plgsarmy

We had one in October BD. It was on our website at the time.

I'm just to the right of the guy in the red tee shirt. I look a lot calmer than I was feeling.

It can only be Super Rangers as it mentions the F word, which UEFA seems to deem sectarian.

Takeover speculation to hide bad news?

On SSN as done deal

Ask your editor who the RST are Glenn. We've been writing a column in your newspaper for the last 5 years. Still when one of Sellick's main cheerleaders criticises us we must be doing something right.

Ooops, didn't notice it until you pointed it out. Now answered.

No I don't think they were confronted or answered at all, in fact he ignored all the points made and went down the 'poor wee Neil' route, rather predictably. It's a pity the interviewer didn't ask him any pertinent questions.

I'm not sure.

Stop distorting things mainefyer. He wasn't 'confronted' by McBride. He was on after Stephen had finished his call.

No. First round we play in next season.

I'm no tax expert but I think this so-called journalist has simply added all the contributions made over the years (just short of �£48m) and assumed tax liability of 50%, hence his �£24m figure. I believe some legislation was put in place in 2005 to plug this 'loophole' and again in 2007 when schemes were amended to take account of this legislation. Unless the legislation was watertight and we broke the law then we should fight this all the way. We should also be going after whoever advised us over this, does their professional indemnity insurance not cover this? So many questions and I don't think the club has been straight with us at all.

Exactly. Also people need to realise that we will not be treated as a separate company as far as LBG is concerned. They pumped in something like �£150m into MIH earlier this year and now own about 25% of the company. MIH, in turn owns 57% of Rangers shares.

RST Statement The Rangers Supporters Trust has written to SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan to ask for clarification on the timing and process relating to the one match ban handed out to Rangers goalkeeper Alan McGregor following his innocuous but ill-advised fresh air swipe in the direction of Aberdeenââ?¬â?¢s Chris McGuire on 26th September. Rangers supporters understandably remain deeply concerned about what appears to be an arbitrary disciplinary process completely lacking in consistency, transparency and accountability. Having now had ample opportunity, the SFAââ?¬â?¢s subsequent refusal to shed any degree of satisfactory light on the issue has merely served to muddy the waters and generate yet more questions. Specifically, the RST has requested clarification on the following items: ââ?¬Â¢Who brought the matter to the attention of the SFA and in what capacity was the complainant acting? ââ?¬Â¢How and when was the incident brought to the attention of the SFA? ââ?¬Â¢On what basis and by whom is it decided that a special disciplinary meeting should or should not be convened? ââ?¬Â¢Does the complainant receive feedback on these decisions to proceed or not, and if so how? ââ?¬Â¢Is there any precedent for a complaint to be received and acted upon so rapidly towards the end of the allowed 14-day period following the occurrence of an incident? ââ?¬Â¢Will the SFA make public the names of the three members of the specially convened committee in order to demonstrate impartiality? ââ?¬Â¢What precedent exists for a player receiving a one-match ban plus 12 penalty points for violent conduct in a case where no physical contact was actually made? The SFA urgently needs to take steps to clarify these issues so that Rangers fans (and in fact supporters of all clubs) can gain comfort that the process is not subject to misuse. At present there appears to be no consistency or transparency and no accountability either at the start or the end of the process, which is completely unsatisfactory. If nobody understands who can make a complaint or how or what needs to happen for the SFA to decide whether any complaint should be taken seriously or not, the Association increases the likelihood of disruptive, disingenuous or spurious complaints arriving in droves at Hampden Park every Monday morning ââ?¬â?? accompanied by calls for explanations on the types of issues raised here. The Rangers Supporters Trust awaits an early and transparent response from the new SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan.

I don't think I'm picky at all. I'll answer posts where I can but I don't see any point in answering things like 'how will the Trust move on from this' type of questions when it will be up to the Board to decide. If I post my views up here and then the Board decide on a different strategy, where does that leave me. Interesting though that you focus on what I haven't answered yet there is no mention of the (IMHO) very pertinent questions I asked Alan, all of which he ignored. Anyone can ask what they like and I will try to answer.

If you'd struggled along to Page 12 you'd see the OP's question answered. Maybe he should have just e-mailed me if he wanted to know.

You can get a gig at our next event. Do you want to go on before or after the Cheerleaders?

I believe so.

Yeah, just go back to the football rbr:spl: For information, with last year's AGM notice we sent out a skills audit where we asked members to volunteer and said that we were looking for particular skills, one being accountancy. This was also placed on our website. Although we got a fairly good response, we didn't get anyone with an accountancy qualification. We tried to get several others onboard but all were too busy to commit time. Mark was aware of AM as he knew her many years ago and had met up with her again as she started attending some RST functions. She was not invited onto the Board as treasurer, she has been on the board for several months and was obviously the ideal candidate to take over.

As an aside, you must be as old as me. I loved that song.:spl:

The legal advice was sought when the allegations were originally made, prior to the AGM.

Bluedell, you aready stated on this (or another) thread that he only said he wanted to say why he resigned as secretary, he did not say be wanted to talk about the accounts. If he had only said that then he would have been able to speak. We can argue all day that we knew what he was going to say so should have let him speak but I don't think anyone foresaw that he would walk out.

There can be up to 20 on the Board but we are a few places short at the moment. It's often very difficult getting this size of group round a table, I mean in terms of work and family commitments, geographical locations etc. Also, agendas were getting longer and longer at each meeting. It was decided to split into 3 groups each linked to our overall aims and reporting to the full Board. One of the teams was looking at building relationships with a view to furthering our aim of supporters representation and fan ownership. When the Mr Big (for want of a better word) came up, it was clear that this required more than a once a month meeting and the Executive Committee was formed primarily from that team. It was felt that there was a good range of old and new Board members, office bearers and non-office bearers and, most importantly, people with the relevant skills and contacts. How much work is involved? I think you'd be surprised at the amount. Obviously there are peaks and troughs and some Board members are more actively involved than others. It's impossible to say but I would guess, from a personal perspective that I am involved in RST work almost every day. Some days it might be 30 minutes, others it can be five hours. It's too difficult to quantify.

To my knowledge he is correct although I was not part of the Executive Group so I can't confirm that.

Frankie, You are peddling this myth that he was denied the platform to give his account at the AGM. If he could not hear what the Chair said he should have asked him to speak up. If I have failed to answer relative or legitimate questions then I apologise. Yesterday was a very difficult day for me for personal reasons and I was doing a lot of forum hopping during the time I was at home. I can only remember two questions. One about how the Trust recovers from this (or words to that effect) which I answered but perhaps not to your liking. The other was about why it wasn't brought up at the AGM which i think Craig answered. Other than that, I must have missed other questions.