Tannochsidebear

I find it absolutely astonishing that McElroy is being put forward as a fans rep on a vital committee that could hold a significant influence on the future of our club, and it is absolutely not the correct choice. We need someone who will question, probe and look after our interests in all of this. I've got to wonder how the hell this came about?

Is that right Casey? I had read that the problem with it was that it was not deductable at the end and that was not common practice. Surely if it is deductable and it is just the amount that is debatable (for all bidders it seems), then D&P have to reduce it or they wont get a deal at all.

Youve took it the wrong way from my intention. My mentioning of the current BBC heirarchy was irony, not support. Sorry if it came across that way as I have not a good word to say about BBC Scotland and their hatred of our club, to be clear. Ive been a Rangers fan long before Murray came and will continue to be one long after he has gone. What I wont do is thank him for his time here, or suggest he was good for us overall. A good first decade was completely eradicated by the last decade's complete mismanagement and eventual sale to a complete charlatan. At this time I wont even throw the BTC at him as I still believe we will be found not guilty or at worst be found a small percentage at blame, but should that go against us in a big way, there can be no doubt about his overall contribution to our club.

Oh how I laughed at Connolly with that one. He truly was at his best in that era and I have used that quote myself on numerous occasions since and I entirely agree with it. However with the RST board I actually think youve got that the wrong way around. There are too many of the board, past and present, who wanted to be a board member and help out, go to meetings, get the inside story etc, but not come up with policy, new ideas, or be proactive.

I havent seen anything that suggests the A-P bid is unravelling, but as youve mentioned it twice now I am assuming todays papers are taking this stance. I also didnt think Kennedy was discrediting the A-P bid, just that we wanted TBK to succeed. Frankly, if he wanted them to succeed so much he could have joined them, put his cash into the pot and that could have ensured a successful outcome. I agree with you regarding the £500K fee, and all talk of this suggests D&P are at it with the rules concerning this not being the normal way forward (usually you cand educt it from the final payment at the conclusion). I agree both Ticketus and D&P are inefficient, but the shareholding of Whyte has been unchanged for quite some time, so if the A-P bid (and others for that matter) was put in last week, as soon as the BK bid was withdrawn, I cannot see why A-P were not named immediately unless D&P really dont like their bid at all.

There is one worldwide Rangers supporters umbrella already in place. The Rangers Worldwide Alliance (better known as the Rangers Supporters Assembly) incorporates RSC's from all over the world, with reps from each area getting directly involved with the board of the club via regular meetings. The oldest, and up until a decade ago, the only Rangers Supporters group was the Association. The organisers of the famous Rangers Rally's held annually for years and years. However nowadays they really only bother about away tickets for member RSC's. Well run and organised, but they dont get involved in any politics or controversy. The RST was set up 9 years ago as a Direct result of the meltdown Murray had taken us into after his failed Advocaat dream had left us virtually bankrupt and turned us overnight into a selling club with no ambition, which we have been ever since if we are honest. The RST was originally set up due to the hurt and anger of fans to the way Murray had run the club into the ground since 1998, and tried to make him more accountable to the fans. After a good start and paying membership numbers up at around the 5000 mark, things began to go wrong with internal wranglings and power struggles taking over from the good work which had been done under the initial chairmans watch. If truth be told it hasnt been too successful since, but is still a very vocal and ambitious vehicle for its (too few) members. The point im working towards however is that in the last year or so the 3 organisations have been working together more and more and are pretty much on the same page on all issues concerning the club these days. They still have their own autonomy and meetings, still do their own projects, but on the big subjects are pretty much working as one. So whether you support any of the 3 groups, you are really getting the same united voice on the big issues. The fighting and posturing between them seems to me to be coming from the supporters/opponents of the groups and the various forums they speak on anonymously, not the boards of the groups themselves. With this being the case, I can see no reason for the creation of a new all-encompassing Rangers fans organisation, as it would end up being run by the same people who have stepped forward and given many many hours of their own free time. With their being 3 different groups, if there were Ranges fans out there who wanted to get involved properly, not just on an internet message board from their work or home, they have had many chances over several years to join one of the groups, who are not being inundated with offers of help, and try to make a difference themselves. It appears that while a lot of us are happy to talk the talk, not many of us have the available time or inclination to walk the walk.

Have never called him Sir, and have never refered to our training centre as MP. I understand BBC Scotland are digging heavily into SDM to do the same hatchet job (sorry investigative journalistic piece) on him as they did on CW. Only a decade late with that one as nobody at the BBC had the balls to do it when they were asked to do so nearly a decade ago. Shame the current management of the BBC in Scotland werent around then. Murray's name will come out of this as the scumbag he is, we just have more important things to deal with just now.

Frankie, I wonder if you know why, within a couple of hours of TBK pulling out, Bill Ng's group were not named as PB. Surely they must have pushed for that? It looks to the uneducated guesser that their bid is not seen as anywhere near good enough by D&P, and therefore the delays since and subsequent renewed bids from Kennedy and now talk of TBK coming back in (surprise surprise!) have been after discussions with D&P, which in turn must give Ng's group the feeling that they are not really in a good position?

As far as I know it DOES include restrictions on re-signing players, which is what a contract exptension really is. They could not have issued new contracts to the players, they have probably just got a lergal agreement to their being able to leave for reduced fees at the end of the season if a new owner is not in place.

What a mess this is all becoming. On Sunday night at around 10pm I had heard that D&P had agreed to name TBK as PB status within 48 hours. At that time for the first time I was delighted that some progress had actually been made and it had seemed that the Fans Groups statement had some impact and things were finally moving towards a suitable conclusion. (And I dont mean that I was over the moon with TBK as PB, just a non-liquidation bidder being named as PB). Now at Thursday and we have since seen TBK refuse to pay the £0.5M to stall the deal, Ticketus jump ship to a better offer from Ng, Ng then being the only serious bid left but still no announcement of PB, Ticketus then saying they are keeping their options open, Kennedy reviving his bid, TBK back in, rumours of a new bidder throwing something in, still no announcement from D&P, and here we are nearly at the weekend again, and another week closer to the end of the season and another 10 point deduction. Will someone (anti-liquidation only) please show some mettle and get this completed and stop playing your posturing poker games with OUR club.

Thanks for the reply. We will have to agree to disagree on this one BH. You think you can promote trusts without promoting your own clubs trust, I think that you cant possibly do that with any integrity. In this instance "you" refers to anyone in that same position, not having a pop at BH in particular.

I was indeed beside you at that AGM and the fall-out from that was indeed very well documented at the time. Likewise I didnt go to this years AGM so not sure how it went as I havent quite got my minutes yet either! I have no issue with him resigning from the board of the RST, but IMO if it was me in charge of SDS trying to promote other clubs to create trusts and spread fan ownership, I would certainly feel I had to practice what I preached and at least be a member of the Trust associated with the team I supported. I dont see how I can promote Trusts in general and not be a member of my own trust. He is perfectly entitled to be non-supportive of the current board of the RST's ideas and workings, but not even retaining membership whilst taking on a position at the mother group just jumps out to me as being wrong. Perhaps its me.

lol, but its not quite the same thing really now is it? Im not having a go at the guy himself, (although I can see on re-reading my post that it might appear that way) more the position. I cant see how a representative body (in football circles) can say one thing and do another.

I'm sorry BH, but thats not really good enough is it. Dame Pauline Green is a political figurehead for the organisation, and she doesn't even say that she has a favourite team. As a Rangers supporter and former secretary of the RST, and as head of SD in Scotland surely you have a duty to lead by example and at least be a member of the Trust of the team you support. I really can't see how you can promote supporters trusts while snubbing your own teams Trust. What signal does that give out to those you go to see to promote trusts at their clubs?

My understanding was that there was going to be a huge board with fans reps covering the various coimmitment levels per his share option offer. This would potentially have led to around 6 fans on the board representing the 3 tiers of supporter ownership, but out of a total board of around 20 members. The fans (through these reps) would certainly have had a say on the clubs affairs and hopefully would have been able to have influence in the direction of the club, but they certainly would not have had "control" of the club.

I can agree that he certainly seems to like his own reflection, Mr Kennedy, and is not shy to speak to the press when asked. Actually though, I think what he said today can give the fans some comfort in that while he is not our preferred choice (nor Admins), he repeats the line that he wont let the club go into liquidation, and todays reminder in the wake of TBK's withdrawal can surely be seen as reaffirming his original position, which isnt a bad one for us to have as a back-up plan.

Im not as disappointed as some today on hearing the news that TBK's dream is over (for now anyway). All that has mattered to me is that the club does not go into liquidation and get the 3 year Euro ban which will have an impact on everything at our club for many more than the 3 years of no decent income. The news that Bill Ng is now the clear front-runner and also does not want to go down the liquidation route is fine with me. The fact his consortium is not scraping around trying to stump up enough cash to get them through until a share issue can be done, but has the cash to put together a strong CVA and finance the club properly from the start is the main thing for me at this time. Obviously we do not know too much about him or his consortium or his plans for the club, as he has chosen to keep his cards close to his chest until he gets the job done. perhaps if TBK had done something similar and not boasted about their Ticketus deal they would have got there. Im trying not to be too critical of TBK as they are genuine Rangers fans who tried to do their very best to save the club from liquidation, and while (for now at any rate) their bid for control seems to have failed, they should be thanked for putting a substantial amount of their own time and money into the project, and we would hope that any plans they had for the club would be discussed with Bill Ng at a future date to see if there is anything that can be taken on for the good of the club. We should be above getting into a slagging match over who backed who and why. None of that is even slightly important. The important issues were that the winning bidders did not go down the liquidation route, and that we come out of administration with a workable CVA and the club can move forward and start to prepare for next season. That is all that really matters at this stage.

So the head of SD in Scotland and a board member of the national SD isnt even a member of his own club's supporters trust. What message does that put out exactly? How can you encourage Trusts for other clubs when you snub your own? I know you had a falling out with other board members but how do you square your position at SD with your snubbing of your own clubs Trust?

Watch them all get wrapped into one and/or any bans served concurrently.

The stall was to be seen to be fair to all parties, to avoid any appeals and mud-slinging post-naming of PB status. I dont agree with D&P often, but I can understand this delay. What I dont agree with is there assessment of how long they should be giving the 3 parties to get the additional info they may or may not require. 24 hours should have been enough, it is not difficult to make a phone call and get the info required.

And just who are Rangers Unite? All the other Rangers fans groups are well known Rangers supporters who are not afraid to be named and to have public discussions. I have read the website and their aims, and it reads like the back of a fag packet stuff. Has this actually been costed, or even attempted to be costed. How much would unsold Hospitality given away to members cost for example. 5,10 & 15% discounts on merchandise seem to be have been made up without any thought to margins or the effect on income. I agree with a lot of the ideas in principle, in fact I have been pushing a lot of them myself for years on here and elsewhere, but without knowing who is behind Rangers Unite, and therefore not even knowing if they are indeed Rangers supporters or an Operation tango equivalent, I will be having nothing to do with them. Anyone operating behind a cloak usually has something to hide.

I also understand the PB will be named today or tomorrow at the latest. I would hope that when this happens the 2 failed bidders will continue to monitor closely the events in the event that the PB cannot get a deal with either Creditors or Whyte.

I disagree. If it was us, we would be criticising Ki for his sitters and Lennon for his tactics. Our team would be being slaughtered today by the fans for another bottle-merchants performance in a big game. Any talk of the penalty would be offset by the offside goal. I have seen situations like this many many times on Rangers boards. We dont act like them.

A floating charge is standard practice in any business's affairs. Example: Company A owns a property outright where its head office is. It also has an overdraft facility that allows it to trade through good and bad times, perhaps because of seasonal income trends. In order for the bank to allow them an overdraft facility, it is normal for them to hold a "floating charge" over the Company's assets. This means effectively that the Company promises to pay the bank back its money should the need arise, and that it has more than enough big assets to pay the bank back. The only other ways of getting a facility like an overdraft from a bank is to either give the bank a fixed charge (in the way your bank owns the title to your house while you owe them a mortgage for it) over a particular asset, like a piece of machinery or a property. YOu then cannot sell this asset without the bank's consent, and if your business went bust, it would be that particular asset the bank would sell to get its money back. Or you can give the bank other assets to retain for you, like gold reserves or a savings account. Although this is more unusual as if you had reserves like this you probably wouldnt need an overdraft in the first place. All in all, a floating charge is absolutely nothing to worry about, and doesnt mean OUR stadium is being pawned off as part of a finance deal.

Real Radio update, now back down to only £134M.