bossy

That is a ludicrous comment, we weren't excluded from the SPL or put in SFL3 because of the EBT scheme but because we went into administration and then liquidation, failing to pay PAYE and NIC along the way.

 

Equally reconstruction will happen precisely because Rangers not being in the SPL has destroyed the myth perpetuated by Doncaster that the TV companies required 4 old firm games a season. This opens the door for the fans' preferred option, 16 team leagues, playing each other twice a season.

 

http://fansfirstscotland.com/2012/11/24/a-fansfirst-response-to-reconstruction/

The SPL only have the current TV deal because they blackmailed Rangers and the SFL into giving them a number of our games. If Green executes on his threat not to sign a future deal then that is going to get a whole lot less lucrative in a couple of years.

Reconstruction will only come when the current SPL clubs are staring at financial armageddon. Until then, they will continue to paper over the cracks while giving nothing up and trying to screw the rest of Scottish football.

Our club is going into one of the biggest games of the season and our fans don't want to go?

 

Boycott? Behave yerselves.

 

Whatever happened to 'no-one likes us we don't care'

But we do care now. The days of dignified silence and turning the other cheek have gone.

Half the money would go to Rangers, it's self defeating to boycott this match.

I think that is a very short sighted perspective.

First, any boycott is necessarily targeted at a few specific clubs. It is not a scatter-gun approach.

Second, it sends a message that the Rangers support are united in the face of our enemies and that we are willing to take action. They will know what they can expect and not all games will be gate sharing like a Scottish cup one.

Third, it deprives Dundee United and the City of Dundee of revenue in the form of catering, drink, parking charges and other purchases which might be made by Rangers supporters.

Fourth, it sends a message to TV executives, to sponsors and to corporate hospitality that they cannot count on the Rangers traveling support to make their investment worthwhile.

Taken altogether, a boycott serves notice that Scotland's largest support will no longer be taken for granted, is no longer willing to be Scotland's whipping boy and that there is and will be a financial consequence for the attacks on us and on our club.

If we do not do this and we do not make it successful then we are sending a message to the SFA, to other clubs, to politicians and to the media that there is no consequence to their actions no matter how outrageous. I think that is a very bad direction to go in.

I believe that boycotts are generally counter-productive.

 

In this case, being a cup tie, the gate money will be shared equally, so a boycott deprives Rangers of money just as much as it deprives Dundee Utd.

 

Most importantly it deprives the team of much needed support, which is particularly important in an away cup tie.

 

I showed my displeasure at the ridiculous decision to charge again for the 2009 match by not paying to see the same game again.

 

The way to hit Dundee Utd hardest is to knock them out of the cup.

 

I will follow my team as I always do if I can get a ticket and I urge others to think carefully before following this call.

In other words, you boycotted it.

What's the RST's view of a possible boycott?

No idea. I think we will have to wait until they make a statement.

I think you will find that RM is not populated by banned FFers but that many of them are in a self-imposed exile.

There are also quite a few, myself included, who post on several Rangers message boards.

I think our allocation will sell out.

I think that will depend on several factors.

The first is if Rangers accepts a ticket allocation or if they tell Dundee Utd. to sell their own tickets.

The second is the extent to which RSCs follow the call for a boycott

The third will be what happens at the SPL kangaroo court which meets before this game is due to be played (unless postponed once more).

There is clearly a strong sentiment in favour of the boycott amongst the online Rangers community. Many of these people do go to away matches. So, for an allocation to sell out, someone else would have to be buying the tickets.

Excellent ..... now the heavy guns are beginning to open fire.

All the SPL are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

They can reorganise and reorganise but they still do not have a product that is especially attractive. The reality is that Scottish football needs some major surgery if it is to be viable going forward. In fact, I would suggest that we can only really support one league at the senior level; two clubs in Glasgow, one in Edinburgh, one in Dundee, one in Fife, one in Ayrshire, etc. etc.. The rest should be playing junior football with the possibility of some being 'farm' teams for the big clubs.

If the SPL/SFA are not up for real reform then they need a dose of reality. The truth is that there are two clubs which dominate Scottish football and maybe four others that generate some interest. The TV contract which is vital to the financial health of SPL clubs is only viable if it includes Rangers. If Rangers are able to scupper the TV deal - as promised by Green - the SPL are in deep doo-doo.

The SPL need to wake up and smell the coffee. The continued antagonism towards Rangers will cause them more harm than it does good. And it isn't hurting Rangers anymore. If Celtic season ticket sales take a hit next summer - and their attendances this season suggest that this might well happen - then watch for the SPL party line to start changing. And, if that happens, watch Charles Green extract his pound of flesh.

The SFA will side with them if we boycott the game and I can see a ruling being made that they don't have to give us a penny.

That is something that could end up in court especially if Rangers do not endorse any boycott.

All Charles Green has to say is that "We have no comment to make on the calls from certain supporter's organisations for a boycott of the game against Dundee Utd., however, we do recognise that Rangers supporters have the right to decide where and when they choose to spend their own money".

There are three ways to pay back Dundee Utd. for the vindictiveness and venom they have shown us:

1. Don't give them any of our money

2. Take half of their money

3. Dump them out the cup

Truth is, the Green consortium were the only ones that went about the bidding process professionally. They properly evaluated the opportunity, they lined up the investment funds, they put management in place, they were realistic about a CVA or a Newco, they paid as little as they needed to and nobody saw them coming.

At the bidding stage, the support does not have a role unless they have money in the bank. I urged the RST as long ago as the first Parks proposal that they needed to start building funds is they wanted a seat at the table (actually, I was telling Colin Glass the same in the early years of the RST). From that perspective, the RFFF was a huge tactical error because it diverted funds from a strategic investment to a day to day operations fund.

Beyond their role as customers of the club, the importance of the support was their ability to subscribe to a future share issue. This was true for all the bidders and not just the BKs. Thus, it was a smart move by the BKs to try to get the main supporters organisations onside. And, lets remember, it was not just the RST. It was the three main organisations who were working together. The BK bid did not fail because of the presence of the RST or the other organisations. It failed because it could not come up with - or was unwilling to come up with - cold hard cash.

I remain convinced that a strong supporter shareholding is important for the future of the club. However, as we move forward to the future share issue, it seems we are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. Under David Murray we were 10,000 small shareholders who were hopelessly fragmented. It seems that the RST is the only organisation which is trying to build a small shareholders grouping. It is all very well to be anti-RST or anti-Dingwall but what is your realistic and viable alternative?

They say that hindsight is 20-20.

And so it appears with this discussion.

I was sort of watching from the sidelines but, at the time, the BK bid was the only one that we had any information about. The little we knew about the other bidders was generally not very positive.

Again, at the time, I thought that, conceptually, the BK bid hung together pretty well. By that, I mean that I understood the structure and felt that, if it went through, it had a realistic chance of putting the club on a solid footing and recapitalising it. Also, at the time, the BKs were offering a significant element of supporter participation so it was not unreasonable that the RST would be supportive as it was a move towards their overall goals.

Personally, I was extremely suspicious about Kennedy given his record at Stockport and I got into more than a few arguments on FF as a result (no banning however). When he got into bed with the BKs I began to wonder if I had been wrong about him. Sadly, I think I was right.

What we did not know at the time was 1) the BKs had no money of their own and had not lined up any source of financing other than Ticketus 2) Kennedy was only interested in buying us on the cheap (which makes you wonder about his motives). When push came to shove there was no substance behind the BKs. But, again, that is easy to see with hindsight.

But, frankly, the other bidders were not any better. With that perfect hindsight vision, it is easy to criticise the RST for backing the BKs but, from their point of view, it was the logical stance. And where was the rest of the support when all this was happening? At least the RST was out there with a perspective.

If you use other, non-football message, boards, it may be a good idea to post up details of the e-petition on those. Here is a suggested text that you can use:

Last week, a First Tier Tax Tribunal published their verdict on an appeal by Rangers FC (actually the Murray Group of Companies) against an HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) assessment concerning the use of Employee Benefit Trusts.

Throughout this case, there was a series of ‘leaks’ of confidential tax information that was detrimental to Rangers Football Club, their employees and to David Murray. These leaks ended up on a ‘blog’, the ‘Rangers Tax Case’, in a BBC documentary and in a variety of newspapers.

The purpose of the e-petition is not to support one side or another when it comes to the facts of the case. That was decided by the Tribunal and may be revised should HMRC choose to appeal. The purpose of the petition is to hold HMRC accountable for the leaking of personal financial information to the media.

In asking you to sign this petition, I would also ask you to consider if, one day, you want your personal financial affairs hung out for all to see? Do you want to be the basis of media speculation based on ‘leaked’ information? Consider how much damage the media have already done to innocent people. It doesn’t always happen to someone else.

This is not a partisan petition. This is about accountability of government and of government departments. It is about your right to privacy.

The petition is open to British citizens and UK residents.

Please sign:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

The petition seems to be losing momentum. To get it to the next level there will need to be an active campaign to get signatures. I would suggest pushing the request out to supporter's club to get them to get their members to sign and perhaps a leafleting campaign at home games.

whats rm like these days with the rst. still lies, half truths, bans, homophobia and jilted lovers?

I avoid any RST threads over there. I have better things to do with my life than reading the same people making the same whining noises about MD.

I am one of those RST 'founder' members (joined in year 1) and I am a life member. I am not a board member and have never been a board member. I post of here from time to time, RM a bit more and FF quite a lot. On FF, I have openly disagreed with Mark Dingwall, and have had a couple of not very nice run-ins with a couple of others (specifically over the initial Parks consortium). I have been critical of the RST when I thought it was merited and supportive too. Due to my professional credentials I have also been approached by members of the FF board, including MD, for my thoughts on various matters. I am neither a cheer-leader nor an 'oppositionist'. At no time have I ever been threatened with a banning from FF or any of the other sites.

I quite like Gersnet because the discussion tends to be more thoughtful and polite. You cannot have a discussion about the RST on RM because you will be quickly shouted down by the anti-Dingwall clique. I swear that Neil Lennon gets better treatment on RM than Dingwall. What makes FF different is that there are simply a lot more posters. That makes maintaining the thread of the discussion difficult.

There has been a bit of a pause in new comments being made. That should gice us all some time to go through with the like/dislike.

The other day, we Bears did an outstanding job in responding to yet another attack by pseudo-journalist Alex Thomson. Indeed, we did such a good job that they stopped posting comments to the blog.

It was refreshing to see Bears standing up for the club. Too often, these online forums are dominating by the mhanky mob.

Now, it would appear that the C4 moderators are beginning to allow new comments onto the blog. Let us not be complacent. Bears need to continue making comments (keep them clean and polite), likes and dislikes.

Do not allow apathy to let the mhanks back in. We need to fight our corner.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ce-scheme/3227

Bears are piling into Thomson on that blog with comments, likes and dislikes.

This time we are dishing it out! Take a few minutes, make a comment (keep it clean) or just a like (for our own) or a dislike (for them).

Lets get in there and swamp this blog in a blue wave of Rangers-minded content.

Speaking as an RST life member, I would have no problem with the membership fee being reduced to a nominal amount if that would serve the greater good. The issue here is really the legal structure needed to make such a scheme work. I am sure that a different structure could be put in place but that would take time. The merits of using the RST structure is that it already exists.

While I have always argued that the leadership of an effort to buy a substantial holding in the club is very important, far more important are the details of the scheme. I think that, if the the deal is genuinely a good one then the figurehead issue would solve itself.

Happy to confirm that we told Charles Green in the meeting that if the supporters decided to purchase shares in some sort of collective fashion then they would have to be told exactly what the purchase offered and also what level of say it would give the fans over the running of the club.

Thanks for the quick and positive response. I really do think that this is the right way to go.

For the past two months the board of the RST, in partnership with other members of the Rangers Family, have been working on a Community Share Scheme.

 

The Community Share Scheme is designed to bring about a significant stake in Rangers FC by way of investing in the club as a collective and helping to secure the club’s long term future.

 

Because of the size of the task involved, we sought out help from our members and the wider Rangers support. We were delighted by the response and the calibre of individuals that have got involved.

 

Supporters Direct, the governing body for supporters trusts in the UK, have also supported the process through their network of resources.

 

Ian Davidson MP's involvement to date has been to, very helpfully, broker a meeting with the club.

 

Paul Goodwin (SD), Ian Davidson MP and Chris Graham (Chris has been helping to co-ordinate the project) all attended a meeting with Mr Green and Mr Stockbridge recently to discuss the concepts of fan investment and involvement in the club. Mr Green and Mr Stockbridge were very receptive to these concepts.

 

The content of this meeting and previous discussions has been communicated to The Rangers Supporters Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association in order to hopefully achieve widespread backing for the project. The groups will reconvene after consultation.

 

Despite all the troubles of the past six months, the Rangers Family will hopefully soon have an opportunity to invest in, and have a real say in the future of, the club we all love. The Trust Board will further update members if and when the project is ready to launch."

Thank you for posting this. I was fortunate enough to have one or two discussions on the fringes of this project. My advice at the time was not to go public with any scheme that involved supporter contributions until some kind of agreement had been reached with Charles Green and his investors as to what kind of percentage of ownership of the club would they be willing to concede for a given investment. I was of the view that the support need to know exactly what they will be getting for their financial support. I would hope that the discussions alluded to in the statement have moved in this direction.

I note the Rangers Unite statement. If they have a concrete scheme to bring to Rangers supporters and a financial and legal structure which would underpin it then I think we would all be very interested in discussing that. If not, then I think it unhelpful to be trying to derail those who do have something substantive to offer.

that tim mclaughlin has a cheek. bears should be telling him on twitter it is old news.

Yeah, it was reported on FF and RM. It was then picked up buy that lawyer guy on Scots Law Thoughts who probably got it from FF/RM. So it has been out there for some time.