UCF2008

I wouldn't suspend him just yet. I think the club needs to be very careful how it approaches this one. We don't want to be stuck paying a suspended player indefinitely and it wouldn't be wise to pre-emptiviely carry out our own investigation and sack him before the outcome of the SFA disciplinary proceedings. I'd suggest the club should issue a statement acknowledging the accusations and say that it will co-operate fully with the SFA to investigate the matter. No more, no less.

The best #asknaismith tweets from angry Rangers fans and obligatory obsessed dhims

Fixed that for you

The record is no friend of our club.

I don't think there are many media outlets these days which you could call a 'friend' of the club tbh.

Some of them are more overrun than others, but they're mostly all a little off balance right now if you know what I mean.

Of course, the other side to it is that I don't like to see the club stirring up paranoia amongst the support on this subject. I'm not sure if JT's just shit stirring or trying to keep himself in a job by trying to convince fans that 'his' media channel is the only one to be trusted.

the record clearly has been supporting mccoll.

 

now the club are attacking it.

 

hmmm

At the same time though, the statement also has a go at Jack Irvine who as we know has re-emerged as PR guru for the Easedales who clearly seem to be backing Green ...for now at least.

It seems to be having a go at everyone basically who is discussing the club in terms that don't suit big JT. I think that's probably the only agenda at play here.

SDM could have given the fans his shares for £1 but the fans didn't have £30M to invest (of course neither did CW, but that is another story).

He did manage to con Ticketus into clearing the bank debt though. Somehow I don't think the fans would have ended up being thankful to SDM even if he had sold us the club instead of CW.

Like you say though, that's another story.

I think that's a very fair point of view and one that I would respect and convey back.

 

On the other hand if a director did take it up it would be no bad thing and obviously essential to have Board support to get it moving.

If both sides backed the proposal and thus it had no influence on proceedings then I wouldn't see any harm in it. Otherwise, it could be disruptive. With the best interests of the club in mind I think the timing for putting this forward could be better.

Arnold is of the opinion that fans should put their support behind any current or new director who promotes a membership scheme.

I think it's a good idea BH and one which I would hope could be pursued.

I don't however think it's relevant to the purpose of the EGM as I don't think it would lead to proper governance of the club and certainly don't agree with Arnold that it should be used to sway votes at the EGM or indeed to distract from the issues at hand.

Wonder what became of Charles' glasgow flat.

I would assume the club stopped paying the rent in May and another tenant moved in.

That won't be much help to Argyriou's chances of finding a new club. Hopefully not too serious a knock.

The important thing with Daly is that he is getting into the position, and getting the opportunities. If he continues to do that, the goals will come.

 

However, I believe that last weekends game was Daly's 2nd run out as a trialist - he can only be used once more before Sept 1st. Nicky Clark will then get his chance....

Each player can be used up to 3 times as a trialist in the league so both Daly and Law can play another 2 league games between now and Sept 1st.

The Ramsdens trialist quota is separate and iirc we can't play any trialists in the next round.

Any hard facts known about these 67 million pounds worth of deals? It occurs to me that even if a bonus was due to IA, it would surely be paid over the lifetime of said contracts. Good to see the forum back.

Pesonally I think he's just made up that figure to try and justify his claim for £3.4m. The five year deal with Puma and 1 year Blackthorn deal were reportedly much lower value than the club would normally be able to command from it's two main sponsors.

The same would apply to Sports Direct who are giving us less than half of what JJB were, albeit we do supposedly have freedom to boost merchandising income beyond that sum than before.

I can't recall any other significant commercial activity being boasted. Maybe he's counting the mythical deals with Adidas and Dallas Cowboys.

I don't think it can be denied they were pretty hostile, especially considering they were directed at someone he was happy to praise in the past.

I think 'happy to praise' is a bit of an exaggeration. I think ater a troubled start to their relationship they put their differences aside and Ally gave Green the benefit of the doubt just as Walter obviously did. I don't think they've ever been on friendly terms though.

Walter wasn't exactly that hostile when he revealed the bank were running us.

It was in direct opposition to the message our chairmen was giving us.

Ally wasn't hostile. He was deadly serious and his words packed some punch. Considering who they were aimed at, I can see how you might think they were hostile though.

....Like setting off some claymores for a diversion.

I reckon McColl probably would be willing to front up a large chunk of the required funding at least on the basis of a loan, but I agree with BH. He doesn't want a position of power at the club.

He doesn't want to be the owner of Rangers with the support looking to him as their sugar daddy. He just wants the club to be in safe hands.

I imagine this power struggle was coming with or without Green officially returning.

I wouldn't say Green's return has been insignificant though. Would you?

I imagine this power struggle was coming with or without Green officially returning.

Yes, I think so.

His position is that of Rangers manager, we have standards.

Of course we have standards. We have very high standards of conduct, but much the same as Walter wasn't out of line when he insisted the bank were running the show, I don't think Ally was out of line for giving an honest response to Greens comments when asked to do so.

There are fans (myself included) who care as much about on the field issues as off the field. Nobody is saying one is not as important as the other, but its clearly easier to see the problems on the pitch than off it.

I care about on field issues more than anything. What I don't do is plaster my opinion of them all over every other thread that has nothing to do with on field issues while bashing others for discussing the thread topic.

The response was overly hostile and not really appropriate for someone in Ally's position even if you fully agree with the sentiment.

How exactly would you define what's appropriate for 'someone in Ally's position' right now?

C Green had a big part in saving Rangers but yes to make money. But he did put up the cash when so called RFC men did not.

His recent interview was ok in what he said but really poor timing.

 

Ally's response was pretty contemptible for a Rangers manager. Just not what you would expect. His team's display was awful and not for the first time. His record in cups is abysmal. This was a deflection and a calculated one.

 

Can you really think that the 1.5m quid spent on Ally and his two pals is value for money at this level? Considering his budget should we not expect better? What is the Forfar team's budget?

 

Beaten by part timers after extra time and with our new level of fantastic fitness too? Ally is just not good enough.

 

Both he and C Green should go as we all deserve better.

It wasn't a deflection at all. It was an honest answer directly to a question. It could be argued that he could have refused to answer the question, but I don'r see any disgrace in what he said.

It's not enough for Green to go only to hide in the shadows pulling strings. The Green / Ahmad influence needs to be completely removed. As McCoist said last season and others followed suit - the club needs cleansed.

Me.

 

.........

In my case that just would be a lie, i'm not going anywhere.

I don't expect you'll need to go anywhere. From day one Greenco have known they need the fans on side. Right now at this moment I'd say it's safe to assume a significant majority aren't and won't be until the required changes are made. Green should really have known better than to come back.

Importance given to John Brown's thoughts and placed on gersnet....la dee dah...

 

Going backwards like McCoist is doing with our team...shocking really, the things we WANT to hear.

There are bigger issues at play right now and yet you seem intent on Ally bashing. You've made your point ...Several times tonight alone.

Is that not enough for you?

The costs which are the issue are the playing staff and managerial salaries. They are astronomical for the targets we have set and the level we currently find ourselves. So i ask again, why is the manager being given so much to work with when we have had to dig into an IPO fund to cover operating costs? And before anyone starts the Ally bashing crap, this is not a dig at Ally

We needed to dig into the IPO money to cover operating costs because the men who took us over and flogged off significant shareholdings for peanuts pre IPO didn't have a proper business plan and took out a LOT more money than they put in. If the IPO had failed we would have been back in administration.