D'Artagnan

https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/ With all due respect Bill, I'd say that in less that 12 months managing to become 2nd largest shareholder & at the same time negating the Ashley infuence, is a helluva lot more than a rebranding exercise.

It was available via the website bud as a PDF http://18030-presscdn-0-6.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Constitution-1872.pdf

I suppose it depends Frankie on how much emphasis we place on last season. I have considerable difficulty with this as you are judging a manager based on the players he has inherited - which were clearly not good enough - and the systems he was forced to adopt to compensate for that. A fair counterpoint to that is that a good manager should be able to get the best out of what he is given and I acknowledge that. But if we afford Pedro the benefit of the doubt, then Id rather we base the judgement on what we see this season. He has brought in his own players, he can play them in his style/footballing ethos and to that end there can be no excuses or latitude given to him whatsoever. In terms of personnel recruited I have little doubt he has improved our squad considerably and that re-building process is clearly ongoing. I dont know the time spans others would give for a new squad of players to gel into a co-hesive unit, my own feeling is that it far too premature based on the no. of games so far.

http://www.parliament.scot/S5_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/OBR215-PoliceScotland.pdf Some interesting submission. This paragraph from the ACPOs submission in 2011gets right to the heart of the problem.

Strong tinge of bitterness in that article. His refusal to play in the reserves suggests an ego out of control.

I would think it foolish bud if any of us didnt have an element of doubt - our European exit was indefensible. Ive been pretty generous to Pedro in that article, in that I would tend to judge him solely on results when he brought his own players in rather than results achieved with an inherited squad. Like yourself Ive yet to be either persuaded or convinced he is the correct man for the job. I just think 3 or even 4 games into a season is too early to judge - some bears want him gone if we lose at Dingwall.

If the Rangers support were a jury, I think it would safe to say we had reached a majority rather than a unanimous decision on Pedro. An early exit to European minnows from Luxembourg on the back of an embarrassing defeat to our greatest rivals at home, whilst losing our long-established home record to the sheep would suggest that a fairly compelling prima facie case had been established by that majority. Furthermore, an inauspicious start to the season makes it all the more difficult to introduce a reasonable element of doubt into the minds of those who are currently sitting in the majority camp and whose minds are clearly made up so to speak. Should we pause for a moment and recall Advocaat’s multi-million £ squad, albeit not with home advantage, losing 6-2 at Parkhead? Should we consider that even some great Rangers managers, with far more settled squads suffered worse starts in their first 3 games of the domestic league? Should we ponder the fact that abysmal refereeing had a major say in 2 of our last 3 league games? Perhaps we could reflect on the fact we are into a rebuilding programme which is clearly not yet complete, before we decide to sack the architect. The first few years of Sir Alex Ferguson’s tenure at Manchester United were characterised by something of a roller coaster ride which saw them take a few backward steps before their record winning period of success. Having been appointed in 1986, it was season 92/93 before the Reds won their first championship under the tenure of Sir Alex. While such a comparison certainly qualifies as an “apples and oranges” evaluation, the virtues of patience and a realistic assessment of the challenges faced should not be excluded either. As always, the OF games will have a considerable bearing on the manager’s future. We have to hope Kranjcar’s recent interview where he suggested we could lose all 4 OF games and still challenge for the title is a form of delusion exclusive to Niko, and not the rest of the dressing room or the management. There is a popular saying that the “league table never lies”. Would it be prudent to wait until the end of the season and put this theory to the test rather than jump on the managerial merry go round prematurely?

Frankie, If memory serves me correctly Mr Sargent is someone you have crossed swords with before. (Apologies cant get image to load)

It is difficult Frankie, particularly if you are being innudated with e-mails from members complaining, which I suspect was the case. Of course, were we blessed with a more responsible, less sycophantic press we could probably have relied upon them to highlight both the unedifying and potentially provocative nature of his conduct. Alas, we are where we are. I always find it amusing when aforesaid sycophants attempt to justify his behaviour as merely a tit for tat with Rangers supporters, when the facts of the matter as everyone knows, are that he is clearly capable of unacceptable behaviour without the involvement of our support. His considerable rap sheet both on and away from the park bears testimony to this.

Apologies if this journey appears a tad confusing, I can assure you none of it is my doing. It starts with Rangers player Andy Halliday receiving a red card against Morton for a goal celebration which officials deemed had the potential to incite a riot. Further along the road we have a security guard gesturing a 5 - 1 sign whilst posing for a photograph with Hibs manager Neil's Lennon. A gesture the Edinburgh club described as "insulting" and which merited a complaint. Our journey ends at Ibrox with Neil Lennon aforesaid, gesticulating a GIRUY to the Rangers support during a match Police Scotland had expressed concern about. Despite all of the foregoing this incident was deemed neither insulting nor likely to incite a riot, apparently it could be categorised as "banter" I have read and listened to several comments from bears in response to the Club1872 statement regarding Lennon's conduct. "Ill-advised" "Misjudged" as well as the suggestion it has deflected from other matters e.g. the very one-sided refereeing display. If any of you think Beaton's performance would have been subjected to forensic examination by the Scottish media you are clearly more optimistic than me. For example. Keith Jackson's Monday column appeared to have been prepared based on the ongoing boycott of the Daily Record and the introduction of a camera to the Rangers press conference, both subjects which have attracted his ire. There is almost a suggestion of Rangers fans having temerity and audacity to choose to boycott a newspaper which has been shown to print lies about them. His own newspaper’s lies in respect of Rangers supporters is something Jackson's fails to mention in his column. Furthermore, as he sets out to compare our club to the North Korean regime, hinting that the presence of a camera to record proceedings is some kind of "sinister sub text" he neglects to mention its primary purpose is so that our manager can analyse his performance at press conferences. Those of us who had undergone even the briefest of media training will know such practice is commonplace. The only sinister element at play here appears to be the very selective presentation of facts in a manner befitting a totalitarian despot regime. There has also been the suggestion the club itself should have taken the lead on the response and highlighted the refereeing. I refrain from using the term “bad” or “abysmal” refereeing as it would suggest it was consistently bad across the board – it was anything but. But as someone who has been particularly critical of “dignified silence” from Rangers’ boards I find myself in a strange place. However, the issue of the refereeing performance is a matter for the club to pursue and they appear to be doing so courtesy of the appeal of Jack’s red card. Would it be appropriate to comment prior to the conclusion of the judicial proceedings which will determine the outcome of that appeal? “Unlawful Tom” appeared to be concentrating on the “indignant” nature of Rangers fans regarding Beaton’s performance rather than offer any analysis of it. (As a side note, a few have contacted me regarding the initial response from the BBC regarding complaints. My suggestion would be to escalate if you are not satisfied with the response – if they refuse to do so I’d suggest addressing your concerns via Ofcom) When Butcher/Woods/Roberts and McAvennie were deemed to have fallen foul of the law Sheriff Archibald McKay was unequivocal in his summation at the end of the trial. “A large percentage of supporters are readily converted by breaches of the peace into two rival mobs. That they were not so transformed is no credit to you. You must have been aware of your wider responsibilities and you failed to discharge them” There is a clear message within that summation of both the standards of behaviour and responsibility of those on the park. If you think Neil Lennon satisfied either on Saturday then your opinion is different to mine. A person does not require to be offended to recognise irresponsible, reckless and provocative behaviour. Of course the easy option for Club1872 would have been to remain silent, to say nothing, to ignore all the foregoing. And in doing so they would have fulfilled the brief provided recently by others :- “Know your place H** scum”

Sheriff Archibald McKay's summation from the Butcher/Woods etc trial makes for interesting reading.

Stu, You need not let the matter rest there if you are not satisfied. You can write back to them informing them that you are not satisfied with their response and that you wish to escalate the matter further. Clarify with them whether such proposed escalation can be handled by them or should you go directly to Ofcom.

Excellent review and sentimental trip down memory lane. I remember being "decanted" from my usual haunt of the Copland to watch us beat Juve

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” (Sun Tzu – The Art of War) Those who have followed both the reporting and coverage of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Rangers use of EBT’s could probably hazard a fairly good guess guess as to who the enemy is. It would be inaccurate to say, “they broke cover” as many entering the fray would be filed under the category of “the usual suspects”. Perhaps my favourite observation at the time came from not within our support, but from the Head of Sport at the Herald, Stuart Weir who reflected via Twitter “Still folk out there who've only watched Kavanagh QC (while evidently downing bottles of QC sherry) arguing with real QC's Pass the popcorn” Stewart would probably have required an extra-large bag if the dogged stance of Tom English was anything to go by. The latter’s debate with QC and Tax Specialist Joylon Maugham was the twitter equivalent of “death by a thousand tweets” as the assertions of English were ceremoniously and clinically lanced as if the BBC reporter’s line of reasoning was little more than a septic boil. Of course, that didn’t stop BBC Scotland running with the erroneous and inaccurate “unlawful” accusation in their news bulletins. And its at this point I would respectfully suggest our enemy recognition becomes somewhat clouded. Who approved the inclusion and creation of the word “unlawful” and who, with editorial responsibility deemed it appropriate and accurate? It is refreshing that this inaccuracy will not go without challenge, and Club 1872 have already intimated that this will be subject of a complaint. I suspect those of us who have previously trodden this path could predict the pattern – rejection and escalation, rinse and repeat until it is eventually deferred to Ofcom for a ruling. (From 3 April 2017, Ofcom replaced the BBC Trust as first regulator) When it does arrive on their doorstep I hope Ofcom reflect that it is not the first complaint from Rangers supporters regarding the accuracy of the organisation’s output north of the border. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447 It didn’t require tax experts and QC’s however to punch fairly large holes in BBC Scotland’s adopted stance. Frankie from Gersnet skewered BBC Scotland’s Chris McGlaughin to the point the latter was unable to form a reply to some probing questions. However, as with Tom English , Frankie makes a critical observation in response to Joylon Maugham. “What you may not realise Jo, is that BBC Scotland's default position on Rangers has to be maximum negative. Tom merely carrying that baton.” Might I respectfully suggest that there is a very large ball about to land in the court of Ofcom. Merely adjudicating on the matter is not sufficient, not given the previous failings of the organisation as alluded to earlier. The role of the unnamed, unseen baton carriers needs to be examined thoroughly, including systems and processes which allowed inaccurate and erroneous broadcasting to once again pass as acceptable, accurate and impartial. Sometimes adjudication like a medical diagnosis is not sufficient, merely identifying a septic boil is not enough – it requires to be lanced and cleansed.

If a manager bonding with his club's supporters is deemed "cringeworthy" I wonder what word Mr Duncan would use to describe a newspaper which spreads lies about deceased football supporters to deflect the blame away from others.

I think there are pros and cons in increasing or decreasing the size BD. The workload is considerable and would be extremely challenging, if at all feasible, for a smaller board. The setting up of sub groups, particularly for long term aims or goals seems like a good solution - leaving the board members to concentrate on the day to day dynamics, which at a club of both size and profile of Rangers are considerable in themselves.

No Davie, I think there are better qualified people within our support for such a role.

Yep I would concur Frankie - it is becoming an increasingly "hard sell". Nonethless I think I would rather pitch in a difficult environment than face the alternatives.

Kill Devil Hills North Carolina, may seem a strange place to start a discussion on Club 1872. But it was here on the 17th December, 1903, that Wilbur and Orville Wright pioneered mankind’s first powered flight. The maiden flight that day lasted all of just 12 seconds and covered a distance of only 120 feet. The second and third attempts managed 175 and 200 feet respectively before the fourth and final attempt of the day managed the grand old distance of 853 feet during a voyage that lasted 59 seconds. That final attempt saw the plane crash into the ground causing damage to the frame thus preventing any further sojourns that day. This fairly inauspicious and less than spectacular start did little to deter either the brother’s, or mankind’s enthusiasm for powered flight. And less than a century later not only was it possible to traverse continents by air, but also explore beyond the earth itself. It would be inaccurate to describe Club 1872’s maiden flight as either “fairly inauspicious” or “less than spectacular”, in short it has been an unmitigated disaster, a shambles. The birthing pains of an organisation born prematurely and not fully prepared for the environment into which it was born to operate. For those of us who are disciples of fan ownership it has been a considerable setback, but it is more important than ever that we metaphorically “keep the faith”. The recent excellent synopsis by Andy McKellar & Big Blue Bear on Gersnet http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/770-the-club1872-crossroads provides a clear signpost of where we want our organisation to go. Club 1872 is a workable, sustainable but nonetheless challenging model for fan engagement. Whilst the workload is huge, it is manageable. It would be even more manageable if there was effective PR at our club, with volunteer and unqualified Club 1872 board members not being left to defend both club and support. There is nothing dignified whatsoever in a silence which sees both our club and support besmirched by newspapers and journalists with a clear agenda. With only one remaining director it is clear the organisation requires fresh elections and the nomination of a new board of directors. My understanding is that the new poll suggesting the re-engagement of both Laura Fawkes and Joanne Percival is a means of both facilitating and expediting such elections, along with the introduction of a much needed constitution. Having worked with both of these ladies in the past, I have no doubt as to their ability and commitment to undertake the necessary unglamorous work in order to bring such elections and constitution to fruition. I believe now, as I have for many years, that we as a support are better placed to both safeguard and influence the direction of our club if we have a fans organisation which can exercise not only passion, but also authority, courtesy of a significant shareholding. Cancelling your direct debit only weakens that authority. Let us get our fans organisation airborne once again.

Given the fact Pete that its been common knowledge for several weeks, that both Laura and Joanne were willing to return to assist Club 1872 in any capacity - I would respectfully suggest otherwise. I would suggest however that their concern, care and committment towards Club 1872 and to making it a success, was the overriding factor in such a decision.

I agree BH - the facts themselves make a far more impressive indictment. Risked the future of the Club with a reckless spending spree which was unsustainable Placed the club in an even more precarious position by embarking on a risque tax avoidance scheme. Throughout the course of his tenure assured fans he would only ever sell the club to someone who could take us forward. Eventually sold us to an absolute charlatan despite even the concerns of the much maligned Martin Bain. Then tried to get the aforesaid Bain to convince the remaining board to approve the deal. Then insulted the intelligence of everyone by claiming he was "duped". Quite simply there are no words which adequately describe hm.

Lucy, Im not certain this really is factional infighting, nor is it about individuals. There may well be different opinions being expressed on various forums based around individual's popularity etc but as far as Im concerned its about principles not individuals or popularity. I believe what transpired constituted a situational conflict of interest in that by attending the meeting Craig could gain a situational advantage over other candidates - a concern which came to fruition when a situation was discussed at the security meeting which actually featured in the candidates questions during interview. But as rbr will tell you - as was dicussed at the meeting last Thursday - Craig and I are in agreement over the circumstances, its just the interpretations which differ. For me it is unequivocal, for others it has been referred to as "a grey area".

Refreshing to see our club shunning media outlets which have treated our fans and club with absolute contempt. "So as you sow, so shall you reap"

That's an interesting take on matters - thanks for posting that BG. Im sure both Laura and Joanne will find that of equal interest.

Regretfully bud some of us are old enough to remember the Dundee Utd team under Jim Mclean which achieved unprecedented success for their club. They played to a system, and whilst there was some great players among them, some of those on the fringes could be described as average - yet what made them formidable was their ability to fit into that system.