5 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

Until we know what went on, if we ever do? there should be no witch hunt!.

I do think the way the board are handling this is bad, especially if reports are to be believed that al the players are backing up Miller & Wallace. Wallace being captain of the club, and Miller, has been handled embarrassingly by the club, IMO.

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.

3 minutes ago, craig said:

I am hoping, rather than expecting, that the permanency of JC's deal would hinge on the manager.... I believe another manager, if he had JC AND Morelos would pair them up front together.  Unfortunately, by the time we get another manager, BOTH of them will probably have left.

 

Oh bollox, I just gave us even more reason to 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

4 hours ago, craig said:

There hasn't been anything going well for such a long time that if D'Art waited for that then he would be like the invisible man.  There is very, very little to be positive about just now.

 

What could the Board have done ?  How about not appointing the youth team coach as manager for a start.....  Had they shown some gravitas and courage when Pedro was removed we could actually have challenged for the title this year - the fact they screwed up the McInnes affair (thankfully) and had no alternative plan other than to put Murty in charge AGAIN, shows they haven't much of a clue.

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.

9 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So basically the some of aims of the Trust were binned? 

 

When was that paragraph produced? 

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

7 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I appreciate the responses and the sentiment behind this, but how does one person represent the fans?

 

aweebluesoandso had one of the only topics where I think we agree, namely the treatment of our club and fans.  I get this and can understand why fan representation is important here, but does that require a seat on the board?  Couldn't Club 1872 have made the point without a seat in the board?  I seem to recall it did.

 

ranger_syntax said that they represent thousands of donors.  I get that, but to do what?  I'm happy for someone to represent me in the acquisition of shares in the club, but I don't want anyone using my 'name' to advance their opinion on who should be manager, or whether Celtic fans should or shouldn't get a full allocation at Ibrox, or whether safe standing is more important than improving the quality of the food a team Ibrox, or whether the club should be selective in its share issues.  No one asked me my opinion (unless I missed that, which is possible) so how can I be represented?  And if there are 10 different opinions, how do we vote for which opinion is most representative?  That's the part I don't understand.

 

I completely understand D'Artagnan's point about safeguarding the club and that's why I pay my money.  However, to what extent do we really safeguard the club if we can't maintain our shareholding?  If so many of us are really that interested (or concerned now) about safeguarding the club, why do we find it so hard to find contributors.  Surely the best way to safeguard it is to have enough of a shareholding to require that major financial decisions are made public.  As far as I see it, the majority of the other decisions will be made confidentially (at least I'd hope they are to ensure competitive advantage), and therefore we won't know how our representative is performing or voting anyway.

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

5 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Supporter representation was always an sum of the Trust so surely it should have been an aim of C1872 too? 

"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."

18 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I've read the thread with interest so far.  The way I see it is that Club 1872 has two options here.  It can ask for a seat on the board because of its shareholding, or due to its importance as represtative of the club's supporters.  If it's based on the value of the shareholding, King is quite right to ask it (us all) to invest in line with the others shareholders.  That makes sense.  If however Club 1872's claim for a seat is based on representing supporters, I see a problem.  Does Club 1872 actually represent many of us?  I pay my monthly dues, but that's to buy shares, not for them to represent me in any other capacity.  I didn't sign up to that.  I don't know what Club 1872 stands for, or what it would push for if given a seat on the board.  Could we even agree on any major points to then allow someone to represent that opinion?  We spend much of our time on here disagreeing about all of the important decisions regarding the manager, player priorities, stadium improvement priorities, other members on the board, managing the media, etc.  Who can truly represent the fans?  I have no idea how you even begin to do that.  The problem I have is that a single person then has the power to advance their own opinions, based on their claim to represent the thousands.

 

Also, the difficulty with a position on the board here is that the representative does not have a shared objective that would help in the boardroom.  We all want to be successful again, but how do we achieve that?  In normal situations in the business world, the rep is there to ensure that shareholder value is managed in line with the expectations.  It's therefore clear how that rep can contribute to the debate, and actions.  However, Club 1872 is not interested in 'shareholder value' as such, but more about the success of the club.  So what would this rep actually be doing?  What is their role in the boardroom?  What skills and expertise do they offer the board?  Equally, how could they possibly maintain the level of confidentiality required by a board?  If they represent us, how do they provide assurances that they're doing this effectively if they can't tell us what's going on?  If this person can't tell us, why even have one on the board?  Why not just challenge the board via the AGM, or similar shareholder meeting?  I know the business world, but fully accept I know little about representing fans in these organisations, so I don't understand the benefit to us in having a board position.  It's maybe interesting for our representative to be on the board, but beyond that where's the value for anyone?  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, necessarily.  I'm just saying I really don't understand it.

 

I contribute to Club 1872 but wouldn't attend a meeting unless critical.  Do any others on here engage more with Club 1872 than I do, and if so, what has been discussed about the value of this seat on the board?  I don't understand and would welcome the insight or opinions.

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.

12 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

You are correct.

 

East End Park, we defeated the Pars 1-6 and Parlane notched five. DJ scored our other goal that Autumnal Saturday.

 

Interestingly, the Dunfermline scorer that day was, Ken Mackie. Two seasons previously, we had bid £100,000 for him. The Pars accepted the bid, but Mackie turned down the move.

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

2 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

I have a distinct memory of the, 'Parlane is the King of Ibrox Park' song.

 

It was Christmas week(I think the day before Christmas Eve) during the 72/73 season, and we were due at Bayfield. East Fife were stuffy, played the offside trap continually, marshaled by former Ancell Babe starlet, Pat Quinn. We were beginning to put a title run together, and the momentum of defeating the Fifers before facing Ayr United(home), Thistle(away) and then the Yahoos at Ibrox was most necessary. A crowd of over 10,000 crammed into the ground as the snow began to fall, the flakes blocked our view of a slate grey sea.

 

We battered them in the first half, running up a 0-4 lead. Parlane scored the fourth just before half time, and the seasonal melody erupted, 'Parlane, Parlane, born is the King of Ibrox Park'. We finished the festive period with another new song to add to the canon, we defeated the Yahoos at Ibrox with an injury time winner, a back stick header from a ghosting Alfie Conn. Even after Alfie left the club to go to Spurs, 'who put the ball in the Sellik net' was celebrated.

Was it the Pars he scored 5 against ?

21 hours ago, ian1964 said:

Derek Parlane is a legend of the famous 1972 cup winners cup squad and a two time treble winner.

Inducted into the hall of fame he has immersed himself in our great history with massive contributions in the light blue of our club.

But Parlane was before my time, so I have only ever seen footage. He was of course a hero to my Father, his brothers and indeed his own Father, everyone speaking highly of the man crowned ‘the king of Ibrox Park’

https://fourladshadadream.wordpress.com/2018/03/21/one-to-one-with-derek-parlane/

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.

On 17/03/2018 at 21:45, rbr said:

The board are faced with their biggest and most important decision in approx. 8 games time , one IMHO they simply cannot get wrong , and that's appointing a new and experienced manager .

 

Firstly , I like GM , I think hes a thoroughly decent guy and a great youths coach  , I've seen at first hand at Auchenowie how he is with the  youths , however he is not ready for this job , I said when he was appointed that he had been thrown under the bus by the board and I still believe it , today was symptomatic of the types of results we have had this year, where we simply are not set up to break teams down that sit in. Though the rebuilding that was started under GM and MA has born some fruit , the midfelders especially are too young and inexperienced to shoulder the responsibility of playing week in week out , against celtic we had 3 ,21 year olds, one of which was playing only his 12th or 13th senior game .

 

There have been rumours of meetings with Roberto Matinez's No2 , whether that's fantasy or not who knows , but we need an experienced manager to take us on to the next phase of our journey .

 

I only hope the board and MA are up to the task . 

 

One last thought or rather point , this seasons debacle at home is our worst set of results at Ibrox since 1914 .

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 !!

7 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

I see your post has gone down well on RM.  ?

Yes - Im worse than a paid errand boy over there & a serial board attacker over here.

You have to love blogging.

29 minutes ago, colinstein said:

no it's the usual attack on the board from the OP

what I don't get is that before Green/Ashley were the saviours and this pish was being spouted by McMurdo et al on another website....now there doesn't seem to be anyone in the wings but this negative campaign just goes on and on

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

2 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

In general if a supporter holds a significant number of shares then I suppose it is.

 

In particular I doubt it.  (see above for my recent post on this topic)

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 ?

Just now, ranger_syntax said:

I doubt it.

 

We can leave that aside for a moment though.

 

Have you done any succession planning for the 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 ?

1 minute ago, ranger_syntax said:

Have you done any succession planning for the board?

Do you think it is my job ?

59 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Why should alarm bells be ringing?  We gave a young manager the chance (after the 'preferred candidate' thankfully turned us down), and last week we were within touching distance of going within three points of Celtic.  Had we won (which we clearly should have if the players had done their jobs properly), we would all have been delighted, so how can the events of the last week now suddenly be the fault of the board?

 

What are you calling for?  Banners at Ibrox demanding something?  If so, what?

 

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 ?

5 hours ago, Darthter said:

Can you please point out some specific examples where the SNP, as a party, have commented negatively about Rangers???

 

There are examples of individuals commenting via their official MSP/MP accounts, which shouldn't be allowed & I will be contacting the party to raise this.

Throughout this thread, I have only see 3 (I think) names mentioned from the SNP - how does that reflect that Party as a whole??  The most vocal, and often mentioned is Dornan, who has made it quite clear where his support lies.  Other than that, there have been very few - out of a total of 62 MSP's & 35 MP's.....so we're actually talking about a VERY small minority of folk here, that is hardly representative of the entire party...

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.

On the face of it, the second largest shareholder group would have every right to request a seat at the boardroom table and get one.

 

But as you point towards, it would mean looking for a way to make it work for all parties, not least the challenge and thickness of skin for the individual selected.

 

Making it work and the perception of such may be two different things. There already seems to be a divide of sorts, where many of those sceptical of due impartiality between Rangers and C1872 won't be happy without a blow by blow account of what is going on upstairs.

 

It would be sad if we couldn't make it work because a seat at the table is what IMO corresponds to a large shareholding and what is needed.

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.

With all due respect D'Artagnan, the Club1872 website made it clear about their shareholding, which is nice for them. However, my question was what benefits it intends to deliver to its members - or even just to the wider support. Does Club1872 have a list of tangible target achievements and do they have in place the means to measure and report progress on these targets? Perhaps you can fill me in.

 

Given the nature of your post above, I guess I should make it clear that I have absolutely no axe to grind with Club1872, nor do I have the slightest understanding of what it is about or what it seeks to achieve, beyond the shallow generalities I see today on its website. Hence my question.

Their shareholding is far more than simply "nice for them" Bill.

Their statement of intent & purpose is clear on their website:

Club 1872 is a cause with one clear and common purpose for all those who hold Rangers dear – to rebuild, maintain and protect the club that supporters across the world love.

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 ?