buster.

"We are only too aware that our incredibly loyal supporters have been through remarkably testing times in recent years, but Rangers has made significant progress in recent months, both on and off the field.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 6 min

Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".

.......................................

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 4 min

Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".

Interesting turn of phrase.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 2 min

Affidavit from Peter Shea of Nomad Daniel Stewart includes the line: "The share price has rebounded quite satisfactorily." Not sure abt that

Curious figures to be "satisfactory"

GW arrival............... 42p

Day of Review.........21p

Has "rebounded" to 22p

I envy you. I can't concentrate on anything much because of the Rangers drama.

It's all consuming moveable feast that has seen much cash move out the door and most of the board looking like they should cut down on the feasting.

I'm not sure what sort of numbers the judge will expect. Next season is almost three months away, who is to say that those who do not want to renew are supplanted by new ST buyers afterwards?

 

Anyway, maybe the club would do well to check out a naming rights deal for the stadium to raise currently needed income too. Or hand any ST buyer 50 shares in the club, if they become available.

Have you been writing the statement of Mr.Nash or/and have you found SDM's lost 'waiting list' ?

@STVGrant

Rangers CFO Philip Nash statement to court: “Renewal of season tickets has been slower, rather than lower, than expected”. Head scratcher.

Will the judge be impressed with spin ??

Various tweets so far:

 

Break for lunch in Imran Ahmad v Rangers. Mr McBrearty, acting for Ahmad, has spent morning outlining argument for claim to arrest £620,000

 

Mr McBrearty spent morning outlining importance of uncertainty over season ticket sales and risk of insolvency it may present to Rangers.

 

Court heard Rangers CEO Graham Wallace forecasts £2m income in season ticket renewals within next 10-14 days.

 

Mr McBrearty also cast doubt on ability of Rangers to quickly raise money through minor share issue if season ticket sales are slow.

 

Mr Somers, acting for Rangers, will state his case after lunch at 2pm.

 

Mr McBrearty repeated in court public claims that around 2000 season tickets sold by Rangers to date. Mr Somers shook his head at this claim

 

Rangers CFO Philip Nash statement to court: "Renewal of season tickets has been slower, rather than lower, than expected". Head scratcher.

 

Nash statement in court that purchasing season tickets on security through trust is not possible, "matter of time before fans realise this".

You'd think Rangers were inviting an arrestment by saying there was presently enough money to remain solvent even with the 620K arrested without apparently making a forceful and convincing argument why given circumstances that they think they will have enough funds to see the club through the season ?

Various tweets so far:

 

Break for lunch in Imran Ahmad v Rangers. Mr McBrearty, acting for Ahmad, has spent morning outlining argument for claim to arrest £620,000

 

Mr McBrearty spent morning outlining importance of uncertainty over season ticket sales and risk of insolvency it may present to Rangers.

Court heard Rangers CEO Graham Wallace forecasts £2m income in season ticket renewals within next 10-14 days.

 

Mr McBrearty also cast doubt on ability of Rangers to quickly raise money through minor share issue if season ticket sales are slow.

 

Mr Somers, acting for Rangers, will state his case after lunch at 2pm.

 

Mr McBrearty repeated in court public claims that around 2000 season tickets sold by Rangers to date. Mr Somers shook his head at this claim

 

Rangers CFO Philip Nash statement to court: "Renewal of season tickets has been slower, rather than lower, than expected". Head scratcher.

 

Nash statement in court that purchasing season tickets on security through trust is not possible, "matter of time before fans realise this".

I take it of the money alreay in the coffers. part will be used to pay back the short-term loans as per contracts.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 1m

 

IA lawyer used Sandy Easdale interview with BBC as part of background. Rangers say they have statement from SE that outlines his actual view

 

:D

Al Lamont just happened to be in place that morning with camera to doorstep an unusually forthcoming and willing interviewee in Mr.A.Easdale.

His interview was both worrying and contradictory wityh what GW was to say.

A.Easdale is director of TRFC, not RIFC.

ps. Is Jack Irvine still working for the Easdales ?

Why is Somers acting for Rangers or are we that strapped for cash we cant afford council

Is Somers a lawyer to trade ?

Perhaps he'll use the 'aparthied' defence !

I think Grant Russell is there as well. He's a solid sort...

Between the two we should get a fairly comprehensive lowdown.

It'll be interesting to see what level of detail (actual numbers) the defence (Rangers) are required to show to justify their argument.

If the club say there is loads of dosh and Ahmad doesn't have to worry, then they'll have to present the numbers.

If the club say that freezing 500K would tip the club into a dark place where no-one wins, then it rather contradicts what they have recently been claiming.

isn't al lamont a rangers fan?

That is the word on the street and I have no reason not to believe it.

I talked about a secondary source because I thought it a sensible precaution rather than any certainty of ALamont omiting detail or slanting his report a certain way.

When it comes to matters Rangers, it very much looks as if McLaughlin and Lamont have had the same 'Ibrox Insiders' and both reporters have shown a willingness to go that 'extra mile' in exchange for ongoing info (which has proved to be part spin). Today is different in that 'news' should be coming from a primary source.

 

All in all you've invented a position for me and then shrieked about it (???) in response, which I think is a bit, well, McMurdo.

What do they say about modern preachers, interests, money and spin ?

Perhaps Mr.D has been attending sermons !!

For when it begins, although I'd recomend finding a secondary source to check full details have been reported in a reasonably even-handed manner.

Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug 1 h

.@BBCAlLamont in court today for Imran Ahmad v #Rangers. Follow him for all the latest.

All I know is that I am in no position to provide any detailed, solid argument against certain facts. Folk are stating, as fact, that money is flowing into the pockets of certain shareholders, yet are unable to provide any detail as to how they know this to be fact. If there is no hard evidence it proves the argument as flawed.

Heard it all before and we know where it went.

Fool me once,................................shame on you.

Fool me twice,...............................shame on me.

Fool me yet again........................?

I can see us signing Carlo Costly.

 

Hang on, we've already had him.

Well Costa is now taken so Costly it is !!

I believe the club have issued detailed audited accounts, which have been professionally verified, along with a brief summary of the spend. You obviously believe that these accounts etc are false, so prove it!!! I can only go by the information in front of me.....if there is no evidence to the contrary, I must accept that the info published by the club is true & accurate.

There is a limit to the detail provided in audited accounts.

What you desribe given circumstances is blind loyalty to a dangerous degree.

This comes with precedents that broadly say same people making same mistakes.

I say that after pointing that out to many on several occasions (CW, CG etc) and up until this point always being proved correct.

I appreciate there will be different opinions but in our case and after recent years and who are still in and around the board (including Easdale proxies), to back those who refuse to give meaningful transparency and engagement is frankly 'strange'.

Although it doesn't really. We can't afford the £30K/week at the moment and if we save it, it really shouldn't be used elsewhere.

As it stands I don't think many realise the state of play regarding the extent of cutbacks/new income required, to start breaking even.

Obviously though, you can detail exactly how some of that cash ended up in the pockets of certain shareholders. The club have provided a breakdown summary of where the cash went, but obviously fans with no involvement with the running of the club know better.

So if I can't give you an audited account of where every penny went then everything is fine ?

That level of BLIND loyalty is part of the reason why we find ourselves in the position we do today.

Elsewhere on other forums I warned fans about CW, CG etc. but few wanted to listen at the time, many asked for foolproof evidence.

and how much money have they taken ? must be in the accounts is it not?

70M came and went

I don't see the full benefits of that, do you ?

At the end of the day, it's down to individuals, if you want to in part, fund the board & friends,.......................you are welcome to do so.

I have a feeling that the club wanted to see what King's scheme looked like first; I'd be shocked and disappointed if they don't mount an aggressive counter offensive and marketing campaign over the summer.

They'd better be quick although the amount of time spent on a hollow business review that just happened to come out doesn't bode well.

In fact, perhaps it was actually a marketing campaign.

you go ahead. Just be careful there's still a club to support at the end of this if your dangerous ideas & beliefs ever come to fruition.

Could you explain what you mean with money 'shared' between their interests and the club ?? what does that mean ??

Examples of which there are many

Mike Ashely and pals,............................... eg. Bishop Associates

Bonus Culture

"Onerous Contracts"

The jist of it is that when these types (corporate sharks whose only goal is money) are involved they will find ways to take a disproportionate part of the pie. It's what they are good at and why they do what they do.

I remember a certain Charles Green standing up and saying it's all about share value, that it's in their interests that the club does well so as to earn more money.

Whilst that is true, it wasn't telling the full story or the real planned narrative. Many of the same backers of Green would appear to be backing A.Easdale.

I've no issue with highlighting dubious advice or those who give it. We absolutely must do this.

 

However, what we must also do is respect people's opinion and it's perhaps an indication of the paucity of the whole debate (and perhaps the quality those that are doing the highlighting) that people continue to trust the club regardless of recent events.

 

It's quite simple for me.

 

1. I have no wish to give the 1972 fund my money.

2. However, until the club clearly show their intentions for funding the business beyond this month, I've no wish to give them it either (in a lump sum at least).

 

I'd suggest that position is shared by many, many fans and unless the club clearly outline their investment plans then the presence of King will make no difference at all to our renewal decision.

Regarding the stand alone issue of ST's, it's very much an individual decision with supporters managing their own finances, it always has been.

To help the supporter make his decision in the past, the club have conducted marketing campaigns, both promtional advertising and often a more subtle push using the press to communicate empty or misleading promises.

We have reached a stage in our history where the sum total of actions by previous custodians has taken the club to another perlious place and I believe it important that the support think carefully about those in the boardroom, their motives and where they will or would lead us. About how they get to the 'promised land' with a well funded club whilst at the sametime satisfying their lust for money.

I believe that if the current incumbents continue to be funded they will continue to run the club in a way in which sees the money 'shared' between their interests and the club. At the moment the supporter has an opportunity to use the only genuine leverage they have to hold the board to account and/or force change.

We have reached a place where there is no easy path to take, there will be pain regardless. Personally I don't want to keep bending over and see the club fade further from where it was, continuing in part, to be a cash cow for other's interests.

I think that there will be a relatively large group who share your opinion/plan of action.

What I would say is don't let "moonbeams", "unsubstantiated corporate speak", an "interesting signing" or "emotive headlines" move you.........look for real and meaningful action regarding how the club is run, how it is to be financed and that the main assets won't be part of that etc.

I think it telling that after 120+ days, the board still haven't really given us a meaningful and detailed vision and how they intend to get there.

The DK followers must be almost apoplectic that after all he has said he has launched his scheme and still put nothing on the table himself in terms of money or plans.

 

Surely you can see now that you are being used.

Irony at it's finest !

I think it's worth bumping this given the sums of money involved.

 

I'd be surprised if Ahmad has a case to answer but if he's got this far then it's obviously not as vexatious as some suggest.

Does he go by Imran Ahmad or IAMRANGERS in the court rolls ?

ps. only a joke !