Tom Davison

This issue is a no win situation for Rangers. If the playing a friendly suggestion is declined, we will be criticised. If we agree to play and very few Rangers supporters turn up, which is both likely and understandable, again there will be criticism. I don't go along with the return to the negotiating table view. Not unless there was an expression of remorse by the SPL gang. These were the people who wanted Rangers to sign away titles before any evidence had been presented and when their persistence failed, they wanted Rangers to meet the costs. As far as I know, that remains their position. Do we really want to negotiate with such individuals? What benefits could we realistically expect to emerge from negotiations?

Wouldn't be surprised or unhappy if we got Zaliukas.

Is anyone really surprised at the more sympathetic reporting of the Hearts situation given the track record of most journalists? The Celtic people, both club officials and supporters, don't see Hearts as a threat to their achieving trophies etc. which was not the case with Rangers. What is happening at Hearts is no big deal to most of them. The motivation to trot out all sorts of criticisms doesn't exist.

About this time last year, Turnbull Hutton described the SPL people as corrupt. Their handling of the Hearts issue suggests that Mr Hutton had a point. Seems that when it suits his club, joining a corrupt organisation doesn't present any problem.

Frankie's question is a good one. I guess that most of us haven't a clue as to who has the power to influence the direction of the club. There seems no end to the confusion. Will there be an EGM? What is the position with the Easdales? As a very modest shareholder I would welcome some information but I genuinely don't know who would be able to say something that would be meaningful. If this posts betrays a sense of frustration that is how I suspect many of us are feeling right now.

Just read a new publication entitled We don't do Walking Away by Lisa Gray. This is a well written and interesting book and the author is clearly not an anti-rangers journalist. It is good value at £7.99.

It is important to remember that the findings of the PM/Deloitte review were examined and verified by a hugely respected legal figure, Roy Martin QC. Agree with Stewarty, it is unlikely that even the SFA would be prepared to challenge the opinion of Mr Martin.

I apologise if I am being dim but can someone enlighten me. Who does own the club? I know that several people and groups are shareholders but who is entitled to call the shots?

Rangers supporters were rightly indignant when we were asked to surrender titles before any evidence of wrong doing was produced. So what is the problem with James Easdale? What has he done wrong? His brother was convicted of a crime many years ago and he paid the price. I suspect that if any of our family had.done wrong many years ago and had paid the price, we would be indignant, if their indiscretion was being cast up against them. Sorry if the Tom English comment irritated you, Frankie, but Tom English is prepared to be critical without demonstrating much evidence for his criticism. Please explain why James Easdale is unsuitable to be a board member. He seems to have satisfied Walter Smith that he was acceptable. I know that when it comes to Rangers matters that To English an Frankie are a million miles apart and that is why it is so disappointing that you have made the anti-James Easdale remarks without providing a basis for doing so. That is what Tom English does.

Frankie, please elaborate on why you don't want James Easdale involved with the club. Your reservations may be justified but in the absence of your reasons, some may brand you as Tom English, in disguise.

What is best for our club? Please elaborate, Frankie. I believe that skipping a league brings with it more deep seated negatives than short term positives but your take on this would be valued.

There are many good contributions to this issue. However, I am confused and will remain so until one crucial question is clarified. Just who or what group has sufficient shares to claim that they own Rangers and can call the shots. I confess to not having a clue. I was alarmed a couple of weeks back when some lawyer bloke from the Middle East indicated that he had the power/influence to call an EGM for the purpose of changing the structure of the board. I may be missing the point but while it would be great to have the voice of people like ourselves, who have gladly put our hands in our pockets, in support of our club, In a position to be involved in the decision making process, I am at a loss to understand just how this can be achieved until the confusion over who has "ownership rights" and what their intentions are.

It would have been helpful if the PFA spokesman had suggested that an obvious way to overcome any difficulty would be for the SFA to remove the illegal signing embargo imposed on Rangers. Their silence on this issue, which cannot be in the best interest of their members, is disappointing.

I know that there are those who would welcome CG back as someone who will stand up for Rangers but as D'Art hinted in his fine article, that is an area, where CG was unsuccessful. He warned, he growled and threatened over blatant injustices but was unable to persuade the SFA or SPL people to reconsider their position and at times, they seemed to regard CG as a figure of fun, when he spoke out. Rangerrab is almost certainly right, in his belief that we need to await the outcome of police investigations before the action that needs to be taken against the SFA/SPL can be activated.

Have a look at Mr Mather's background. His business credentials are in no way inferior to those of. Martin Bain and Charles Green.

Spiers derives pleasure from winding up Rangers supporters and judging by the reaction, he has been, at least, partly successful. Does it matter what Graham Spiers thinks? By reacting to what he says or writes suggests that it does matter when in truth, he is a pompous nobody whose opinion carries no weight.

If Tom English is fed up commenting on the Rangers situation, why doesn't he leave Scotland and give others the benefit of his insight and journalistic skills? After all, the readership of the newspapers that employ him is both modest and declining. His reason for soldiering on in an environment that he finds so tedious may be that no alternative demand for his services exist.

Not sure about a parallel with the Hillsborough tragedy. Yes, many in the media have been grossly unfair. The football authorities displayed hostility and gave no help to a member club that had fallen into the hands of a despicable character. However, some blame has to be attached to Rangers. It was our owner whose negligence in not carrying out checks on CW's background and failed to heed warnings, that led to honest businesses suffering and causing deep concern to many men and women. I usually find myself in total agreement with D'Artagnan but not this time. I just cannot accept that, in spite of the unfairness that Rangers Football Club has suffered that we should be drawing comparisons with the despair and tragedy, suffered by Liverpool families.

It was an astute move to invite Roy Martin QC to oversee the findings. Apparently Mr Martin is acknowledged to be a leading figure in legal circles and it is unlikely that anyone who challenged his opinion would be taken seriously. That is not to say Craig Whyte, Stewart Regan and the usual suspects in the media won't try to discredit the findings but that's the way it has always been with such people.

Is Jim Traynor now just an onlooker like the rest of us? It is unfair to attach blame to him when others are pursuing their own agendas so blatantly but it would be helpful to hear something in response to the confusion.

Ahmed says "He wants nothing but the best for Rangers." He sure has a funny way of showing it. So much for the cleansing process that Ally was hoping for. About a year ago, a good man called Sandy Jardine stood up and spoke up. We were told last week that some lawyer from the Middle East could play a part in deciding who served on the board of our club. Most of us will have been glad to contribute to Glasgow Rangers both financially and by our presence. However, I guess that many of us are now totally fed up at being led by characters such as Imran. Ahmed and if a 2013, Sandy Jardine emerged to provide the leadership in getting the message over that we are no longer prepared to stand for those who are involved at Rangers for financial gain, I am sure that Rangers supporters would rally round in substantial numbers. Sadly, the main weapon would be a reluctance to renew season tickets. There doesn't seem to be another option available and it. Is unlikely that anything like 38,000 would renew anyway until we can see the back of the gangsters in expensive suits.

That is so but the point, which I was trying to make is that I find it rubbish that a situation has been created that some lawyer bloke from the Middle East can influence the make up of our board. Perhaps, I am being over emotional but I just feel that the heart and soul of a club, which means so much to many is being surrendered to people who are motivated by financial gain and who are unlikely to care very much about Glasgow Rangers.

So, some lawyer from the Middle East, called Houssami feels he has a right to influence the structure of the board of Glasgow Rangers. The word on my lips right now is DESPAIR.

This is truly an excellent contribution. Yes, the people have demonstrated that they will come but the same people are people who value honesty and integrity. I am one of the people who is appalled at the type of character who is involved at our great club and I find myself asking a question that I have never previously asked. Do I want to keep coming when individuals whose sole interest in Glasgow Rangers is to line their pockets, will be the beneficiaries, if I continue to come? I suspect there will be others who read this, who will understand, where I am coming from.

Agree this is good news. You say "the owners we trust". My biggest hurdle in trusting the current owners of Glasgow Rangers is I genuinely don't know, who the owners are. I guess over the past weeks and months many of us identify with confused.com.