plgsarmy

Whatever office he uses, he can expect an email or phone call from Mr Cannonball as we speak...

 

(But since his PA is viewing this forum, she can say her boss is on holiday) :box:

Maybe he could confirm who paid his fees.

The rep was Malcolm McPherson (former Hibs chairman) of Glasgow solicitors HBJ Gateley Wareing...

He's based in Edinburgh I believe but apart from that.......

Who is "theperson" who is the persons rep, or is that another RST piece of information not to be shared with the plebs, whom they appear to claim to represent, rather presumptious wouldn't one say.

I said 'the person' as it was not confirmed to us who it was. Also, the SH article said who was representing him.

If that's the case, I assume Mr McColl will be changing who he conducts his financial business with, if his advisers or bank leaked the information. Wonder who he banks with...?

 

I must admit I find him stepping back just because his name has been prematurely mentioned a bit disappointing. That and his haste to mention the Partick Thistle stuff means perhaps he wasn't the best person to be involved anyway.

Frankie, we were told by the person's representatives that any leak and all bets were off.

Thanks again. Seems strange that he was so insistent with anonymity with you guys but he revealed himself elsewhere.

I agree but there you go.

plg:

 

I think I can vaguely remember that and I found it petty and irrelevant and was glad it was quickly removed. I said as much privately to the author. Some senior posters on RM and FF should be above the kind of crap we've seen lately but I still don't think it necessarily represents anything other than a few individuals acting like school-kids. The vast majority on either forum couldn't care less about each place and/or probably use both places anyway so won't appreciate the tit-for-tat nonsense.

 

People have the right to be critical of any site, forum or organisation of course but much better it is constructive and based on facts rather than subjective opinions or mischief-making. I just think some find the odd disagreement or criticism a convenient excuse to resort to quite embarrassing behaviour which helps no-one.

 

Think I asked you this before but didn't get an answer, do you excuse the behaviour of some on FF lately - including your fellow board members - who also posted inaccurate information about people (which is still freely available) or resorted to abuse?

 

I don't particularly care if you answer that actually but I'm only asking to highlight the unnecessary behaviour of both sides of the 'argument'.

 

I'm just glad there are some (the majority in fact) who are above such crap as I simply don't see what anyone gets out of it.

Frankie, I do not condone lies nor abuse no matter where it appears.

It's being alleged that the name was leaked by SDM. How did he know the name when you guys didn't?

The document was passed to his representatives who passed it on to their client. I believe he then took it to financial advisors and the bank. It was leaked from there I think, whether SDM was behind it, I have no idea.

To be honest, I don't think it is true of any site mate.

 

Yes, you'll always get your more vocal and less constructive posters on every site - those for and against the RST actually - but I find the suggestion actual sites are against the RST flawed.

 

These suggestions are merely an easy get-out clause for the Trust to avoid debate on such places. I certainly don't blame them for wanting to stay away from obtuse people intent on division but the generalisation that is permitted to happen about whole sites is just as false unfortunately.

 

On-topic, obviously McColl distancing himself is a blow to the Trust (and should be to all of us who are interested in fan ownership) but I'm certainly still want to hear what they have to say on the matter. Hopefully their statement will be ready today.

 

Frankie, i'm perhaps taking this off topic again here but what is your opinion of the post several weeks ago on Rangers Media regarding 'Secret Meetings'. It was posted by the site owner (although clearly not written by him) and contained completely inaccurate information regarding a meeting between the RST and SDM. It was along the lines that we were trying to keep the meeting secret. It was only when I e-mailed him the facts and said I could prove it as I still had copies of e-mails from the time that it was removed (but not before it had 1000 views). It was aimed at discrediting the RST, what was his motivation for posting it? You are part of the team on there. Was it discussed? If you don't know what I'm talking about I'm happy to e-mail it to you.

I smell bullshit by the barra load, through the smoke and reflective mirrors....."ââ?¬Å?You may act in secrecy, but God is still with you; you can only deceive other people. ââ?¬Â" a saying to be pondered upon.

MIH accounts are on the way, business as usual.

I have no idea what this means but may your God go with you.

Sadly, I only have your word for that. Do you have anything at all to say on the issue of promoting consultation and never delivering it? The questions are stacking up on you, will there be answers?

Not to you Maineflyer because if I said that the RST had personally spoken to every Rangers fan on the planet and had secured �£100m per year for infinity, you would still find fault.

Thanks.

 

So was the first time the RST knew the identity of the backer when it was revealed last w/e, or was there a period between when you did know the identity and when it was made public?

We were made aware of what was going in the SH on Saturday evening. That was the first time the name was mentioned.

Post 118.

 

You obviously just don't get this idea of consultation. do you? I'll help, it takes place near the beginning, not near the end. It should have been done long ago. Your leaks have got nothing to do with the lack of consultation but from recent events you could also do with some advice on how to deal with them when they do happen.

Maineflyer, if I wanted to throw personal insults at you, I'd do much better than Post 118.

I thought months was the time-scale mentioned in your release and mentioned by Trust reps elsewhere but am happy to be corrected as always...?

 

I look forward to hearing more.

 

It's a pity the Assembly seem so quiet but understand they may be somewhat restricted in what they can say given their 'official' nature and financial obligations to the club.

The press release referred to general discussions with individuals and groups. The particular document quoted in the SH had been in preparation for a few weeks.

Consultation, the word is consultation. Not publicly announcing the latest cocktail of ideas and then discovering that the people you purport to speak for don't agree with you.

 

You are amateurs of the worst kind and you will never be the answer to the needs of Rangers FC. You continually alienate those who could actually contribute and pull the wool over the eyes of those who can't.

 

This latest episode would be enough to embarrass better people into resignation. To see you coming on here throwing personal insults and pompous deflections only serves to emphasise the utter futility of the RST.

Point out the personal insults please. I don't know how many times we have to say that these proposals were leaked to the Sunday Herald. We did not go running to the press with this, why would we?

Thanks for that but, with the greatest of respect, I don't think that is overly positive news.

 

We're led to believe the Trust has been working on this scheme for several months but there seems little substance for us to lay our hats on so far.

 

Surely, you're not changing your plans on a large scale because a few people on the internet may not fancy the up-front payment? Online fans may well be the most active demographic but it probably isn't the best litmus test of wider opinion for a variety of reasons.

 

I'd recommend moving onto studies of more substance asap but appreciate ideas in reaching out offline are short on the ground.

 

If you have a plan which is interesting enough that multi-millionaires will debate it for months, share it with those you want to subscribe to it so we can all provide feedback that way. Sure, some will ridicule it, but that in itself isn't a bad thing to get out the way before launching. Meanwhile the rest of us and the fan organisations can take the more valid suggestions and improve it.

 

That is fan consultation, that is leadership and that is involving everyone.

Frankie, the 6 month thing is nonsense. It's been a matter of weeks rather than months and the document is not ready to go to the fans. When it is, we will be doing as you suggest.

Expected negative media coverage from the usual suspects aside, why not counter their efforts by answering the more constructive concerns of those genuinely interested in what you have to offer with this plan?

 

As has been asked several times recently, how do you plan to consult and involve the wider Rangers family to maximise the chances of success for fan ownership schemes?

 

People like Spiers and English are easily swatted aside by showing them the proof of the pudding. By only moaning about their coverage it actually lends credence to their claims.

Frankie, we will talk to our colleagues in the Assembly and Association on the best ways to consult as many people as possible. We can hold information sessions, fans forums. We have had enquiries from all over the world about this but we have to wait until the time is right and we have something credible to go to the fans with. We have received a lot of feedback on messageboards such as this (the grown-up posters that is) and there has been a lot of encouragement. However, feedback suggests that the �£600 up front may be a problem for some people so we have to look again and find a way for evryone who wants to be involved to join.

Did I read that the RST were only dealing with McColl's representatives and did not know his identity? Is this bit true?

Yes, I believe Stephen Smith confirmed this in an interview on Moday.

You have to admire spirit but fans' vision isn't going to work

 

Published Date: 31 March 2010

By Tom English

IF YOU'RE a humble fan, it's easy to understand what might appeal about owning a stake in your football club, especially nowadays when you see what is going on at great institutions like Manchester United and Liverpool.

 

The financial woe that lies ahead of both of these terrific clubs is hard to quantify, but the suspicion is that there's a major financial explosion coming down the track for the pair of them. You don't need to be the economic brain of Britain to understand and be shocked at the level of debt they are both operating under. The pair are being run by non-football people and they have become fiscal basket cases.

 

At Rangers, they've been through the wringer on the finance front. Their supporters have lived something of a double life this past year, worrying about the restrictions on the budget that continues to threaten an exodus of their best players, and also their manager, while at the same time rejoicing heartily at their new-found dominance in the domestic league after three seasons under the thumb of their now beleaguered rivals across the city.

 

Since the club is for sale, it is no wonder that some in the grassroots are trying to put together a deal that delivers it from the possible grip of an unknown quantity. The Rangers Supporters Trust has taken it upon itself to forge a plan. A fans buyout is the nirvana they're chasing with all the hope, and frankly, the futility of someone tracking the end of a rainbow in the anticipation of finding a crock of gold. You have to admire their spirit, but this vision of theirs just isn't going to work.

 

People at Ibrox are paying lip service to it, but privately they don't see anything like this happening, not because they don't want it, but because it just doesn't add up. It only makes sense in the hearts and minds of fans who are concerned about the way their club is going. But in the cold analysis, nobody who matters at Rangers really and truly believes there is a future in this.

 

When Jim McColl, the chairman of Clyde Blowers and supposedly Scotland's richest man, dynamited the RST's dream of him leading them into a bright new dawn, David Edgar, the Trust's chairman, responded by saying that the plan was "not predicated on the involvement of any one individual."

 

We should look at the numbers here. The RST seems to be suggesting that it can raise �£30million to clear the Rangers debt. This would be made up of, say, 20,000 fans forking out a �£600 lump sum while committing themselves to �£15 every month for five years. Their season ticket is on top of that again. In theory, that gets Sir David Murray out the door and the club into fans' ownership. Then what?

 

According to their exploratory document ââ?¬â?? the bullet-pointed version of it that appeared in print at any rate ââ?¬â?? it seems that RST has allowed for a one-off payment of Ã?£10m-Ã?£12m to secure player contracts and then Ã?£8m-Ã?£10m a year for operating costs. So that's about Ã?£52m they need in the first year of ownership. Without a McColl or a Dave King or a Graham Duffy ââ?¬â?? remember him? ââ?¬â?? to stump up some significant coin, the burden that will fall on fans is potentially savage. Divided between 20,000 members, it comes to Ã?£2,600 per head. Say they get 40,000 supporters to commit, it's still Ã?£1,300 plus your season ticket in that first year.

 

If there was an investor in the pipeline, at a huge stretch you might see how this might be do-able. If there was somebody willing to take over 49 per cent of the club, leaving the fans with 51 per cent of the control (and the cost) then the numbers wouldn't be so horrific. But there isn't anybody. Duffy didn't want to inject significant money into the club. McColl doesn't want to invest anything bar his expertise, which is vast, but which won't pay the bills. King is mired in the complexities of a legal wrangle with the South African revenue authorities and is in no position at the moment to throw money at his beloved club.

 

The last time Rangers went to their fans looking for money, in a shares issue, it was a dismal flop. The fans rationalised it by saying that the reason they didn't respond in bigger numbers was because of Murray's presence at the head of the club, but that's an iffy argument. Maybe there's an element of truth in it. And maybe there's truth, too, in the theory that enough of them didn't invest simply because they just didn't fancy parting with their hard-earned cash.

 

When we hear about fans buyouts we tend to gravitate towards three examples; Barcelona, Hamburg and Espanyol, the latter pair being the ones that the RST saw fit to examine closely in a public meeting earlier in the season. It invited representatives from both clubs to address a group of Rangers fans.

 

Barca have managed supporter ownership really well, not all that hard given their extraordinary revenue streams they have at their disposal and the fact that they have nearly 180,000 members chipping in annual subscriptions. Even still, they amassed huge debt. Only yesterday did they settle a tax bill of 60m, a figure they say will put a major dent in their spending in coming seasons.

 

Hamburg and Espanyol are better examples for Rangers. They're ticking along fine in Germany and Spain, but the financial burden on the supporters of both of these clubs per season is less than half of what it might be on the average Rangers fan.

 

And there is another difference. Hamburg and Espanyol are unlike Rangers in one key sense. They don't come from a culture where winning is everything, their supporters do not demand trophies. They are content to compete, to hang about on the periphery of the big boys. Hamburg manage it effectively enough. Espanyol find it a struggle these days. They're sitting 14th out of 20 in La Liga. They're well run and their fans are happy that the club is in safe hands, but would Rangers people be sated in the same way?

 

Buying the club will require an eye-watering amount of money, with or without a sugar daddy. Running the club and making it successful on the pitch will require more again. Wanting to control the club you love is an understandable desire, but the finances just don't stack up. They never will. For now, there is but one player in this saga and it is Andrew Ellis. He hasn't gone away. Not yet. Soon we will know if he wishes to take it further. He's got a week to make a bid. Ellis remains the only show in town.

Mmm. Quoting Spiers one day and Tom English the next. Now what do they have in common?

It's wrong that the members are not being told anything formally, and having to rely on newspaper quotes (which have proved to be less than accurate in the past ) or soundbites on radio stations, all of which many members may not have listened to.

 

It seems that the members on FF are being kept up to date with various comments from board members as to who the RST have or have not been dealing with, whereas members who don't go onto that website are not being afforded the same courtesy.

 

So much for the promises of better communication.

 

Non-FF members of the RST are being treated as second class members.

Sorry Bluedell, but the only comment I saw on FF about who we are dealing with was the denial that David Low was in any way involved with our document. This was posted on here which is why I didn't bother. If I've missed something then you'll have to forgive me. We've tried very hard recently to ensure that our members are e-mailed first then put things up on our site prior to anything going on messageboards. We only found out late on Saturday night about this leak and on Sunday and Monday our media guys were inundated by the press looking for information. We'll issue a ststement in due course but other than the above I can't see anything else on FF that hasn't been available elsewhere.

Plgsarmy said yesterday that they were preparing a press release. Nothing on it yet, though.

Things were changing on an hourly basis yesterday (and today). I'll wait for our media guys to decide on timing.

It would certainly be helpful if the RST could confirm to its members whether there was any truth to these rumours and where exactly they are with it, rather than us having to rely on different versions appearing in the press.

There is a press release being prepared.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obKeQB68XrU]YouTube- The Gallant Pioneers - Rangers Founders Trail[/ame]

I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to know about the formation of the Club.

There have been some really good comments on here. I've spent most of today getting things ready as we will shortly be sending out renewal notices. With there being a game tomorrow and it being Mother's day then it might be the beginning of the week before I can respond properly. I would like to point out one thing though. The RST has not backed any proposed bids. People will quote the interview in NOTW with David Edgar. This was a phone call to David where he made a comment about Duffy being the only party to have come out and publically stated his plans and suddenly it was quoted as 'the only show in town'. This was never stated but we have to live with these things.

Rabid journalists in the NOTW and elsewhere, ridiculous accusations of overt cheatery from the piggery, open season on Lafferty and our goalkeeper, further accusations of sectarian singing by Rangers fans ...... and on it goes.

 

And where is the organisation that was formed to speak up for the interests of Rangers fans? Why the continuing silence? Obviously there can't currently be any useful opportunities for self-advancement.

 

Maybe they're still talking to Mr Duffy? Forty-eight hours to save Rangers? Surely we deserve better.

Same old, same old. Firstly the Trust was not formed to 'speak up for the interests of Rangers fans'. It was set up to promote wider share ownership and supporters' representation at Board level. We took on the role of defending the fans as the Club weren't prepared to do it. In terms of accusations from Celtic FC, I think Walter is doing very well in getting our point across. Lafferty and Mcgregor, surely it's up to the Club to address this but neither player exactly helps with they way they live their lives, do they? Sectarian singing? I, as much as any fan, deplore these accusations but while a number of our fans bastardise the words to Follow, Follow with the Dundee, Hamilton and what follows, how do you defend that when someone points it out. I know all the arguements about what they sing, but think about it for a minute. You can try to do battle with the media but you have to pick battles you can win.

I'll ignore the sarcasm in the rest of your post. Glad to see it's now 48 hours to save Rangers and not 48 days. Funny, I was at that conference and all I can remember was that it was 48 (or thereabouts) days until the transfer window opened. This was before it was announced that an agreement had been reached with LBG. Still, keep on posting what you believe to be true, it just isn't.

Just reading some more of the claims about former Trust board members on FF by MD.

 

To say they are ludicrous lies is an understatement. Bizarre nonsense about people going on about property and heroin dealing? Eh? I've seen a few people mention the property thing but it certainly isn't former Trust board members and to suggest so is bizarre.

 

As for the claims about the character of those meeting with the club; well that is also tripe.

 

No idea what the poster hopes to gain from this but the credibility of himself and the RST is going down the toilet.

You know Frankie, I've thought a lot about responding to this all day and now I've decided to. You cannot categorically say anything is a lie unless you are personally involved or you have knowledge to refute it. I consider you to be a decent person who, above all, cares about our Club and it's future (a bit like I view myself:spl:). You have to accept though that people who you have sat round a table with and perhaps trusted don't always have the same principles.

Let's take, for example, the property thing. VB have been allowed on RM to post insinuations that MD owns these properties in the city centre and even states that a Trust Board meeting was held there where people were sitting on boxes. Where did this information come from, particularly regarding the Board meeting? It must have come from someone who was there. This is used to imply that MD makes so much money from the Rangers supporters that he can afford to own premises in a prime Glasgow location. Absolute nonsense, the offices were owned by a friend who let him use it for storage.

I would normally go on to RM to refute these allegations but as you well know I am banned. I have never had the courtesy of being told why I was banned but verbally I was told 'Scott didn't like what you were saying about fake strips', despite the fact I hadn't said anything but we better not go down that route, eh? I noticed though that tonight someone has posted on RM that I am a 'proven liar'. It really is pathetic.