Davie P

Yes, I voted for McGregor and Murdoch, who were probably the best of a bad bunch, but in all honesty, there is no-one, other than Macleod, who can say they played well consistently.

I think that he has another year left on his contract, so there would be a fee involved. However, I do think it would be worth it, Allen ticks all the right boxes.

Wouldn't have needed to pay them anything if we had won the league, as we should have. Only ourselves to blame.

Don't give Rab any more sticks to beat King with!

I found this in the Herald http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...cess.122614784 The governing body is entitled to 50 per-cent of all ticket revenue from the knockout matches - before costs - and it will bring in a sum beyond their wildest dreams. Remarkably, Rangers are on course to pay out more than double the prize money of £342,000 they will receive if they finish second and go on to reach the Premiership play-off final. Assuming the Light Blues take on and beat Hibs in the semi-final and then face either St Mirren, Motherwell or Ross County, two 50,000 Ibrox crowds will bring in well in excess of £2million. Not only will Rangers have to hand over half of this revenue, they are required to do so within seven days of each match. However, Rangers will have to wait until August to get the bulk of their entitled prize money - £232,000 of the £342,000 for finishing runners-up. Regulation C26 states: "A levy of 50% of the monies (gross excluding VAT) received or receivable by the Home Club for all Play-Off Matches played in the Premiership/Championship PlayOff Competition from all admission charges paid and payable to and for the relevant Play-Off Match shall be paid by the Home Club to the Company within seven days of the date on which each Play-Off Match is played." The stinging clause will also hammer Hibs who will have to hand over half of their ticket revenue from their involvement in the play-off - and that could be over £200,000. They had to do the same last year when they lost to Hamilton Accies although the parachute payment of £500,000 eased the pain. Ironically, chairman Rod Petrie was instrumental in pushing through this clause when the play-off procedure was introduced by the SPFL. It was revealed last week that Newcastle United are due a payment of £500,000 if Rangers are promoted under the terms of a deal agreed by Derek Llambias, the ousted chief executive and former Magpies managing director, over the loan of five players. Only Haris Vuckic has played regularly with Remie Streete lasting less than 45 minutes and the other three Kevin Mbabu, Gael Bigirimana and Shane Ferguson are all injured and unlikely to play at all. So, incredibly, it is going to cost Rangers over £1.2million to get back up to the top flight. On top of that, the SPFL is still involved in a battle with the Light Blues over the payment of a £250,000 fine imposed on the oldco for breaching EBT regulations. The governing body claims that former chief executive Graham Wallace agreed liability on behalf of the newco but in a statement last December, Rangers said they were fighting this. The SPFL then indicated they would withhold prize money from Rangers to cover the payment of this fine but the Ibrox club subsequently appealed to the Scottish FA. A judicial panel has yet to meet to decide the matter and in the interim the SPFL has continued to make the staggered payments.

Wouldn't the SPFL determine the price of the tickets? Ideally, you would want to find a solution whereby Rangers are retaining the vast majority of the income for our home leg, but I am sure that all teams would do exactly the same thing to ensure that the SPFL gets as little as possible. Would absolutely love it if we sold the match programmes for GBP20 and gave away a free match ticket, but I cant see the SPFL accepting this somehow!

If it was his intention to adapt a scorched earth policy, then indeed, he did get it right.

We know that no institutional investor is going to buy shares, whether we remain listed or not. If we were to de-list, the buyers of shares will be those with emotional links to the club i.e. supporters, not faceless corporations. I have no doubt that Rangers supporters will continue to buy shares either as a listed entity or as a private entity. If not may as well disband RF and RST now.

You honestly believe that institutional investors are going to buy shares in Rangers after everything that has happened in the past? Good luck with that.

King has stated that he sees little benefit in remaining as a listed entity. I think at the time of his NOMAD replacement statement, it may have been lip service to those few remaining investment companies prior to the EGM, to go through the motions of pretending to remain listed to keep them on board. Obviously it is possible that Kingco did genuinely intend to have the AIM suspension lifted by appointing a replacement NOMAD, but the resignation of the auditors and the failure to replace them, may have made this intention impossible and they have a ready made excuse for not seeing this through. Either way, I believe that this suits King. He will get slated by the press and vilified by all and sundry, but he can use the 'get out of jail free card' handed to him by the actions of the previous board. The reality is that to remain listed would come at a cost. This is money that we can scarce afford and could be used for a myriad of other purposes. Any future share offering will only be supported by Rangers supporters in any event, so to remain listed in the hope that investment managers may consider us as an alternative opportunity is at best futile and at worst delusional. Best we get on with ensuring the future security of Rangers, because no-one, outside of the supporters, will do so. (For the avoidance of doubt, I include King, Murray, T3B and the like as supporters).

Why aren't East Fife punished? Is it because Rankine was a shareholder in them first?

Observations 1. I had hoped that Ally (certainly) and Kenny (perhaps) would have waived the remainder of the salary due. Possibly a swop of debt for equity when the next share offering is announced? (Although there are probably only about 8 months of the rolling contract still due iro AMc, and if this is only to happen in June/July there probably wouldn't be a huge amount still outstanding). Disappointing. 2. Disgusted at the lack of action taken over the blatant conflict of interest in both the Newcastle players on loan, as well as the payment to Keith Bishop when Lambias was a director there at the same time. 500k due to Newcastle for winning promotion irrespective of the contribution of the players themselves? Hope the board tells them to do one and the SFA back Rangers on this. 3. The resignation of Deloittes should have been announced previously. Why was there no attempt by the previous board to replace the auditors? This is a material fact and presumably should have been announced by the Nomad. Share price manipulation? Got to say that the results are of huge concern and the sp**s have left the new board a mountain to climb just to get back to a reasonable and sustainable financial position.

An absolute joy to watch on the pitch, I cannot believe that it is 20 years since his passing. RIP Davie Cooper

In principal , I would probably agree with the assessments, although once again, Law was woeful. 6 is hugely generous. My guess is that he is a confidence player, and when things are not going to plan, he hides. Compare that to Scott Allen for Hibs, who did not have a great game, but was always looking to get onto the ball and to make things happen. A bit petulant with his foul on Vuckic though. I thought that Miller was far too distant from Clark and he provided very little threat (apart from the goal of course!) Shiels put an effort in, but probably a 6 at best. Murdoch had an excellent game and I would have given him and Wallace the joint man of the match award, with a score of 8.

There has been a fair amount of chatter about Ryan Sinnamon coming into the first team at right back. If I was him, I would be a wee bit disappointed to be told to play in midfield for the U20's. Surely he would have been hoping to play in his presumably preferred position and make a push for what is a problematic position in the senior team?

Ryan Hardie is scoring for fun in the u20's, and Gallagher scored twice in their last match. Boyd must be two stone overweight (unbelievable that a professional athlete can allow himself to get into that state, ignoring the role of management and sports scientist etc. in that), Miller's legs have gone, no shame in that, but age has caught up to him, and Clark is just currently ineffective. Could either of those two boys do any worse? But back to McCulloch for a moment or two, it is absolutely apparent that he has no positional sense for the CB role. I lost count of the number of times that McGregor covered for him and that's McGregor who I view as a rather ordinary player. McCulloch's defensive headers are abysmal - take a look and note that virtually every header goes higher than longer. He cannot close down the attacker but seems to stick to what he considers to be his position. The entire team is unable to compress the play due to fitness, or lack thereof, and the team does not drift, but rather maintains their rigid backwards and forwards position (i.e. no team movement sideways towards the danger). If the attacking player plays a Paul Scholes 50 yarder, then fair play, but more often than not they are going to give away possession from the Hollywood pass. For me, there were very few positives to take from the game, - the team started well and after the first 15 minutes I thought we were going to put 5 or 6 past Livingston, Robinson did well in goals and Walsh looks an exciting player. Wallace did fine in the first half, (best I've seen him this season), but like the rest of the team, the Murray Park vacation club has ensured that the players are blowing out their arses before half time. For me, the Newcastle players are unlikely to play for us (per McCall's comments) which means that you are left with the youngsters. We must regain control of the midfield, so I would like to see a 4 - 5 - 1 formation, with Gallagher on the right, Walsh on the left and Hardie as the lone striker. Take your pick at CB, as long as McCulloch is not one of those.

Am I the only one that had tears in my eyes reading this? I'm greeting like a wee lassie on the hope that we at last have someone who understands what this club means to so many people and is determined to put us back on the right road.

Intellectually, I am fairly confident that Kingco have done everything possible and will win, but emotionally, I am still a nervous wreck. Any idea on when the outcome will be announced?

Seeing as how Kingco refused to consider paying them off, I guess that it has backfired on L&L, but it still doesn't change that they wouldn't have made the offer had they been confident of being retained.

You don't offer to resign, in return for a pay-off, if you were confident about winning. Also, the NOMAD had already been informed of the Proxy vote from Capita, and know that there is no possibility of the actual vote overturning the proxy, hence their resignation. Always better to resign than to be fired! Having typed all of that, I am still nervous!

From your lips to God's ears! Please let it be so!

That would suggest that the company does not have Directors and Officers liability cover, which is unlikely for any listed company. However, in this farcical Rangers AIM listing, nothing would surprise me!

Any shareholder can sue them in their personal capacity for decisions taken which impacted negatively on the profitability of the company. All listed companies would have or should have Directors and Officers Liability cover, which protects the Directors against such action.

If, as seems likely, the good guys have prevailed at the EGM, shouldn't the RST and RF keep their powder dry and temporarily stop buying shares? I would far rather that shares are bought at the next share offering, when money comes into the club, rather than buying out the faceless investors now, with money leaving the club. I would imagine that it is unlikely that the Easdale block/MA will participate to maintain their shareholding percentage so prices may even come down, allowing the Trust and RF to acquire even more shares.