boss

I'll rise above him, don't worry. Interesting to see that he stalks me here, he stalks me there, he gunstalkers me everywhere...

"tea bhoys", surely?

Here's the original BBC article that someone copied onto RM. Not their best ever effort... Rangers have terminated the contract of finance director Donald MacIntyre as new owner Craig Whyte continues to overhaul the Ibrox boardroom. MacIntyre had been suspended along with the chief executive Martin Bain earlier this week pending the outcome of an internal inquiry. Philip Betts' position as a new director has been confirmed, while Gary Withey becomes company secretary. Former Rangers chairman John McClelland is to remain on the board. After the departure on Tuesday of chairman Alastair Johnston and director Paul Murray there were suggestions that McClelland would also leave. However, a Rangers spokesman confirmed to BBC Scotland that McClelland had been asked to stay on and had been delighted to accept the offer. McClelland has been a board member at Ibrox since 2000 and was chairman between 2002 and 2004. Former Rangers captain and manager John Greig is also staying in the boardroom. The spokesman also confirmed that Whyte will meet with manager Ally McCoist in the next few days to discuss his spending requirements for next season

Yes, they reported that he had been sacked as a director and have since changed their story - I heard it myself on BBC Radio Scotland driving home from work! So Bluedell (who I've taught everything he knows ) will just have to haud his horses for a wee while yet...

BBC have jumped the gun with this. Donald McIntyre HAS NOT been sacked as a director. The form lodged at Companies House is a TM02 - termination of company secretary. Donald McIntyre is still a director and is still suspended pending investigation, as is Martin Bain. BBC incompetence strikes again.

As Frankie said above, I must also have missed all that. IMO RM has a great team that work hard to improve the site and there's no in-fighting within the team. I can't speak for the site or the Admin/Mods, but it would surprise me if substantially all of them were not keen for the supporters to work more closely together.

:surprised:

McGregor had at least 3 bits of pure genius last night - the cross/shot that he just managed to tip away, the reflex save after Wylde went to sleep, and the cross from the right that was going inside the far post until he got a glove to it. Most goalies are nutters, the present OP excepted, and it helps when they are brilliant as well.

I agree completely with Rab's sentiments which are admirable. I would imagine that substantially all of RM's posters would be in favour of the supporters working together. EDITED by Frankie - please see above.

Haven't done one, but unless we make a provision for the big tax case we will be in profit.

I disagree with your estimate of �£2m loss for the year, though. Were you having a bad morning?

Frankie is a hero - he can walk on water.

Not like you to be so badly informed and completely wrong.

http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/homepage/index.php/component/content/article/41-finances/754-stewart-regan-was-asked-to-apply-for-his-sfa-job.html It is becoming clearer by the day that something absolutely stinks about the appointment of Stewart Regan as chief executive of the SFA. Diligent work by a number of forums, together with the few remaining investigative journalists, has already uncovered the unsavoury link between Kevin Reid (Johnââ?¬â?¢s son) and his best buddy Paul Nolan of Nolan Partners, who helped the SFA to recruit Regan. As we know, Regan and Peter Lawwell worked together during their time at Coors. Also, Nolan Partners is a business supplier to Celtic. And unconfirmed rumour has it also that the SFA committee tasked with finding a new CE was headed by Eric Riley, Celtic director. All very incestuous so far. Now RangersMedia can reveal that Regan did not wake up one morning, see the SFA job advertised in Odious Creepââ?¬â?¢s Times of London, and think: ââ?¬Å?Iââ?¬â?¢ll have a bit of thatââ?¬Â. Oh no. Thatââ?¬â?¢s not quite what happened. You see, Regan got a phone call. From who, we donââ?¬â?¢t yet know. But it would be nice if we were told. I think we should be told. During that phone call, the caller suggested to Regan that applying for the SFA job might be a good idea. In fact the caller went further; the caller specifically asked him to apply. Now who was that caller? In true Cluedo style, I lay out before you the principal suspects: - John Reid in Dawn Primaroloââ?¬â?¢s boudoir with a half bottle of Cream of the Barley - Eric Riley in the Turncoat Inn with four hundred committee memberships - Peter Liewell in Japan with the ever increasing bank debt - Paul Nolan in Number 7 Restaurant with a job well done - Kevin Reid in a Parliamentary probe with access to Jack McConnellââ?¬â?¢s diary Perhaps we could even add Regan himself to the list: - Stewart Regan in Celticââ?¬â?¢s back pocket with utter incompetence Weââ?¬â?¢ll never know just who made the phone call. But we do know that the stink is now pervasive.

You saying I've got no pals? :box: You're probably right.

I agree with Bluedell. A management letter is something of a negotiation between client and auditor and can go through a number of drafts. I have had input at both ends, as auditor and as client. I have asked for things to be put in and I have asked for things to be taken out. Indeed, the client's "reply" to the management letter is also often agreed between client and auditor before the auditor issues the final management letter! The poster "bossy" has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to management letters, so best to ignore what he has said. So "bossy", "any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window". P.S. I hope no-one is mixing up "boss" with "bossy". :admin:

You and me too.

:confused: Words don't appear to be your strong point.

This is perhaps the most disingenuous (thanks Bluedell!) comment I've read from a board member for, oh, at least a few hours.

I haven't said I know anything. You really need to be more careful with your language; I am surprised at you.

Perhaps they've conceded that they have been asked questions to which they have no answer?

Some of us do...

RST membership.

Which then was only advised to certain board members, wasn't disclosed in the Accounts, caused the RST to incur legal fees, was overseen by a self-confessed incompetent Treasurer, and wasn't told to the members ... until Mr Harris blew the whistle. But move on, there's nothing to see here.

The question you might have asked me is whether I would have refused to sign off the accounts as auditor as well as director. And I would have refused to answer for professional reasons. But no doubt you could make a decent guess.