Bluedell

So you are saying that his general performances are nowhere near good enough in the games that he has played for us? Do you actually watch the games?

A better performance than most of the rest of the team in most games he's played.

Totally agree. I guess that you are in a better position to tell than most, but it's not just some comments. They got a ref effectively sacked for making a correct decision, there has been a consistent campaign of intimidation of refs, resulting in them and heir families being abused at homes. The SFA have met with Celtic and their supporters to discuss referees, and have backed down at every opportunity to support the refs against this campaign. regan is not known as Celtic's bitch for no reason. I don't believe that this campaign has not had an effect on refs. Rangers can't appeal yellow cards. Sorry but this is bullshit. Lennon tried to physically assult him and you are having a go at McCoist for reacting to that? We should not be bowing down and allowing Celtic to ride roughshod over us by meekly suggesting the faults were on our side which will then then be jumped upon by the pro-Celtic press and it will allow celtic to get away scot-free. This has all developed because we have not been vocal enough in our own defence. So EHD should be dismissed from the club after one game when he received severe and probably racist abuse, who gets constantly provoked and receives little protection from the refs. I guess you have some support for your views from Lennon and Nicholas, but I haven't seen anything from EHD that deserves anything like this. It's an extreme exageration of his behaviour that has intil now been limited to the tabloid press and Celtic fans. Let's not jump on the bandwagon when we should be supporting him as one of our players. You are criticising the club for standing up for itself and also saying that the club should be doing something about the abuse of its players. Seems a bit of a contradiction. So you are saying that until our club are blameless in every aspect of a game that we can't criticise anyone else, even when their behaviour is far worse than our own? I can't agree with that.

Should TLB now be known as TLR?

Does not go far enough. He should have the balls to name the culprits of who was severely abusing our players and detailing what was said to EHD by TLB.

Agreed. It just doesn't sound like someone who has a good handle on what our club needs, and the finances involved with it. If they are going to stick some working capital into the club then great, but they can't ring-fence it for transfers, and by coming out with these claims also makes me feel uncomfortable.

I don't see that we can live within our means AND have a guaranteed budget of �£5m pa. If the buyers are just puutting that cash into the club on top of what they are buying it for then they do seem to have to be extremely wealthy.

A concept not unfamilar to many who frequent Ibrox

Has to be :sd: for me. His play was vastly improved and some of his passing to set up chances was brilliant. His best game of the season.

I felt that the back line was able to push forward much more than usual and the midfield had more freedom to support the forwards. Weir may be a miss defensively but his absence had a lot of positives in the team's approach to the game.

To be fair, it's difficult to run a company when you don't know the difference between a director and a shareholder. Or perhaps he thinks the cleaner should get all the profits.

The following article has been doing the rounds for a few days, and as usual it's full of lies and incorrect and misleading information. Just because Murray has transferred his shares to an off-shore trust company does not mean that he is not the beneficial owner. Most of his Murray Sports shares have been owned by IFG Nominees CI Ltd for a number of years, and I have never given it a second thought. That's the same company that owns the shares in MIH, and not the one mentioned in the article. Just because "Declan" is a director of the company does not mean he owns the club and it is nonense to suggest it. I'm a director of a number of companies, one of which is based in the Republic of Ireland, and it doesn't mean that I own any proportion of any of them. If the club did go into administration Murray's wealth would be unharmed. Rangers are a limited company. Limited means that there is limited (or no) liability on the shareholders. Murray will have placed his shares in an off-shore trust because it benefits him personally from a tax point of view. Standard stuff when you are at his level. Now for the biggest lie. Uberior owns Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares. This entitles them to divdends only. No mention of the word "Convertible". There is no right to convert them to Ordinary shares. Murray's ownership cannot be diluted to 7%. It's not worth wasting any more time in the article, but there's nothing in it that is of any note, other than to highlight their continued capacity for being liars.

I understand season ticket numbers are down on last season to the extent of 4,000-5,000, and they are expecting further drops next season. I'm not sure what a boycott would achieve. Bigger losses, poorer quality on the pitch, driving more people away, and making the club less appealing to any buyer. It becomes a bit of a vicious circle. We seem to be heading that way anyway without any organised boycott.

Time to bring back the big man.

I don't see why the Chairman being absent is an issue. He's not involved day-to-day. That's not a Chairman's job.

I don't see it as being an issue. The Chief Executive is the one who is running things day-to-day and is the one who makes most of the decisions in a normal company. There's nothing wrong with a CEO dealing with it.

When did that start appearing? It wasn't there earlier. Totally agree.

Aye, but the football his teams play is boring, he's wasted money on some players, some players aren'y footballers......... Or have I been spending too much time on Gersnet recently? :devil:

8 goals from 12 games apparently. Not too shabby.

Unless something has changed, the figures will not show the debt level. The interim results have not revealed this in the past. I thought Murray had around 85% now, following the transfer of shares to King. This intrigues me. So if the club makes a loss of, say, �£8m one year, the club will still spend �£5m in the following year and presumably fund the �£8m as well? How is that possible? The club has to work within the bank facility...�£19m loan and �£15m overdraft. How can the directors mysteriously increase that? Sounds like someone's telling porkies. :admin: Staff costs were �£28m last year. This again doesn't make sense. All in all, the article is total crap.

It's not sectarian in any shape or form. Some Rangers fans have been kidding on that there's a hidden meaning to it and the celtic fans are getting themselves agitated about it.

Coz that's his name.

George Peat is a cock and has compromised the SFA by his actions. Unfortunately I think Celtic have a case. I don't have a problem with him making correct comments about Lennon publicly, but he can't then be part of the committee that reviews his behaviour and you can't miss part of a hearing and then be part of the decision making. Peat should have gone a long time ago and Regan should also resign as well, given this happened on his watch.

Stuart Regan = Celtic's bitch.

Because they'll make a loss on the second half of the year, unless they pull another player sale from somewhere and there will be minimal tax payable, if any. In addition, they may have tax losses available to utilise. The fact that they have not accrued any tax despite making a profit shows that they do not expect to pay any tax this year. Remember tax is payable on profit and not turnover.