bossy

The Dutch are not taking this lightly I would say expect a large fine at least.

The 6 Celtic fans have been remanded in custody until November 21st.

Edit:

Initially, the Amsterdam prosecution service stated on social networking site Twitter that the six fans were being kept in custody until November 21.

However, the prosecuting service, known as the Openbaar Ministerie, later updated the information to say the court appearance was still ongoing and no decision had yet been reached.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/247726-celtic-fans-in-custody-ahead-of-trial-over-amsterdam-violent-clashes/

Does this increase then bossy the importance of fanzines etc ?

I think it demonstrates the need for a single, properly constituted, supporter's organisation which can interact with supporters at all levels. Fanzines, mailshots, blogs, leafletting, etc. are tactics to reach out to supporters. But, right now, we don't have the infrastructure or the leadership to do that.

I think that what the petition demonstrated is, on the one hand, the strength of the online Rangers community and, on the other hand, our inability to organise a piss up in a brewery when it comes to engaging with those supporters who are not part of the online community.

I was also in Manchester and like yourselves didn't see any trouble. And this despite staying at the Ramada in Piccadilly.

I did see a lot of drinking during the day I spent there. Lets be honest, there isn't much else to do in Manchester. However, ours was a family day out with my wife and two kids. So we had a nice lunch in Chinatown, walked around and enjoyed the spectacle of the crowds and the banners and then found a pub with a garden and had a couple of pints in there.

Walking back to the hotel after the game there was certainly plenty of mess in and around Piccadilly. But it would be unfair to criticise the manchester cleansing department for that given the numbers of people drinking in the streets and the fact that they hadn't the time, at that point, to clear up. Complaints about 'mess' need to be balanced with the economic benefit to the city and the availability of bins. After all, for each can that is dumped in the gutter, some happy shopkeeper has just rung up a few pence profit.

Not that I am excusing the drinking culture. Personally, I see nothing redeeming about going to a foreign city and drinking solidly morning to evening. But there you are. There is something in the Scottish psyche that believes this is the thing to do. And it is far from unique to Rangers supporters. Just ask Kenny McAskill.

Sadly, the negative aspects of our culture only seem to hit the headlines when it is Rangers supporters. For the rest it is just a bit of fun and these foreigners who object to it are just being boorish killjoys.

Leaving aside any sort of 'who's worse' tombola, watching the various Youtube clips just drives home how grossly uncultured Scots fans are when abroad at a game.

 

The ground in the city centre is littered with empties, just littered with them. Various fans stumble past, clutching vast cargoes of swally. The clink of broken glass - never a good sound when coppers are around - is audible at every step. No doubt the reek of piss rises from the historic cobblestones this morning.

 

It's the same when we go abroad, it's the same when the much vaunted Tartan Army go abroad, plainly it's the same with Timothy. What a bunch of tits Scots are sometimes.

I'm a Glasgow boy born and bred even if I don't live in Glasgow any more.

But I never understood the attraction of going to a historic European city or town, spending all day in the main square of that town, drinking solidly from morning to match time, pissing up against someone's hedge and possibly vomiting on their doorstep.

If you saw some Dutch or French yob pissing up against the wall in your close, how would you feel about it?

And if you feel the local police are being heavy handed consider that the locals see you as being somewhat less than civilised and are all for what their police are doing.

Not trying to be a snob here but what is wrong with doing some sightseeing, taking some photos with, perhaps, a long lazy lunch washed down by a couple of glasses of beer or wine?

I've asked the journalist and John Finnie on Twitter about that. No reply.

And don't hold your breath waiting for one

The Groin Birgade and their hangers on and apologists are upset because this law, whether it is right or wrong, actually leveled the playing field. Prior to the law, only Rangers supporters had been targeted for 'offensive behaviour'. Prior to the law only Rangers supporters had been arrested and prosecuted for singing naughty songs. Funnily enough, we never heard any complaints from MSPs about that. Now that they are getting the same treatment that we have been getting for years, their tame poodles at Holyrood are all upset. Cry me a river.

Well if they are spin Zap then they should be nailed - once and for all.

 

But I think it weakens the case of the requisitoners if it can be proved they were happy to recruit the support of the anonymous investors' date=' and have only raised concerns about identity since that support was not forthcoming.[/quote']

 

I fail to see how it weakens their case. Their case is about good corporate governance and, logically, you would want to get all your investors behind that.

 

That said, the pressure to reveal the beneficial owners behind these outfits may be designed to put pressure on them to support the requisition. All is fair in love and war as they say. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the requisitioner's case.

I don't see the problem. The requisitioners want to know who they are and want to enlist their support. Why should these two aims be incompatible?

after LBG took over HBOS(MIH'S bankers) it was run by Manus J Fullerton(Celtic trust) and his sidekick Archibald Gerard Kane. Guess where their allegiances lie?

despite MIH being £700m in debt LBG seemed more concerned with the Rangers debt which was around £18m by the time Whyte got Rangers.

Which debt would you expect the bank to be more concerned about - the MIH debt or Rangers debt ? draw your own conclusions as to why they acted as they did i.e. did they force SDM into selling Rangers to Whyte ?

Honestly … I think they pushed the sale of Rangers because we were the least indebted and most easily sellable bit of the MIH Group. I don't think the sale to Whyte was some kind of timmy conspiracy. But I do think that they knew he was a charlatan and a con-artist … and I don't think they cared so long as they got their money.

I thought it was a fair piece from Jackson. His target is the SFA and not - overtly - Celtic. But any attack on the SFA these days is, effectively, an attack on Celtic. And, possibly the best way to attack Celtic is to attack the SFA which has become their proxy.

As to the rest of it, do I have a chip on my shoulder? Absolutely not. But I do know how to bear a grudge and when it comes to Celtic, the SFA and certain SPL (and former SPL) clubs that grudge is most certainly there. Hopefully, he time will come when I can exorcise that grudge in a wholly peaceful - but also wholly destructive - way.

Who's this Stewart Franklin bloke? Not sure about him.

Is he "staunch"?

I might try to pop along. Is there a secret handshake or something needed to gain entry?

one way or another there needs to be a resolution to all of this sooner rather than later. I back the requisitioners because I don't believe the current board have access to funds to run the club for too much longer. McColl has stated he's got investors lined up & I believe him. But there's no obvious route to getting McColl & co into power at present without someone gaining a major shareholding is there?

We will not know that until there is an AGM.

If there is an AGM

Why is there need to? He did not exactly say anything pro or con the McColl Group, no need to make a statement like: "but we talked to him and all went fine" et al, thus putting the ball into the board's corner. It all reek like petty point scoring and the longer this goes on, the more embarrassing it becomes for all parties concerned, not least the club these people vying to control.

So that Bears don't forget that they exist.

King needs to buy shares & get a major or majority shareholding. It's the only resolution to all of this.

Easier said than done. First, the shares have to be for sale to be able to buy them. And, if so, at what price? Second, we all know that we will need a large infusion of cash in the next year. So that will be on top of buying out existing shareholders. So how much would all that take?

Not necessarily mate but I think long term that could be the aim.

 

I just think we need to press for meaningful representation on the board and via a fully constituted group as well.

I agree.

But to get there a few things need to happen.

First we need to support a single group which has the structure to make this happen. Right now, the only group that has that structure is the RST. That means, for many, accepting that the greater good is more important than their like or dislike of the RST.

Second, the leadership of the RST needs to grow a set of balls and start getting aggressive about pushing their agenda.

Third, the RST needs to work on its transparency, voting structures and quality of leadership.

Fourth, the support needs to come up with some serious financial backing to underpin the demand for representation. We did it for the RFFF but, lets be honest, that has proved to be something of a dead-end when it comes to moving the club forward.

Fifth, Bears who own shares need to start giving their proxies to the RST.

It is all form over substance. King, if he is willing to stump up the readies, can control Rangers without ever holding an 'official position' and there is nothing the SFA can do about it.

There are a number of problems with getting to fan ownership or even serious fan participation.

First, guys like Dave King, Paul Murray or Walter Smith have a track record of antipathy to fan ownership. Even though they might mouth a few words or drop a few hints in order to get the supporter's associations onside, I see nothing concrete to suggest that their views have changed in any measurable way.

Second, the support as a whole has never shown any real appetite for fan ownership. Even in our darkest days they were more than happy to latch on to the latest white knight and certainly unwilling to get behind any supporter's organisation which was capable of delivering it.

Third, even the RST which is the most obvious supporter of fan ownership has shown remarkable timidity when it comes to actually advancing their agenda. There has been no sustained campaign around fan ownership and there has been a failure to leverage the influence of the supporter organisation's in the current stand-off in order to demand, for example, a supporter-director. Instead, they have been content with a couple of meetings and vague assurances of supporter representation. Like the support as a whole, the RST and other supporter organisations seem to prefer to hitch their wagons to the latest white knight than to strike out boldly on their own.

The best chance we have for fan ownership is if one of us won £100 million on the lottery, bought the club and then started giving his shares away.

Every time they talk about Quinn being a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, they invariably fail to mention that he was the man who was asleep at the wheel when the BCCI fraud was unfolding.

Obviously this merits discussion but I honestly feel things have been sensationalised to fill up column space. Could be wrong but I don't see King being blocked.

 

Negative opinion: SFA insert a clause whereby King cannot invest for x amount of years. Ridiculous but we are dealing with the SFA.

It is an exercise in form over substance. The SFA cannot prevent King from buying shares or from assuming effective control if he gets 51%. They may be able to prevent him from being a Director or Chairman but that will not change the reality of control.

If they try to prevent him from investing then I confidentially predict that they will be on the receiving end of a communication from Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne and will find themselves trying to explain the matter in the Court of Session.

Neither can AIM prevent it. All King needs to do is to take the company private and delist from AIM.

This should not be construed as an endorsement of King. I remain uncomfortable with the sugar-daddy model of ownership.

It's far worse than described, the then Glasgow District Council Planning Committee agreed to sell three streets, Janefield Street, Kinloch Street, and Dalriada Street, to their green'n'grey hooped heroes for ONE PENNY.

In June 1993, the existing stadium at, Celtic park had a certified capacity of 56,000, of which only 12,000 were seated. At that time the board of Celtic had almost decided to relocate to a new purpose built stadium at Camsbuslang. The solution to keeping Celtic in Glasgow was to build over Janefield Street, the public highway and cantilever the rear of the upper tier of seats back out over the cemetery by some 10 meters.

The council houses in Janefield, Kerrydale and Dalriada Streets were demolished and the residents re-housed because the new Stadium blocked out their light and interfered with their TV receptions. Council tax payers footed the bill for this as the land was sold to Celtic Plc for a penny.

The cost to the council in terms of resettlement grants to the 300 or so families living in the houses, the demolition of said houses and ground clearance was conservatively estimated at £1.25 million.

The Legal and Estates Committee comprising thirteen councillors met to approve the sale of ground (the three streets) to Celtic. There were 11 Labour Party councillors, one SNP, and one Tory. Both the Tory and SNP councillors demanded that their fellow councillors in the Committee state their allegiances, shareholding, season ticket status, etc..... The meeting was suspended and the decision on the sale was passed to a full council meeting (all 102 Glasgow District councillors).

All but 11 of those 102 councillors were Labour Party councillors. Those 11 put forward the same motion for disclosure of share holding and season ticket status before the vote was to be taken. The then leader of GDC, Pat Lafferty made the ruling that these details did not have to be revealed. The vote was taken and the full council decided overwhelmingly to sell Kinloch Street, Dalriada Street, and Janefield Street to Celtic for a penny.

King does not need to be on the Board to control the club.

Whether it is desirable that he controls it is quite another matter.

That said, I am sure that Regan is looking forward to the SFA being hauled in front of the Court of Session. And I am sure he is also looking forward to a personal message from Sepp Blatter when that happens.

I made that point the last time, none of these groups represent me or the vast majority of Rangers fans.

I accept that they may not speak for you. But since when do you speak for 'the vast majority of Rangers fans'.

The supporter's groups are, at least, doing something. They met with Mather and Stockbridge. Now they are meeting with McColl and Murray. That seems pretty even handed to me.

The RST are inviting questions from their members as they did with Mather and Stockbridge. No doubt the supporter's groups they will publish minutes of the meeting as the did for Mather & Stockbridge. That strikes me as being pretty open and transparent.

Other than organising a meeting for 35000 season ticket holders (no sniggering at the back), I'm not sure what else they can do.

So maybe they don't speak for you. That is your problem. I happen to think they are doing a pretty good job here.

I know he has shares under his own name but what's to stop him holding shares via margarita & BPH too?

This is not uncommon. I do quite a lot of trading/investing with a broker. But, from time to time I buy shares through my personal brokerage account in the same company but with a different investment objective. In addition, the guys that handle my retirement dosh may also be buying shares in these same companies with yet another and different investment objective.

Here is an idea. Call the AGM and have the shareholders rather than the NOMAD elect the Board.