D'Artagnan

How ridiculous is that sentence ? Nothing left the SFA "unarmed". Their continual catalogue of utter incompetency left them firing blanks.

They do intend to take action Rab but all action will be limited to the conduct refered to in the complaints issued against both clubs. As you can see in the Hibs complaint there is no reference whatsoever to the violent conduct against our players and staff

Several years ago I would have argued vehemently against any move down south. Now, with all that has transpired and our treatment - I would jump at the chance

As Frankie highlighted on twitter to him directly - his position is now untenable. It is beyond comprehension that any bear would willingly write obo of a publication which treats our support with complete disdain. Unedifying.

Would that be Anna ”Rangers cultivated sectarianism” Smith perchance 26th ? ;-))

Like a mighty gavel thundering down on the bench, the IPSO ruling on the Daily Record story produced by journalist Jane Hamilton was as powerful as it was damning. For those who have not yet seen it in full it can be found here: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=03188-16 Perhaps of particular significance is the very detailed “Remedial Action” which IPSO attached to their findings and which subsequently appeared in the Daily Record. I will leave you all to draw your own conclusions on that one. The entailment of the findings, and any disciplinary action deemed necessary by either the Daily Record or Police Scotland, will of course rest with organisations which both our club and support have little or no influence. And it’s at this point I would stress caution. Perhaps some of you will remember the fabrication of a story in respect of another group of Rangers supporters – Vanguard Bears – and on this occasion also IPSO were involved and ruled in favour of the complaint raised. https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/the-sunday-herald-the-war-on-truth/ The same Neil McKay is now The Editor of the Sunday Herald – it seems this breach of editorial guidelines did his career no harm whatsoever. If these series of events has not convinced you that our club needs a powerful, effective supporters organisation capable of responding to slurs against either our club or support – then frankly I don’t know what will. What a lot of you won’t know however is that following the publication of the Hamilton story elements of the Club 1872 working group were working tirelessly in the background building an irrefutable case proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Hamilton’s story was total fabrication. And I know this because I was contacted personally and was able to furnish them with some details to further their objective. One is left to ponder if the same tawdry procedures, failure to adhere to normal editorial guidelines, and other failings highlighted by IPSO would have been present had this been any other group or collection of people other than Rangers supporters. No-one needs told what the potential consequences were of this fabricated story and the impact they could have had on retrospective investigations into the Cup Final aftermath. The seriousness of this matter, the attempts to lay blame with the Rangers support for the failing of others, should guide our board into an appropriate response, considering all the circumstances, to the newspaper in question. The back of the camel is already broken – this incident should prove to be the final straw.

I'll just leave this small extract from todays Record out there...

Id wait CB until we see the reasons behind the ruling - though its a welcome success all the same.

Remember the Neil McCann interview with the pair of them last season and he asked them if it was risky the two of them both pushing forward. To which they both replied they never pushed forward together, Then NM showed footage of a goal they had scored or created & both of them were in the box !

There is no doubt both our full backs have been a lot less cavalier coming forward than last season. Im not sure yet whether I like this more defensive approach.

For those of us with a perfect view of it in the Copland Rousseau - Id suggest "annoyed" is putting it lightly !!!

This article just highlights the state of the print media business these days - the Sun are just as bad and their recent plagarism of the Wes interview from the Rangers website demonstrates that - taking a routine interview and "bastardising" it for a sensational headline. Staff shortages/cutbacks - the rise of social media - have presented a huge challenge for printed media. it appears to me they have gone down the route of sensational concocted stories & controversial often OTT opinion coloumns in attempt to counter it - the lack/absence of any editorial scrutiny is shocking at times. It may not exactly be the death throes of the print industry, but I do think their significance and sales will be very much reduced in the future

You and me both Boabie. Oh for the days when following your club didnt require an accountancy degree !

Yes that would be interesting - furthermore if his assertion that it was not pre-meditated came from the Police, who of course were not prepared, then I think its fair to assume such evidence has been completely overlooked.

I dont know if anyone remembers the BBC phone in on the Monday following the Cup Final - I think it was presented by Kaye Adams (though she failed to confirm when asked via twitter) Rangers & Hibs fans were phoning in to give their versions of events. I tried searching for it on BBC IPlayer but it does not seem to be available. At least one Hibs fans claimed the intention to invade the park in the event of a Hibs victory was all over Social Media the week before whilst another said it was obvious towards the end as Hibs fans positioned themselves that a pitch invasion was imminent. Yet Bowen's report claims there was no evidence of a pre-meditated intention to invade the park.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/14/sports-direct-large-shareholders-may-vote-against-chair-at-agm?CMP=share_btn_tw Large shareholders in Sports Direct are considering voting against the reappointment of the company’s chairman and other directors at next month’s annual general meeting in a bid to force change at the top of the embattled chain. Keith Hellawell, who has been chairman since 2009, will be the main target at the AGM on 7 September. At last year’s meeting, almost 24% of independent shareholders’ votes went against him. After a year in which the company’s reputation has been battered by the Guardian’s revelations about its treatment of employees and declining financial performance, critics expect more shareholders to vote against Hellawell and other non-executive directors. The stories you need to read, in one handy email Read more The admission of Mike Ashley, Sports Direct’s founder and majority owner, to MPs that the company had become too big for him to control has added to concerns about how the it is managed. A source at a large fund manager said: “I can’t imagine the votes will be kinder to the board than they were last year, and they could be pretty striking numbers. It’s possible that the chairman could face a majority of independent shareholders voting against him based on last year’s result and a stiffening of the mood. “Mike Ashley told the select committee he has not got proper command and oversight of the company, and everything we’ve seen indicates that is a fair assessment. That is a strong indictment of every member of that board.” Sports Direct’s public relations advisers did not respond to a request for comment. New rules require minority investors to approve non-executive directors at companies where a single shareholder owns 30% or more. Ashley owns 55% of the company and is its executive deputy chairman. Sports Direct has become a test of shareholders’ willingness to use the new rule to press for change. “If not now, then when?” another fund management source said. If independent shareholders vote against Hellawell, Sports Direct can force his appointment through by holding another vote of all shareholders within 90 days. Large shareholders, however, also have long-running concerns. Standard Life voted against Hellawell, and other directors such as Simon Bentley, the former boss of Blacks Leisure, at last year’s AGM. Hellawell rejected calls to quit in March when Sports Direct dropped out of the FTSE 100. He said the company was working to improve relations with shareholders and that problems with its corporate governance were often overstated. As in previous years, Sports Direct will hold the AGM at its headquarters in Shirebrook, Derbyshire. The sprawling “campus” is also the location for the company’s giant warehouse, where a Guardian investigation last year found that workers were effectively paid less than the minimum wage. Ashley has since increased pay to above the minimum wage and started his own review of working conditions, which will be assessed by Sports Direct’s legal advisers RPC. The Unite trade union, however, is seeking City support for a resolution, opposed by Sports Direct, seeking an outside review of the treatment of employees. Large shareholders are considering adding to pressure on the board by sending representatives to the meeting. Hermes Investment Management, one of Britain’s biggest fund managers, said it would send a senior official. Some big shareholders believe Hellawell’s departure is needed for the company to show that it is serious about reforming its governance. Others said they would wait to see how negotiations turned out before deciding how to vote.

You think it was all a put on JH ? I dont - I doubt he is capable of changing or altering the culture he has introduced - the overbearing, bully boy, draconian practices which not only characterise his conduct within SD - but also his dealings & behaviour outwith the organisation

Im not really surprised by Newcastle's fate 26th. What struck me from that car crash meeting with the select committee was just how out of touch he was with the happenings within SD itself - and I dont mean as an "innocent" - but as someone who clearly is incapable of effective management or introducing necesary change even its only to cosmetically comply with recommendations. I believe the old saying about the leopard & its spots is true with Ashley & I wouldnt be surprised if it all came tumbling down much closer to home rather than with one of his football playthings.

Forget abou the football analysis - job done.

Here you go Pete..

I remember it Pete - so dont worry about memory playing tricks - Scottish Cup Final i think and Im sure a young DJ scored that day. Think it went to replay after a 1-1 draw and we got beat 2-1 Edit Just checked Rangers - The Complete Record - I think it was the 70-71 SC Final

Its a great article DB. Do those of us who can attest to seeing Andy Penman play have to go in the old codgers section ??

Yep heaven forbid Rangers fans come onto a Rangers forum to chew the fat with fellow Rangers fans about issues currently concerning Rangers. And in defence of Gersnet - Ive not visited a forum today where the discussions were not about our defensive frailties. Makes a nice change to be talking footie rather than shares, shirts & boycotts.

Im afraid Anchorman the answer is that the trend has been worrying for some time - our defence is leaking goals too cheaply - and I dont think the 38 year old Clint Hill will ease that worry.

It was mentioned in the proposals TB - under the heading of constitution http://rangers.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Final-Club-1872-Proposal.pdf