chilledbear

The only way out of this that I can see, is if someone was to buy us out. Then they have the task of untangling the web, not an easy task.

I wouldn't say what happened back then is 100% clear. Perhaps it wasn't a level playing field.

Have you heard anything about who? Same old faces or somebody new?

Keith Jackson mentioned money going to Singapore.

Who are Orlit Enterprises?

I wonder who in Rangers instructed these firms? Who has the authority with no CEO?

I only, if only. That would need someone with vision, when have we had people like that. A Jim McColl would have been ideal

OK Frankie. No matter what we think about leaks or certain newspapers, we are in as much turmoil as we have ever been. Even if we get a truly independent and truthful report, it will not be seen as such, which will not let us move forward.

THE war for the soul of Rangers Football Club â?? a brutal and bloody conflict first revealed in these very pages â?? has entered a critical phase. By the middle of this week, when the smoke should begin to clear from the battlefield of the boardroom, we will see who has been left standing. And, just as importantly, who has fallen. In the meantime, the first casualty â?? as is always the case in such gory matters â?? has been the truth. Once again Rangers fans have been misled as to the true nature of this savage struggle for power. Anyone with Rangersâ?? best interests at heart knows a solution must be found or the consequences for the ravaged club might be too terrible for fans to contemplate. Already the club is being torn apart from the inside. Chief executive Charles Green may be yesterdayâ??s man after standing down last week but he leaves behind a board in a state of disarray. On one side of the divide stand Walter Smith, chairman Malcolm Murray and one other non-executive director. On the other side are Brian Stockbridge â?? Greenâ??s financial director â?? and the two remaining non-execs. One of them is Ian Hart, who became particularly close to Green after being appointed to the new board. Itâ??s three versus three in the battle for Ibrox. Itâ??s up to the supporters to decide who they trust in all of this but it appears the Smith and Murray camp, as well as manager Ally McCoist, have huge concerns about the clubâ??s executive management. Yes, Green may be gone but his allies from Zeus Capital are still on the inside and they seem equally committed to standing their ground. What happened in the aftermath of Greenâ??s resignation on Friday points to what is going on behind the scenes. First, it emerged that Craig Mather had been proposed to fill Greenâ??s role on an interim basis with the possibility that will become permanent. Then came word that accountants from Deloitte were fronting up an independent probe into Greenâ??s affairs and, in particular, claims that the Yorkshireman was doing business with the clubâ??s disgraced former owner Craig Whyte. Both of these issues are fundamental to just how this war is won. And by whom. Matherâ??s emergence has raised the level of alert for Smithâ??s side. They suspect he was hand-picked by Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad, who are still in position despite Greenâ??s removal. Mather was described by Green as one of his founder investors. For a £1million payment, he was given the title of sporting director, overseeing Murray Park. Nottingham-based Mather runs his own sports management firm. They focus on developing young players who may have been cast aside by clubs. Itâ??s understood earlier this season he put together a team of such kids for a match at Murray Park against an appropriately aged Rangers XI. They were thrashed and sent home again, presumably much to Matherâ??s frustration. Since then, he has hardly been spotted in or around the training ground and doubts have been expressed as to what he has been doing as sporting director. All of which makes his sudden re-emergence as a possible CEO more remarkable. Itâ??s anticipated Matherâ??s appointment will be pushed through, against opposition, this morning. But the very fact that it was not simply rubberstamped during a scrambled board meeting on Saturday underlines the deep divisions at the clubâ??s heart. The appointment of Deloitte astonished Smith and McCoist in particular, given that Stockbridge, Ahmad and Green are strongly linked to that firm. Letâ??s not forget they hired Deloitte to assist in their takeover of Rangers and in Decemberâ??s share offer. Given that the board had promised to launch an independent probe into the current state of the club there is disbelief that Deloitte â?? Greenâ??s personal tax advisers â?? could be shoe-horned into the front line of any inquiry. And Murray and Smith have identified another man for this critical job and one whose credentials â?? of being entirely independent â?? they believe to be above reproach. As McCoist said on Saturday, they realise the need for the club to be seen to be cleaning up from the inside out. If Rangers are to survive then, crucially, they must be seen to be fixing their own damage. Itâ??s not just the clubâ??s fans who must be able to trust the men in charge but also the football authorities, who may feel as if they have been misled once too often over the last two years. There is a danger that anything less will reek of a cover-up and, at this particular stage, thatâ??s the last thing Rangers need to stand accused of. Which is why Smith and Murray have lined up a Scottish businessman of impeccable standing to carry out this work. It is the Recordâ??s understanding they want him in position by the middle of this week with carte blanche to carry out whatever inquiries he sees fit. He could do worse than to start by demanding certain documentation from Stockbridge and Ahmad. Like solid proof of the current state of the clubâ??s bank balance, for example, because although Rangers should have more than £20million in the account following Decemberâ??s share sale, not even Murray has been given sight of the evidence. There are many more questions which need to be answered, most importantly, who owns Murray Park and Ibrox? Because if these assets belong to Whyte or to anyone else, then Rangers are facing another battle for survival. The question now is, will Smith and Murrayâ??s trouble-shooter be invited to head up the investigation? Or will Matherâ??s expected appointment be forced through first to break the current deadlock? The answers to the above will determine which direction this club are heading. And which party has won the war for Rangersâ?? soul. http://t.co/1MqRzlaOT5

Whatever happened to the new beginning. All we would need after Bain is D. Murray to come back.

Wonder if they will carry on.

No job for the boys please. Let's get the best we can for all jobs at Rangers.

Media House ? Been leaking for years!!!

I would keep Longmuir and Gilmour where they are for the moment.

We need a big hitter.

I would have thought independent review would be by someone from outside. Just wait till he opens his mouth again!!

I wonder how long it will take for the investigation to start ? An announcement on who will conduct the review should come soon.

I think Celtc have found out they don't mean that much without Rangers.

Whether Little will progress as we climb the Leagues is hard to say, I certainly hope so, he seems to work hard at the game. Must admit it's a worry the amount of times he is injured. It will be good to see McLeod back, find of the season for me, hope he is 100% fit.

Auld Archies take on matters....... Big Bang triggered this. It's now time for some new theories The tail wagging the dog is one of those convenient phrases used by people who are not getting what they want in any democratic system where, inconveniently for them, the little man can stand up and be counted legitimately. Stewart Milne's use of the idea of frustration being a motivation for change is historically inaccurate By resisting pressure, which you would not need to have a lurid mind to interpret as bullying, two clubs, perhaps inadvertently, have reminded us that any changes in Scottish football should be the outcome of rational thinking and at least some understanding of what the customer at the gates would like to see. The proponents of change brought neither to the debating chamber. The facts are obvious. Scottish football is a mess. Queuing outside grounds is as rare a phenomenon as seeing peever played on pavements. Nobody, whatever system is to be adopted, can predict the course of the next few years. But was there any need to represent this as a brink over which two small clubs would push us? It amounts to nothing other than hysteria to put people in front of a firing squad and that is what two personalities achieved in the lead up to the vote. First, there was Stewart Milne, the hugely successful businessman who owns Aberdeen, and from whom we have heard precious little on the national stage in recent times, suddenly coming up with that most devastating of predictions calculated to make the blood run cold: that there could be job losses if the new structure were not to be accepted. There were no specific areas delineated to illustrate and validate such a claim, it was just held up there like a sandwich board with an 'End of the World is Nigh' warning. Of course there would have been job losses, for sure, if people weren't going to buy season tickets for a system which they shrewdly deduced redefined the word 'season'. In any case, the economy being what it is, job losses are almost guaranteed whatever system is put into play. It is an important issue but one which needs closer examination rather than being left to declamatory statements to induce panic. Milne's use of the idea of frustration being a motivation for change since, as he claimed, it has taken three years to reach this stage, is historically inaccurate. It has taken almost 40 years. It was when the Premier League was established. Since then our top league has had more face lifts than Zsa Zsa Gabor. And you can be assured that, if they had decided to go down this new mazy path, the Botox would have been called on in the future. Enter Henry McLeish. Playing on his role as a Scottish Football Association consultant and his former posting as first minister, he is somebody who has to be listened to, and he knows it. He timed his entrance to be seen as a young Lochinvar riding to rescue reconstruction from the clutches of destroyers like Stewart Gilmour, Roy MacGregor, thousands of punters and me. But what emerged from his statement was establishment flim-flam. There was no substance; no evidence provided to back up his 'we must do something' warning. What intellectual rigour is contained in the perspective that change for its own sake makes for a prosperous future? So here is an effort at evidence. In the mid-1970s, when Henry was first entering political life in Fife, something profound was happening to Scottish football. The Big Bang. Overnight, 18 became 10. This was supposed to reinvigorate the sport. The catchphrase was that all games would be meaningful. They were. But on the basis of the survival of the fittest. All these years later we have raised a generation of dissenters who bemoan the product they see and the disappearance of style and creativity among the home-bred player. I would not solely attribute the erosion of our once-proud culture to the Big Bang. But facts are 'chiels that winna ding'. It has been no coincidence. They miniaturised too far and sucked invention out of the game. Those top two divisions being subdivided into three leagues of eight, as proposed, would have replicated that negative culture. Watching a young Falkirk side take Hibernian to the wire at Hampden is another reminder that the system needs to be widened for proper development. I still maintain the 16-club league revenue problems could be addressed inventively in association with television. So, at the end of the day, are we now like Monty Python's deceased parrot, perched on a shoogly twig and merely pretending to be alive just to be sold to an unsuspecting public? Some initial and angry comments on the steps of Hampden might suggest so. If you seek initial reassurance, just think of the Millennium Bug scare when computers were supposed to cease to function, that planes would fall out of the sky and we would be reduced to Flintstones. We're still here. We have grumbles, we have problems, but life goes on. The men who so desperately tried to scare us into change, now owe us the product of some creative thinking, not recrimination.

http://t.co/WNatfXrvSs Rangers will soon commission an independent examination into "recent allegations concerning the chief executive, Charles Green, the commercial director, Imran Ahmad, and their management of the club". It will report directly to the four non-executive directors, Walter Smith, Ian Hart, Bryan Smart and Philip Cartmell, and the hope within the club is that a judgement will be delivered sooner rather than later. Here, Herald Sport looks into the background of the decision made on Saturday, and what the consequences might be. Why have the board taken this decision? Green and Ahmad have been forced on to the defensive after he revealed in a newspaper interview that he occasionally addresses Ahmad as his "little P*** friend" but also by the drip-feeding of information to the media by Craig Whyte. The former owner released audio of conversations held with Green and Ahmad last year, and it has emerged Whyte paid £137,500 into Ahmad's mother's account and a £25,000 cheque was deposited in Green's bank account by Aiden Earley, Whyte's long-time business partner. In one recording â?? a short edit of a much longer conversation â?? Green is heard to say "You are Sevco". Last Friday, STV revealed a document signed by Green authorising the appointment of Whyte and Earley as directors of Sevco 5088, the company that was granted exclusive bidder status last summer. Some of the board are uncomfortable with the revelations. Malcolm Murray, the chairman, was already at odds with Green, and wanted the removal of the chief executive and Ahmad. What do Green and Ahmad say? They are adamant that, like all of the other groups bidding for Rangers last summer, they had to negotiate with Whyte. For example, Brian Kennedy met the former owner and believed he had reached an agreement on the transfer of Whyte's majority shareholding. This was required in the event of Rangers Football Club plc achieving a Company Voluntary Arrangement to come out of administration. Green and Ahmad say they were stringing Whyte along and intended to "shaft him". When the CVA proposal failed, the business and assets were sold to Sevco Scotland. Lawyers for Green and Ahmad in Scotland and England are compiling a dossier of evidence alleging blackmail by Whyte, which will be passed onto the police. So what is the problem? The board appear to not be taking Green and Ahmad's explanations at face value. This appears to leave their positions untenable. However, the independent examination will either exonerate one or both of Green and Ahmad, or force the board to act decisively. Whyte is an unreliable witness, and it is no coincidence he released information at the same time as he lost his £17.7m civil case with Ticketus, and when properties in Scotland and England were being raided by police as part of an investigation into his purchase of the club from Sir David Murray in May 2011. The documents in STV's possession are not forgeries, but also do not prove that the two men were ratified as directors. They were filed to Companies House last Friday, despite Sevco 5088 currently being wound up. Nonetheless, it is the amount of collusion that the independent examination will be probing. Given that Green denied any links with Whyte, then admitted to one meeting, and now several, there is a feeling among the board that the issue has to be cleared up once and for all. Crucially, if there were no more payments made, no more deals struck and no business involvement between Whyte and Sevco Scotland, then Green and Ahmad could be fine. Yet because Whyte has been drip-feeding information, there is a perception of continuous revelations. Is this the end of Green and Ahmad at Ibrox? Not necessarily. There is a split on the board, but not enough support to oust or retain them. The independent examination will provide a conclusion either way. Many fans support the notion of Whyte being outflanked, but Green's bluster and tendency to talk without restraint was only benign when it didn't involve the former owner, who is a toxic figure for fans. Some now distrust Green. Even so, he overcame significant obstacles last summer in winning over the fans, and could do so again. What is the difference between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland? The 5088 company was the one granted exclusivity by Duff & Phelps last summer. Whyte alleges that he was behind it, which is denied. The administrators pledged not to sell Rangers to any group involving Whyte, so how much did they know about the talks with the former owner? When the CVA failed, the assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland, but without Duff & Phelps announcing or explaining this change in circumstances. The explanation from the club at the time was that Rangers needed to be owned by a company registered in Scotland. It also now appears that this was the means to cut Whyte out of the equation, completely. What if a CVA had been granted? After the vote against it, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said that they could never have voted in favour, and they held the decisive vote, so it is a moot point. Green has not explained how Whyte would have been "shafted" in those circumstances. There is no suggestion, however, that Whyte is involved now, hence his leaks to the press. Is Rangers' licence under threat? The Scottish Football Association has written to the club seeking an explanation of Whyte's claims. Last summer, as part of the undertakings to grant the transfer of the licence from Rangers Football Cub plc to Sevco Scotland, assurances were provided that Whyte was not involved. The former owner has made no claim about being part of Sevco Scotland, only that the sale of the assets ought to have been to Sevco 5088, which he does allege to be involved in. On that basis, if the assets were never part of Sevco 5088, it does not seem that Rangers breached any of the undertakings. If it transpires that they have, the only way to head off potentially serious sanctions might be to sack those involved and distance the club from their actions. Again, though, there is no evidence of this. Are there not enquiries already ongoing? Yes, the police and the liquidators of RFC plc, BDO, are both investigating Whyte's takeover and ownership of the club. Those enquiries also now extend to last summer's sale of the business and assets by Duff & Phelps. What if Green and Ahmad are exonerated? It is impossible to see the status quo being maintained, so in that scenario it is likely that non-executive directors would stand down. The departure of Smith would have a profound effect on the mood of the fans. What about in the meantime? This has come at a very damaging time for Rangers. Ally McCoist is trying to plan for next season, but has lost his physio and chief scout. They need replaced and the football operation needs investment if it is to be run sustainably. Scouting and youth development need additional resources. McCoist's own position is strengthened, since Green wanted to remove his assistants, Kenny McDowall and Ian Durrant, but the manager now needs to be fully backed to take the club forward. There is also the issue of season tickets. Rangers need to sell as many, if not more, than the 38,000 sold last year to fund the ongoing rebuilding of the club. Although £22m was raised by floating Rangers International Football Club on the Alternative Investment Market last December, that money is capital and if it is used for cash flow purposes, investors will become wary and start to sell, driving down the share price, which is already falling due to recent events. Will this lead to a change in ownership? For that to happen, somebody would need to start buying shares. For now, that is not happening in significant amounts. The original members of the consortium fronted by Green have already seen their investment rise significantly, since they bought in when the club was purchased for £5.5m. Their plan, and those of more recent investors, will be to realise their profit when Rangers return to the top-flight and into Europe. At that stage, external investment may be required. Could the events of yesterday have a bearing? If Rangers are invited to any top-flight set-up, they will have to balance the commercial benefits against the sporting implications. The team would need to be significantly strengthened, but is still operating under a registration embargo. Some investors might want that to happen, though, so that they can sell up immediately.

With someone of Whytes past. Seems strange, if so serves them right.

Faces an internal investigation say the BBC

I would doubt this, surely Ticketus would need some guarantee before they would enter into talks.

If not he went to Ticketus with a deal to sell season tickets of a Club he had no connection with. Why would they entertain him?