.

Looks like we may be outside the SPL for quite a whie then. They may have blackmailed us into giving up our TV rights this season but try it again in a couple of years time and see where that gets them. What will the financial fall-out be if we don't return? The SPL have more to lose than us.

Allowing crowd surfing could prevent a safety licence from being awarded. GCC would not need much excuse. It's one thing that has to stop. However I'm sure it would be easy enough for TBO/UB to commit not to do it and I'm sure it's not the main issue.

Surely the SPL should appoint an "independent" committee to decide whether any rules have been broken? If the SPL can decide whether rules have been broken or not then why the need of an "independent" committee?

Other than who? Are the SPL saying that the know the result of the BTC?

Very disappointing that the club have taken this approach. Perhaps another protest would make Green and McCoist sit up and take notice.