D'Artagnan

I simply dont believe what is printed in the Record Iain, & ts not just their previous "form" with regard to us. The stakes are way too high in this & despite the shortcomings of the board - fabricating allegations against 2 of our own would be suicidal.

I cant see Morelos sticking around bud - and when he goes I dont think he will even give us a backwards glance. Im hoping youre right & a managerial change may be a trump card in any potential deal for JC

Showing my age Craig but there is something very Ian Dury aout Reasons to be cheerful down Ibrox way in recent times as you point out ! In saying that the signing of JC, albeit on loan was a moment of sunshine - though I suspect his treatment (despite being clearly adored by the fans) will probably mean the deal does not become permanent.

“When a chap loses his heart to an ideal, there’s no going back. It grows and grows within him, growing stronger as the years slip past. That is why, when people ask: “Would you rather play centre than in the half-back line?” my answer comes off my lips as though from a tape recorder: “I don’t care where I play so long as I wear the Rangers colours.” (Jimmy Millar) Due to the way it has been mis-handled, there will be something of a media frenzy about what was said in the Ibrox dressing room last Sunday. Already this incident has divided opinion amongst our support, with some backing the players for speaking their minds whilst others insist the manager should be afforded some modicum of respect, regardless of who that is. I doubt many of us would argue that Lee Wallace has given his heart to an ideal. While some badge kissers could not engineer their Ibrox exits quickly enough, Lee Wallace stayed for the fight to restore the club in its time of dire need. In terms of his flourishing international career it could be argued he paid a heavy price for doing so. Therefore, on the back of one of the most gutless, insipid, soulless and embarrassing performances from charlatans wearing the famous blue jersey, one can at the very least, understand the passion which proved to be the catalyst to whatever transpired within the dressing room. As is often the case in life, it was actually what was not said which was important. Graeme Murty’s post-match interview where he admitted he had not discussed the performance with the players for fear it may cause conflict or finger-pointing should merit an internal Rangers investigation more than anything else which transpired on Sunday. Can any of you imagine Jock Wallace avoiding what needed to be said after such a humiliating capitulation for fear of upsetting some inflated or precious egos within the Ibrox dressing room ? If a 4 nil thrashing to Celtic in a Scottish Cup Semi Final was not sufficient cause for Murty to light the blue touch paper in the Rangers dressing room – you have to ask yourself – just what the hell would be ? The Heart & Hand Podcast summed the situation up perfectly via their twitter account. Our current board have made a spectacular series of gaffes with regard to managerial recruitment, that situation could become a whole lot worse if they fail to act before Sunday. The Post Mortems on managerial decisions and the merits or madness of promoting the Youth Coach can wait for another day, for once, the board need to step out of character, show some leadership and for God’s sake listen to the real voice of the Club – the fans. Share this:

I have no idea - I was going by the original document which was sent as a proposal

They dont represent the fans - they represent their members (almost all of whom will be fans nonetheless)

"Our Vision Club 1872 seeks to give our members a meaningful say in Rangers Football Club by increasing their collective shareholding. The organisation is a responsible, independent and democratic representation of our members and will defend and protect the reputation, history, assets and existence of Rangers Football Club. In the spirit of the Founding Fathers, Club 1872 will pursue this undertaking above all else."

Im guessing, as it was after my time on the board, but I suspect Club 1872's move for a place on the board synergises with their previous statements about Q & A sessions being an ineffective tool as a means of communication and vigilance. There being no other mechanisms available I suspect a board place was the only viable option. The original vision of the organisation was the safeguarding of the club - you cant do that if you are disenfranchised or cut off from the processes and decision making which affects that. I think there is a considerable element of risk in all of this if things dont work out to plan.

Yes remember that - his career never came to anything did it ?

Was it the Pars he scored 5 against ?

When fellow posters are saying "he was before my time" - you know you are getting old !! Absolute hero of mine, His mother used to be a regular at my father's shop in Helensburgh as the family were from Rhu - Derek would often give her signed photos etc to pass onto me. My first ever Rangers game - the Centenary Celebration game against Arsenal he scored an absolute peach.

Thats 2 or 3 I know who have heard the Martinez rumour rbr. Its either doing the rounds or we all know the same source !!

Yes - Im worse than a paid errand boy over there & a serial board attacker over here. You have to love blogging.

Perhaps you could direct us all to these "usual attacks" on the board which you alledge.

You will have to forgive me Syntax but Im clearly missing the point here. Why woud supporters, whether they be shareholders or otherwise, be responsible for fulfilling the committments made by the Rangers board ?

And I'll ask you again. Do you think it is a supporter's job to undertake succession planning obo a board who have pledged to do so ?

Do you think it is my job ?

Does it not alarm you that the current chairman of our club embarked on a course of action which a regulatory body and the court of session deemed improper, despite the clear warning from George Letham ? Similarly are you not concerned that the man who has pledged to underwrite future losses at our club appears to be in default with an order from the Takeover Panel, reinforced by a court of session ruling, with no sign of resolution ? After 68 days of failing to appoint a manager, embarrassing ourselves with an undignified statement regarding the sole target they had identified, we appointed the youth coach as interim manager as replacement for the disasterous appointment they had previously appointed - and yet the board feel they are immune to any sort of criticism despite assuring fans they would ensure there was succession planning after Warburton ?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana) Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares. This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded. Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer. If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be. When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows: “As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.” After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing. Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement. I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent. Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming. Not silence.

Perhaps you could ask them why Brendan O'Hara and Julie McKenzie have retained their positions despite using sectarian language to describe Rangers supporters, particularly given they are the party who introduced OBFA and instructed and encouraged the Police service to adopt a zero tolerance approach to such conduct.

One of the best reads in a long time, excellent article. During my pursuit of HMRC one of the most astounding facts I came across was the fact that in one case (name escapes me unfortunately) was that they actually bought stolen property as they believed it contained evidence which strengthened their case. Anyone who doubts the author's assertion that persons within HMRC may have acted improperly to assist with the case against Rangers is, imo. naive. Sue Walton, head of HMRC's anti-avoidance group writing in the Tax Journal 21 April 2011: “To recap then, HMRC’s approach to compliance is, first and foremost, to minimise the need for enforcement – it is in everyone’s interests to do that. But where a risk of non-compliance is identified, we aim to detect that as early as possible and resolve it as quickly as we can.” You have to wonder why it took them 9 months to act on Whyte's failure over PAYE at Rangers - particularly when they were already pursuing him for millions over an anlogous episode with a previous company.

Club 1872's mission statement was to protect and safeguard the club for the future and finding the best way to facilitate this should be a priority. it is not so long ago our club was in malevolent hands and we should not ignore the possibility of history repeating itself. If a seat on the board enables Club 1872 to fulfil its remit then fine take it, but the directors must ensure it enables them to exercise the due dilligence required - if it doesnt it becomes little more than a cosmetic exercise.

During the last 25 years or so , as either a member of various Rangers forums, a shareholder at AGM, supporters groups organisations or latterly as a director of Club 1872,, I have witnessed Rangers supporters attempt to hold various power brokers on a succession of Rangers boards, to account. Whether it was Murray, Whyte, Green or the current incumbents, there was always a common denominator - such an it interrogative process always took roughly the same format - a series of well designed and researched questions to which the interviewee would respond with a series of answers. In terms of establishing the truth it is a pretty flawed format, particularly without access to some of the processes or information which would allow us to determine the veracity and integrity of the answers provided. As passionate and concerned football fans trying to gain insight into how their club is being run this flawed process adopted by Rangers fans is probably no different from that adopted by concerned fans of other clubs the length and breadth of the country. There is one critical difference however which is a game changer - Rangers fans are not just concerned and passionate supporters - they are the second largest shareholder in the club via the Community Interest Company, Club 1872. This is both a relatively new and unique situation and one which all parties involved need to take time to re-assess and consider. Fans have bought into the concept in order to both protect the club and have a real say in its direction - that is not achieved by the flawed and ineffective question and answer processes aforementioned. Nor is it achieved by Club 1872 directors taking members concerns to Stewart Robertson on a regular basis. Perhaps when those concerns become tabled motions requiring a boardroom vote then we will be heading on the right direction. Last week, along with other Club 1872 members I was asked to cast votes in respect of the forthcoming AGM. Such a request came at the conclusion of one of the most shambolic managerial appointments in the history of our club and one which had both sporting and financial ramifications. One or more of the names in front of me vying for re-election to the board, was responsible for this shambles, but exactly who I did not know. As those responsible had neither the honour to tender their resignations for such a serious error of judgement, nor were the rest of the board committed enough to previous pledges and assurances regarding transparency, I was as a consequence completely deprived of the necessary information required to allow me to make an informed choice to both protect and safeguard my club. Furthermore, such a catalogue of failings as described aforesaid meant that I could be actually endorsing and enabling the directors responsible for this recruiting disaster aforementioned, ironically at a time when the club are going through the recruiting process once again. Faced with such a dilemma and set of circumstances, I came to realise I was unable to satisfy the obligation to protect and safeguard the club. In essence, in its current format, Club 1872 is just not working. That is not a criticism of either the concept nor the current directors, but it is, most certainly, a criticism of the current Rangers board. They have failed to acknowledge Club 1872 as either an equal of significant partner in matters concerning the club Their method of engagement with this new power base has not evolved, relying on draconian question and answers sessions as a means of “positive engagement” The tragedy is that in such a comprehensive failing the Rangers board have collectively negated Club 1872’s mission statement of protecting and safeguarding the club. You cant safeguard a club with question and answers sessions – some of us have learnt the lessons the hard way. The whole relationship between the club and Club 1872 needs to be re-established, re-assessed, and within the club itself, there needs to be a considerable degree of realisation that there is a new power broker at the table. How the club accommodates this newly established seat of power will be both interesting and challenging. Club 1872 based on its % shareholding merits a seat on the board of the club, whether that will be truly effective in allowing it to fulfil its remit of safeguarding and protecting hthe club remains to be seen. This will be a considerable pioneering undertaking for all involved, but it as an essential journey which both the club and Club 1872 must embark upon in order that the latter can serve its purpose and obligation of protecting the former. The current status quo offers a situation which is neither effective or tenable. Whatever is decided upon one thing is abundantly clear - we as fans, with a considerable balance of power at our backs, will no longer be satisfied with token and ineffectual question and answer sessions. This new balance of power needs to be accommodated within the club structure in such a way that it can fulfil its remit of truly protecting and safeguarding the club. In essence we no longer deserve better, we now have the power to insist upon it.

6/11 starts were players Pedro has brought in over the summer. 2/3 subs also fall into the above category. And they wonder why printed media is dying.

Their shareholding is far more than simply "nice for them" Bill. Their statement of intent & purpose is clear on their website: Would you not agree that the greatest way to protect the club is by ensuring that those with the power to make decisions which affect it, are persons with the club's best interests at heart ? I would also suggest that their steady acquisition of shares to where they are now - 2nd largest shareholder - is a tangible and visible means of evaluating how successful they have been in bringing that statement of intent to fruition. Can I ask a question of you now. Why would you consider the task of protecting the club a shallow generality ?