Tannochsidebear

Is it not more likely that there has been a management service charge applied to inter-company services. Rangers are charged a fee for say, advertising, plus a management fee on top for Murray's trouble. Quite common as a means for transferring money from one company to another within a group.

I'll let others come in on this one, as the debate has been on here before as to wether the current chairman is his own man, or a Murray poodle. Either way, I still dont see what the problem is with voting against Muir. If he (Muir) is indeed Murray's man and not the bank's man, he gets even less sympathy from me, and many others. How can we possibly be too concerned with hurting Murray's ego when he is in hock to the bank to the tune of �£750M with asset values of less than that.

Off-topic Wabashcannonball, but is your username any reference to the Wabash poker club?

Wise words indeed, and if Muir is not there to carry out the bank's wishes, then we are not going to upset the bank by refusing to vote him onto the board, are we?

Nope, but it doesnt seem to be in line with "I never took a penny out of the club" And still they defend him.

That is not what I said, and not what I meant. From your own quote, it is clear that Murray has placed Muir onto the board. Why that happened is open to speculation, did the bank ask for him specifically? Who knows, not me, and probably not you either, with respect.

That is pretty much my take on his comments as well Zappa, but I wish I could have an hour with him to go deeper into it all. The pros and cons of equity funding for starters, then what about an annual membership scheme instead of equity funding. It is of real importance to us all, and his comments have thrown a spanner in the work being undertaken by our fans reps, and will no doubt have fans dubious as to the chance of success if the chairman feels it cannot work.

Muir is placed onto the board of our club, not to serve the club, but to look after other peoples interests. That is not what we want as a Director of our club, and therefore it is correct for all Rangers supporters/shareholders to not want to support him.

Perhaps it was just a warning to dampen expectations in the event nothing happens. I think most of us realise that it is not about just raising a one-time �£31M to get our club back, and then we will be challenging Barca. I have just went back and read the chairmans statement again. It is not a one-off line, he goes into some detail. An ownership change with a commitment by a stable owner or ownership group to be a source of substantial, regular, and reliable source of unencumbered cash is vital to the Club moving from a surviving to a thriving mode. I am, therefore, very sceptical of any scenario which relies on these same stalwarts to allocate more of their limited resources by writing a check each year to fund our performance ambitions. You are asking questions of your elected representatives and at the end of the day you and your fellow supporters will determine the destiny of the financial resources available to the Club by your discretionary personal spending practices. However, like it or not, Rangers now competes in an environment where there are obligations of ownership and this is a scenario where shareholders have significantly less discretion. Supporter Groups acquiring the rights without the corresponding ability to underpin the working capital of our Club is akin to paying a transfer fee to another Club to bring in an impact player and then not having the funds to pay his wages. It is quite clear to me he feels that the way football works, and what has to be in place for the club to be viable, that a supporters run club in this country is unworkable at our level. While he is not ruling anything out, and states that he is more than happy to talk to any "legitimate and credible parties", it looks like he has serious doubts about wether any group without major credible financial backing could succeed in taking the club forward year after year.

I thought you were just acknowledging that I had pinched it from another site!!

The statement from the Chairman at the club AGM this morning, and posted in full on the boards, made it quite clear that he did not feel that supporter ownership, ala Barcelona, could work at Rangers due to the huge gap in the tv market, and the fact that the fans already pay enough for tickets, transport, strips, events etc, and to ask them to pay even more for a membership/ownership scheme will be too much. What that says to me is that the Chairman does not believe that the income generated currently at the club is sufficient for the club to be progressive. The money we take in from season tickets, tv rights, European competitions, merchandise, publications and other avenues is not enough to put a competitive squad of players at a manager's disposal. As he is party to the finances in much greater detail, and given his successful business background, I am in no position to argue the point with him on this. Personally, I would have thought that we could be run on a self-sufficient basis, and in fact our previous chairman said this very thing a few years ago after nearly bankrupting us the first time this decade. However that is not the point I want to make. If we are to accept the chairman's words in the positive light that they were I am sure intended, where does that leave the current workings of the RST and Assembly who are trying to piece together a workable model for supporter investment? Does this mean that any new owner is only going to be viable if he commits a chunk of cash to the club not just once, but annually to keep us going, and that this cash cannot be in the form of loans or shares, as there will never be enough money to pay him back, given that we need this investment every year to compete? And if so, how much does our current chairman think it would require as an investment annually to ensure that enough cash is in the club to enable it to finance itself properly without debt, and to progress matters as a winning evolving side? My reading of the situation is that is must be a sizeable chunk of cash we are "short" every year, as a membership scheme of say 40,000 members paying �£100 annually would be �£4M per year, and if this is not going to be enough to fill the gap, then the gap must a chasm. And if it is such a gap, how can we expect to ask any one individual to pay such an amount just for the good of the club? Something doesn't quite add up here. Either we can pay our way and make some funds available under the present model, or we need a cash injection each year of perhaps around �£10M. I have no idea what sort of membership/ownership model the RST/RSA are going to come up with, but it would seem to me that, putting the buying of the club aside for a moment, if there were to be a scheme where members pay a sum each year, say around �£100, and for that cash get some small benefits on ticketing, merchandise and events, and the chance to vote on fans issues in a democratic OMOV way, I can see that being quite popular. Say a number equal to the current capacity take that membership option up, that would raise �£5.2M per season of income to the club. Are we trying to say that sort of income would not be enough for a members owned club to be self-sufficient. Has Murray put in �£5M net each year for the last 20 years? Would any potential buyers be willing to put in �£5M net each year? I have liked what I have heard from the new chairman so far in his short tenure, but his statement today has left me with more questions than answers.

AJ and MB speeches have been released in full to the stock market, as posted on another forum. I have done a quick cut and paste job and put it up on another thread for those interested

At Youth level there are a number of other issues we are constantly involved with, none more so than the proposed amendment to increasing compensation clubs will have to pay for amateur players. Whilst we accept that clubs should be compensated for the training and education that they give to young amateur players, the proposal as is tabled at the moment, we believe, is wholly inappropriate. In short, there is a groundswell among SPL clubs that is prompting the increase in compensation fees to be paid for youngsters as young as 10 years of age. In talking about Youth, is important today we should also recognise the outstanding achievement of our Football in the Community Department, the largest in Scotland, if not the UK, whose courses make a real difference in the community. Around 6500 youngsters participate every week and since these courses started, 47 players have moved on to professional youth development and one has recently signed full professional terms. In tandem with this, our corporate social responsibility programme plays a major part, and together with our partners, has significant investment of over �£2m where we feel, through our education programme, we make a real difference to the lives and attitudes of not only young persons, but disadvantaged adults. I'm sure you will wish to raise the first team matters with Walter and myself in more depth, but let me say that I believe that investment in the team is the path we should follow and the challenge for the management of the Club and the board is to use our best endeavours to make that investment possible. Yes, we are working within tight budgets and it's no mean feat. But the fact is our commitment must match your commitment. Ladies and gentlemen, I know what headlines screaming `Rangers in crisis' mean to you. All of us at the club were moved by the offers of financial support from fans over recent months. Appreciated as they were, the greatest contribution you make is support for the team and what you do in the name of Rangers. Of course, we have our issues. We constantly strive to address them. I am indebted to the Rangers Supports Assembly and many other fans who have stepped up to the plate to help in a united effort to eradicate the blight of sectarianism and tackle the anti-social behaviour of some people who unashamedly call themselves fans, but do nothing but let themselves and the Club down. They will not prevail and I am proud to say that is not a message from the Club alone, but from the countless fans who have Rangers interests at heart. Tomorrow we leave for Seville for our final Champions' League fixture - to visit a city and a club where the names of Rangers legends Jock Wallace and Ted McMinn are held dear. We will be playing for pride. More than 2000 fans will be there to support the team and I applaud the supporters groups whom I have met with and sent out a message to their members and all fans that they are going to Seville to do Rangers proud. It's that same pride that saw Rangers fans donate large sums of money to the Erskine and Bennett House charities this year. It's that same pride that saw our supporters and the club work together to give standing ovations to our servicemen and women when we invited them in their hundreds to games at Ibrox. And it's that same pride in our heritage that makes us work together to honour our founding fathers and I am pleased to announce today they are to be added to the Rangers Hall of Fame. It's also, Ladies and Gentlemen, that same pride which I believe will serve us well as we strive to do the very best for Rangers." The Directors of The Rangers Football Club plc accept responsibility for this announcement. END

Part 3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S ADDRESS "Ladies and gentlemen there are a number of issues you will undoubtedly wish to explore in the question and answer session and we will do our utmost to respond to those questions helpfully. I would, however, like to address some of the key issues we face as a club at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank you and many thousands of other Rangers supporters for the tremendous commitment you make to the Club, week in and week out. I'm sure I speak for everyone on this platform when I say that without your support the challenges we face would be even greater than they are. I will not for a moment underplay the difficult financial climate in which we operate as a business. Nor will I suggest that, somehow, Rangers could be immune from the worst economic downturn to have afflicted this country for a generation. It is against this economic backdrop, which affects families and businesses in every walk of life, that I pay tribute to those of you whose continued commitment to the Club is remarkable and greatly appreciated. Firstly let me address ticket sales - the primary source of revenue for the Club. Season ticket sales are down on last year. The decrease of season tickets sales is approximately 3,000, which is around 7%. Given the general economic climate, I am not going to attempt to sugar-coat this figure. At present, we have more tickets on sale for every match without continuous demand to take up the shortfall. However, this season - following last year's record season ticket sales - we sold nearly 39,500 season tickets - which is 84% of the stadium's saleable capacity. Our total sales figures in terms of percentage capacity are the highest in the SPL and 9th in the UK. I believe, this is a testament to an enduring commitment by supporters that is highly valued by this Club and is the envy of many clubs throughout the UK and Europe. Of course, we continually strive to improve these figures and offer a better service to supporters. As a club we are committed to making football as affordable as possible - particularly to families - and this will be the third year that full season ticket prices have been frozen and reduced junior prices sustained. I recognise, however, that it is difficult to please everyone with our ticket pricing strategy and the European match prices were a concern for supporters. In setting our Champions League prices, the Club has to consider carefully a number of factors - including the prestigious nature of the tournament, the interests of season ticket holders and the financial requirements of the Club. Albeit that this year's fixtures did not include a box office tie against one of the elite teams in Europe, we believe it is right to offer a three-match package for season ticket holders at a discount. Although attendances at this year's Champions' League matches were down on two seasons ago when we played Barcelona, Lyon and Stuttgart, our figures compare well in Europe with the exceptions of clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern. On domestic ticketing matters, I would like to thank all those supporters from the Rangers Supporters Assembly for their continued hard work with the club in the ticket forum through which we try to continually improve the distribution of tickets. Our prime concern has been the interest of Rangers supporters and although there have been issues with the 5% administration fee we charge other clubs, our clear intention was to prevent extra costs being levelled at Rangers fans. Importantly and rightly so, the Club also made strong representations to Dundee Utd in regard to the abandoned match at Tannadice last month. At all times our view was that a refund should have been offered to spectators and we were disappointed and angry that Dundee Utd, as the club responsible, did not choose that option. We believe that the club and supporters working together on ticketing will be mutually beneficial and we look forward to continuing to work with the ticket forum, through the Assembly. As the chairman has indicated, generating revenue is of paramount importance. One of the real disappointments to the Club this year was the collapse of Setanta. And it gives me no pleasure to stand here today and say this was a situation that could have been easily avoided, had the advice of this club, Celtic and Aberdeen been heeded by others in the SPL. In short, the demise of Setanta will cost our club �£12million. I can only repeat today what we have said before. We are pleased that SKY/ESPN was there as a safety net but the value of SPL television rights as they stand has been dramatically reduced. The reality of revenue generation for most leading clubs is that after ticket sales, revenue from TV rights is the largest source of revenue. I am committed to exploring every opportunity as we go forward to ensure the best possible outcome for this club. As many of you will know, the Club has recently launched RangersTV.tv, our online TV station to replace Rangers TV, which was lost due to the Setanta collapse. This is still in its infancy but is the first of its kind in UK football and offers great potential as a service to supporters in the years ahead. Addressing service brings me to our relationship with JJB Sports, which I'm glad to say has improved greatly. While this arrangement has proved to be financially beneficial to the Club, we are all acutely aware of the merchandising issues and the inconvenience it may have caused supporters in this past year. JJB have had their own issues to contend with and there is no doubt this has resulted in a diminished Rangers product range, and a lack of availability of stock. This is something we have addressed during the course of the year, and our representations to JJB resulted in the appointment of a senior manager dedicated to oversee Rangers merchandise. I have had some very positive meetings in recent weeks with the new Chairman, Sir David Jones, and I firmly believe that at the turn of the year we'll start to see a vast improvement. Both he and his co-director, Colin Tranter, are fully behind our agreement, and intend implementing new and exciting plans, including a bespoke megastore in Argyle Street. JJB's recently raised investment should ensure that, as partners, we will be able to drive JJB to produce a more extensive range of merchandise and improve availability which, I'm sure, will satisfy your demands and cement our relationship with the sports retailer. Ladies and gentlemen, these are issues of real concern to you and no effort will be spared by the Club in addressing them. If I may now turn to football matters briefly. Firstly, I will deal with the recent blaze of publicity surrounding the Old Firm and the English Premiership and Atlantic League. Our position is quite clear and has remained consistent. We play in the SPL and respect our opponents in all domestic competitions. In the long-term we believe there will be change to football structures in Europe, although no-one can anticipate at this stage how these changes will materialise and what they will entail. It is our duty to ensure that if there is any forthcoming change, that would be beneficial to Rangers, the Club should be in a position to take advantage of that change should that be the right course of action. We will pursue opportunities that protect the future of this Club on all fronts. As you may know there has also been some discussion for some time now about the formation of an SPL 2 to augment the SPL. Such a proposal as it stands would be financially neutral for the Club, but the only way we can envisage supporting the proposal is if the SPL was reduced to a 10-team league, reducing the number of league games, removing the need for a split and enabling the creation of a winter break. There still seems to be a desire for this to be on the agenda of Scottish football, but with regard to the overall picture, myself and Walter have participated in Henry McLeish's review on behalf of the SFA. I must add, however, we are still somewhat surprised at the SFA's reluctance for any member of the Old Firm to be represented on the SFA Board. At this point let me address something that is key, and maybe more pertinent, to all of us and that is to clarify the position of Walter Smith and his assistant manager's contracts. Firstly, myself, the Chairman, Walter and his assistants are all on the same page. Secondly, we're fortunate as a Club to have a football management team that are all true Rangers supporters. This being the case, the situation is this - as the Club currently sits up for sale and in between owners, Walter, Alastair and Kenny have taken the decision that until such times as a new owner is found, they will work without contract to protect the Club from having a contracted management team that a new owner may not want. That is the current position and Walter may talk to this later. On other fronts I am pleased to report progress on a number of footballing issues that I know are of interest to you, aside from the fortunes of the first team. First of all the Rangers Academy at Murray Park. As things stand, 35 players from the Academy have played for their countries at various levels while part of the Academy. The majority have played for Scotland but others for Northern Ireland, Poland and Norway. I think we're all delighted to see the progress of young players such as Danny Wilson, John Fleck and Andrew Little breaking through to the first team. Over the last 6 years 29 Academy players have played in the first team. On average, we are looking at 3-4 players coming through to first team participation per season. Walter will likely share his thoughts with you on the Academy, but the Club believes we are seeing results and the future looks promising.

Part 2 In concluding my remarks about the bank, I should emphasize that they have repeatedly told us that Rangers' ambitions should be fuelled by equity, i.e. by ownership, and not by debt, i.e. the credit facility extended by Lloyds. No matter what scenario might develop prompting the possibility of the Club's majority ownership being disposed of by the Murray Group, the bank will have a vested interest in any such transaction. For my part, I am hopeful that Lloyds will continue to be collaborative and considerate in expediting a sale that will allow Rangers Football Club to move forward as an independent organization with access to equity funding rather than debt and thereby reassume control of its own financial destiny. At this stage, it would be natural for me to move onto the topic of supporters becoming owners or forming part of an ownership group and thus have a more integral relationship with the Club. I had a meeting several weeks ago with the senior officers of the Rangers Assembly and I assured them that I was not in any way alien to the concept of a Rangers supporters-sanctioned group participating in ownership of the Club and that the Board would entertain proposals from legitimate and credible parties representing such interests. However, I cautioned them that while there has been a lot of speculation about people expressing an interest in supporting such a manoeuvre at the end of the day, the Rangers Board, and I as Chairman, are less concerned about the price of the Club and much more concerned about the ability of the new owners to continue to finance the ambition of the Club on an ongoing basis. An ownership change with a commitment by a stable owner or ownership group to be a source of substantial, regular, and reliable source of unencumbered cash is vital to the Club moving from a surviving to a thriving mode. Rangers supporters are the lifeblood of the Club more than any other sports institution in the world. Rangers Football Cub is a business entity that depends for its existence primarily on the single revenue stream that comes from our supporters, i.e. our customers. They dig deep, they invest their passion, their time, and their finance in this enterprise. They purchase season tickets, European game tickets, hospitality, they support club organized entertainment functions, they purchase replica kits, etc. This commitment is hugely important to the Club. I am, therefore, very sceptical of any scenario which relies on these same stalwarts to allocate more of their limited resources by writing a check each year to fund our performance ambitions. There has been much talk about the Barcelona members ownership model, but we must keep in mind that in Spain and in Germany there is a significant underpinning of media rights revenue to fund club operations and provide working capital for player trading. This is a luxury that cannot, in the current rights marketplace, be exported to Scotland. In summary, it is relatively simple to promote the rights of ownership, however, it is far more challenging to activate the obligations of ownership. Right now all of you are exercising your rights of ownership. That is why we are all congregated here at this meeting. As shareholders you have been asked to vote for directors of this Club. You are asking questions of your elected representatives and at the end of the day you and your fellow supporters will determine the destiny of the financial resources available to the Club by your discretionary personal spending practices. However, like it or not, Rangers now competes in an environment where there are obligations of ownership and this is a scenario where shareholders have significantly less discretion. Supporter Groups acquiring the rights without the corresponding ability to underpin the working capital of our Club is akin to paying a transfer fee to another Club to bring in an impact player and then not having the funds to pay his wages. In our mission to reconstruct the governance of this Club your Board must be fundamentally focused, not only on the rights of ownership but also on the ability of any supporter enfranchised group to undertake the obligations of ownership. The Board does not have the luxury of being idealistic, we must be realistic. However, I repeat, this Board would welcome and engage in exploratory discussions with any parties individually or affiliated with our support that meets our criteria for suitability. In conclusion, let me touch on several topics which the Board has asked the management team to pursue and upon which we hope to report to you more extensively in the future. * We will continue to monitor closely our Murray Park Academy program which is now producing the talent worthy of our significant commitment to this operation over the last few years. Not surprisingly, a material part of our future strategy relies on our youth programs as financial circumstances dictate that the development of players is an area where we will be required to invest resources with a view to growing our future teams more organically as opposed to acquiring footballers in the mature marketplace. * In the same mode, we will be evaluating our entire scouting organization, and while we don't have access to the same financial resources as clubs in the primary national leagues in the rest of Europe, we do believe that focusing our energies in a structured manner will allow us to identify more talent both for our grass roots programs as well as those who may have the skill set to enter our first team squad relatively quickly. * Having mentioned a couple of initiatives we are undertaking, I can confirm to you there is one issue we will not be pursuing. Neither in this business plan or any revision in the foreseeable future do we have any strategy whatsoever to sell the naming rights to this Stadium. "Ibrox" is non-negotiable! Finally, in summary, rest assured, the Board is committed to move the Club forward, navigating through troubled waters where not only the exigencies of both the domestic football environment and the world economic climate come into play, but also where speculation and self-serving personal opportunists are hazards that we need to identify and surmount. Honest debate and the promotion of differing views are encouraged, but the interests of the shareholders and the ambitions of the supporters are paramount as together we strive to protect and enhance the fortunes of Rangers Football Club as our legacy for the next generation of followers. Thank you for your commitment."

Part 1 CHAIRMAN'S ADDRESS "I want to thank you for participating in the formal agenda of the AGM, and we now move onto the segment of our meeting which does not deal with the specific governance of the club as dictated by the regulatory authorities. I am going to ask you for your forbearance as I break with recent precedent in that prior to the traditional question and answer session, I would like to take this opportunity to present my inaugural chairman's address to the shareholders of Rangers Football Club. As I have now held this position for just over three months, I feel it is appropriate for me to give you some direct insight into some of the strategic issues in which your Board has been engaged during this time. In so doing, I will focus on matters that I believe will be of particular relevance to you, many of which have been the subject of media interest and speculation. After my presentation, Martin Bain will follow me to the podium to address several pertinent issues of topical importance to the Rangers constituency and outline our activities and views on these subjects. I have no intention of reciting information that you already have available to you included in the annual report that you would have received several weeks ago. If, of course, you have any questions arising from the information contained therein, you can address your questions to the Board during the traditional question and answer session that will follow. At the outset, I believe it is beholden on me to relate to you activities with which the Board has been engaged that deal specifically with the relationship between Rangers Football Club and the Murray Group and, by extension, Lloyds Bank. As you all know, Sir David Murray stepped down as Chairman of the Club in August. One of the primary reasons that precipitated his decision was to focus more of his executive skills on the Murray Group of companies which he has built up so successfully over the last 30 years. The depression that the world economy has experienced over the last 18 months or so was particularly onerous on several of the mainstays of the Murray Group's business, i.e. steel and property. While this would not ordinarily have had a direct impact on Rangers Football Club, because of the business model that had been pursued since David assumed ownership he had taken it upon himself on behalf of his holding company to underpin the working capital of the Club's operations and ambitions. As most of you know, the Club's debt several years ago exceeded �£70 million and this was only reduced to a more manageable level by the Murray Group essentially underwriting and taking up a rights issue to fund a significant repayment, i.e. David Murray, to his everlasting credit, took the responsibility of salvaging any potential financial exposure that his oversight of the trading activity may have precipitated. Given the aforementioned economic circumstances about a year ago, David's well-intentioned, personal ambitions for the Club came into conflict with the business exigencies of his company. Given these extenuating circumstances and following on from the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds Bank, there was a particular focus on the credit facilities historically provided by HBOS. However, the specific debt to Rangers Football Club had been structured as a non-recourse credit facility which meant that the bank had to rely solely on the Club both as security for its debt and to pay the interest costs as well as fulfil the repayment terms. I was aware of these circumstances having had intensive discussions with the Bank prior to me accepting the invitation to become Chairman, but I made it clear that I would act entirely with the best interests of Rangers Football Club in mind and obviously not have the same empathy towards the Club's patron, i.e. the Murray Group. My agenda was to lead a Rangers Board that became increasingly independent of the Murray Group, which of course still owns the vast majority of the equity in the Club. However, I felt that maintaining both the tangible and intrinsic value of Rangers by performance and image would serve the best interests of all parties with a vested financial interest in the Club's business. This was not an easy thing to do given the fact that Rangers Football Club, as I have said on several occasions, is not a business that is run by the Bank, but to the extent we rely on it for external financing, Lloyds is naturally a party to approval of the business plan which its credit facility fuels. This did not stop us addressing some very thorny issues. For example, we agreed to discontinue all reimbursements to Murray Group for management services. Also, the Rangers Board denied Murray's request to increase its slate of Directors on this Board to four nominees as opposed to the two that heretofore had been in place. Therefore pursuant to David himself and Donald Wilson resigning from the Board, we voted the two replacement Murray nominees, Mike McGill and Donald Muir, on as new Directors. While the selection of Donald Muir may have been somewhat controversial, given the fact that he had been an active liaison between Murray Group and Lloyds Bank with respect to other elements of the conglomerates business, it was not out of context that he became a designated non-executive Director of Rangers. As we moved forward, I was of the opinion that the Rangers Board should be active participants in any process that involves the sale of the controlling interest in the Club by the majority shareholder. An independent view of how any transaction would impact the Club's operation and performance was vital, given the Chairman and Directors' obligations to act in the best ongoing interests of this institution. When I undertook my own due diligence with respect to the challenges that we would have in managing our relationship with the bank, the most immediate issue that we had to confront was renewing our committed credit facilities to give the Club the financial wherewithal to continue to operate its business. In turn this allowed our auditors to confirm the company as a going concern in their report. Any form of qualification in this regard would have caused us to be in breach of UEFA regulations which would have extinguished any European ambitions that we all have for the Club. The process of reaching a resolution with respect to the extension of the bank's credit facility involved the merging of two distinctly different business plans, one promoted by Murray and acceptable to Lloyds Bank and the other prepared by the Rangers Board and senior management team. As every businessman would know in dealing with banks, one has to present a "sustainable business plan" but the devil in this regard is the view one takes on the ambitions of the Club as compared to the objectives of the bank in protecting its credit exposure. As you would suspect, there was rigorous debate that ensued as to the ingredients that would be incorporated into the financial plan on which, given the circumstances, we all eventually agreed. For example, the Board requested tolerance for payments that we still owed on players that we acquired one or two years ago, which amounted to about �£9 million at the end of June 2009. There was no flexibility on that issue although we have indeed paid off �£7 million against that debt in the last five months. On the other hand, the bank agreed to make no demand, despite media speculation to the contrary, for Rangers to manage its business plan to allow for any expedited repayment of the Club's debt. 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. Any business plan no matter what the motivation for the integral provisions must make assumptions about the performance of the Club. We eventually reached a consensus on the fact that any quick requirement to pay off debt could cause the Club's value to collapse, and we needed a much more programmed outlook. There was no way we could continue to expect the continued commitment of our supporters if there was any sense that they were expending their hard earned money by following Rangers merely to pay back the bank. As far as the bulk of the Rangers support is concerned, the relevant news is that the plan does not oblige us to sell any players in the January window and that if any players do depart, it will be at the volition of the Rangers executive and management team. If the Rangers management team believes that we can beneficially trade players in January, we will have the freedom to do so provided we meet the constraints of the plan that we have agreed to adopt. On the other hand, our trading flexibility in the summer of 2010 will depend on SPL performance, European qualification, etc., through the end of this season. In summary, we reached an agreement with the bank that extends through the end of 2010 with facilities at the same margin and at no additional cost and which allowed the auditors to provide a clean opinion on our financial statements.

FFS mate, senile dementia kicking in again!! Apologies.

See post 4 in this thread

My apologies then Bluedell, I thought there was only 1 at the 2008 AGM, as he was sitting beside me!! As I said I knew there were some of the 7 on holiday and at weddings etc when the SGM came around, I wasn't aware it was as high as 6 out of the 7, and my recollection was that was the reason for the statement released just before the SGM, as it was clear you guys were not going to be able to attend, but didnt want the meeting to take place without any input from yourselves, which was fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that if any RST members had anything to ask/say about it, they have had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Pete, you must also remember that the board of the RST has changed quite significantly since early 2008. While I recognise and am disappointed that they have lost a lot of very good and talented individuals, they appointed 7 board members at the 2008 AGM and another 4 at the 2009 AGM, plus whoever has been co-opted in between (if any, i dont know). Obviously some of the 4 who cam in in 2009 could have replaced some of the 7 who were appointed in 2008 if you see what I mean, but nonetheless there have been big changes. It is of course entirely your right to decide if you trust them with your cash, as it will be mine when the time comes. In my opinion this will succeed or fail on the detail of the plans put forward, whenever that is. It is vitally important that they get this right, as only in the right crcumstances will the Rangers support back any investment vehicle. I would like to see them narrow it down to 2 or 3 schemes, then put it out there for debate, to both RST members and otherwise, to see what is popular, or to perhaps get some feedback on an alternative or even some slight adjustments where necessary before it becomes a reality. The RST's biggest problem since the start has always been a lack of communication to it's members, and whilst the board members have changed many times since 2003, the main problem has always remained. Yes, the board has been elected to carry out the work, and shouldn't have to run everything by the members at all times or everything would grind to a halt, but certainly for something of this importance, just coming out with a finalised plan and saying here you are, please back this, would be wrong, but I am sure they are well aware of this and are planning the consultation as we speak. It would be nice to hear some confirmation of this of course, just to put minds at ease, but obviously there is a lot going on just now, and they may be further away from a finalised plan than they initially thought they would be by now. Doing this would go some way to having bears like yourself and many many others who are currently sceptical about those in charge, see that they are now worthy of being taken seriously, as they claim in their cometh the hour stuff.

I have kept out of this thread and read with interest the debate and different viewpoints from current RST board members, ex-RST board members, current RST members, ex-RST members and bears who have never had any connection with the RST. I have been a member of the RST since the start, and I invited Colin Glass along to our RSC to do one of his first such presentations to our club membership in 2003 which resulted in our club buying every member 50 shares in Rangers to ensure we had a voice as not just supporters but shareholders, so supporter shareholders/ownership is something I approve of in general. When all the fall-out happened, I watched with interest the ensuing debate, and as well as what was posted on the boards here, and on RM/FF, I got PM's/emails/calls from both sides telling their POV on what happened. Suffice to say, IMO, there was fault on both sides. The lack of communication and trust amongst the board members spiralled to almost paranoid levels, and a split was inevitable by Spring 2008. What disheartened me was that although I had both sides telling me their side of the story, both sides wanted things to remain private, and I gave my word that I would keep that, and I am not about to re-open all this up now. The place to have the debate in public was at the SGM, or the AGM of 2008. Unfortunately, from the 7 who resigned, none of them turned up at the SGM (I appreciate some were on holiday etc), and only 1 turned up at the AGM, the former vice-chairman, who was thanked for his work and nothing more was said about it. Both meetings had a ridiculously small turnout for such an important couple of meetings, under 50 at both from my memory, so clearly not too many members were that bothered about it, or prepared to just let things go and move on. That is what the 7 seem to have done in the main, and to my mind that is what the current board members have done also. This all gets stoked up from time to time by other bears, who generally are either ex-RST members (non-board), or never have been members of the RST. Quickly, threads disintegrate into name-calling, snide digs, and arguments over who said what, with the dispute that remained quietly buried for a while all coming back up and gone over again. I can see no benefit to anyone to keep going over old ground. The former board members had their say with their statement, passed up the chance to have their say face to face at either of the 2 meetings in 2008, and have generally moved on to other projects. The remaining board members have many more better things to do than continually go over old ground that has been done already. The RST membership have had ample opportunity to ask any questions they want to know about in the time since, at the 2008 SGM, the 2008 AGM, and the 2009 AGM that under 30 people attended, and of course by just asking through the normal channels. Non-RST members who looked on with some interest have no right to know what went on, as it did not affect them. Of course, the non-RST members are (or should be) tomorrows target members, so from that point of view they are interested observers, and are perfectly entitled to ask questions about this, if they see fit. However, with the passing of time, it becomes much less important that the current boards activities, policies, and board structure, to the point that now, around 18 months later, it is completely irrelevant. Other than pot-stirring and mischief-making, I can see no relevance of going over this old ground again. It is as relevant as any outdated policy of the RST's in that it was an important event in the RST's history, but has absolutely no relevance to what is going on today.

Good luck to all bears attending tomorrow who are going to attempt to ask a pertinent question about our clubs situation. Unfortunately, as you are not allowed a follow-up to whatever answer is given, the usual fudge and hiding behind takeover stock market rules will prevail and I cannot see anything new coming to light at this time. It would be nice to think that the shareholders will be given some honesty and clear unguarded answers but I'm afraid we all know that is just not going to happen. Still, all we can do is ask the questions and debate the answers, so I look forward to reading about how the AGM went on the boards tomorrow.

More mischief making from the gutter press, without any quotes or foundation whatsoever. But then, it is December, so the silly season is upon us.

Top 2 players for me were Boyd and McGregor. Bougherra did well on his comeback but left his man to go chasing the ball for their goal, something he does often unfortunately. Beasley did well for the short time he was on, and i hope he can stay injury free and find some consistent form as we certainly could be doing with someone who can play wide.

Sadly, I think you haven't a hope in hell's chance of getting an open honest answer to any of those questions, nor dozens more I can think of, from the Punch and Judy show that is the Rangers AGM. They will hide behind guarded statements about privacy, takeover regulations, and reiterate the same old guff we have had in the official press releases in recent weeks. The fact you are not allowed a follow-up when your question gets fudged by the board means that no debate can take place. For these reasons, I am not attending this year's farce, and will be at work instead. It says it all when I actually enjoyed the kids AGM more than the adult one last year.