boss

Bought one of these from Bluedell last year. They are superb and a real bit of history to keep.

My point was that we couldn't know for sure but that it was irrelevant to the point we were then discussing. QuoteMeAccuratelyLoyal :box:

I agree that it wasn't entirely clear whether the �£1m reduction was simply the scheduled repayment of our loan or whether the overdraft also had to come down by �£1m. Having looked again at the language used, I think it is the former - just the loan. Here is what AJ actually said: "In fact, as set out in our financial statements at June 30 the bank has agreed that the Club's only obligation is to operate within a credit facility that reduces by �£1 million per year." Now there was nothing in our financial statements that set out the position of our overdraft reducing by �£1m each year. So if AJ's wording today was correct, he can only be referring to the loan. 2 other small points. The loan was down to �£20m at 30 June 2009. Also, the bank merely have a floating charge; there is no standard security granted over either Ibrox or MP.

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/articles-mainmenu-2/1-club/1204-apologies-3-points-and-parties O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us. Especially me. Little did I think ... (I could stop there but it wouldnââ?¬â?¢t be much of an article) ... as I browsed through Companies House website last Sunday afternoon that weââ?¬â?¢d be where we are today. My decades-in-the-profession curiosity sufficiently aroused by the Grantly Group, if not alarm bells ringing then certainly faint peals in the distance, and the skeleton of an article gradually appearing. Firstly, an apology. The cheap jibes in that article detracted from the facts therein. They were but two, they were a tiny part of the whole, but they were unnecessary. If they have become at least part of the story since then, I am sorry. That STV picked up the story, and the Herald continued it today during their questioning of Graham Duffy, could not have been foreseen ââ?¬â?? no previous Rangers Media article had reached the dizzy heights of the national press. Indeed my immediately preceding and succeeding articles, on Rangersââ?¬â?¢ Accounts and SPL Rules respectively, were hopefully informative, but devoid of tabloidisms, and were largely shelved for future reference or never. The breaches referred to are important. I reckon that just three of the, ahem, elder beancounters across the boards have 75 years experience between us (Iââ?¬â?¢ll spare my two seniorsââ?¬â?¢ blushes). Each of us, and most others in the same or similar professions, were of one mind: these are issues about which the Rangers fans deserve to know. There was no ulterior motive. My second apology of the day. Rangers Media has no policy on Mr Duffy or on the RST. If my article gave the impression that I was stating an official policy then I apologise to Rangers Media and its admin team. The article was entirely my own view. If this week has shown anything it is that the Rangers support is diverse and remains, dare I use the ââ?¬Ë?fââ?¬â?¢ word, fragmented. Perhaps this is a product of our history; our cultural and (whisper it) presbyterian background; our inquisitive, nay, cantankerous nature; our respect for authority without undue deference; a sort of ââ?¬Å?I kent his faitherââ?¬Â mixed with an inability to ââ?¬Å?see ourselsââ?¬Â. Perhaps it will be ever thus? But we can still show genuine unity in some respects. Every single one of us desperately wants three points tomorrow. At 12.30pm there will be few things more important to us at that moment than getting off to a flyer and cheering the players on to another championship lead. As the final whistle sounds, many of us will be heading to our Christmas parties - the Rangers Media and RST dinners, on the same night, on the same street, at the same time. Letââ?¬â?¢s hope we have reason to celebrate and that we all have a ball. And if the olive branch should bend under the weight of the Sunday papers, let us remember it was at least good while it lasted.

To answer your question: http://www.bundesligaforen.de/showpost.php?p=175383&postcount=435 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2008/06/12/rangers-fans-group-erupts-in-civil-war-86908-20604164/

I think the danger of this (or indeed the bank becoming too involved in general) is that it may fall foul of the Rules of the SPL, in particular the definition of "Insolvency Event" in section I1 part e., whereupon we would risk being deducted 10 points by virtue of section A6.8.

Morning UCB and thanks for your input. Just one small point of clarification. What do you mean by "inconclusive suggestions"? Would the phrase "publicly available facts" not be more appropriate?

Just a bit - because they couldn't put down the article, the leadership sent out half the RST board to put me down instead! A light-hearted take on their "only show in town" statements and the over-playing of their hand with the NOTW, all of which took up about 5% of the article, and their response is character assassination. I get no thanks for doing their job for them..... Just to clarify Bluedell and Frankie's comments, I didn't (or at least, didn't mean to) criticise the Trust per se - but that is not to say I have absolute confidence in its de facto leader. I am a life member of the Trust.

An article from another place. All you ever wanted to know about the Grantly Group ... and just a little bit more. Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts As the leadership of the self-styled ââ?¬Ë?only show in townââ?¬â?¢ flashes its poorly supported knickers at the latest haggard ho to swing into Govan, we at Rangers Media take a step back and ask a simple question: Graham Duffy, who he? It has been widely reported that Mr Duffy was bankrupt at the turn of the millennium. Thatââ?¬â?¢s not something that should give us concerns per se; many very rich business folk have suffered the same indignity and bounced back. Itââ?¬â?¢s probably as much to do with attitude to risk and the seeking of substantial reward that financially makes or breaks many a millionaire. Perhaps of more concern is the myriad of companies in Duffyââ?¬â?¢s Grantly Group and what that reveals to us. Grantly Group Limitedââ?¬â?¢s website lists a number of subsidiary companies in the UK and these are noted below. Grantly Group Limited itself submitted its latest Accounts to February 2008 which showed it as a dormant holding company. Grantly Developments (Scotland) Limited ââ?¬â?? its Annual Return is overdue (breach of Companies Act) and there is a proposal to strike the company off with the first notice in the Edinburgh Gazette last month. Grantly Construction Limited ââ?¬â?? this company is overdue with both Accounts and Annual Return and has been in compulsory liquidation since 2008. Grantly Commercial Limited ââ?¬â?? this company has never filed Accounts since its incorporation in January 2005 and these are therefore 3 years overdue. The Annual Return is also overdue. There is a proposal to strike the company off with the notice in the Edinburgh Gazette in July. However there has been an objection to this striking off - this is often done by HM Revenue & Customs where they believe there may be unpaid taxes due before they will permit the striking off. Grantly Developments (Paisley) Limited ââ?¬â?? the Annual Return for this company has been overdue since April 2009. Grantly Developments (Lesmahagow) Limited ââ?¬â?? this company changed its name from Grantly Developments (Carstairs) Limited. Its latest Accounts show this company as being dormant but the Annual Return is overdue. Grantly Developments (Rigside) Limited ââ?¬â?? this companyââ?¬â?¢s Annual Return is also overdue. Grantly Developments (Cardiff) Limited ââ?¬â?? this company was incorporated in 2005 and was dissolved in 2007 without any Accounts or Annual Returns ever having been filed. Grantly Residential Limited ââ?¬â?? this company last filed Accounts to March 2007 (dormant) and was dissolved in 2008. Grantly Developments (East One) Limited ââ?¬â?? no record found at Companies House. Grantly Developments (East Two) Limited ââ?¬â?? no record found at Companies House. Grantly Developments (East Three) Limited ââ?¬â?? no record found at Companies House. Grantly Developments (Dunlop) Limited ââ?¬â?? no record found at Companies House. So much for the companies listed on Grantly Groupââ?¬â?¢s website. What about other ââ?¬Ë?Grantlyââ?¬â?¢ companies listed at Companies House? For the avoidance of doubt, there is no implied connection between these companies and Grantly Group although many of the companies noted below share the same registered office as Grantly Group and have the same trading pattern. Grantly Developments Limited ââ?¬â?? this company was dissolved in 2008 with both its Accounts and Annual Return overdue. Grantly Developments (Glenmavis) Limited ââ?¬â?? this company was incorporated in 2005 and dissolved in 2008 without any Accounts or Annual Returns ever having been filed. Grantly Developments (Douglas Water) Limited - this companyââ?¬â?¢s Annual Return is overdue. Grantly Developments (Parkhead) Limited ââ?¬â?? possibly the company that owned the parcel of land required for the ââ?¬Ë?Commonwealth Villageââ?¬â?¢ that has been in the news. Even still, this company is almost a year overdue with its Accounts and its Annual Return has been overdue since April. Grantly Developments (UK) Limited ââ?¬â?? finally a company that is not overdue, probably because it was only incorporated in January 2009 and no due dates have yet been reached! Grantly European Limited ââ?¬â?? this company was incorporated in 2005 as Grantly Trans-Continental Limited, changed its name in 2005, never filed any Accounts or Annual Returns, was put into Administration and was dissolved in 2007. Grantly Homes (Oxon) Limited ââ?¬â?? this is an older company that traded in the 1990s, was put into compulsory liquidation in 1999 (at which point its Accounts were overdue) and subsequently dissolved. Grantly Project Management Limited ââ?¬â?? this company was incorporated in 2006 and dissolved in 2007 without any Accounts or Annual Returns having been filed. The Annual Return was overdue at the time of dissolution. Grantly Developments Litigation Fund Ltd. ââ?¬â?? interesting name! This company was incorporated in 2001 and dissolved in 2004 without ever filing Accounts or Annual Returns, which were obviously overdue. So as the ââ?¬Ë?only show in townââ?¬â?¢ hangs its hat on the latest ââ?¬Ë?only show in townââ?¬â?¢, after hanging its other hat on the previous ââ?¬Ë?only show in townââ?¬â?¢, should we all open our wallets and trust them with Ã?£1,000 of our recession-earned dough? With a string of insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts in the Grantly Group, is Graham Duffy really the right man to lead the Rangers support into a brave new world? To quote another bluenose millionaire: ââ?¬Å?For these reasons, I wonââ?¬â?¢t be investing. Iââ?¬â?¢m outââ?¬Â.

GersPride 14th November Today 28th November Seems like a few weeks to me.

That would be fantastic. After that, unless we can get copies from the club or a nerdy fan that keeps Accounts(!), we are in to ordering copies from the old microfiches from CH. Ah, those were the days .....

Thanks. I had those but not the 1987 Accounts, so I was waiting until someone came up with the 1987 Accounts so that we could keep them in order.

Fantastic new resource Rangers� Accounts for the last 22 years, since 1987/88, are now available to view online. They have been uploaded in PDF format to http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=88 and are available to registered users. This project was undertaken by RangersMedia and, in the interests of the forums working together, the resource has also been made available directly to GersNet members. The Accounts are also available from http://www.RangersPedia.org which is RM's online Rangers wiki. On the forums there are often questions about the Accounts, what profit (or loss!) have we made, what is our debt, what players were bought in 1993 etc. All these questions and many more can be answered from this new resource. It is hoped that the beancounters amongst us will use the availability of the Accounts to enhance our understanding of the financials by summarising and explaining the numbers now available. Although these Accounts go back as far as pre SDM, we will continue to add earlier years� Accounts as they become available. Rangers� Accounts for the last 22 years, always available, under the one roof, and free of charge.

Well done TB - great stuff.

Perhaps some of the RSAssembly board are unhappy at the lack of consultation on the last 'joint statement'?

Your logic doesn't explain how the auditors were able to issue a clean audit report in September 2008 when facilities were not in place for 12 months hence.

I'd rather step back from this thread for a bit than respond to your semantics and abuse. I'm happy to let the posters decide for themselves whether what I said is fundamentally true. And perhaps the 'unity' project would benefit from a little less aggression and a lot more discipline.

Lol - think that's fundamentally what I said. Woof, woof.

UCB, without going over old ground I guess you may have indirectly answered two of my questions: Are you aware that the RST approached the club last month and offered to buy �£50k worth of shares? And that the club turned them down, not least because it was a closed period in respect of the accounts and an absurd time to ask the question? My sources of information have been ridiculed elsewhere by RST board members. Posters here might wish to consider the validity of the questions in light of what you have just confirmed.

Is it true that when a round of applause was called for The Goalie, Frankie stood up and took a bow?

I'd just echo what BD has said. I didn't know he had been banned either.

You really shouldn't make assumptions in your position. I am a long time member of the RST and therefore, presumably, support its aims. Tannochside asked for questions. I asked some questions. You won't answer any of them, and you suggest to Tannochside that he doesn't answer them either. And you wonder why so many don't trust the RST?

Tannochside, you asked for questions. I've jotted down some that spring to mind, although the list is far from exhaustive. Give me your reply to each one and maybe we can talk. Unity How can the bodies be genuinely united when several Assembly board members are furious with Andy Kerr for issuing a joint statement behind their backs and without their approval? You state that the organisations: "have the olive branch out amidst promises of new beginnings" yet RM, GN, VB, No.1 etc. were neither contacted nor invited to GersPride. Does this worry you that only one website is involved? Are you not concerned that GN/Frankie's STS report was recently acknowledged and supported by all main websites except one? Why do you think the RST does not give press releases to forums, except one? Are you aware of the close family ties that exist between senior members of the Assembly and the RST? Does this call into question their independence? You state that the RST, Assembly and Association are the only organisations to exist both on and off line. Does the Association have any real web presence? Are you aware of the numerous projects the good people of RM are undertaking this year? Do you accept that this represents far more projects than the RST has ever undertaken in a single year? Do you not accept that RM has, therefore, a very real offline presence? Are you aware that the Association (and indeed the RST) has a fraction of the membership that RM has? GerSave You state: "The gersave scheme you will have heard of is already there, and regulated by the authorities, so would be a feasable (sic.) vehicle for collecting funds". Which authorities regulate GerSave? Is it not the case that GerSave was specifically created to be outside the scope of FSA regulation? Do you agree that GerSave is a sharesave scheme which is constituted to purchase shares in Rangers? You make it clear that: "nobody has stepped forward with a plan. Nobody." Does that include the organisations? And why are you so adamant that we should support a plan that doesn't yet exist? Do you agree that a membership scheme, as long proposed by the RST, would require an entirely different constitution, a different legal structure and be in a different regulatory regime? How many RST board directors have, to date, not participated in GerSave but now seem to think it is the solution to "47 days or else"? Why do you state that GerSave "would be a feasable (sic.) vehicle for collecting funds" when the reality is that you have no idea whether it would be? Do you therefore disagree with poster UCB (an RST board member) who stated: "Gersave money will be used to buy shares in the club. That's what it's for and that's why people pay into it." You state: "To do a proper business plan for a fans owned model of Rangers, you need to know your starting position, what funds you have got, what funds you need, and who is with you". Yet you refuse to acknowledge that market research is required before moving forward. Is this not somewhat contradictory? You comment that: "the share price for the existing funds generated by Gersave has still to be determined and should be in line with current market value" and "I cant tell you what they ended up getting the shares at". Should you not be aware that the shares were bought for 59.5p? Should you not also be aware that there is no agreement with the club for any price other than 59.5p even although the current mid market price is 52.5p? Are you aware that the RST approached the club last month and offered to buy �£50k worth of shares? And that the club turned them down, not least because it was a closed period in respect of the accounts and an absurd time to ask the question? Does it concern you that UCB states GerSave is a vehicle for all fans to invest in the club, yet it is a requirement of the rules of GerSave that only RST members can invest? RST Are you aware of the lies that have been told about the RST membership numbers and that continue to be told? Why did the RST spokesperson state yesterday that he did not know how many members the RST had but could guess at 2,000, when it is a requirement of the RST constitution to keep a membership register that tells at any point in time how many members they have? What are your thoughts on RST members being refused information on membership numbers when requested? Does it worry you that UCB stated: "the RST AGM reported the membership in the 1600-1700 range" when that did not agree with the facts? Do you think it is ethical to refund members subscriptions, something which is not provided for in its constitution, rather than release such numbers? Opportunism Firstly you frighten us with: "if we do not have a plan and funds in place with the next 47 days, the alternative is unthinkable". Then you tell us: "I am heartened by his very clear wording that we do not HAVE to sell to meet our banking obligations, and that the bank have agreed our funding projections to the end of the season" and that "from our own accounts recently published we can see that the bank has now accepted our business plan and our funding requirements". Which is it? The RST has spent 5 years ridiculing the Assembly, its constitution and its very existence. Now the RST has made a u-turn and wants to work with the Assembly. Worse, it is using its new found best friend as a positive example of why the RST is now so good. Is this: s) opportunism; or b) exploitation? New purchaser A very senior ex RST board member has stated that DK is out the picture. You posted: "and for the bank to drop their stubborn refusal to accept less than �£1 per �£1 of debt, and do the deal that is still out there to be done". Which is it? Is it true that the RST opened up the GersPride conference to non-members because so few people had paid their �£5 to attend? And why, even once opened up, did only 100 people pay to attend at a time when you tell us we have only 47 days to act? Why have the RST stated that "Bain is not involved in the day-to-day running of the club" when that is not, and never was, true? Scaremongering? Do you accept that, although Muir has hawked players to other clubs, the final decision on whether a player is sold will rest with the directors in performance with their legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006? And finally Are you aware that cynicism is not spelled "cynacism"?

I put the following reply on to RM: Same old. Your naivety is touching.

UCB, what market research has been undertaken to see how many fans will support a form of ownership and at what level they would invest? Doesn't this work come first before solicitors, FSA and a prospectus? How many out of our 200,000 fans in Manchester attended today? I read a figure of about 100 from someone that attended. Doesn't that make formal market research imperative?