crucible

I can see only to well why.

I would suspect any vote should be null and void under present circumstances or at the very least until resolved.

I would hazard MD is singled out as the allegations are said to be against him, on reflection the RST would have been better as first thought to keep their own counsel rather than issue a statement so weak as to be useless.

Pretty hard to imagine that the RST could muddy the waters further but they have.

I was of a mind that the RST should keep their own counsel but now that is clearly a boat that has sailed, irrespective of anyone's politics this is the last distraction we need in the run up to the AGM.

Most unedifying that this is being allowed to grow arms and legs.

Washing dirty linen in public never benefits anyone other than the spectators the RST should keep its own counsel.

Why deary me, he doesn't know what he wants by dint of his abstaining approach, he would be better in the house.

He if he exists doesn't need a lawyer.

http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information

BS allegedly returns a bonus and is rewarded with removal , that makes a lot of sense. Laxey say they back him I recall.

If I am reading this correctly he is against BS and Easdale but abstaining on everything else, no wonder the financial sector is a wreck with genius like this.

Same guy as this,

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-latest-kieran-prior-wont-2164059

We already know the answer their actions like it or not are legal, why the piss poor media constantly regurgitate drivel is anyone's guess, having said that they do keep sources and high powered in a job.

The irony is apparently lost on the articles author.

Their jurisdiction does cover the location of the Rangers bank account which is where any alleged illegal repayment of capital would have taken place.

You would know this for a fact ? I see wisely it is now alleged which is bad enough as opposed to definite criminal activity, what are your grounds for alleging anything at all, do you have evidence or purely nothing more than dislike of the individual whom you and others are only to ready to smear.

I don't have to they have no jurisdiction in Scotland,, can you enlarge on this mythical complaint the one the club or anyone else has heard of from your favourite or any other prosecution agency preferably with jurisdiction. .

Perhaps he will or maybe he'll just make up a lie along the lines of the SFO don't talk to individuals eh?

They don't and they didn't not being a police body, they direct people to the point of entry to register any complaint, you still seem rather peeved about the SFO nonsense maybe you have some definitive information about a complaint no one has heard of.

Is he claiming any alleged criminality took place in Scotland?

Why don't you ask him where he is claiming criminality has taken place for he is claiming stealing has taken place, do you think he could tell you ?

but boycotting it because they are stealing our cash makes perfect sense.

 

this isn't because stckbridge is a dog person and i am a cat person ffs.

If you have evidence of theft a criminal act report it to the relevant prosecuting authority, but not the SFO they have no remit here as you have surely finally realised.

You may not be alone but you will be in a miniscule minority.

ok i will humor you.

 

no tickets will be bought

no pies will be bought

no merchandise will be bought.

 

to 2 or 3 hundred quid i put a year into the club will not go into it.

With you now personal protest as opposed to a boycott.

You haven't made anything clear, I really don't think you understand what constitutes a boycott, as opposed to some people protesting.

it will take 3 months to get a boycott orgonised. they can have that.

 

i will never have it said i am not fair minded.

What boycott, boycott of what in particular, Rangers fans don't do boycotts.

status quo at the agm will not be a case of giving the new guys a chance. it will be the same people running us who have done an abysmal job since day 1.

 

i am not of a mind to give them more time to rape us.

 

i think it should be the start of a stepping up in protest and boycotting.

i propose a boycott to force them out.

 

they don't want a higher caliber of director or king murdoc etc would be on the board with walter. they want to keep running us as they have from the start. and no doubt in the same disastrous fashion where we only just survive and they get richer and richer.

 

give them time has been the shout for to long now.

they can have 3 months certainly. the crunch will come season book renewal time.

 

trouble is we all know what will happen. they will talk a good game. get the money in, pay themselves bonuses etc and we won't find out till September when the accounts come out and next december we ill be back here bitching and doing nothing.

 

this board can't even cut the wages of a man desperate to take a pay cut.

Do you really know what you want, you seem to change tack like a drifting ship. Do they get time or don't they or is mayhem your preferred option if the vote goes against.

Can someone translate please?

Easily, one used to be in the Ibrox boardroom and now isn't, the other is and will be for a long time.

That's your usual response when you don't have a proper reply - enigmatic nonsense.

No, it's quite simple when you compare as you like to do what one is and one isn't, but you must use the correct criteria.