D'Artagnan

Can I just confirm, unequivocally, in response to some rumours which have surfaced - none of the directors who resigned have applied for the SLO post, or any other post for that matter currently advertised by Rangers.

Thats about right BD - unlike RF which was shares acquision only - the CIC is in different parts now to accommodate the wishes of members. The shares CIC will solely be for the acquisition of shares and the projects CIC for projects. But both are still goverened by CIC rules. In the case of the Projects CIC any projects undertaken would still have to satisfy the conditions laid out for a Community Interest Company.

Perhaps I can answer that for you Walterbear. Club 1872 is formed as a Community Interest Company and there are strict guidelines on the use of member's money - which is where terms such as "asset lock" and "community test" come into play. Use of money for projects by those who have opted for it, is permitted but even then must satisfy stringent tests.

It may only be a short paragraph, but nonetheless it speaks volumes..

https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/

What concerns me most Craig, is having come to such a realisation, the considrable momentum which picked up for its repeal.

It would appear Santa was kind to big Robert Marshall of Louden Tavern fame, judging by events on Saturday. His new shiny Pyle Pro Bullhorn electronic megaphone has replaced the old and trusted microphone, alas as a consequence of Santa’s benevolence there is just “No place to hide” in terms of escaping Robert’s infamous one liners. There is an upside however – one can reasonably enquire of this landlord “How are your pyles this evening squire”? And I would encourage you all to do so. After Saturday’s match against Celtic there will be a lot of bears wishing Santa, albeit belatedly, could be so kind to our manager in the January transfer window. At times, it was akin to a Night at the Movies with Tav determined to land a role in Jenny Agutter’s “Walkabout” and Waghorn apparently, a stick on should they decide to do a re-make of “White Men Can’t Jump”. I doubt I’m the only bear in the room who would wish these two exposed to a Jock Wallace type de-brief on their respective performances rather than some modern-day education about how to improve their “pitch geography”. It was painful to watch at times with the term “hot knife and butter” perhaps summing up our catastrophic defending, not so much a nightmare on Elm Street but Edmiston Drive. The fact we could have somehow squeezed out a point at the end of the day says more about Wes’ continued improvement as a keeper and their inability to finish than anything else. Perhaps however Saturday did end the mystery of Harry Forrester’s irregular appearances this season, whether it be down to selfishness or poor judgement of the final ball, but Oh Lord, how many of us will re-live that simple square pass for the rest of our days? While “Harry Met Sally” or “Deconstructing Harry” might seem like suitable contenders for this moment, personally I’d opt for Hitchcock’s 1955 classic “The Trouble with Harry”. While our midfield may be competing for the leading role in “The Invisible Man” at least young Barrie had the swagger and look about him as one who may be a contender for “The man who would be king”. Its just a pity that so many others could not even provide a “best supporting role” let alone an accurate pass. When Souness was at the helm at Ibrox it was considered a crime to give the ball away unnecessarily, Saturday unfortunately provided us with a long list of potential movie villains in this regard. Coming home on the bus on Saturday provided the setting for “12 Angry Men” (so long as you are generous with numbers and gender) with everyone from the board, to the manager to the players, none failed to escape the “The Wrath of Khan”. The eventual consensus was not particularly encouraging, nor were the solutions either quick or easy. Unless of course a benevolent, belated Santa were to come along with a Slumdog Millionaire.

BH/Steve Dont mean to put a spanner in the works to this delightful linguistic discussion - but its actually a comma after "thereto" not a full stop.

Do you know Ian - I think that may well be our realistic starting point - & once that realisation sinks in we will be all the better for it.

I think you are correct BG - was it not a statement which was issued by the then working group ?

Yep thats the one. Though you can file that error under rushed typo rather than grammatical. PS Prof Brooks Landon is the inspiration

Id fire it into the official email account

To be honest bud I dont think it matters whether there is enthusiasm within the Club 1872 board or not. And what I mean by that is that this is a member driven organisation and if that was the feeling of our members then it would be a function and duty of the Club 1872 board to communicate that to the Rangers board.

One man's monster is another man's culmative sentence. :-))

http://club1872.co.uk/news/hogmanay-old-firm-statement/

Doesnt surprise me either Rab - he has rebuilt a squad on a shoestring, gained promotion & now sits second top in Scotland. Perhaps food for thought for some of the "Warburton must go" proponents.

Hmmm Im not convinced on that bud = the wording suggests , in my opinion, prepared material rather than singing - but I could be wrong. I remember getting a lecture from a leading advocate which always stuck with me throughout my career - always go for the simplest constructed charge as its the most difficult for the defence to break down

Yes I should have posted it in here as well - my apologies - the threads were more active on the other two forums

Promulgated - display, publish, put into operation Surreptiously - done by stealth or in secret without authorisation

Do you think Im making it up barca ?

I looked at this legislation as well DB but I think the word "publishes"" is key here - ie it is designed to apply to written material

Id suggest the section below from the 2000 Act would be a competent charge - though only the courts themseves could decide whether such singing qualified as "support" in the broadest terms of the Act. The requirement for it to be a proscribed organisation is of course met.

I think this from the 2006 Act would cover it.

While I dont disagree with the content of your post Scott - the suggestion we write to MP's is a fruitless one. What transpired at Parkhead & Celtic Boys Club is no secret only known to a select few. The recent unwillingness to even make mention of it in recent press reports into child abuse underlines this.