Bluedell

They did a couple of times last year and given the club issued new shares to someone less than 2 months ago, why would they refuse C1872?

C1872 actively diverting cash to a third party that could have gone to the club . Disgraceful.

Gers 2-2 Braga Ramsey

Most seem to be around 5%, although mine has only gone up 3.7%.

Sort code is 20-33-70

St Mirren 1 Rangers 2 FGS Goldson

I don't see how anyone has been proved correct. Those demonstrating have won but it doesn't mean that they're correct. There's a valid opposing argument. Most fans disagree with it but I've seen some put forward a reasonable arguments for it. Hypothetically, if the cash from the tournament would have been ringfenced to improve the facilities for the disabled then it would become a more difficult choice for some. Wow. That's a bit OTT, mate. I'm sure that they could but it wouldn't be as profitable. I don't recall anyone boycotting the game on Sunday when Rangers went all out to promote the tie-in with Celtic with the over-the-top OF promotions everywhere. Is there not a touch of hypocrisy that people didn't walk out or refuse to watch the game? A genuine question as you feel more strongly about the friendly than I do. I'm against it but it's not top of my list of things I'd have wanted to protest about.

Braga 2 Rangers 1 Tav

The likes of Netflix stop themselves being streamed in other countries, so the technology appears to be out there, and I guess I'll become more sophisticated over time.

The support should continue to raise the valid concerns that we have, and you've raised a number of them in a previous reply to me. We should continue banging away, but it doesn't mean that I want the board to resign if they don't happen when there aren't any obvious replacements.

£12m or £13m? There's no sign of the add-ons becoming payable. That'll help fund the loss and hopefully we'll make a profit, and hopefully some can be used for transfers, but it also depends on when we get the cash and next season's cash flow. You said earlier that we were told that all the cash would be available to spend. It seems crazy if they did say that as there's no way they can do that and it's PR bullshit that's not helpful.

Of course they deserve scrutiny and criticism, but blindly calling for them to be replaced when there's no feasible options of replacements is more than that. If there are better options out there then I'm all in favour of bringing them in, but the ones we have currently are giving us an element of financial stability within reason, and for them to leave may mean getting external finance and then we really would be back in the SDM days. They are far from perfect, but they're better than the alternatives that I can see.

We made a loss of £17m in 19/20 season, and I'm not sure how we go from that to break-even with the Gerrard cash and a couple (?) of extra games in Europe. We also need to look at next season's finance. If we go out early in Europe we'll be looking at another big loss and where is the cash tor that coming from?

This sense of entitlement, that you expect the board to fund things like the youth system of the stadium out of their own pocket will discourage future investors. It's also a bit hypocritical to expect them to spend more of their own cash on such things while refusing to buy Mygers, which of course is a money making exercise. The club needs every penny it can get so why not introduce a scheme that raises more cash?

This is the biggest problem. The board have stepped up and provided the finance to get us in a position where we won the league last season and are in the QFs of the Europa League. They've done an incredible job from where we were. There isn't anyone else ready to step in and provide additional finance, which we appear to be still getting from them. If they walk away then the club is in more financial difficulty and the problems grow. We can complain about valid individual issues like the ticket office, Edmiston House etc but the biggest issue is who keeps the lights on.

It was totally over the top. Saying it's the old firm rather than Celtic on the program is a bit of fun but having signs saying "we are the old firm", having it on an arch for the players to go under when they go onto the park and plastered all over the advertising boards is totally crazy. We are Rangers, not the Old Firm. It was embarrassing.

1-1 Tav

I get that people are upset about the friendly and yesterday's statement, but it seems a massive leap from that to suggest that the board have been dishonest. As for the cash cows comment, of course the board are trying to maximise income. We've made massive losses and would continue to do so unless income is increased or we have a significant decrease in onfield quality. I'm not sure what you expect the board to do, the issue of the friendly notwithstanding. I also don't get the SDM comparison.

Why's that? What's made you change your mind?

More attention seeking. Sigh.

He wants to sell his shares and to settle some personal grievances.

I'd suggest that a majority of the statement is irrelevant and is mainly about the fact that C1872 no longer have a relationship with the club.

So you don’t believe King is behind yesterday’s statement?

C1872 had the chance to raise concerns constructively but ended up making it about them. The club's response just attempts to play the man rather than the ball and is pathetic. A bad day all round.

Doesn't help when our fans deliberately disrupt the game and take away any momentum we may have had.