BrahimHemdani

For the sake of balance might one point out that the phrase "glib and mendacious liar" has been applied to Mr King by a South African judge.

How do you know if or how I voted in the poll?

I know of at least one member of the Board who was abused on FB as a result of what an individual saw as a delay; so it is understandable that they decided to publish and be damned. Not quite what I said. My opinion is that there is nothing to prevent them publishing on FB but it is at least implied that the Club has first shout. However, if the Club were given the opportunity and refused then I think the RFB did the right thing in publishing themselves. I regard it as a grave error of judgement on the part of the Secretary to include that comment and also whoever was responsible for publishing in that format and if that was the whole Board then they all made a mistake. It was a cheap shot and I agree that it should be deleted asap and it would be better if an apology was issued as well. The RFB need to retain the moral high ground.

It's not entirely clear to me why these Minutes were published on FB rather than on the Club's website as with the first three. However, it might be reasonable to conclude that the RFB considered that the Club would not want to publish as full an account. The Minutes do suggest that the RFB pushed the questions as strongly as they could and on this occasion challenged some of the less credible replies; and they are to be congratulated for that. However, regardless of the stupidity of the comment by Mr Leach about the Three Bears, it was wrong to include any comment that a person prefaces with a statement that it is not for minuting. That fact alone is bound to lead to confrontation with the Club Board; perhaps deliberately so. There is nothing in the Constitution to say that the Minutes have to be approved or authorised by the Club BUT: 19.1 The Secretary shall ensure that minutes are made of all proceedings at all meetings of the RFB, any sub-committee, and any meetings involving the RFB. In the absence of the Secretary, the Chairman shall nominate another Elected Representative to take minutes. 19.2 A minute of any meeting shall include the names of those present, a note of all votes taken, outcomes, any relevant notes of discussions and (as far as possible) shall be signed by the Chairman or chairperson of the meeting. 19.3 The minutes of any meetings outlined in clause 20.1 shall be publicised to the Members on fansboard.rangers.co.uk and/or http://www.rangers.co.uk within 14 days following each meeting. The Club shall arrange for the publication on the website. That doesn't say that they can't be published elsewhere but doing so ahead of the Club publishing or refusing to publish might be considered confrontational as Zia implies. If the Chair refused to sign off the Minutes or was unhappy at them being published on FB then that would be an obvious reason for resignation.

Aren't these The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) Accounts as distinct from The Rangers International Football Club plc, the holding company of The Rangers Football Club.

The timing is at best unfortunate to say the least; although if dictated by health issues may have been unavoidable.

That sounds about right, given: 1 in Canada, 1 in the Highlands, 1 in N Ireland and 1 in England.

I agree that these "Minutes" read much more like a transcript than normal Minutes which would only record the fact that questions were asked and answers given, with perhaps the most important answers being recorded in some detail. If these Minutes were meant to be a transcript, then the meeting should have been recorded, especially with the Secretary only being "in attendance" by video link and the previous history of difficulties with his connection.

The Minutes say: Whilst "Invited Attendees" is a rather unusual phrase, in my experience it is customary to simply say "Present" and refer to "Also in Attendance" persons who are not members of the Board e.g. Jim Hannah; nonethless the phrase Invited Attendees: suggests persons who were present in the room where the meeting took place. Equally if some persons were only "present" by video link that should also be recorded. Might one ask, how many people actually were present in the room where the meeting took place?

As I pointed out at the time, regardless of the age of the persons involved, the Chair did not have the authority to take that action and I am in no doubt that his colleagues told him that in no uncertain terms in the succeeding conference call. I think I can say with some degree of certainty that at least 5 of the remaining 11 did not know that the meeting was taking place and that includes the Secretary, whether due to the time difference for for any other reason. The only person who I have been able to establish who did know about the meeting but was unable to attend was the VC, Christine Murdoch. With the gratest of respect to William Findlay and Alison Clark-Dick, who simply don't have the necessary expereince to go up against these two, I suspect that their presence at the first meeting was met with some relief by Messrs Llambias and Leach.

NO. It was purely and simply the case that my only indirect contact with the man was when he promised a great deal and failed to deliver anything to the RST in 2009-10. More than happy to accept TB's opinion based on personal acquaintance and your knowledge of his marketing skills. That said I also recall BD saying that he felt there were many better qualified people for the role than Mr Gilligan (paraphrasing, feel free to research the quote) and I respect his opinion as well. If he is elected as a Director of the Club then I would certainly wish him every success.

I'll need to postpone my birthday as I can't miss Livingston and I'm currently scheduled to be at Machu Picchu.

More new dates: The SPFL has confirmed three updates to the Championship fixtures for scheduled matches against Queen of the South, Alloa and Livingston. The match against Queen of the South which was postponed on March 7 due to the Scottish Cup, has been rescheduled for Tuesday March 10. Kenny McDowall's Rangers side will welcome the Doonhamers to Ibrox for an evening kick off at 7:45pm. A second home tie, against Alloa Athletic will be at Ibrox on Tuesday March 17 due to the Wasps taking part in the Petrofac Training Cup final on Sunday April 5th. Finally, the away tie against Livingston, originally scheduled for January 31 but postponed due to the League Cup, has been rescheduled for Wednesday April 15 with a 7:45pm kick off. Fixture Changes In Full: Tuesday 10 March 2015 Rangers v Queen of the South Kick-off 7.45pm Original date: 7 March 2015 Tuesday 17 March 2015 Rangers v Alloa Athletic Kick-off 7.45pm Original date: 4 April 2015 Wednesday 15 April 2015 Livingston v Rangers Kick-off 7.45pm Original date: 31 January 2015 http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8525-fixtures-update Pete or other Admin please change thread title accordingly.

I suspect this may be due to health issues as he was in hospital in December. However a statement from him would be helpful in order to avoid conjecture. So far this does not rate as NEWS on Rangers web site.

I thought Murdoch did indeed show a lot of energy but seemed to be well off the pace and was frequently caught in possession. I think "absolutely fantastic" is a bit wide of the mark. We may see what he's made of if he gets a half a dozen games. One thing seems sure, McDowall has little or no time for Black and that's a blessing.

Does he know something we don't?

I find that in extremely bad taste. However bad the current directors may be there is no need to characterise them in this way.

You are correct about RF. There are a small number of life members who will be included in the total who are not paying monthly. A life member of RST is not necessarily a member if the BR Scheme. Someone from the RST would need to explain how a lump sum might work in that respect. Broadly I don't think that is much of an issue in comparison with the main point about the amount of money now being collected monthly.

There is absolutely no way that Rangers, Celtic or Aberdeen or Hearts for that matter will ever agree to that and in any event it is not unreasonable for Clubs with bigger supports to benefit accordingly. What needs to be changed much more than in 2012 is the inequitable distribution of the prize money from TV and sponsorship (if any).

No I'm not interested in your business, Mr Bearger. I'm sorry you don't understand but the reason is fairly obvious if you refer back to Craig's assessment. It is so that we can all make an informed judgement on the future rate of progress towards fan influence not just the current situation.

Yes, I would expect them to publicise their membership numbers in good times and bad and I also see no reason why the RST should not publicised the numbers of members of BR. Good, open governance and all that. I have congratulated both schemes for their excellent efforts and am happy to do so again.

No I am not, I am a RF first member. Not sure why that matters, Bearger; surely RST should be happy to put the number in the public domain.

Rangers First are at 8,918 and probably more by the time you read this. All of them are contributors. Not all RST members are contributing to the BR scheme, in fact this time last year it was no more than 200 say 10% of the membership. However, I suspect that a much higher percentage of new members will have signed up. It would be nice if someone from RST would confirm how many regular contributors they have; something I've asked several times in different threads on here. Anyway, I'm sure the number must be over 10,000 total now and as Craig says that will be getting on for £2.5m a year.

That is one of the advantages of the RF scheme, the money does not have to be used to buy shares once sufficient influence has been gained, it could be used for youth development for example. On the other hand if the schemes were together then they would be fast approaching the 3% reportable level.

A Dutch acquaintance of mine told me that the following generations in Holland think that if they are left an inheritance it was because their parents didn't have a good enough time with their money. That would not appear to apply to Mr Ricksen.