Frankie

Bain thanks fans and blames recession for financial issue

Bain speech now

Chairman speech closed

Club will NOT sell naming rights to stadium

Chairman says Murray Park youth programe is vital moving forward as well as scouting re-evaluation for new players

Chairman thinks certain fan groups will struggle to under pin business plan but welcomes further dialogue

AJ backs fans strongly but is sceptical we could find more money with respect to members club type scenario

AJ met with Assembly and would entertain fan ownership but are concerned about how they would find money for ongoing success

Rangers can buy players in January but summer spending dependent on performance and euro qualification

No he sent his apologies

In June RFC owed �£9million for players and were forced to pay �£7million by bank since then

Two business plans merged together for benefit of bank to protect their financial exposure

AJ wants to be indepdent of MIH and bank as they rely on them too much. 4 directors from MiH were proposed initially which they reduced to two

AJ alludes severe problems for MIH which affected club directly so conflict for SDM due to focus on credit facilities

Farcical scenes over Muir vote

New chairman now addressing meeting followed by Martin Bain

Overwhelming majority against Donald Muir re-election

I could easily post a few alternatives to PLG's version of events above but this already happened on RM 18 months ago. I don't see what myself or the Trust would gain out of re-enacting a 'battle' neither of us arguably won. Which is why MD and DE's behaviour the other day puzzled me even more. Anyway, I'm away to bed now so I'll be happy to answer any questions (as best I can) on Tuesday when I return to work. Hopefully there will be no need and tomorrow's AGM should give us enough material for a month until the club is sold.

Smoke and mirrors are likely but that shouldn't stop us all asking a few relevant questions to try and get some suitable answers.

I know exactly what they are doing and quite frankly the guilty parties should be embarrassed with their lack of professionalism and dignity. In a period where the Trust need to lead, need to unify and need to be transparent; they have done the opposite.

My moral compass is perfectly fine thanks. I'll also thank you not to question my honesty and integrity so flippantly. I'm completely comfortable with the way myself (and my resigned colleagues) conduced ourselves last spring and felt we said more than enough for people to make up their own minds on what happened. Going over it again (IMO) is only going to reopen old wounds (healed for some but not others unfortunately) and it certainly won't help anyone but those who yearn for some kind of gruesome, public surgery of an injury received 18 months past. The Rangers Supporters Trust remains an organisation open to anyone who is interested in it and a few posts on an internet forum will do little to change its aims, directions and strategy over the coming months with regard to anything - never mind the ownership policy. Ergo, instead of going over old battles, why not do something more constructive and challenge the organisation properly to ensure the job is done properly. May or may not work but it will be more successful than discussing an event that is consigned to history.

We stated very clearly at the time why we resigned. Since that time, as you know, I led a new project called STS and asked the Trust to get involved by email (a few of the resigned people also contributed). That tells you that I was more than prepared to leave the past in the past in order to achieve the aims I felt I still shared with the organisation. I was ignored. Since I resigned I've been referred to as 'spineless', 'stupid', 'jealous' and out to 'trash the trust' as part of a 'gang of 7' by senior RST Board members because I've done what any Rangers fan and interested RST observer/supporter would do and ask relevant questions and constructively criticise the organisation when necessary. This has all happened while I've also helped the organisation behind the scenes with a few small issues and defended them strongly when they've been criticised unfairly across the community. I've also never been personal with anyone despite the strongest of provocations. As such, I'll again let the casual neutral decide who wants to heal any rifts and who doesn't.

I'm really not sure what you want me to say? The 7 lads who resigned last year released a full statement on why we felt we needed to resign (Zappa has posted it above). There were full debates on it afterwards on here and other forums about this (if IIRC, the one on RM was particularly interesting). From that it was up to the individual Rangers supporter (Trust member or not) to decide who they believed as what one had was basically two alternative viewpoints on the events behind the scenes. If you, or anyone else, has any further questions then I'd be happy to answer them as I've absolutely nothing to hide. However, I don't really think the answers would prove all that useful in the current climate and I certainly don't fancy reading more of the nonsense I did this time last week as the same situation as when we resigned still stands now: i.e. two different sides to a story none of us can really prove with any sort of facts.

Just turn up with your name address and shareholder reference number mate. A few of us will be meeting up beforehand if you want to join us

I think plenty was said at the time and I don't see what anyone would have to gain from going over it again now. I also doubt all that many bears are really that interested to be perfectly honest. Most want to concentrate on the positive stuff as opposed to the nonsense we've read from some of late.