Bluedell

I guess I have to ask why you have decided to go down the community share scheme route? If it is something that requires membership of the RST then it will fail and if you are going ahead with it on that basis then you are wasting everyone's time. A majority of fans will not join the RST. There may not be another legal vehicle set up but perhaps one should have been. This is not said from an anti-RST viewpoint but rather taking a realistic view of the RST amoung the general support. It's also doomed to failure if you refuse to engage the support in discussion as you appear to be threatening, but hopefully you did not mean it in respect of the point that I am raising.

They were asked to leave? By who?

Is this an attack on Chris Graham? Why was he not independent? Is it just because he did not agree with your views or is there more to it?

Surely these are the only 2 groups whose aims include supporter ownership, so what relevence are the others? There is not a huge amount of Conservative MPs in Scotland to choose from, Ian Davidson is the club's MP and has been supportive in the past. He is one of our few friends in the Scottish Labour party and while he is not a Rangers supporter, and I do not share many of his political views, he is the ideal politican to get involved with this. So who do RU suggest? In in the interests of transparancy, can RU explain what the private agenda is, or does transparancy only work one way?

Also who is the Mr Graham that is referred to? Edit: It seems to be Chris Graham. Not quite sure of the connection there either.

What a dreadful statement. What does this mean? I've read the statement and not quite sure what the point they are trying to get over. There seems to be an assumption that the reader has some existing knowledge of certain facts. I think that the English is vey poor and I think that they have used incorrect words in certain places but I'm not entirely sure as I don't understand all the points that they are trying to get over.

I guess you're missing the point. Nobody is saying don't post it, and I'm not criticising anyone for doing so.

Of course there is. I'd still argue that describing someone as a disaster and an embarrassment is slagging him off and is gratuitous, but if you disagree then fair enough.

Nobody is saying you can't say he's out his depth as a manager. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It doesn't mean that it's not slagging him off though. It's hardly constructive criticism. However it's all a pedantic point. Does the definition of slagging really matter that much? I could have quite as easily said "criticising" in my post and the point would have still stood. Do we really need yet another thread highlighting that Ally is "out his depth"? It's almost as bad as Gunslinger turing every thread into an anti-Green one....OK perhaps I've taken that a little too far...it's nowhere near as bad.

I'd say that saying he's out his depth in the manager job is slagging him off.

So saying that he can't manage isn't slagging him off?

Is another thread to slag off McCoist really needed? Could it not just be incorporated into one of the existing ones?

Of course. I'm sure he does. which was the point I was making. You can't just look at one company and deduce that it reflects his wealth.

I think it's a set of accounts of Ally's own company, showing he is has £3m+ of assets. The problem with it is that it doesn't give a complete picture and there could be debts elsewhere.

I don't believe that the author is any friend of Rangers, and I believe that it's all made up.

A comment worthy of BBC Scotland or Radio Clyde.

It was Nimmo Smith that heard the appeal and allowed it to stand.

I felt Derek Ferguson was every bit as good a prospect at that point.

There is no holding company. There is just one company, The Rangers Football Club Limited, which is also the club.

Are the SPL clubs going to vote for a structure that sees them giving up 4 games against the OF? Can't see it.

No. That company is the club.

A holding company?

They are looking to do it while the illegal transfer ban still applies.

Corrected it.

There is no reason to think that either Glenmuir or Hart are involved with Zeus or BPH. I believe that they are bears and not in it purely for venture captial purposes. I couldn't comment specifically on the rest but if we are being viewed as a VC project (fairly high risk with the potential of a high return) then there's no reason to think that they are. It's not uncommon for people to invest in such things and there used to be huge tax advantages for doing so in certain cases. The assets are owned by the club. As for the various percentages of the club that each own, given the apparent spread, I can't get too excited about whether BPH owns 18% or 23%. I presume that all will be revealed when the share prospectus is issued or else when the annual return is submitted in 10 months time. It's not ideal but I don't know what I'd do with the information if I had all the full details anyway. It wouldn't mean that I would trust Green any more or any less. I wouldn't be more reassured with the information. It just doesn't seem important at this point in time.