crucible

Ashely to ditch the riches of the EPL for the poor house of Scottish football, you couldn't make it up they however like to try to imply so.

As for PM pity he wasn't so sentient when SDM was running us as his private business club and door opener.

Disturbing air of people trying to accomodate liewwell's comment, thankfully it was fully addressed on Rangerschat tonight without fear or favour.

Whoever the new CEO is needs to be prepared to go after the pondlife employed in these publications and take appropriate action where required. A indefinite ban from Ibrox for this newspaper and its so-called journalists will do for starters.

I will go with the club over the Rangers hating rhebel any day and any way.

Life is so much sweeter when the likes of in particular the rhebel and other rags paper filling rubbish is totally ignored.

Good to see the record story being torn to pieces in most places.

So how long is it going to take the SFA to undertake the fit and proper person test?

And, goodness me, I see no mention of a fit and proper person test in any of today's media.

Spiers, English and the usual suspects must have overlooked this. No?

It is not the remit of the SFA to conduct a fit and proper person test.

They claimed the names were being scrutinised by McColl's lawyers, we now know that is untrue even if you do not.

I understand they do not have something they claimed they did,names.

I am always wary of people who tell me what can only be described as an untruth.

There is nothing to grasp not even any names that the requisitioners claimed they had, I suspect they are tilting at windmills a very poor show all round by them.

I doubt anyone will be losing voting rights, nominees work in every other case no one is going to be changing protocol for us.

I would lay odds no names other than the nominees which we already have will be forthcoming, an embarassment doesn't even begin to cover it coupled with blatant misinformation an utter shambles.

Total damp squib with a few contradictions, specifically the administration nonsense.

So if Regan hadn't made that statement would you then want to know who owns us? Is it the threat of Regan making good his statement that leads to you not wanting to know our owners?

Regan did make the statement, lawwell has now seen fit to comment on something that he has no reason to at this time, I know who the owners are they are Blue Pitch and Margarita works for me and apparently it did for the SFA until people started making waves.

I've asked you this before but you've not answered, but I'll persevere because I find your mindset on this subject so opposite from mine that I'm intrigued at how you came to it.

 

Are you simply disinterested in the ownership of Rangers? Is it all about the team on the park for you and you've not really much interest in boardroom and ownership issues? I'm not being dismissive or judgemental when I ask this, I'm just genuinely curious why someone who contributes to threads on the subject fairly regularly doesn't seem interested in who owns Rangers?

I am happy with the outcome of Pinsent Masons inquiry I have no desire to bring it up again under any circumstances, regan has made it clear the possible consequences of whyte involvement, I have no desire to challenge him on that or see him supplied with any possible ammunition to advance his thoughts on the matter.

If you and others are willing to risk all to prove some point carry on, as before I won't be joining you, not because I believe whyte is involved but because I am aware of the possible consequences of opening a can of worms that was well sealed by Pinsent Masons. In case you haven't noticed we are where we are, we have no power to change that other than climbing the leagues, we are at the behest of others.

Crucible doesn't want to know. He seems to be scared the SFA haven't been told the truth and that Whyte is still around. Though he trusts the present incumbents enough to support them at an AGM.

 

I have a feeling it's more an anti certain individuals and Groups than an outright support for Easdales and Stockbridge.

 

It's good to know that you support those of us who want to know the names, we must have the truth before we can move on.

I as you have no given right to know, you appear with others to believe that you do have a right, I can live with the fact that I don't.

The only person I've come across on here who thinks Whyte's involved is Crucible. I very much doubt Whyte's involved but I would really like to know who is? Don't you?

I think Whyte is involved ? you will have to show me where I said that, which I didn't maybe you confuse me with Alistair Johnston. I do not know whither whyte is involved or not but I lean to the view that he isn't, however I am not willing as you are to risk everything to find out and reopen something put to bed by Pinsent Masons, as highlighted by the poster D'Artagnan.

Pretty poor so far, lots n lots of long aimless balls.

Should be doing a lot lot better than the long ball.

I have seen a page of the PM report - authenticity unconfirmed but I choose, atm, to believe it just as I may in the future not believe it - which specifically mentioned that on several points of interest co-operation was not forthcoming.

 

I fail to see why they would include such a line if there is no doubt at all about certain peoples' involvement.

It would depend how much credence you afford the source to believe any of their lines.

Day late rhebel have been taken to task over this story by the LSE and asked to remove comments attributed to LSE from it, they will be running a major "fit and proper" article tomorrow, some more stirring no doubt.

That article is over 3 years old. Opinions/Agenda's can change in that time.

Hence I qualified it by using doesn't or didn't and highlighted the date.

Are you saying the present Directors or those who have just departed have misinformed/deceived the SFA ?

 

Or may have ?

No I never said anything remotely like that.

If someone is intent on setting fire to your house, would you not take steps to try to stop them? If we find some way to insist that the SFA find out the names of shareholders, it would render any attempt by them to punish the club post facto null and void. They would be in the position of saying 'well, we (the SFA) did nothing while you, the fans, tried to oblige us to take action which we ignored, but we're going to punish your club anyway.' They would be left wide open to private prosecution and I for one would love my day in court.

 

The problem I have is that I don't know how to insist on them doing the paperwork ahead of the bonfire.

Fit and proper is the responsibility of clubs to ensure and execute not the SFA's, if the SFA find at a later date that they have been misinformed/deceived regan makes it quite clear that sanctions are available.

Or even more worrying, should this legally binding guarantee prove to false, it's not Green, Ahmad or Murray who will be held to account by the SFA, but the club they were running, i.e. Rangers.

 

I have admitted to paranoia long before but this is a set-up. Why on earth would the governing body settle for a guarantee, written or verbal, instead of insisting on seeing the names on the papers? They ignore the law when it suits them, so there's no point wheeling out the old anonymity cobblers here.

 

We're being set up again, man. We're being set up again.

Unfortunately there are those only to willing to fuel this particular fire, who indeed needs enemies.

Dave King doesn't or didn't appear to give it any backing, as it is from the day late rhebel it should be acceptable as gospel.

Dave King interview: Fans takeover plan for Rangers never had a chance to succeeding

25 Jun 2010 00:00

EXCLUSIVE: DAVE King has dismissed as a pipedream the idea Rangers could ever be owned and operated by its fans.

Dave King has dismissed as a pipedream the idea Rangers could ever be owned and operated by its fans.

The Ibrox director says his club's supporters already invest more in their team than any other followers in the world and it's unrealistic to expect more.

He says the concept of fan ownership, backed by bodies such as the Rangers Trust, won bank and Murray Group support during the club's darkest days last season.

But he emphatically stated it was always a non-starter in his eyes and there is no great groundswell of support for fan ownership among the majority of the Light Blues legions.

So if I've understood you correctly you blame the owner(s) of the club, namely Whyte and SDM. So do I.

 

Now I think, if we'd had more clarity, asked more questions and demanded answers of the people who owned us what happened might have been avoided. The people who own Rangers should know that the support are vigilant now, will question their motives, their decisions, their words and their actions, after all it was our previous owners who nearly killed us. Don't you agree?

 

So the very beginning of that conversation is them telling us exactly who they are. Why anyone wouldn't want to know that that, indeed demand to know that is beyond me.

 

Just for your information it was the owners of Hearts and Dunfermline who fucked their clubs over too. You can see the pattern here, can't you?

We would appear to be going round in circles here, using a proxy to conceal your shareholding is quite legal, until it isn't neither you nor I have any legal right to know who is the beneficial owner of said shares otherwise why would proxies/nominees be used everyday as a legitimate business tool by countless companies, at that I am out.