plgsarmy

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

Apparently these were the songs sung that night:

 

 

0:00 - Derry's Walls

0:00 - A moments' silence for Japan - impeccably observed by everyone

0:00 - Derry's Walls

0:00 - Rule Britannia

0:10 - Derry's Walls

0:55 - We Love You Rangers

2:30 - Super Rangers

3:15 - Glasgow Rangers Champions

5:35 - We Love You Rangers

10:50 - Build My Gallows

21:35 - Super Rangers

32:35 - Derry's Walls

41:15 - Super Rangers

45:29 - We Are The People

46:15 - Derry's Walls

48:00 - Super Rangers

51:15 - Derry's Walls

53:25 - Derry's Walls

57:15 - Rule Britannia

61:45 - Derry's Walls

It was after this point when Lafferty was stretchered off and the team lost momentum. The PSV fans, who were great, were loudest and this was highlighted by the commentators in the 75th minute as the away fans could be heard singing Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life.

As the so-called Subway Loyal made their exit and the stadium began to empty, there was no more singing which could be heard on the television. Surely, it would be easier to hear the alleged sectarian songs in an emptier stadium, or are the nutters the ones who leave early too?

Finally:

81:50 - We Love You Rangers

 

Thanks to Foxtrot from FF

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

The MIH accounts to 30 June 2010 have just been published and show a loss of �£73m and net assets of only �£7.7m.

 

Not great reading.

Takeover speculation to hide bad news?

Strong rumours that deal has been done to sell the club.

 

More soon.

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.

Gonnae answer yer PMs!

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

Oh here we go, Mr Pedantic finally makes an appearance. Can we agree that Bearwood Bear's views were confronted by McBride? And that the outcome was exactly as I described it? Not really such a distortion after all then.

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.

Does Stephen Smith post comments on Leggoland?

I'm not sure.

....... but RST Chairman Stephen Smith duly makes an arse of himself when confronted by QC McBride on Tagio Scotland. Simply not up to the job unfortunately. All he has achieved is to present sellick's top QC with a public platform to parade his sellick good/rangers bad proposition. Fuck sake, is there no one who can combine the personal ambition of the RST with even a modicum of ability?

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

Do they miss the League Cup Final?

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.

What will Rangers position be without CL next season....and the season after that...and the season after that?

 

The ratios are all being done at the time of year when our financial position is the best.

 

We were in the position around 2 years ago of being unable to stay within our banking facility and ended up being dependent on qualifying for the CL in the following season. The management of the club were shown to be unable to mainatain the debt levels of the club at reasonable levels on more than one occasion. I fail to see why we are suddenly the type of organisation that would get credit facilites "regardless".

 

We are not a typical business and are not one that can be simplified into a few ratios, which do not take account of management, timings of cashflows, reliance on CL income, capex requirements and existing credit facilities.

 

The fact that we were rated as secure over the last 4 years tells you all you need to know about how applicable it is to Rangers.

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 Aberdeen�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 SFA�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:

�Who brought the matter to the attention of the SFA and in what capacity was the complainant acting?

�How and when was the incident brought to the attention of the SFA?

�On what basis and by whom is it decided that a special disciplinary meeting should or should not be convened?

�Does the complainant receive feedback on these decisions to proceed or not, and if so how?

�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?

�Will the SFA make public the names of the three members of the specially convened committee in order to demonstrate impartiality?

�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.

Given that you're altogether quite picky about which questions you answer it probably seemed like too much of a gamble

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.

I managed to get to Page 10 of this thread before I almost lost the will to live.

 

In the ensuing pages did pokeherface ever realise that the OP was simply pointing out that is was the 'method' in which the new treasurer was parachuted into the position which gives cause for concern?

 

Or was he deliberately avoiding that fact?

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.

Well I can play the moothie and the spoons, the spoons would be useful fer stirring it, would these specialist skills be of use...:fish:

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

Was Alan aware of this?

I believe so.

Not every one does , but more than one would be preferable , and how do you know she is qualified if you have never met her ...Surely you can see my point .

 

Yet again we , the RST members , are let down by bad decision making at the highest level , and when it get's brought up , it's a case of move along nothing to see here , we know what were doing .

 

 

If anyone on here is ever in the position of hiring or co-opting someone into a position of responsibility , for any organisation which has to answer to a membership , please come on and tell me I am wrong and that they would be quite happy to do this on one person's say so , without ever having met said person , if that is the case I will stick to the football and leave you all to it .

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.

YouTube - The Moody Blues - Question

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

Yeah, I agree with us needing to know whether legal advice was sought before or after. It would shed some light on the issue.

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

No he didn't. He wanted to make a comment in respect of the accounts and was denied that opportunity.

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.

How many board members are there and how much work is involved ? Is there really any need for an Executive group ?

 

Genuinely curious. Why not just have the full board involved in that work ?

 

My company do have excom and board committees - but then I know how much work is needed to go into all this work.

 

How do the Trust determine who is on the executive board ?

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.

What is your take on the ellis fiasco, did you see a business plan or a comic of any description PLG. BH recollections below.

 

 

Whilst it's completely off the subject, I can say that I was in contact with Ellis representative in Guernsey by letter, email and phone officially on behalf of the Trust and unofficially through an intermediary and I never heard of or received a business plan nor was one ever mentioned at an RST Executive or Board Meeting.

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

Of course the chap was seeking attention; he had been denied the platform to give his account at the AGM, as well as a belated email, so felt he had to do something to reach the membership to make them aware of the issues at hand. It wasn't as if the rest of the board were going to do it, hiding the issue from each other then from the membership.

 

I read BH's 'apologetic' responses as someone who didn't want to use this method but had little option. I'd contend his private actions, along with making public a very serious issue, does indeed take 'baws' and the guy has attempted to follow up his statement with further comments which show his sincerity to debate. Christine has been challenged herself and has failed to do the same more than once without good reason unfortunately.

 

None of the rest of us will know for sure just who is telling the truth here so I think the middle ground is a fair place to stand for the majority. Mistakes have been made and questionable actions have formed part of that.

 

So far I don't see anyone taking responsibility for those mistakes other than to blame a respected businessman for having the temerity to correctly point out irregularities. To that end, I've not seen one apology for these shady dealings, just deflection after deflection.

 

As for current internet feelings on the Trust, well some people's attitudes are less than constructive but the RST themselves are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard and that is especially disappointing as they purport to lead and unite.

 

Reasonable questions have been ignored, valid criticism scoffed at and people nothing to do with this episode lied about. Just when will someone step forward and say enough is enough and lead the Trust back to respectability?

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.

Do you think Alan's dishonest, and a trouble maker? Instead of trying to discredit one of your colleagues, why don't you answer Frankie's questions, or any of the number of decent reasonable ones on the thread?

Where did I say that? Do you not think my questions are not valid? I'm not trying to discredit anyone but sometimes there are two sides to stories.