Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'corrupt'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. RANGERS’ surviving directors were last night linked with a dramatic move to bring former Scottish Football League chief executive David Longmuir on board in a bid to stem the tide of support swelling behind Jim McColl and Paul Murray’s attempt to take charge at Ibrox. McColl, a millionaire businessman, and former Rangers director Murray last night hosted a meeting with representatives of three leading supporters’ groups where the plans they outlined were positively received. Now it is understood the current directors at the club – finance director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive James Easdale, along with the latter’s brother Sandy who sits on the separate football board – are considering Longmuir as a potential new chief executive. Longmuir has been out of work since July when he lost out to former Scottish Premier League chief executive Neil Doncaster for the role in charge of the new Scottish Professional Football League. The 48-year-old had been at the helm of the SFL since 2007, having previously spent 20 years working for multinational drinks firm Diageo. During his final two years at the SFL, which saw the fallout from Rangers’ financial collapse land in his lap when the SPL refused the liquidated club a place in the top flight, Longmuir was perceived by Ibrox supporters as more sympathetic to their plight than either Doncaster or SFA chief executive Stewart Regan. However, it is unclear if Longmuir would be interested in discussing a move to Rangers in the current circumstances. Last night’s meeting, held at McColl’s Clyde Blowers offices in East Kilbride, took place on the day Rangers had been due to hold their first annual general meeting since the club plunged into administration and liquidation last year. But the agm had to be postponed when McColl and Murray won a Court of Session ruling last week which declared the current board had been wrong to prevent them requisitioning for the removal of existing directors and appointment of new ones at the meeting. That prompted the resignation of Craig Mather as chief executive and departure of non-executive director Bryan Smart. Last night’s meeting lasted around three hours with members of the Rangers Supporters Trust, Rangers Supporters Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association quizzing McColl and Murray. Full details of the meeting will be released today but Andy Kerr, president of the Assembly, made it clear there was backing for McColl and Murray. “I think the majority of fans are behind this,” said Kerr. “It was a very successful meeting. The main purpose was to gather information and we have done that and we will share that in a meaningful format with the fans. We were quite happy with what we heard from Jim McColl and Paul Murray and the key now is to communicate that information. We will put it together in a Q and A format. “The AGM is going to be the pivot for all of this. We heard that a board is ready to go in and that a CEO and financial director are lined up and that was good to hear because it was something that was causing us anxiety. We have some level of assurance and heard nothing that has given us any concerns.” No new date has yet been set for the agm. Dave King, the South African-based former Rangers director, is expected in Glasgow this weekend as he looks to return to the club. It remains to be seen whether he will do so with the existing board or lend his support to the McColl-Murray group. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-board-linked-with-bid-to-recruit-longmuir-1-3156598
  2. From Richard Wilson http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/rangers-future-has-been-complicated-by-conflict-but-peace-can-still-break-out.22479981?
  3. CELTIC shareholders are demanding the club’s board lodge a formal complaint with UEFA over Rangers’ readmittance to the Scottish Football League following its financial collapse. A resolution set to be tabled at the club’s AGM on November 15 calls upon the board to demand a probe into how “an unqualified new club” formed after the Ibrox side’s liquidation was allowed entry into the league by the SFA. They claim Scotland’s footballing bosses contravened the UEFA code of conduct by granting a licence and put other clubs vying to enter the league at a disadvantage. The Celtic board has urged that the motion is rejected, saying that requesting a UEFA investigation would be “unnecessary”. But shareholders have promised a “fiery debate” over the resolution, which states sections of the Hoops’ shareholders have “no confidence in the SFA’s governance”. Rangers entered administration in February last year. Charles Green’s Sevco bought the club’s assets last June as it faced liquidation and later changed the name to The Rangers Football Club Plc. The Ibrox club was removed from the SPL but its membership of the SFA was transferred to the new owners, allowing it to start last season in Division Three. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision, claiming it displayed “a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play” and “contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements”. The resolution also claims the SFA was involved in “secret cross governance agreements” to get Rangers back in the league, allowed the club to compete “without proper registration compliance” and that the SFA failed to initiate an “inquiry on improper player registration”. It is also stated “our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and ensure sporting integrity”. http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/436527/Celtic-shareholders-want-UEFA-to-probe-SFA-over-Rangers-punishment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-scotland+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Scotland+Feed%29
  4. Toyed with the idea of writing a 'match' preview for this but we'll just go for the thread instead. Case opened at 10am but has been adjourned until 11 so lawyers for Rangers can read over a late submission from the Requisitioner who seek to have an open vote at the AGM on current and nominated board members.
  5. DAVE KING made the following statement tonight: "I confirm that I held talks with Rangers Chief Executive Craig Mather and Finance Director Brian Stockbridge in South Africa. I wished the discussions to remain confidential until something definite was agreed- one way or another. I have maintained that confidentiality. However, given my awareness of incorrect inferences being drawn in the media I would like to make a limited statement at this time. "The discussions were, to my mind, very positive and it was agreed that subject to the normal regulatory approval I would put my name forward to join the Board and to serve as Chairman. "Such an appointment is of course subject to the approval of the existing Board members and ultimately the shareholders of the company. There are also mandatory regulatory requirements that must be complied with and take time. I have already submitted all the necessary documentation. "News of the meeting has found its way into the public domain and this has unsurprisingly resulted in speculation as to the nature and the outcome of the meeting. In reaction to this speculation and to give some clarity to the club's fans I would like to address a couple of points at this time. "First, my willingness to become part of the future of the football club is based simply on my love for the club and my desire to support the club with a combination of my business expertise and my willingness to make a further investment. "In particular I see a present need to utilise the time we have over the next few seasons to be prepared, both financially and on the pitch, to compete with our Glasgow neighbours when we get back to the top League. "My involvement is not linked in any way to any other individual, albeit I have my private thoughts as to certain individuals that might add value to the club going forward. Ultimately it is for the shareholders to make such decisions. The recent settlement of my litigation in South Africa removes any impediment to my appointment to the board. "I want to make it clear that I agreed to join the Board only after intensive and detailed discussions with the existing executives and because I believe I can help them by playing a significant role in driving Rangers forward and finally putting the past behind us. "It is sad that every month of the continued disunity between the fans and other stakeholders is eroding our ability to be ready for the step up to the premier league. We do not have time to waste. "It was also made clear by Mr Mather and Mr Stockbridge that Rangers are not in need of an immediate financial injection but we agreed that now is the time to commence a new round of funding to ensure that it is available in an orderly and cost effective manner when required. I wish to lead that fund raising exercise and being on the Board will greatly assist me in that regard. "I believe that the timing is right for me to take this step and I look forward to the opportunity to work with the current directors albeit I would have preferred to have my appointment confirmed prior to communicating my further thoughts. Unfortunately the rumour mill necessitated this short statement. If matters proceed as I hope over the next few days then I will be present at the AGM." http://t.co/LgzX419pNl
  6. Posed by the RST on Facebook, if this is in the wrong place or it's already been started... feel free to move or delete. Minutes of meeting with C Mather and B Stockbridge Minute of meeting between the Rangers Supporters Association, Rangers Supporters Assembly and the Rangers Supporters Trust had a meeting with club Chief Executive Craig Mather, Finance Director Brian Stockbridge and Director of Communications James Traynor. Ibrox Stadium 10 October 2013. SEDERUNT C Mather, B Stockbridge, J Traynor and J Hannah (Rangers FC). Fans reps - D Roberton, J Kirk, T Green, M Dingwall, R Johnston, A Sheppard and G Letham. INTRODUCTIONS CM - Introduced himself, keen to be open with the fans. Brief introduction of fan groups and rationale. IPO ISSUES GL - Queried the excessive £5.6m costs from fundraising, can we get a breakdown. BS - pre-IPO fees are high. Large cost to secure the club - at time of acquisition there was no license to play football and it was risky private investment and that attracts high costs. GL - normally fees would be 5% - why are these as high as 25% BS - fees paid were commensurate with normal legal and professional fees but the other costs were high. I came in on 14th June by which time these costs were already fixed. Payments agreed by the club prior to my joining were only paid if I considered they were properly incurred and constituted proper commercial contracts. Intends putting together a more informative analysis of historic costs ref the IPO before the AGM - this sort of information is not normally in the public domain. Will have to liaise with investors and advisors that they are happy to have fees disclosed. Hope to be as transparent as I can be. You must remember there were Inherited costs - in terms of wages these were around the £30m mark for example and will not remain at that level. GL - £450,000 arrangement payment to Zeus - is this transaction included in the cost of the IPO? What about refunds to investors such as Laxey, Eurovestech and Alan Mackenzie? BS - Yes, it is included. But there were no illegal returns of capital. CM - as far as fees are concerned I'm happy to state a £50k - 5% commission was paid on my introduction regarding investing in the company. GL - why have the costs of finance raising been so high? Charles Green assured Rangers fans that fundraising would be easy. BS - can't be responsible for CG statements or contracts. Only invoices club pays out are those which are contractual, reasonable and binding. We have cut costs considerably going forward. STAFF REMUNERATION The staff costs appear massive and should not have been incurred for the level of football or the amount of work undertaken. CM - certain salaries are in the Annual Report and some scrutiny is valid. My own salary is £300k and the major institutional investors are aware of that and happy with it. The structure of my bonus has been discussed but it will not be linked just to winning the league. Lots of other factors will have to come into play, meeting player and financial budgets. Both McCoist and myself are content to work together to ensure that we reach a balance on incentives regarding the PLC budget for players and saving money so that one part of the club is not working against the other. We're looking at reducing the historic level of professional costs - for instance, we are considering an in-house legal department to cap the level of expenditure there. We need to restructure and define cost centres. We are looking at the efficiency for example of Murray Park and wish to make that measurable in setting remuneration/bonuses. BS - the terms of my contract are public - £200k bonus for each of the next three years. I voluntarily agreed to remove my bonus payment that had been agreed for those years. It's about delivering financial performance, I'm not taking an automatic bonus. Expect that post-AGM my remuneration and bonus will be announced. I joined the company on 14th June and wasn't salaried until September. Paid a £50k electric bill form my own resources. Banners and chants do not reflect the reality of the situation. I have no outside interest and I have no 1p shares. BS paid 70p per share at the IPO. TG - why give up bonuses now? BS - with hindsight I should have been rewarded for financial performance not football basis. CM - I want Brian looking over my shoulder as finance director controlling spending. BS - the club is financially secure. We have a completely clear audit from Deloittes. We have no debt. CM - McCoist package - we've almost got it signed off. An agreed reduced package will be put in place soon. GL - termination payments appear very generous - for example Charles Green. BS - Green's package was decided by the Remuneration Committee. I sacked Imran for gross misconduct, he received no compensation. DR - I thought Green had resigned? CM - it was a compromise agreement to protect the club. Employees have rights they can exercise. BS - The Remuneration Committee contains no executives - it contained Malcolm Murray, Phil Cartmell and Ian Hart. CLUB ACCOUNTS GL - We don't want to dwell too much on the historical numbers, we would rather focus on the future. We would however record that the accounts just released were an appalling set of figures. CM - We recognise the losses. These were predicted and investors knew there would be a substantial loss in the first year. GL - pre-IPO research note issued by the broker Cenkos predicted a £1m loss compared with a £14m actual loss. Half-year forecast predicted a £7m loss. BS - We've seen leaks of price-sensitive information from illegal leaks. It's difficult to form an accurate opinion on partial information. We've removed £2m costs off operational expenditure. GL - your December management accounts predicted a £6.8m loss but the loss was £14m. BS - we've had problems with the retail division - the JJB contract going and the Puma deal being late. A lot of one-off costs - £1m for the Pinsents investigation. Pay-off for Green, etc. GL - do you have a monthly phased plan for the current year and are actual results reviewed against this plan by the Board on a monthly basis? CM - yes, and regular Senior Management meetings. GL - can you tell us what the budget revenue and operating profit/loss figures are for the current year 2013/2014? BS - I can't give price-sensitive info and hence can't give profit forecast numbers. However, Daniel Stewart are working on a research note for insitutionals. We do things by the book - we'll note non-recurring items and will break them down. RJ - what about provision for similar costs for next year? BS - difficult to predict as we did have a lot of non-recurring fees this year. RJ - but we keep losing executive and non executive board members on an almost regular basis and incurring associated costs. CM - unusual year of change. For instance we had season ticket sales on course as of 1st August but then the requisition for the EGM came in and killed confidence. Sales went from 174 a day to 6. But that's based on perception not reality. We're ahead of budget in many areas. I want to sort the club - the Board have to be able to look at themselves and if I am not the right man I will go. If I haven't performed then I deserve to be voted off at the AGM. I have successfully bought businesses out of administration before - I know what I am doing. What happens if we are voted out at the AGM and there is no alternative? BS - the Stock Exchange will suspend the company from the market.
  7. Lifted from FF: ''Thats two younger lads now both under 19 had police come to their doors early morning to arrest them for singing said song. I was also told by a polis up in Ayr that FoCUS are watching out for people singing this now due to the YCV reference''. Just a heads up.
  8. Neil Doncaster has stressed that he remains comfortable with the situation where the Scottish Professional Football League is still to find a title sponsor as the season enters its first break for international matches. The new league set-up has been in operation for more than a month, and the reconstruction was formally completed at the end of June. The fact that the SPFL continues with no title sponsor has provoked concern in some circles. Doncaster again insisted that it is not a significant problem. He also played down yesterday the extent to which finance from a title sponsor impacts on clubs when compared to revenue brought in from broadcasting deals already in place. The chief executive pointed out that he is content to take his time “to find the right sponsor, rather than the first one that comes along”. The recent controversy surrounding Wonga’s sponsorship of Newcastle United, which led to striker Papiss Cisse briefly threatening to refuse to wear a shirt promoting a payday lender, highlighted how an association with certain brands can lead to problems. Doncaster wants a sponsor that enhances the image of professional football in Scotland. “It’s clearly important that we get the right sponsor rather than do something quickly,” said Doncaster, before adding that “we shouldn’t get carried away” with the notion that the financial guarantees from having a title sponsor in place would transform the Scottish game. The deal the Clydesdale Bank struck was worth £8 million a year to the Scottish Premier League when originally signed in 2007. No figure was publicised when the contract was extended in 2010. The association between the bank and Scotland’s top flight ended last season. Irn Bru’s sponsorship of the Scottish Football League – worth in excess of £3 million over the course of the last three years – also expired earlier this summer. “It’s certainly the current focus but we shouldn’t get carried away by the amount of money that it contributes to the game,” said Doncaster. “The vast majority of money that goes into the game through the SPFL comes through broadcast rights – something like 90-95 percent of the entire pot and all of that is secured already. “So you are talking about something that is important, of course, but it’s not fundamental to the finances of the game.” Doncaster added that the SPFL is “flexible” when it comes to the specific details of a sponsorship deal, and whether all four leagues would need to be sold as one sponsorship package or could be separated. “We’ll be led very much by what sponsors would want to do,” he said. “There is an attraction for sponsors in having all 42 clubs, in having one sponsorship which covers the whole of the country – but that would be led by their requirements when we talk to them.” Doncaster insisted that securing new sponsors is not the only consideration at present. “I think it’s important that we continue to work hard on a number of different fronts, whilst remembering that we have two key roles at the SPFL,” he said. “One is to run a fair competition and the other is to commercialise that competition. “That has been a successful commercialisation to date, largely based on broadcasting. Of course sponsorship is important and work on that will continue but it will be done when it’s done.“It must be a partner that’s fit for the game and fit for the SPFL in terms of the image that it projects. We’ve had a number of expressions of interest from a number of different parties, but it’s important that we have the right brand for the SPFL at such an important time in its development. That’s worth waiting for.” Doncaster was speaking at a Murrayfield Stadium event held to encourage safe driving on Scotland’s country roads. The SPFL and the Scottish Rugby Union have joined forces to help promote a campaign spearheaded by former Formula 1 driver David Coulthard. Doncaster has welcomed the new spirit of cooperation that now exists between the SPFL and the Scottish Football Association, following Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell’s appointment to the main board of the SFA. “The relationship between the SPFL and the SFA is a good one and I think a much better one since the reconstruction’s completion on the 27th June,” he said. “It’s important that the SPFL is properly represented at the Scottish FA main board. We have one representative from the Professional Game Board and now Peter has been elected unopposed by the seven members of that body. “So we are very pleased to have effective representation at the main board following [former chairman] Ralph Topping’s excellent contribution to date. “I think there’s a genuinely collegiate atmosphere at the moment between the Scottish FA and the SPFL and that certainly makes it easier for both bodies to do the best that they can in their different spheres.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/neil-doncaster-relaxed-over-lack-of-spfl-sponsor-1-3076595
  9. Posted by Roy Greenslade It will be interesting to see if any newspaper covers the fact that members of Britain's armed forces appeared to join in with Scottish football fans as they sang sectarian songs at a match yesterday. Initial reports suggest not. Some 400 uniformed soldiers, seamen and air force personnel attended an armed forces day at Ibrox, the Rangers ground. After a formal march and band music, a group of soldiers (they were in khaki) were filmed dancing, clapping and singing along with the crowd. Although it is difficult to make out the exact words on the video posted on YouTube, people have identified sectarian songs and chants celebrating the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. Rival Celtic fans were quick to point to songs that are supposed to be banned from all Scottish football grounds under a new law passed by the Scottish parliament. One commenter to the YouTube site wrote of it being a "disgusting vile and tawdry spectacle". Another wrote: "Shocking stuff. I hope this vid is forwarded to the footballing and army authorities." Two media reports about the events that have been published - one here on the STV site and another here on the Daily Record site - make no reference to the soldiers' antics. The STV report mentioned that an army band "entertained fans" and quoted Major General Nick Eeles, general officer commanding Scotland, as saying it was hoped to make it into an annual event. The Record did write that "the match-day experience began in dramatic circumstances" but only because two marines "abseiled down the Govan stand ahead of kick-off, before delivering the match ball to the referee." How odd that both outlets missed the story? Or do their reporters think soldiers chanting jingoistic sectarian songs in unison with football fans is unworthy of comment? Incidentally, Saturday was not the official armed forces celebration day in Britain (that falls in the close season). The club, with the full approval of the military, decided to stage its own separate event. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade
  10. BARRY FERGUSON vents his anger at the sentence passed down to Gunning for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk, and says it is a common occurrence during matches. 20 Sep 2013 07:22 Vincent Lunny.Vincent Lunny. I DON’T care much for the SFA. I’m unlikely to get a job offer from them any time soon, that’s for sure. And this column won’t help my relationship with them either because I find it impossible to discuss the people in charge of our game without working myself into an angry rant. Here’s the problem. This should be a positive period for the Scottish game. The national team is on the way back under Gordon Strachan and Celtic were a credit to the country in the San Siro. As much as it might stick in my throat as a Rangers man, Neil Lennon and his side were excellent against AC Milan. They were the better team for 75 minutes and didn’t deserve to lose. So that’s all good. We should be feeling better about ourselves again. I should be able to look guys in the eye in the dressing room at Blackpool again and say: “You see, I told you Scottish football isn’t as bad as you lot make out.” But then the SFA go and do something stupid and you’re left to wonder why you bother. The people who run the game in this country seem hellbent on turning us all into a bad joke. And I’m sick of it. For the last week I’ve had guys down here laughing at the Ian Black betting case and asking me: “What the hell is going on up there? Can you guys not get anything right?” And there’s nothing I can say in Scotland’s defence. Down here it’s a different story. The game is run with total transparency, clear rules and disciplinary procedures that are set in stone. Everyone knows where they stand. Cameron Jerome? He broke the rules on betting and got a 50 grand fine. It was all done and dusted in a matter of days. But how long was the Black saga allowed to rumble on for? It dragged from one week to the next, one meeting to another. Even when he was finally hauled to Hampden the SFA kept everyone waiting for the decision. They hummed and hawed but said nothing for hours. And when they did, they refused to give out the details. Would it have been so difficult for chief executive Stewart Regan to come out and explain exactly what had gone on? To give details of the games in which Black had bet against his team and the reasons behind his punishment? Why would he NOT want to get the facts out there? I just don’t get it. I’ve had my say on Black. If he was in my dressing room I wouldn’t be happy with him. But I’ve also been in trouble so many times at Rangers that I know the club’s disciplinary procedures inside out. They get you in, it’s done and dusted within an hour or two then they make a statement. Why do the SFA find it so hard to act as decisively? There’s another thing that annoys me. Can anyone tell me what Vincent Lunny does? Does anyone know his remit or on what basis he decides which player he’s going to ban next? Does he sit in his house with his feet up and glass of red wine on a Sunday night watching the highlights on the BBC? And if he sees some incident replayed in slow motion, is that when he takes it upon himself to act? Because that would be a disgrace. I’ve been playing top-team football for going on 18 years. In that time there must have been about 10 incidents in every game which could have led to a player being slapped on the wrists or fined. It happens all the time. If Vincent wants to apply the rules fairly and across the board he should be watching every minute of every game or, if that’s too much, employ people to watch them for him. There are plenty of ex-pros out there looking for work. But all the games should be reviewed by someone. Anything less is just not right. Look at Gavin Gunning at Dundee United, who was banned for three matches for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk. I must flick out a leg three or four times in every game I play. Now Lunny is giving three-game bans for it? Is that what Scottish football has become? On my Rangers debut at Tynecastle, Neil Pointon nearly took my head off 10 minutes in. He smashed me in the face with his shoulder, elbow and fist all in one go. And I thought to myself: “Welcome to first-team football.” I was so dazed I hardly knew where I was. But it was a great lesson for a young player. I knew I was in a man’s game. And that’s the way football should be. Look, if there’s some bampot running around charging into tackles that can break legs or end careers, Lunny should throw the book at him. But three games for flicking out a leg? Come on. I like to see a wee ding-dong out there. Players who are fired up and getting in a few faces. That’s what it’s about in the heat of battle. But I guess Lunny wouldn’t know that. So let me give him some advice, from the front line straight to office desk. The fans love to see these flashpoints too. It’s called passion, Vinny. It’s what this game is built on – and the more you stamp it out the less people will turn up to watch. They don’t want some faceless guy at Hampden making decisions on a random basis that can harm their team. It’s the same for the players. How do you think Gunning would feel if he was sitting suspended and saw a player doing the exact same thing as he did ... and then finds out Lunny hasn’t spotted it on TV? Would that be fair? Look, I get that the whole idea about this compliance officer was to try to modernise the Scottish game. But please, make it fair. It’s the same for Black. He’ll know plenty of players who have been betting on football matches. And yet he’s the only one who gets done for it. I can’t help feel if you’re at Rangers or even Celtic the chances are they will be all over you like a rash. That’s the way I felt when the SFA were dealing with me. And the treatment Black has received shows that, despite their talk of modernising the game, nothing much has changed.
  11. I see there is a thread over on FF about this, does anyone think the SFA would apply for special permission for Rangers if we were to win the Scottish Cup,as per UEFA article 15 below?. It would be nice to be in a position to ask the SFA for this!. Article 15 – Special permission 1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to t he one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other t han the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV. 2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition. Such an extraordinary application applies only to th e specific club and for the season in question. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf
  12. STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/
  13. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4989-club-statement
  14. From the DR: from the BBC: So the fine for repeat offences actually goes down???? Given the number of charges that have been raised against us for "offensive" singing/chanting.....UEFA must be paying us now....
  15. Haven't seen this on RM or here but according to the Daily Mail today McColl's gang tried to bring back McClelland as the chairman. Absolutely frightful stuff if true. A real return to the old days when he was Murray's puppet and presided over record levels of debt. I'm neither here nor there with the current board and prospective future board. To me they all remind of the South Park episode where a douche and a turd compete with each other. But it's absolutely disparaging that our prospective leaders want a return of one of our past failures.
  16. http://sport.stv.tv/football/238344-celtic-chief-executive-peter-lawwell-appointed-to-board-of-scottish-fa/ Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has been appointed to the board of the Scottish Football Association. The 54-year-old has been nominated as the representative of the Professional Game Board, which contributes to the running of football in Scotland. Lawwell joins the Scottish FA's chief Executive Stewart Regan, president Campbell Ogilvie, Alan McRae, Rod Petrie and Barrie Jackson on the board.
  17. McColl statement: "Over the last couple of days we have been approached by members of the Rangers board seeking to explore whether there may be scope for a negotiation on the composition of the Rangers board which would avoid the need for a general meeting. "These discussions were conducted in good faith but unfortunately the board was unable to deliver the changes sought by the shareholders who have requisitioned the general meeting. "We are aware that the company is due to have its first AGM in October and so, in the interests of saving the club expense and time, we have discussed with the board a proposal to combine proceedings with the resolutions we sought as part of a general meeting being followed by the 'normal' business of the AGM. "To allow time to deal with the mechanics of combining the resolutions which would otherwise have come up at two separate meetings, we have agreed to give the company until close of business on Tuesday 27 August to agree the terms of the legal paperwork. "In the meantime we would encourage the board to make the changes that we believe are being demanded by the majority of stakeholders in the club."
  18. Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992
  19. Great post http://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/always-bet-on-black/
  20. Excellent article submitted by der Berliner A view from afar â?? The Reconstruction Lie? A little more than a year ago, Rangers FC went into administration. In the process of the club being handed over into the hands of a new company, the SPL board went out of their way to hand responsibility about its member's â?? i.e. Rangers' â?? future into the hands of their supporters. Those people at the board simply declining to do their job, or even contemplating that Rangers might have been led into administration by a criminal â?? as has been confirmed over the course of last year (and you hardly find a journalist north of Hadrian's Wall to say so). So off it went to the impartial fans of all the other SPL teams and had e.g. Bayern Munich been in a similar position and faced a vote from the BL fans, they would have played Bundesliga 2 football for a year or so too. A farce from top to bottom. Not that this was unexpected by the SPL bosses, who obviously assumed that the challenge for silverware and European places would be greater, people would come back to watch their teams in the new one-horse race in droves. Those same fans who cried blood-and-vengeance at their clubs, should they not vote Rangers out of the SPL. Those same fans who apparently developed a greater liking to gardening, video-gaming, or curling during the course of the season. It did not take the SPL board long to resume its powers after that, urging (to say the least) the SFL to place Rangers not into the lowest tier (according to the SFL rules), but into the First Division. For anything else would imperil the SPL's TV deals, constructed neatly around 4 to 6 Old Firm games per season. The SFA jumped in and told the SFL that for the greater good of the game, that was the way to do it. The â?? naughty and unruly - SFL stuck to their own rules though â?? as well as the opinion of their chairmen and fans. Rangers were included in the set-up like any new team, in the lowest tier. The SPL quickly got back into stride after that stumble and coerced the SFL into accepting a TV deal that included the screaming of the SFL's Rangers, much to the benefit of the SPL clubs. That did not help the state of affairs of the SPL though. Facts and figures show that its income has dropped, attendances went down at an alarming rate, despite what the SPL's boss Doncaster tries to tell the audience. With the SPL facing various legal bills now, a TV deal only known to Doncaster and possibly his close ally Lawwell, and many SPL clubs hardly able to sustain themselves, does anyone actually think that this same body is actually able to keep up with the financial backing of the SFL, the back-up they proposed alongside their 12-12-18 reconstruction? A recent survey was clearly telling that the football supporters were opposed to the 12-12-18 plan the SPL tries to sell as the last-possible option (why?). SFL clubs were asking their supporters about this and while they all agreed that change was required, there was a clear understanding that 12-12-18 was not the format to move forward, nor was it required straight after this season. But this time, the SPL bosses â?? along with those at the SFA â?? seem to disregard the opinion of the clubs' supporters, not least those of the SFL. Selective democracy? Rather on the contrary, the chairmen of Dundee United and Aberdeen show great endeavour to discredit other chairmen like those of St. Mirren and Ross County, who appear to stand firm in their critique of the proposed changes. Those who were fore-runners of fan-power and the call for â??sporting integrityâ?? - which essentially ignored that fact that Rangers FC on the park were indeed the same Rangers FC as before, despite new owners (â??not guilty until provenâ? springs to mind) â?? now deny this very same right to their fellow chairmen and supporters? And in fact blame them for being self-interested and not looking for the greater good of the game? These people certainly don't do irony! Last season, the whole lot of them acted purely out of self-interest when voting Rangers out of the SPL, looking for greater gains and more money than ever before, not least the likes of the New Firm, Aberdeen and Dundee United. How could they have envisaged that they will end â?? again â?? up in mid-table of a weakened SPL, crowds dwindling, quality dropping? How could they have envisaged that the likes of Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Ross County put up a more sterner challenge to the league race than their own distinguished teams? So why the urgency in the reconstruction, a reconstruction lead and essentially forced through by the SPL, a reconstruction that is being tauted as â??now or neverâ??? Casting aside the rather convoluted split system that does not help Scottish football develop or being any more attractive than it is now â?? not least for those teams in the 18-league. There is only one real reason why the SPL teams need their way here, the reconstruction under their terms: the plight of the SPL. It faces up to law cases with regards to money owed to a pub-owner (1.7m), prize money owed to Rangers FC (2.3m, oldco or newco does not matter), and face the legal bills of their very own EBT-case chase from Harper McLeod. Apart from the TV deals that only Doncaster and probably Lawwell have seen, TV deals that should help them pay the SFL teams after the reconstruction? TV deals that are not yet signed and delivered? You wonder why no-one in the media has ever had the audacity to ask the SPL about their financing programme? Or shall I say moonbeams? And with those Doncaster and Co. run about and try to bully their fellow SPL chairmen and those of the SFL into agreeing to their deal? You wonder if they actually check their accounts every now and then? Let's make no mistake here. The SPL is walking on empty and if the reconstruction is not being pressed through this year, there might not be a SPL left in 6 months time. Which in turn leaves a dozen teams without a league and facing the prospect of asking their way back into the Scottish game via the SFL and â?¦ the Rangers route. The SFL teams should be very aware of this. They hold nigh all the aces after the SPL dug their own grave last summer. They may actually start to invite the likes of St. Mirren and Ross County into the SFL under their terms of reconstruction. There's nothing that should stop the SFL taking over the reigns of all four divisions in Scotland again this summer, keeping the current format, but under a hierarchical structure â?? again. And while the TV deals et al are being utilized by one body for all, learned people can start to create a model better suited for the Scottish game as such, in time for the season after next. The SPL and a cabal of chairmen have ruined the whole Scottish set-up, mainly out of self-interest. It is time that they are removed from the game, for the better of the game. In that respect, stand firm Ross County, stand firm SFL! Fan Survey
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.