Bluedell

I'm also not sure that it's good for the club that its supporters are seen to putting money into a third party shareholder, rather than the club itself when it's still needing money. However I take the point that you're making but it's a bit chicken and egg. I believe that it's not possible legally for the club to set up a share-buying scheme. I do seem to recall some restrictions coming to light when it was looked at before.

Ally never misses an opportunity to take a pop at Morelos when there's other players who have performed worse....a bit like yourself. Being serious, Morelos is the "big" name in the team and does provoke more reaction from fans and pundits alike and that could be reason that he tends to concentrate on Morelos more than others but there still does appear to be a hint of jealousy about it. Perhaps that's also why his movement works so well. He gets more attention than other players would and therefore his movement creates a bigger reaction than another player playing the same role would.

Agreed. Ally is prone to do it as well. I do feel that there's an element of jealousy involved.

He's being asked to play in a totally different role this season, particularly against teams that like to sit in against us. He goes deeper, pulls defenders with him and creates space for others to score. That's a large part of why we haven't struggled to break down the low block as we had in Gerrard's previous 2 years. The movement of Morelos is integral to that. Itten did well last night but he was performing a different role than a normal league game. He was more of a focal point and he was playing with 2 players who don't have the same level of pace as Kent and Roofe do and therefore he couldn't play as deep as Morelos has been doing recently. I still believe that Morelos should be a first choice and will probably be back in the team on Sunday.

Are you suggesting that we as a support should be morally obligated to buy the shares? £13m for King and then another £33m for the next 7 investors who make up 50% of the share capital? Where does it end?

While that's true, there's little harm in the fans looking forward with some optimism given the hard times we have had over the last 8 years. We should enjoy the good times while they're here, as they won't always be, as we well know.

Or your reply implied things that you didn't mean to or was unclear? It would be easy enough to clarify but you don't seem willing for whatever reason, which is your prerogative, but it's a forum and when you say that you don't see what the issue is, I'm not sure why you get upset when it's explained to you. I know it's not easy doing interviews and presumably the questions were all pre-screened, but there's certainly a lot of unanswered questions.

That's an big assumption.

You said "I'm not sure what the issue is with him" and that what you had been told tells us everything. That suggests you didn't understand the conflict of interest (at best) which was backed up by the fact you didn't ask Laura why C1872 refused to take part in the club share issues, particularly when she emphasised that buying shares was their core aim.

Dundee Utd 0-3 Rangers Tav

Chris Graham is known to heavily influence C1872's decisions. Dave King gives Chris Graham an apparently extremely overpaid job at Rangers. The Chris Graham influenced C1872 turn down the chance to invest in the club at least twice and instead decide to raise £13m to buy Dave King's shares. Are you really saying that you don't see the potential issue with that?

I think Wolfsberger would be a good draw. Bottom half of the Austrian league and lost more than half their league games.

Kamara has improved beyond recognition. He has gone from a poor passer of the ball to a classy midfielder. Strolled it tonight and is also my choice.

We finished top of a 5 team, 4 match group in 2006/07 Rangers 4 10 Maccabi Haifa 4 7 Livorno 4 5 Auxerre 4 4 Partizan 4 1

I think we have before but it wasn't a 4 team, 6 game group.

A shame. Thanks for the ones you've done. I haven't listened to them all yet but will at some point.

I've just listened to the podcast. Thanks to Stevie for carrying it out, but, for me, it raises more questions than it answers. 1. How will C1872 having 25% prevent the events of 2012 as was claimed by Laura? I don’t see how it would prevent any such events. It wouldn’t have prevented Murray selling to Whyte and I don’t see how it would have prevented any of Whyte’s actions. 2. How would Dave King have prevented Murray giving “the clubs’ shares” as security if he’d known about it? Murray didn’t give the shares as security, but that’s not overly relevant, but the club needed funding and there was a floating charge, so I’m not sure what King would have done. 3. Given the above 2 questions, is the phrase “never again” meaningless? 4. When Laura says that directors of C1872 have no more power than the ordinary members, is that true? 3 directors have proposed this scheme. 3 members could not propose it or propose an alternative scheme. We are not getting a vote on it so the claim that the organisation is “member led” is also not true. 5. C1872 had the option of taking part in the clubs’ share issues as confirmed by Laura so why didn’t they want to take part in them and attempt to raise funds for them? Why has Dave King taken the priority? 6. Did C1872 deliberately wait until they understood that the club was not going to have any more share issues before deciding to go ahead with this fund raising exercise, given that they had offers to take part in the previous share issues? 7. Is Dave King breaking confidences and potentially affecting the price of shares by stating that any future share issues will be above 20p? 8. Is Dave King privy to the minutes of any board meetings since the last one he chaired in March? Given the Covid 19 crisis, the new funding issues and the lack of player sales not drastically changed the landscape and the funding of the club? 9. Is it C1872 policy that they would prefer the club to sell players to provide funding rather than C1872 buy new shares, as Laura suggests? Is it disingenuous to suggest that the club does no need funding, when it clearly does, especially when King says that he expects his £5m plus interest to be repaid in 10 months’ time. 10. When Laura says that the fans need to step up and take responsibility, why have C1872 not been encouraging participation in the share issues? Is there not a contradiction? 11. If Laura claims that buying shares is not a key decision then is refusing to buy shares in the club not a key decision? 12. Both King and Laura claim that the accounts are healthy when they show that the club continues to need investor support to meet its liabilities. Would they not accept that they are misleading fans in overstating the strength of the balance sheet? 13. Why are C1872 ignoring their own constitution by not bring a potential £13m investment to the members to vote on? Is a £13m outflow not a “decision relating to a matter which would have a material effect on the assets of the Company” What level of outflow does Laura feel is material? 14. Has there ever been an AGM of C1872?

Are you giving up the podcast, Stevie?

Of course. Thanks!

I'm a bit confused. Are @gaspard and @D'Artagnanthe same person, or has Gaspard posted on his behalf, or his own behalf and accidently added D'Art's name?

I guess it's just terminology. An agreement to pay the player 20% of any transfer fee would probably be legal.

Hmmm. Difficult one. Poznan 1 - 1 Rangers Roofe

SCHEDULE TWO KEY DECISIONS Each of the following shall be a Key Decision of the Club 1872 Companies: 1. Any alteration to the Articles of the Company; 2. Any decision as to how to vote on any resolution of the corporate entity which may from time to time be the ultimate holding company of the Rangers Football Club, currently Rangers International Football Club PLC; 3. Any decision to lend or borrow money or to invest jointly with any other party; 4. Any decision to appoint or re-appoint or to remove a Director; 5. Any decision to increase the contribution to be made by Contributors towards the administrative and running costs of the Club 1872 Companies; 6. Any decision to change the basis on which persons can become Contributors; 7. Any other decision relating to a matter which would have a material effect on the assets of the Company or which a reasonable person would consider to be key for the Company and/ or Rangers Football Club and within the objects set out in Article 5. Investing £13m will have a material effect on the assets of the company and therefore must be a key decision.

I wonder of some of the (unexpected?) negative comments have caused this apparent change in approach....

"Pressed on whether he should be profiting from the fans’ £13 million, King said there were no plans for further share issues and that his was the only option available to Club 1872. He said he would delay the sale if Rangers gave the fans group an “unconditional undertaking” that they would be allowed to acquire shares directly in the club. “All it would take is the club to turn round to Club 1872 and say, ‘We will issue you shares over the next three years for all the money you raise’. That could solve it from that point of view. My understanding is that the club is not going to do that.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/dave-king-there-is-no-fallout-with-rangers-board-w67w2qnft A game changing comment? It will be interesting to see what is said at the club's AGM, and I'll not be happy if the club aren't interested in a sizeable investment from the support. However it's not great that C1872 didn't fully explore this option first before announcing the King deal.