neutralscot

Bit off topic for a gers site, but how do people here view the future for scottish clubs? The top five leagues are now so far in the distance that any future european success for a scottish club now appears to be fanciful. England are never going to allow us to play within their leagues. The bottom english club now earns more than a quarter of a billion from tv every five years whilst SPFL winners will receive around 10 million. Personally, I'd approach the dutch and belgian leagues and try hammer out a northern european amalgamation before the damage done to these countries is irreparable, with promotion and relegation from national setups. The old firm both made a second tier euro final last decade. Both clubs spent 30 million (on debt) or so achieving it. Now I'm not so sure that 30 million will come close to providing the squad capable of euro success. IMO the football landscape has changed into a place we have never been before. We are in danger of being permanently left behind, despite the fact our fans are possibly the best in the world. Our grand children will grow up as barca / munich / arsenal fans first, scottish clubs second, if we don't arrest the situation.

Part 2 Then what happens? Nothing! The statement by the person that they are “fit and proper” is accepted by the SFA. Mr Regan Spells It Out Saturday’s Scotsman had a lengthy piece regarding this issue, where Mr Regan made it clear what the activities of the SFA were in connection with the “fit and proper” test. I have quoted Mr Regan below together with my comments on what he is saying in bold beneath the relevant parts of the quotes. ——————————————————– “We need to understand this idea of a ‘fit and proper person test’. It’s a myth. There is no test. People don’t have to come in and pass an exam. What happens is that any change of director, any change of ownership or team manager, etcetera, etcetera, has to be notified to us on an official return. In doing that, there is a very clear statement, which is set out in our articles. “It says that ‘each member club will procure that the relevant office bearer, secretary, director or member of the board of management will personally confirm to the Scottish FA, using the form prescribed by the board, that he has been furnished with a copy of the articles and having read, in particular, Article 10 and Article 13, the information supplied by him using the prescribed form is complete, true and accurate; and he is a fit and proper person to hold such position within Association Football’. “Now, what that says is that we rely on our members, bearing in mind we are a members’ organisation, to say they have gone through all the contents of Article 10. For example, it talks about being bankrupt, being of unsound mind and treated under the Mental Health Act, pending suspension and so on.” Here is the answer to the quiz question! The fit and proper test is a myth! There is no test! It is interesting that, as far as I am aware, this statement was the first indication by the SFA that that was their position. At all the time when the investigations into Mr Whyte were ongoing, the SFA never made this point clear. One wonders if perhaps clarity is forthcoming now because of hints of possible legal action by “interested parties” who claim to have lost out financially as a result of Mr Whyte’s alleged activities. After all, the argument goes, if the SFA is the regulator, and refuses to carry out that job, leading to losses, then ought it to bear moral and indeed legal responsibility? Mr Lecter, in my whimsical example at the top of the page, or Colonel Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein, or Bernie Madoff, or Dr Shipman, or any wrongdoer would therefore be treated by the SFA as a fit and proper person, as long as they were willing to lie on the form! As the Articles stand, a person needs to satisfy the Board of the SFA that they are fit and proper. In reality this is achieved by filling in a form. That appears to be the Board abdicating responsibility. Mr Regan states that they rely on the members of the SFA to police the matter. However, that is not what the Articles say. The responsibility for deciding that a person is fit and proper rests on the Board and has not, as far as I have seen, been formally delegated to the member clubs. Even then, is it reasonable to expect Dukla Pumpherston, now wholly owned by Mr Lecter, to “tip the wink” to the SFA that the infamous murderer and cannibal is not actually OK? “The alternative to that is that we, as a Scottish FA, would have to employ a cast of thousands to research every potential takeover, every potential change of director, across the entire game. Bear in mind we don’t just govern the professional game, we govern the entire game of football in Scotland. “We don’t have the resources or time to do that. We are not going to use Scottish football’s money to do that. We rely heavily on the clubs themselves.” They would not need a “cast of thousands”. There are many bodies with regulatory responsibilities across Scotland who do not require huge ranks of people to check these matters. It would involve more staff undoubtedly, but the SFA could, for example, introduce a fee structure for new applicants to fund this. That could be variable, depending on the level if the organisation. An SPL club would pay more than a team in the bottom rung of the South of Scotland League, for example. As I said above, if the SFA does not want the responsibility, it should change its Articles to make it clear that, in fact, it is each member club which must be satisfied about its own office bearers, not the Board of the SFA. “In the case of a plc like Rangers, you have a board of directors who are selling a club to an individual. That board of directors would undergo due diligence and, because they are a plc, would have to go through a fairly stringent process of testing out who they are selling the club to. “When you get confirmation that the person they have sold the club to has satisfied these criteria, then you have to take a certain amount of credence from what those directors are saying. That is what the Scottish FA have done.” Mr Regan here shows an interesting view of the legal responsibilities of a board of directors. Let’s look at the Rangers case. Who decided to sell the club to Mr Whyte? Was it the Rangers plc board? No, it wasn’t. Instead the Board of Murray International Holdings decided to sell its 85% stake in Rangers plc to Mr Whyte’s company, Wavetower Ltd. Rangers plc’s board had nothing to do with that. The Board could not stop MIH selling the shares. Because it is a plc, an Independent Board Committee was set up to consider the rights of the minority shareholders. That IBC expressed serious concerns, but on the basis that 85% of the shares were being sold for £1, the total value of the remaining 15% of the shares was about 20p! There was no value for the minority shareholders to lose. In any event the IBC could have triggered a requirement for Wavetower to offer to buy all the remaining shares, but at that value there was no reason to do so. So, Rangers plc, a member of the SFA, had nothing to do with the decision to sell to Wavetower. That was decided by MIH, who are not members of the SFA. What due diligence about the purchaser must a company do when it is being sold? None. As long as the seller is happy that the purchaser has the money to pay the price, then the sale goes through. In any event, most members of the SFA are not plc’s. What investigations does Mr Regan think they should undertake before selling, or taking on a new office bearer? Mr Regan says that the SFA has to take on a certain amount of credence from what the directors say. In Rangers’ case the IBC said, and I paraphrase, “DON’T DO IT – WE CAN’T SEE WHERE HE HAS THE MONEY TO DO THIS!!!!” “When the individual has then told lies and hasn’t disclosed the disqualification that he was holding, then comes back and tries to argue that wording in Article 10 is misleading and he believes it was the point of disqualification that had to be disclosed, not the fact he was still disqualified, and uses smoke and mirrors to try and buy time, then it becomes very difficult to deal with the matter quickly. The Articles are a legal and binding document. What matters is what they say, not what they are meant to say, if there is a difference. They are not a model of clarity in their drafting (which is being polite). My reading of clause (g) is consistent with the approach taken by Mr Whyte. I read it as referring to the date of “sentence” passing, rather than whether the “sentence” is continuing. The interpretation of Article 10 will be a matter, ultimately, for the courts, whether through the legal system or the sporting courts. The clause is ambiguous, at best, and I think it is unfair of Mr Regan to state that using a different interpretation o is using “smoke and mirrors”. He should make sure his organisation’s Articles say what he means them to say! Mr Regan appears to have decided that Mr Whyte is a liar on this point. Whilst Mr Whyte could be criticised for various matters, following a valid legal interpretation of a question, even if it turns out to be an incorrect interpretation, is not lying. “That’s why from October to February we were in dialogue with [Rangers secretary] Gary Withey from Collyer Bristow trying to get to the bottom of Whyte’s disqualification. In the meantime, there were clearly lots of other issues coming out under the table. “To put the fit and proper issue to bed for a second, we have to say we rely heavily on a plc managing their own due diligence and the directors of that plc managing the transfer of ownership in the best interests of the club. As I mentioned above, I think Mr Regan misunderstands the responsibilities of the directors of Rangers plc. In addition, how does his position fit with all of the clubs under the SFA umbrella who are private limited companies, or unincorporated associations? “It is my understanding that for the four years or so the club was up for sale, the talk of acting in the best interests of Rangers was top of the agenda. I think that has to be taken into account. Talk is cheap. Sir David Murray saying that he wanted to sell to a person acting in Rangers’ best interests creates no legal responsibilities. Let’s say that the best offer for Rangers came from Joe Bloggs, a multi-millionaire property developer, whose intention was to pay MIH £100 million for 85% of the shares, run the team for a couple of years while going through the planning process, and then demolish Ibrox and Murray Park, turning them into luxury housing, hotel developments, and retail parks, and at the same time as the bulldozers move in, closing the club down completely. The Board of MIH would be in dereliction of its duty to its shareholders to refuse that offer. Mr Bloggs would be seen as a fit and proper person, even whilst declaring that, on buying the club, he was shutting it in two years. If the Rangers plc board objected to this as not being in the interests of Rangers plc, how would the SFA deal with this? Would they demand Mr Bloggs’ business plan and then decide not to let him run the club? How? The statements about acting in the best interests of Rangers are meaningless in this case. “It’s easy after the event to try and find a scapegoat, to say we should have done a fit and proper person test and that we should have prevented the takeover. I can’t see how we could have done that without having gone through a long, bureaucratic process on every single director.” This issue shows that the matter of football governance in Scotland is seriously flawed. As I mentioned, the Articles place the responsibility for deciding if someone is fit and proper upon the Board of the SFA. If the Board abdicates that responsibility informally, as it has done here, then it can be answerable for its failures. If a member club can prove that it has lost out directly as a result of Mr Whyte being deemed a fit and proper person, when, as Mr Regan now says, he should never have been, then surely the SFA Board will be answerable for this failure? Whilst not of course equating Mr Whyte with Dr Shipman, one of the issues raised in his horrible case was that the health authorities and regulatory bodies failed to heed the warnings, allowing him to continue his murderous activities. They by no means had the primary responsibility for what he did – he did, but he could have been stopped earlier. Hindsight is always perfect. However, in the case of Mr Whyte, there were whistles being blown about him from before the takeover, although not in the mainstream press. Websites and blogs of various hues raised serious issues about his business record, and not all of these were motivated by anti-Rangers malice. Indeed, anyone so motivated would have been better saying nothing and waiting for the mess to get even worse!

Part one of an excellent article by paul McConville about SFA corporate governance and lack off. concerning CW takeover. The SFA’s “Fit and Proper” Test – Self-Certification for Football Clubs – A Farce? Part 1 – Craig Whyte Secretly recorded phone conversation between the SFA and the new Chairman of Dukla Pumpherston of the Scottish First Division:- SFA - Is that Mr Hannibal Lecter? This is the SFA calling. Lecter - Hold on, just finishing my dinner, these fava beans and chianti are delicious…how can I help you? SFA - Just wanted to make sure you are a fit and proper person to take over Dukla. Lecter - OK. What do you need from me? SFA - Just sign the form to say that you are fit and proper and pop it in the post to us. Lecter - And then you will meet to consider it? SFA - No. As long as you tell us that you are fit and proper, then that’s you in! Lecter - Thank you very much! Call ends ——————————————– And a quiz question too, which will be answered below – what do the following have in common – the unicorn, Pandora’s Box, Brigadoon, the SFA “fit and proper” test, Theseus and the Minotaur? ———————————————- The issues of football governance at the forefront of media coverage just now, not just in Scotland but in England too, as well as worldwide. The BBC recently reported, under the heading “Owners face increased scrutiny in football governance revamp”, that the English football authorities propose to put the suitability of prospective club owners and directors “under scrutiny by a new regulatory body set up to help improve football governance.” The FA Regulatory Authority will have, amongst other responsibilities, the duty to check if the “fit and proper” test is satisfied by English club directors. Government pressure has forced the FA to act. This contrasts with the parlous state of football governance in Scotland as detailed below. Craig Whyte Craig Whyte has been declared not to be a “fit and proper” person to be a director of a Scottish football club by the SFA. The investigation by the SFA started in October after the BBC Inside Story revelation that he was a former disqualified director. Matters were delayed as a result of the alleged lack of co-operation shown by Collyer Bristow, acting for Rangers and Mr Whyte. After the club entered administration, a panel chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith was convened and reported to the SFA in the two-week period set for it to do so. The decision followed the Special Board Meeting which considered Lord Nimmo Smith’s report highlighting “a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner”. As a result, Rangers have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute. As Stewart Regan of the SFA said:- “Specifically, areas of potential breach to be considered by the Judicial Panel include: · Obligations and duties of members · Official return · Financial records · Division of receipts and payment of expenses (Scottish Cup).” I think I will look into what the Judicial Panel can do at a later date. For now, it is interesting that the finding regarding Mr Whyte comes ten months after he took over at Ibrox, and almost five after the BBC revelation of his disqualification! I will return to issues about delay. The “Fit and Proper” Person Rules The rules regarding the “fit and proper” person test are contained in the SFA Articles of Association. They state at Article 10.2 :- …The Board must be satisfied that any such person is fit and proper to hold such position within Association football. The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:- (a) he is bankrupt or has made any arrangement or composition with his creditors generally; (b) he is of unsound mind and has been or is to be admitted to hospital as suffering from a mental disorder following an application for admission for treatment under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or Mental Health Act 1983 or a Court having jurisdiction in the United Kingdom or elsewhere has ordered in matters relating to mental disorder his detention or the appointment of a curator bonis or any other person to exercise power with regard to his property or affairs; © he is under or is pending suspension imposed or confirmed by the Scottish FA; (d) he is listed in the Official Return of another club in full membership or associate membership; (e) he is currently participating as a player of another member club or referee in Association football; (f) he is the subject of an endorsed Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland; (g) he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years; (h) he has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or more, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud; (i) he has been suspended or expelled by a National Association from involvement on the administration of a club; (j) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event; (k) he is currently under or is pending suspension imposed by or confirmed by the Scottish FA in accordance with the Anti-Doping Charter. This forms part of Article 10 which deals with the “Official Return” – the annual statement by which the clubs tell the SFA details of all office-bearers, directors and board of management of the club. On the face of it, the “fit and proper” question is one for the SFA Board. As the rule states, “…the Board must be satisfied…” Article 10.1 (b) states that each office-bearer etc must “personally confirm to the Scottish FA that he is a fit and proper person to hold such a position within Association football.”

It's incredible news as a non rangers fan. Why didn't murray weather the storm? He could have downsized, changed the club's ethos regarding youth development etc. He was listening to celtic blogs more than he was his own legal counsel. Incredible mistake to capitulate over the big tax case. Whyte? What was he thinking? He could have had a healthy club worth 60m for £1 but contrived to lose it all. It's mind blowing.

From 18th January their SPFL record was: 7 wins, 4 draws, 5 defeats.

Interestingly, those hearts youngsters looked SPFL quality after 4-5 months experience. Obviously Levein will mess it up. Gary Locke is a coach that any club serious about a youth policy should look at. For any scottish club, selling young talent is essential. Look at Dundee Utd - recently sales over 2m for Goodwillie and Gauld. Their turnover was only 5.4m last year, so the sale of Gauld alone will boost their turnover by 50% or so. This is the equivalent of Rangers selling a home reared youngster for £9m every three years, and tbh, this is the benchmark for scottish clubs For me the best compromise to buying success and and yet still being a selling club would be to buy young potential but for high stakes, higher than celtic's policy for example. Be willing to pay 6m for the best young talent with a 12m+ sell on in 2 years always the goal. For it to work properly though, you'd always need european football and a more credible SPFL. The football environment has changed. Championship clubs are paying 11m for average players. No scottish club can win the CL anymore, until there is major league reconstruction that aids small nations. Scottish clubs need to balance taking advantage of inflated prices down south whilst keeping a competitive team that supporters will turn up to see.

The military is an issue where it pays to be hawkish for the yes campaign. As long as the independence movement doesn't rock the boat with radical ideas concerning unilateral disarmament, military bases or the like, America will largely continue to sit on the sidelines. Having recently chatted with military officers from the US navy, their attitude is very much 'well we kicked them out - you guys go ahead if you want.' You sense the SNP are desperate to keep the lid on anything radical from their membership before the vote. IMO, I would have expected the UK gov to have appealed directly to Washington to make an announcement supporting the union. I expect Barack Obama will on the week of the vote. I've found the No campaign a little negative, but expect it to win. I do agree with a previous poster. Imagine if the British war museum, or natural history museum was based in Dundee, or Inverness etc. Tourism and the economic spin offs would be very welcome. If Westminster was alternated with Hollyrood every year, I'd feel happier. We are meant to be a union of equals. My feeling is that the current government is just a bit Londoncentric, and we are seeing none of the boom but still plenty of the bust up north.

So, fossil fuels are not in fact made from fossils but from naturally occurring pools which replenish the supply? Jeez, everyday a school day….

So it's just me that still has nightmares about Cubillas! I think Rangers and other teams' influence in Scotland has significantly reduced over the last twenty / thirty years, in line with the reduction in actual children playing football. Scottish football, whilst previously the be all and end all for past generations, is losing out to Sky English football and plenty of other forms of recreation, mostly screen based. I personally don't believe there is any political lobbying / action based on what team a group of MPs support. I think the 'extremist' view of there being a papal / OO conspiracy underpinning the upper echelons of Scottish society as bunkum. Ranger's influence in a UK context has also declined as Sky reduces Scottish clubs to a minor sideshow. Local supporter size is not as important these days as selling the EPL package to Asia. When Rangers are in the SPFL, they will likely make £150 million less in broadcasting in 3 years than say QPR. In a UK context, like it or not, the old firm are firmly in lower English Championship level now for wages, with the likelihood being that English league 1 will start cherry picking their players in a few years. Hibs/hertz are already competing with English league 1 and 2. Politically, I believe there is still a lot of affection for Scots in England (and vice versa as you would expect in such a couple of culturally linked countries), and Rangers and celtic are still well regarded to a degree, but the failure of the old firm to even be allowed to join the english league set up at the lowest level during the Dick Advocaat era highlighted how England believes (correctly) they do not need us sportingly, and how little politically the old firm mean in England. I don't believe the 'religious' aspects of Rangers (or celtic) resonate much in England. I think it might be viewed as 2 boxers who hate each other (supposedly), it's hyped, and is good box office. Nobody really cares about the why, just the battle. Religion may have been important 100 years ago but now it's just tribalism. Am I answering a totally different question here? This is worse than uni.

I can assure you, if you watched 1978, you were scarred by it. For life. Anyone else? It affecting the 1979 devolution vote purely speculation on my part.

relationship between sport and national identity. ======= I remember Argentina 1978 and scarring trauma of it all. Scotland lost some of it's swagger directly because of it it's fair to say, and it may have negatively influenced the devolution vote of 1979. I'm sure the book will be an interesting read.

Ally had one season in the SPL during which rangers internally exploded. No one could be expected to win the league with everything in background at that time. His euro campaigns were not the best BUT, it was very early in his management career, and 2 men sent off against malmo didn't help. Poor in cups, excellent in league (results wise), it is surely too early to pigeon hole McCoist as a failure.

Come on guys, normally you'd have an average 50/50 chance, even with a team full of internationals. I think your squad is still thin on quality. Even with say 3 internationals signing for you next year you'd still be a bit underweight. Not to say it can't be done though. If it was done, it would be more of an achievement than probably any previous league win.

If Ally first wins championship, then the SPFL at first attempt? I make it about a 98% chance Rangers will win the championship this season, then about a 33% chance they win SPFL season after. So just about 2/1 Ally will do the unthinkable! Kris Boyd really is a master signing. Maybe Commons is better (2 guys called Kris!) but that's it. I'm sure you'll think…yippee then eat large quantity of humble pie. You know, I'm better in my job than I was 2 years ago. Maybe the experience in the lower divisions will have done Ally the world of good.

Frankie, I believe some hardline celtic fans use their football club / faith (ha ha, not at catholicism, but the idea that any of them are actually practising christians) as a reason to be anti SNP and pro Labour, believing the SNP are anti catholic and anti celtic, but labour are not. Lunacy yes.

Alex Salmond – Why Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration) Must Be Saved Mr Salmond was briefly interviewed on the BBC yesterday regarding the position of Rangers. Below is a transcript of what he had to say. “My appeal to Rangers and to HMRC is – can’t we agree on a sum that’s due and a means of paying it that allows Rangers to continue as an effective functioning football club in Scotland because Scottish football, even Celtic, needs Rangers. Scottish football needs Rangers. “We want Rangers to survive and that should be a key goal and requirement prevailing on nut just Rangers, not just Craig Whyte, but HMRC as well.” When asked about the need for regulation in football, he replied, “There are processes going on at the present moment. “In the last few weeks I contacted both Rangers and HMRC, whose record in court is not particularly good at the present moment and I said once this Tribunal which is adjudicating on what genuinely owed – once that Inland Revenue Tribunal sets a sum – can’t that not be agreed as the sum that has to be paid and a time scale agreed to allow the club to pay it without going out of business. “Now that seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition that would allow the Inland Revenue to get what they are due and allow Rangers to pay their obligations but continue as a vibrant part, not just of Scottish football, but of Scottish culture. I still think that is the best way forward. “Perhaps people should concentrate on coming to an agreement and moving forward and keeping Scottish football intact with a great future. “I want to see Rangers continue for the next century and more, contributing to the excitement and fun of Scottish football.” =============== Without wishing to be involved in a political debate, it is irrefutable and highly admirable that fat jambo Alex Salmond lobbied on behalf of Rangers. I'd say he was about the only politician who paid anything other than lip service to ranger's plight. Political opportunism?? Maybe. Who cares. Ironic that the best defender of rangers (an unofficial 'unionist' club) was a Scot nationalist. Maybe an official gesture of gratitude would be appropriate at some point from rangers.

But then about 2000 years ago, a guy was nailed to a tree for suggesting we all be nice to each other for a change. The irony is that most those who refuse to be nice in Scottish football, claim to worship him. ==================== And as if to emphasise my point - here is a sentence which is better than anything you will read today in any newspaper covering scottish football

I am on Gersnet because I believe it to be the most important website in Scottish football. I believe this because it is the only Rangers website that is coherent, civil and informed (that I have read). Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland and this site is the best representative of the biggest supporter block in Scotland. I find other Rangers sites with the continual cuhnt/bheast narrative, tiresome. I'd like to see gersnet try to influence not only rangers, but also the rest of scottish football. I'm a hibbie but believe me, we may be in the same league come autumn, but that's where it ends. I believe we will finish out the top 5. Our decline can be traced to exactly the moment Rod Petrie allowed the players to visit him and complain about the manager whilst John Collins was out the country. Apparently the ring leader was Michael Stewart. Didn't like training hard. Seven years later here are the consequences. If you want to read a different team's website, you could do worse than Hibbies Bounce.

The song is not elevating any one person, it is taken from a street gang song, a gang who, while they were from a Protestant heartland, also fought Protestants from other areas. There were probably other songs sung about them. It most certainly a part of what Rangers is all about as history and tradition are as important to some as handwringing and profit are to others. ======================================== Apologies for my ignorance, though from the lyrics I'm sure you'll understand why I believed it to be anti catholic, or at least anti irish. What I don't understand here is what a gang have to do with rangers. Did their paths cross in the 1930's ? What is the connection? Super Cooper - 'neutral my arse?' Perfectly understandable, but bearing in mind I am hated on celtic quick news for suggesting celtic are not a republican club per se (arguably catholic yes), and that the club has been hijacked by a bunch of neds, and that 3 names will not even publish any comments I make because I complain about him using terminology like Klan etc, then you'll have to forgive me for being a fanzine fan rather than a celtic undercover agent.

I'll probably be banned for this, so coat on, but I don't think the Billy Boys is an appropriate song for 21st century Rangers. I grew up listening the the masses singing it and it is a very intimidating rousing anthem , a great tribal chant. However, elevating via song, a violent ned, convicted wife beater, and a member of Oswald Mosley's fascists, doesn't strike me as befitting of Rangers. Surely this isn't what Rangers are about any longer? Surely you are a modern football team feeding on sporting endeavour rather than historical references to battering catholics? And in a European Union which is largely catholic, and on increasingly family orientated match day, is it fair to say these chants if deployed are detrimental to Rangers' long term interests?

base a professional appraisal on their chests or backsides: ====== Well they have tiny brains. What else are we meant to do?

No I agree with what you are saying. It is a desperate measure and a crap plan. I think the shares for season tickets is quite interesting though.

No, no one wants to go back divisions. Scottish football is dying without that happening again. You'd hope the threat would be enough and the company would be sold without further need for extreme measures. Ah well, my master plan wasn't so hot after all! Best of luck.

I'd be hoping for a buy out costing around 20 million, and the first season supported by credit or the angel investors I've mentioned. Net realisable value of assets, not accounting tricks. Yes, it is a plan with gaping holes, looking for the likes of your good self to fill in the gaps

Here is my plan complete with gaping holes for a velvet rangers revolution. I believe currently the rangers support is too fragmented to be effective in achieving fan ownership in 2014, and efforts should be turned to season 2015-2016 by the end of the year if 'angel investors' have failed to remove the current board. Goal - To create a consensus within the rangers support and eliminate economic uncertainty. To buy the club for fan ownership. To rebuild Rangers as a global player Method - Conference to create united body Use fans' season ticket money to buy shares This is Plan Z - it assumes that any investor angels with normal sized hands predictably as usual have failed to walk the walk, and the support are totally on their own with no outside assistance. I think fan ownership could be achieved by dangling this carrot in front of the 17,000 - from 2015 to 2016, a season ticket will entitle the purchaser to a full share in Rangers, and run for 3 years. I would expect around 100,000 tickets at £500= £50 million. I would invite the permanently disappointing millionaires to invest, up to £50 million, and offer a seat on the board for such investment, (and most importantly for their contacts and business acumen) but weight supporter owned shares 2:1 over investor shares. So to recap £100,000,000 investment inwards in 3 years, but with season ticket revenue being used to buy out ****s, and with supporters owning 66.66% of club. If the ****s won't sell, then they must be made aware that any plans they have for Ibrox RE sale leaseback, will not be acceptable. They must be made aware that rangers are willing to move to Hampden and possibly rebuild it with the SFA, if the conditions for Ibrox are not right. If this happens and the ****s sell Ibrox to property developers, they must be made aware that there will be continual harassment and civil disobedience on the site of Ibrox with the sole purpose of reducing the value and profit of the site. Any investors who refuse to sell at fair market value must be made aware that there will be a price to pay for this, and offices in London etc will be no protection from picketing supporters and economic pressure exerted form any avenue possible. There should be however, no ned behaviour like the hounding of BBC reporters, smashing windows at Pacific Quay for example. This needs perfect PR. And no neds. Pre conference 1- Decide on chairman and decide on speakers. You'll need a couple of keynote speakers speaking for half an hour each, and say, 20 speakers speaking for 2 minutes each. The speakers must be representative of the support and include representatives for season ticket holders, supporters clubs and busses, international supporter clubs, websites (of which Gersnet must be one), and board members of the club, if they want to put their point of view across. 2- Decide on format - At start, conference should recap how rangers came to be an omnishambles, and why it is an omnishambles. After this, a keynote address laying out the options for the supporters, and how the conference will progress through the day. Then move onto numerous quick addresses from supporters' representatives, outlining the views of the support. 3- Lunch, then voting. Conference 1- Hire the SECC or EICC. 2- Book a full AV package including projectors, screen, and digital voting system 3- Have prepared motions for conference. These will include: a) Do you agree that today we create one organisation who's authority to speak for all supporters will be granted on achieving 50%+ majority, and the results of any majority votes will be respected and adhered to by the minority? YES/NO b) Do you agree the supporters are the club, and we should own the club? YES/NO c) Do you agree to offer to buy the shares of the current incumbents at fair market value? YES/NO d) If they do not sell out their shares, do you agree to take a course of action which will potentially liquidate the 'company'? YES/NO e) Are you prepared to start again in Division 2 if necessary? YES/NO Vote on all of these and your own crafted (no pun intended) questions. Appoint a permanent 'manager' for your new organisation. he must be of outstanding flawless character, liquid, and without any legal impediments. Appoint a PR person untainted by Scottish nonsense. Try England for a robust PR professional. An attractive woman would be my sexist standpoint here, not some fat guy from Dennistoun. I don't know how to finance PR people, permanent positions, hiring SECC etc - maybe DK could help. Give your angel investors until November1st to provide a viable roadmap to fan ownership. After this it is closed to them and they must come through the fan's organisation in the future. Book SECC/EICC for Jan 31st. 2015. The results must be made available via a press release, and the current shareholder left in NO DOUBT, the consequences of their (in)actions. Note - fair market value should be just above the asset value. The current board will try to manipulate the share price to gain a better position.