D'Artagnan

Have a read of this Pete it will raise your ire even more. http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2014/07/29/328541/they-think-it-s-all-over In particular this sentence :- Which prompted this from me. http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=36&a=more-than-just-a-club---more-than-just-a-scandal

Well Cal we have to speculate that its costing millions - seeing as Her Majesty's Agency for ensuring that people keep meticulous records of their accounts are incapable of doing it themselves. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13196677.Taxman_will_not_disclose_cost_of_Rangers_case/ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_tax_payers_money_hmrc

Its clear if some of the charges are substantiated we will be left with a clusterfuck - it wouldnt come as a total surprise to me, depending on the result of the trial if SDM emerged with a bona fide claim.

Is it so fanciful as the allegation McMurdo was in the pay of Mediahouse CS ? And with his diminishing credibility amongst the support perhaps they felt it time to field a subbie ?

Id go alot further than "dubious" - Id suggest there is deliberate malice, probably contrived and co-ordinated. There have been suggestions for some time that its 2 PR companies filnging testosterone at one another. Im sure you dont need briefed on the combatants. As for oldco - perhaps your speculation about the unkown is warranted - but in terms of "fools game" Im certainly not buying into the explanation that its because some zoomers say we're not Rangers anymore. Not when the footballing authorities say otherwise and we have already have legal precedents from the likes of Fiorentina.

If we were venting anger at the board I would agree. I'll settle for a gentle reminder, nothing more. Now going back a few posts - what do you think of King's suggestion of a resurrection of oldco ?

What would you consider the benchmarks which would cause us to exercise more support & understanding ?

In terms of anger, it is difficult to calculate which would be the most infuriating. Whether the writings of blogger John James are part of an ongoing battle between two PR companies where our club is both the battleground as well as recipient of collateral damage, or, as has been alleged, forms part of the latest campaign by “Celtic minded” individuals to de-stabilise our club. Whilst both possible scenarios are particularly unedifying, history has demonstrated that many are willing to tread the unedifying road in order to inflict damage on our club.

Zap honestly ? So we never judged boards previously including SDM on their failure to deliver - if they did not pre-fix their assurances with the words "I promise" ? "off the cuff" "loaded" "mostly shit-stirring" . Really ?

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13303684.King__Nomad_will_be_in_place_for_Rangers_rebuilding_job/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html

Not irrelevant Zap but incidental to the main bone of contention - delivering on promises.

In alll honesty Im not comparing them bud but I am looking for consistency. T4C is right when he talks about building for the future. But the foundations we build need to safeguard us beyond the lifetime of this board as we have no idea what may happpen in that future.

There is a reason for going round the houses you refer to which will become evident if you are on twitter - the constant references to the selling of MP and Admin 2, thankfully in a mocking manner by most bears. These are emanating courtesy of an individual who formerly posted on a blog which some maintain were in receipt of payment to undermine the current regime from a PR company. With the demise of the RSL he has now flown the coop and branched out on his own. Its perhaps no co-incidence that many of the claims he is making are similar to another who was alleged to be on the Mediahouse payroll, and who most certainly is no friend of our club. One could be forgiven for thinking they were singing from the same hymn sheet - what is crystal clear is the motive is shared. Hence why i considered it worthy of mention. I think to date, with the exception of the Chris Graham situation & resignation, the board to date have done an excellent job. But I would like to see consistency of statment and vision - something you touched on in your last post in reference to King/Murray timescales - I would also like to see them deliver on statments or assurances they make, and this latter request is covered by consistency also. How can we hold one board to account for faiure to deliver on committments but not another ? I have to admit I was taken aback by King's comments re Oldco - and would acknowledge the point you make regarding timescales if this is pursued. I dont think Im alone in struggling to understand why King feels this necessary - perhaps you have a view on this. In reality, for me, its not about the money King promised or the Nomad - they are both incidental in as much as the real benchmark for me is having a board who keep their committments and promises to fans. I think that inspires confidence and trust and usurps those whose intent is malicious towards our club.

Its not a vigilance test - its asking for the assurances which were given to be delivered upon. And the reasons for that is that King himself said if we are to be challenging Celtic or competing in Europe, rebuilding the club, we were talking of it costing in the region of £30 million.

I would class the Nomad aspect as incidental Buster, the main factor is ensuring that assurances given to the fans are delivered, or alternatively assurances given are tempered with what is realistically achievable.

Whilst only an outline at proposal stage BD its clearly intended to be more far reaching than just the fan ownership models.

Some interesting feedback on the function of the proposed group on my twitter TL courtesy of Chris Graham.

Disappointing that Houston's allegation that our management team attempted to influence the referee is not featured in the complaints.

Certainly previous form has been spot on CB All starting to come together nicely in terms of structure off the park.

In that case, at the earliest opportunity, I'll attend the re-sit class at writing school.

Im sure there are - but that does not deter from the fact that it was an assurance given which has not yet come to fruition and hence why I suggest such comments should be tempered.

Nope it would appear not.

Thats a spectacular quantum leap - given what is written.

There is a very similar convergence of thought Beardy regarding the ramblings of those you mention, so much so,one could be forgiven for thinking that its almost contrived. The comment section of his blog is particularly revealing. Financial expertise and South African Law Tax experts - there appears to be no limit to some of the talent and "expertise" therein. Again, much as we have seen before.

“Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” (Aristotle) In terms of anger, it is difficult to calculate which would be the most infuriating. Whether the writings of blogger John James are part of an ongoing battle between two PR companies where our club is both the battleground as well as recipient of collateral damage, or, as has been alleged, forms part of the latest campaign by “Celtic minded” individuals to de-stabilise our club. Whilst both possible scenarios are particularly unedifying, history has demonstrated that many are willing to tread the unedifying road in order to inflict damage on our club. There exists, of course a third possibility. That John James is entirely accurate in his assessment and that the various allegations he makes about our current board, and in particular Dave King, have some merit. However, having witnessed our good friend PZJ completely usurp a number of Mr James’ claims when he posted on the now extinct Rangers Supporters Loyal comments section of their website, I would have my reservations. When I use the term “completely usurp” I refer to the presentation of facts in such a way, which quite literally ripped Mr James a new one. Of course, should Auchenhowie be closed this month, or Admin 2 befall us, I will be forced to review my assessment of his accuracy. Those who read my articles in WATP magazine will be familiar with my use of the word “vigilance”. It’s a double edge sword in as much as that vigilance should be exercised not only to the custodians of our club but also to those who seek to undermine them. There are still a lot of bruised egos out there following the not so distant power struggle and it has become clear that it is not only scorned women for whom hell hath no fury. As a Rangers fan I find it impossible to reconcile any wish or desire to see this current board fail. That viewpoint is held not because of an unswerving loyalty to the current incumbents but from a stark realisation of the consequences for our club were they to do so. There is perhaps a lesson in all of this for our board, or it may well be the lessons have already been learnt. But promises made to the support require to be realistic and actionable as well as delivered. There may well be bona fide reasons why the promised Nomad is still not in place, but does that not deter from the fact it was an assurance given which has not yet come to fruition. Whilst it may well be that has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the current board that in itself serves to underline that the original assurance should have been tempered somewhat. Fortunately there is an antidote available to our board to counter the effects of those intent on spreading poison – it’s called actions speak louder than words. It would be refreshing and reassuring for the support if the man with the magic hat was able to pull the promised investment from it in order to strengthen our squad in preparation for next season. Would our detractors like that? Not a lot. But we would.