Search the Community

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/09/boardroom-cliches.html?spref=tw by Garry Carmody | Contributor As most football fans are able to get on with their "game of two halves", we fans that enjoy watching our football at Ibrox are still embroiled in one of the most notable boardroom battles in the club's history. It has gotten to the point that as a supporter of Rangers, I pine for the day when the most important debate becomes "4-4-2 or 4-5-1?". Instead, in the never-ending boardroom arguments, there is rarely time for this discussion to take a prominent place. Although the discussion is different, clichés most certainly still remain; "let's wait until the accounts are released" and "we should let the board get on with their job". In recent times, the above have become the official lines amongst many - the general idea is that we should all take a step back and let the norm continue. After all, why would the board do us wrong? Why would these individuals dare to affect the club lifelong supporters hold so dearly? There are a few very simple answers as to why those two familiar lines are simply doing us no good. "Wait until accounts are published" - Although no fan knows the details that will be included in the soon-to-be published accounts (any day now...), at the recent fan meeting at Ibrox, Financial Director, Brian Stockbridge, gave us an outline of what to expect. On the very basis that he "believes" that there is approximately £10 million left in the bank, can that possibly give any hope to fans looking for reassurance? This is the same board that have torn through an astonishingly high eight figure sum of money in the last 12 months - how can we possibly believe that this amount of money will last? It is also crucial to remember that this figure came from the same Stockbridge that told fans to their faces that he didn't know how much of the IPO money remained, but when it came to a cosy interview with The Sun, he was finally willing to lay bare the fact that not a single penny of the £22 million raised less than 12 months ago remains. The same Stockbridge that laughed his way to the bank after cashing in on his 100% bonus for Rangers winning the Third Division against part-timers. Is it really necessary to wait until accounts are published? Even behind the spin and avoidance of this current board, it doesn't take an expert to work out that these figures do not match up. Sure, a view of audited accounts will give a certain amount of confirmation, but unless an investor has recently ploughed a large sum of cash into the club without the boards' poodles letting fans know, the accounts will not be looking attractive at best – dire at worst. Search back within recent memory - can you name one isolated incident that shows that these are the right people to sort the issue out? There's also the idea that we should "let the board get on with their job". These people have been given the jobs for a reason - who are we to question what they do? For a start, the board have played fast and loose with the truth in previous times – for example, James Easdale was appointed to the board as media outlets reported that he personally held a shareholding of 6%, when in reality; he held approximately 0.5%, making the appointment somewhat baffling. Then there's the reappointment of Media House to deal with PR issues within the club - the same name that became toxic with fans due to their part in the cover-up of Craig Whyte's pillage of Rangers. The same Media House, of which employee, Jack Irvine, supposedly called "Greatest Ever Ranger", John Greig, 'thick'. That being the incident that CEO Craig Mather promised to act upon, but over three weeks later, it would appear evident that this has not happened. It is another incident that shows the complete lack of respect that is being shown to fans by the board which was also shown in bringing back Media House. It begs the question - are these spin doctors really there to protect the interests of the club or to safeguard the interests of individuals? Let's also not forget that this is the same board that voted against Chairman, Walter Smith, to allow Charles Green to return to the club as a "consultant". The move forced Smith into a position where he felt he had to quit and in his statement, said he felt the board were "dysfunctional", and urged fans to back change. If the board were to be commended by many for one reason, it would be their promise to tackle BBC Scotland on their constant mis-reporting and antagonising statements. However, that positive is clouded by the fact that some breaking stories are still making their way from the boardroom into the hands of BBC journalists. In the upcoming weeks, the AGM will be held. What is left inside Ibrox will be laid bare for all to see, and the board members will finally be up for judgement. If you believe you can decipher why they've earned our time, then by all means – continue to back the current regime. Or, if like me, you have sat for months on end in awe of how these men still remain in jobs, I would urge fans to take full advantage of the AGM. It is easy for fans to say "Our vote means nothing". If the split between investors is as close as both factions make out, this couldn't be further from the case. With approximately 12% of the club owned by fans, it is time fans started to make their voices heard. There may not be a better time. clichés

September 20, 2013 Behold, I Show You A Mystery I note that there has been a bit of speculation over the breakdown of the Easdales' shareholding in Rangers. – so much that one writer has even called it a mystery. Having myself seen the breakdown I can tell my readers that the Easdales have direct control over 14% of shares with Sandy Easdale himself having 4.37%. On top of this he has voting rights over a further 10% approximately. These shares belong to Blue Pitch and Margarita. This means that Sandy Easdale speaks for roughly 24% of shares. In addition, the board has the backing of other investors. As has already been seen, Minico and the requisitioners have exaggerated their own backing. As I have said previously, Sandy Easdale is continuing to impress investors with his acumen and no-frills approach. The general consensus of investors backing the board is that a wholesale removal of directors – as proposed by Minico – would be too disruptive for the business at this time. I can also reveal to my readers that there is serious wealth behind the Easdales in terms of backing, in particular from Blue Pitch. Not only that but it is from the most impeccable of sources in terms of fiscal propriety and corporate governance. In fact what I have been told is this; "Blue Pitch can write a cheque out for £50 milion at the drop of a hat to support the Easdales and Rangers when the club needs to buy a squad to challenge and win in Europe." Having discovered the strength of Blue Pitch I have no doubt about this statement. What's more, for Sandy Easdale to impress them speaks volumes about his own credentials. There is no mystery to the Easdales shareholdings. Unless, of course, you don't have the information. Or making things look mysterious helps your agenda.

According to Leggo, RFC are being investigated by the Procurator Fiscal after allegations of fraud. It's getting nastier... #agm http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/procurator-fiscal-launches-fraud-probe.html

The war of words between Light Blues chief executive Craig Mather and former Blue Knights leader Paul Murray escalated once again over the weekend, with both sides keen to emerge victorious in the long-running saga. The Requisition Notice put forward by Murray and businessman Jim McColl that called for Mather, finance director Brian Stockbridge and director Bryan Smart to be removed from the Ibrox board was withdrawn last week, with ex-PriceWaterhouseCoopers chief Frank Blin deciding to play no further part after becoming frustrated at the process. The AGM that will shape Rangers' future must be held by the end of October and McCoist is keen for a line to be drawn under the saga once shareholders have had their say at the Light Blues summit. He said: "I hope (there is an end to the acrimony in sight). I don't want to get involved in that and it's not my job. I would be very, very hopeful come the AGM that we get a clean bill of health, we get a tick, and everybody can move forward. "I think that's the dream and hope of every supporter and indeed every member of staff and shareholder." McCoist has had to deal with plenty of boardroom turmoil during his time as Gers boss after working under disgraced former owner Craig Whyte and outspoken chief executive Charles Green in the past. The continuing battle for control of the club has overshadowed the fine start to the season McCoist's side have made on the park in the SPFL League One but the Ibrox manager is becoming accustomed to dealing with top-level controversies. He said: "I certainly haven't become immune to it, but I'm becoming more appreciative there's not a lot I can do about it. "My job is hopefully to get a winning team on the park and that's what I'll continue to do. "I wouldn't say it's background noise. It's just something that's been at the club now for a little while. "It's no use my worrying about things I can't affect. I'm just hopeful that after the AGM, which I think is on October 29, we'll get a line under it and we can all move on. "I appreciate that the most important thing is the playing side. That's what the fans, generally speaking, are far more interested in. "Obviously, the other issues, the fans will have their own questions and favourites, but it's my remit to give the fans something to smile about on the park. "That's what I'll do my best to give them. "I don't know if I have switched off. I don't know if I can switch off." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/ranger...6586n.22173072

LET me start with a couple of confessions First, I don’t know Craig Mather. I have neither met the man nor talked to him. I do happen to know that, in private, he tends not to speak too fondly of me and that’s fine. As someone who has gone to some lengths to expose and condemn the dysfunctionality of the board over which he presides in his highly-paid role as the Rangers chief executive, I would expect nothing else. Mather has made it perfectly clear how badly he wishes to survive in his lucrative position. In fact, both he and financial director Brian Stockbridge have been actively attempting to make themselves bomb-proof from next month’s agm, which is shaping up as a general election to decide the future for Rangers. Perhaps even a defining moment which will determine if this club has much of a future at all. Mather and Stockbridge would prefer not to have to go to the polls. In fact, they wanted desperately to strike a deal with Jim McColl and his group of rebellious shareholders which would have guaranteed their jobs on a new-look board. Perhaps they are worried their credentials will not withstand such a thorough democratic examination and given the mess they have created in their time in charge of the coffers, who could blame them? By Stockbridge’s own recent admission, somewhere between £40million and £50m has gone from the bank vault over the last year or so. This has been an extraordinary cash burn. A £12m injection of funds last summer, followed by £22m from an IPO in December, two lots of £8m from season-ticket sales and various other amounts from commercial deals and hospitality matchday sales. And Stockbridge says only £10m remains. So these men then have already lost a lot. Now though, they stand to lose their own bulging pay packets too and clearly that just won’t do. No wonder they’re prepared to fight in whichever way they can to cling on. And I write this, not only as someone who has personally experienced some dark intimidatory tactics over the past few months, but who has been approached by Rangers employees at both extremities of the club’s pay scale who tell of similar tales. Truly, this club has become toxic beyond belief. After all, for those in charge, it’s all about the pounds, shillings and pence. It’s what brought Mather and Stockbridge to Ibrox in the first instance. It’s what drives them. Mather can hardly sign off on a press release these days without mentioning that he has sunk his own money into this basket case. He did, and in so doing became one of Charles Green’s original backers and trusted allies. Mather handed Green his money and now he wants his pound of flesh. It’s the same with the Easdale Brothers, who were sold a seat on the board by Green, shortly before the Yorkshireman packed up and took his monorail sales pitch to Springfield. All of these characters are hanging around demanding they take what is their due from this club. As is their right. They do not take kindly to being criticised or in some cases even scrutinised. Business is business after all. And Rangers is their business. So, no, I won’t be expecting a Christmas card from Mather. The honest truth of the matter is, for the good of this ravaged and stricken sporting institution, it is my sincere hope that Mather is gone long before then in any case. And that he takes most if not all of the club’s current directors with him. Which moves us along to confession No.2. I DO know Paul Murray. In fact, over the last three years, pretty much since the original Bull**** Billionaire Craig Whyte first appeared on the radar, I have got to know Murray very well indeed. During this time, I have grown to admire the man for his honesty, integrity and sincerity – all qualities which have been in desperately scarce supply around the Rangers trauma. Most of all though I have been struck by his unflinching determination to do the right thing for a football club which has been systematically abused ever since Whyte took it over and forced him off the old board. He is motivated purely by a sense of duty and devotion. In other words Murray is “Aye Ready” to Mather’s “My Readies”. If Mather doesn’t understand what that means he can always ask one of his many spin doctors to explain. They too have to earn their vast Rangers pay checks. And, if nothing else, it’ll keep them off Twitter for a while. That’s where Jack Irvine of Media House, recently reappointed by Mather to fight this dirty war, popped up on Friday full of foul-mouthed, late night insults. Irvine – the man who told the world Craig Whyte was good for Rangers – called McColl a Bull**** Billionaire. And all of this just a few hours after Mather had attempted to humiliate Murray in public with the release of a statement questioning the credentials of this lifelong Rangers fan and former Deutsche Bank high flyer. It was another classless, mean-spirited attack from the club’s own Politburo, in which Murray was made out to be a troublemaker on some sort of vanity project to force his way into a blazer and brogues. Murray responded on Saturday evening when he appeared on BBC Radio to slap Mather back down. And yet, throughout, he maintained a sense of decorum and good manners which seem beyond those currently in charge of the club. Few who listened could have failed to be impressed by the way in which Murray handled himself, or the strength of the message he delivered. He spoke well, his words from the heart and with honesty. Murray stressed that he’d walk away from it all tomorrow so long as he was able to rest at night knowing his club is back in safe hands. Despite the recent smear tactics, I remain convinced that peace of mind is all Murray wishes to gain from this sorry and increasingly spiteful saga. In the end it will all boil down to a matter of trust. The Ibrox fans and the club’s investors will have to decide next month if they trust McColl and Murray. Or if they would rather place their faith in those who continue to recklessly damage Rangers’ reputation. At a time when so much is made about the current status of Rangers, about whether the club died last year or whether it survived the liquidation of the company which owned it, a far more important debate is being ignored among these petty attention seeking squabbles. The truth is, when Green picked this club up for a pittance after Whyte had plunged it under, Rangers held on to its history, its trophies and its titles. Trouble is, it lost its heart and soul somewhere along the way. Perhaps it’ll take men of Murray’s calibre to wipe the ugly snarl from its face and make Rangers recognisable once more.

..................... who they trust to put the club back on track KEITH reckons that while Rangers held on to their history, trophies and titles - the club lost its heart and soul after Craig Whyte plunged it under. 16 Sep 2013 00:01 Rangers interim chief executive Craig MatherRangers interim chief executive Craig Mather Graham Stuart/Action Images LET me start with a couple of confessions. First, I don’t know Craig Mather. I have neither met the man nor talked to him. I do happen to know that, in private, he tends not to speak too fondly of me and that’s fine. As someone who has gone to some lengths to expose and condemn the dysfunctionality of the board over which he presides in his highly-paid role as the Rangers chief executive, I would expect nothing else. Mather has made it perfectly clear how badly he wishes to survive in his lucrative position. In fact, both he and financial director Brian Stockbridge have been actively attempting to make themselves bomb-proof from next month’s agm, which is shaping up as a general election to decide the future for Rangers. Perhaps even a defining moment which will determine if this club has much of a future at all. Mather and Stockbridge would prefer not to have to go to the polls. In fact, they wanted desperately to strike a deal with Jim McColl and his group of rebellious shareholders which would have guaranteed their jobs on a new-look board. Perhaps they are worried their credentials will not withstand such a thorough democratic examination and given the mess they have created in their time in charge of the coffers, who could blame them? By Stockbridge’s own recent admission, somewhere between £40million and £50m has gone from the bank vault over the last year or so. This has been an extraordinary cash burn. A £12m injection of funds last summer, followed by £22m from an IPO in December, two lots of £8m from season-ticket sales and various other amounts from commercial deals and hospitality matchday sales. And Stockbridge says only £10m remains. So these men then have already lost a lot. Now though, they stand to lose their own bulging pay packets too and clearly that just won’t do. No wonder they’re prepared to fight in whichever way they can to cling on. And I write this, not only as someone who has personally experienced some dark intimidatory tactics over the past few months, but who has been approached by Rangers employees at both extremities of the club’s pay scale who tell of similar tales. Truly, this club has become toxic beyond belief. After all, for those in charge, it’s all about the pounds, shillings and pence. It’s what brought Mather and Stockbridge to Ibrox in the first instance. It’s what drives them. Mather can hardly sign off on a press release these days without mentioning that he has sunk his own money into this basket case. He did, and in so doing became one of Charles Green’s original backers and trusted allies. Mather handed Green his money and now he wants his pound of flesh. It’s the same with the Easdale Brothers, who were sold a seat on the board by Green, shortly before the Yorkshireman packed up and took his monorail sales pitch to Springfield. All of these characters are hanging around demanding they take what is their due from this club. As is their right. They do not take kindly to being criticised or in some cases even scrutinised. Business is business after all. And Rangers is their business. So, no, I won’t be expecting a Christmas card from Mather. The honest truth of the matter is, for the good of this ravaged and stricken sporting institution, it is my sincere hope that Mather is gone long before then in any case. And that he takes most if not all of the club’s current directors with him. Which moves us along to confession No.2. I DO know Paul Murray. In fact, over the last three years, pretty much since the original Bull**** Billionaire Craig Whyte first appeared on the radar, I have got to know Murray very well indeed. During this time, I have grown to admire the man for his honesty, integrity and sincerity – all qualities which have been in desperately scarce supply around the Rangers trauma. Most of all though I have been struck by his unflinching determination to do the right thing for a football club which has been systematically abused ever since Whyte took it over and forced him off the old board. He is motivated purely by a sense of duty and devotion. In other words Murray is “Aye Ready” to Mather’s “My Readies”. If Mather doesn’t understand what that means he can always ask one of his many spin doctors to explain. They too have to earn their vast Rangers pay checks. And, if nothing else, it’ll keep them off Twitter for a while. That’s where Jack Irvine of Media House, recently reappointed by Mather to fight this dirty war, popped up on Friday full of foul-mouthed, late night insults. Irvine – the man who told the world Craig Whyte was good for Rangers – called McColl a Bull**** Billionaire. And all of this just a few hours after Mather had attempted to humiliate Murray in public with the release of a statement questioning the credentials of this lifelong Rangers fan and former Deutsche Bank high flyer. It was another classless, mean-spirited attack from the club’s own Politburo, in which Murray was made out to be a troublemaker on some sort of vanity project to force his way into a blazer and brogues. Murray responded on Saturday evening when he appeared on BBC Radio to slap Mather back down. And yet, throughout, he maintained a sense of decorum and good manners which seem beyond those currently in charge of the club. Few who listened could have failed to be impressed by the way in which Murray handled himself, or the strength of the message he delivered. He spoke well, his words from the heart and with honesty. Murray stressed that he’d walk away from it all tomorrow so long as he was able to rest at night knowing his club is back in safe hands. Despite the recent smear tactics, I remain convinced that peace of mind is all Murray wishes to gain from this sorry and increasingly spiteful saga. In the end it will all boil down to a matter of trust. The Ibrox fans and the club’s investors will have to decide next month if they trust McColl and Murray. Or if they would rather place their faith in those who continue to recklessly damage Rangers’ reputation. At a time when so much is made about the current status of Rangers, about whether the club died last year or whether it survived the liquidation of the company which owned it, a far more important debate is being ignored among these petty attention seeking squabbles. The truth is, when Green picked this club up for a pittance after Whyte had plunged it under, Rangers held on to its history, its trophies and its titles. Trouble is, it lost its heart and soul somewhere along the way. Perhaps it’ll take men of Murray’s calibre to wipe the ugly snarl from its face and make Rangers recognisable once more.

from 26 mins in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2vty

From the Herald: Shareholders claim Rangers' broker blocked compromise agreement with club's current directors Published on 13 September 2013 The shareholders who were seeking boardroom change at Rangers claim the club's broker blocked their compromise agreement with the current directors. Rangers announced on Thursday that a requisition to remove three directors and appoint Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board had been withdrawn in return for a guarantee that their annual general meeting would be held before the end of October. The two groups had appeared close to an agreement the previous week when Rangers released a statement claiming that Murray, Blin, Sandy Easdale and John McClelland would be appointed to a new nine-man board. But the "requisitioners" then denied agreeing to a vote of confidence in the current board. Talks continued but broke down this week as signalled by the club's statement to the London Stock Exchange, and Blin has now withdrawn from the entire process. Revolution remains on the agenda The disgruntled shareholders have now said that Strand Hanson, the club's nominated advisor (Nomad) and broker, vetoed any deal but did not explain why. The fate of the current five-man board - Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge, Bryan Smart, James Easdale and Ian Hart - now rests with the shareholders at the AGM. In a statement, a spokesman for the requisitioners said: "We embarked on this exercise seven weeks ago at the request of shareholders speaking for 28% of the club's shares. "They had concerns over a lack of corporate governance and financial transparency at the club and they wanted those issues addressed by the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board and the removal of Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart. "Two significant events have occurred since we started this process. Firstly, Walter Smith resigned as chairman and secondly, the board informed us that the Easdale family had secured control over a significant minority of the club's shares. "As a result we came to the conclusion that the best way to secure a stable board and avoid further shareholder challenges was to negotiate a compromise with the board. "We have engaged in compromise discussions for the last three weeks. A key element of any compromise was that we could not give any guarantees to the current board members. It is democratic and fair that all directors, existing and new, will have to offer themselves up for a re-election vote at the AGM in October. "On this basis we agreed a compromise agreement with the board but on Monday evening they informed us that the Nomad, Strand Hanson, were refusing to approve it. Despite repeated attempts by us, Strand Hanson have refused to engage with us to explain the reasons for their stance. "With compromise impossible we have continued discussions over the last few days with a view to combining the AGM and the GM. These discussions broke down on Wednesday when the board refused to agree to our request that no further board members could be appointed in the run-up to the AGM. Without this protection Paul Murray and Frank Blin would have been uncertain as to what board they might be joining. As a consequence, Frank Blin will not seek election to the board and will have no further involvement. "In addition, the board informed us yesterday that Strand Hanson were not prepared to support Paul Murray's election to the board at the AGM. Yet again they have refused to engage with us to explain their reasons. "On the basis of the constantly changing circumstances and the lack of consistency in people's positions we have therefore decided to withdraw the requisition. We have done this on the condition that the AGM is held no later than 31 October. "We now believe that the AGM will provide the platform for the shareholders to decide who should lead the club. All the directors will have to offer themselves for re-election and we would encourage all shareholders to vote and show whether they have confidence in the current board or not." Strand Hanson was not available for comment. The company was appointed by Rangers on July 9, replacing Cenkos Securities, on the same day as former chairman Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell left the board and James Easdale was appointed.

Lifted from FF: I have been hearing from various sources that we as a group are being met with mixed reviews from forums etc so decided to come on and let everyone know a bit about us and our aims to allow each to make their own mind up We have been accused of being many people from tims to M Dingwall to D Leggat and even malcolm murray. We are none of these we are only normal concerned fans and if you read attachment below it will give you a better idea of who we are and how we came about. We only have 3 aims and I would question any fan who didnt want these things from their club regardless of who they are and which team they follow 1) Keep the stadium in clubs name to avoid Coventry situation 2) clear accounts which prove proper running of the club 3) a board that keep the club off the front pages and are above reproach We do not have any aims that can divide a support and only actually which to unite fans from all groups against a clear and present danger The following is a post from our facebook page that was first posted 2 weeks ago when we first started. Please take the few minutes to read and DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE surrounding The Sons of Struth https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth Here we go I will try and explain in as short a post a possible who is involved to date with the Sons of Struth and how this page came about. One of our main points of agenda and a main Struthism is openness. Some of you may be aware of the Rangers Rumours website and a regular poster named George or George protester number 1. I picked up on his postings only 1 week ago and was intrigued to know what his feelings and understanding of our clubs current plight was. George arranged to travel from London on Friday and meet anyone interested in what he had to say at Ibrox. Due to my own worries about our club I felt I had nothing to lose other than 10 minutes of my time and a whole lot to gain if he had any information that could fill my appetite to fully understand the situation at our club. The fact that only 10 people turned up confirmed my general feeling that our fans are very apathetic towards the current situation and George was very disappointed also. He did, as many have since held against him, arrive minus the promised leaflets and did introduce himself as a representative of George. Both these points seem to have angered some but I understand why he done both when as he could have possibly been faced with a far greater number of fans who he didn’t know who they where and he was let down by a local printer which was a point later proven to me. To the 10 who were at the first meeting and others who visit the Rangers Rumours site, I was the guy with the red jacket who some believed was Georges minder and I post on the site as Craig protester number 2 BFH. To set the record straight I had never met George before Friday and purely turned up as a disgruntled fan searching for some knowledge. I appeared to pick up on what George was saying very quickly but so did others around me, however George seemed to like the questions I asked him and what I had to say so he asked me after the meeting if I would like to talk further on a one to one basis. This “private” meeting consisted more of us talking like true fans and swapping stories of our favourite experiences following our club than it did about revelations which weren’t disclosed at the full meeting. We did prove our love for our club and our concerns for the future just as many discussions would go between Rangers fans all over the world when two strangers meet and they find they both support Rangers. We decided we would talk again during his stay in Glasgow and exchanged numbers. During the course of last weekend we talked several times over the telephone and agreed to meet on Monday and I would introduce him to my friend Sandy who was also interested to hear what George had to say. During the course of the weekend George had put his leaflet online as he promised. George, Sandy and I met on Monday and again the discussion was no different to hundreds of chats between Rangers fans many times over. We discussed our favourite games, best goals,most manic away trips and the like but most importantly we shared a huge concern over the current state of our dearly held club and a desire to do something about. We all agreed that doing something and failing was more acceptable than doing nothing but with the hope we could make a difference even if it was just to give the proper fans some information that may put some fire in the belly and arouse some passion from within the fan base. We then involved the man power from a well known body of fans, who if they wish to disclose their important and welcome involvement is matter for them, who helped along with hastily recruited normal fans like Paisley Gary to help with the distribution of Georges leaflets prior to Tuesdays game. The leaflets went out and received a mixture of reactions. On Tuesday not long before I left for the game I started the Sons of Struth facebook page. The reasons for this is to give the normal fan who wants our club to return to a stewardship of which we would expect from Rangers. You pick up a paper on Monday going to work and you are faced with another scandal about our club. You discuss it and try to make sense of it but before you have a chance to get your head round it a few days later you’re faced with another earth shaking scandal. This is not what we expect from the custodians of our club. The mere inclusion of the Struth name in the page harks back to an era when our custodians conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and respect. We must install this again from our boardroom. Who am I? I am a nobody. Not attached to any fan group or organisation. I am you. A fan and season ticket holder since the age of 8 years old. What do I want? I want to talk about my favourite memories of Rangers and idols and goals again, not have to discuss and deal with on a daily basis another boardroom scandal and just get back to the football. I want a board that won’t embarrass me and treat me like a fan without hiding facts from me. I want to be assured that the stadium where I have had many happy memories will be in the ownership of my club and not sold off and rented back to us by some spiv. The stadium holds the spirit of not one but three disasters and has to remain ours to honour those who did not return. It has to remain for the thousands who have the names of lost loved ones chiselled on the very bricks in their memory. It is not the crown jewels it is far more important to the very soul of every fan who has ever walked through the turnstiles. Who are the Sons of Struth? We all are and can be ordinary fans or members from any other fan body. If you are a Union Bear or a Supporters Trust member, as long as your principles and desires are the same as ours then we welcome your input and support. We are not affiliated to any other fan body but welcome their involvement and discuss common aims. Our biggest and most immediate threat is the possible sale of our stadium and let me explain why. The ground swell of opinion is the current board may not have 51% of the shareholder support in the near future and as such leaves them in a position of one last heist. Let me explain in simple terms and use your house as an example. You require cash due to your ailing financial position and own a home with a market value of £200k. I agree to give you £100k cash today to solve your short term financial problems and I will rent you the house back for £2k per month. I will also agree to allow you to buy it back anytime in the next 10 years for £300k. I cant lose. I either 1) have you in the home and draw £24k a year of you in rental 2) Get £2k a month off you until your able to give me £300k to get it back 3) You leave the house and I have a building costing me half market value. Now turn this story to Ibrox and what a spiv could do. Sell the stadium to a carefully selected company that a trusted friend owns and the spiv has a vested interest in and do it soon before he loses the majority of shareholders. Couldnt happen? Think of the Monday morning paper stories we have all had to deal with in the last couple of years. SONS OF STRUTH DEMAND THE TRUTH SHOW YOU CARE AND SHARE WITH A BEAR Craig

Tuesday, 10 September 2013 THE RANGERS AUDIT, DELOITTE MAN, SEAN BEECH AND THE CHARLES GREEN LINK THE RANGERS accounts will be audited by the same company where a man who Charles Green claimed was his pal, holds a senior position. The Ibrox board have brought in Deloitte to forensically examine the books and to provide an independent audit of the accounts to be sent out to shareholders ahead of the club’s Annual General Meeting which has been promised for next month. But now I can reveal that the man who heads up a division of the Deloitte company which will be responsible for that independent audit is Sean Beech who is a partner specialising in corporate tax and is head of Deloitte’s Liverpool office. Sean Beech’s name first surfaced and was first associated with Rangers in the spring of 2012 when it was mentioned by Charles Green on numerous occasions to a number of different people during the period when Green was desperately seeking to establish his credentials and reputation in Scotland as he fronted the still mysteriously funded takeover of Rangers which was facilitated by controversial administrators, Duff and Phelps. Green is alleged to have cited Deloitte high flyer Sean Beech as someone who he had done business with on a number of previous occasions and who could therefore vouch for him as a businessman. Now the same Deloitte outfit where Sean Beech holds a senior position will be conducting the much sought after and long awaited so called independent audit of the Rangers books. But the link which Charles Green claimed he has with Sean Beech throws doubt on the appearances of propriety when it comes to the Rangers audit. An audit which must be totally independent and above any suspicion, whether justified or not. It was also Deloitte who investigated any link Charles Green had with Craig Whyte and cleared Green. Though that is still a matter which is being looked into. Now the involvement of Deloitte in the audit of the Rangers books, particularly if there is any involvement in the process by Sean Beech, someone who Charles Green claimed as a business associate and friend who could vouch for him, will be a matter of concern to all Rangers supporters. Just as the joint statement from the Trust, Association and Assembly demanding a date for the accounts to be published and a date for the AGM shows the concern fans have for the club’s financial well being. This whole business – the alleged links between his senior employee Sean Beech and the apparent delaying tactics by Rangers in releasing the audited accounts to shareholders and naming a date for the AGM - should also be a matter of concern to Deloitte chairman David Cruickshank and senior partner and chief executive, David Sproul and the man who runs the Deloitte operation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Ian Steele, who is based in the company’s George Square offices in Glasgow. If, however, Sean Beech has had no previous business dealings with Charles Green and if he does not even know Charles Green, then Sean Beech must make a public statement to that effect. For the avoidance of doubt, any reporter wishing to follow this story and give Sean Beech the opportunity to make such a statement, then Sean Beech can be contacted by email at sbeech@deloitte.co.uk http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-rangers-audit-deloitte-man-sean.html

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/282-jim-spence-rangers-jibes I won't post the article as there are a few images used at the link for context... Suffice to say, poor Jum gets nailed by an on-form Chris...

Written by The Ref: The definition of sabotage is:- 1. The destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war. 2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavour; deliberate subversion. The term "sabotage" derives from French factory workers throwing their wooden shoes ("sabots") into machinery to jam them and stop production. In a sense this was the very first use of industrial sabotage. The aim of industrial sabotage is to cause maximum disruption and/or damage by secretive means. Often industrial sabotage works hand in hand with industrial and economic espionage. Economic espionage is often orchestrated by governments and is international in scope, while industrial espionage is more often national and occurs between companies or corporations. The purpose of espionage is to gather knowledge about an organisation or organisations and it may describe activities such as theft of trade secrets, bribery, blackmail and technological surveillance. In any business, including football, information can make the difference between success and failure; if secret information is stolen, the competitive playing field can be levelled or even tipped in favour of a competitor. Although a lot of information-gathering is achieved legally through competitive intelligence; at times other parties feel the best way to get information is to take it. This commonly occurs in one of two ways. Either a disgruntled or dissatisfied employee appropriates information to advance their own interests or to damage the company or, secondly, a competitor or foreign government seeks information to advance its own technological or financial interest. ‘Moles’ or trusted insiders are generally considered the best sources for economic or industrial espionage. Individuals may leave one company to take up employment with another and take sensitive information with them. As a Rangers supporter, I read the above and draw great similarities to what we have witnessed over the last few years and continue to witness now. Have the normal operations of our club been disrupted? Yes, and they still are. As we endeavoured to rid ourselves of the debt we were carrying under David Murray, were we hindered? Yes. David Murray was being pressurised to sell the club by the Lloyds banking group, despite successfully managing to reduce the debt we were carrying. With the outcome of the ‘Big Tax Case, still in the balance, and with sensitive and confidential information surrounding the tax case being leaked illegally to the general public through the media and online blogs on an almost daily basis, it made it almost impossible for Murray to find a buyer. How convenient it was then, when a little known man by the name of Craig Whyte appeared on the scene to buy the club for the princely sum of £1. Quite who Craig Whyte is, where his loyalties lay, or the real reasons why he bought our club are still not known, but I for one would like to know what his real part was in the destruction of our club. Was he put in place to deliberately drag our club down? Was he a pawn in a much bigger game? Was he really just a charlatan and fly-by-night who saw an opportunity to fleece one of Britain’s great institutions? Will we ever know? When we survived with our history intact, I suspect many thought that we had reached the end game and could move on. It is obvious that we will not be allowed to move on. We are still being attacked; confidential information is still being stolen from our club and leaked to the public. Whether this is being done by a mole or electronically, I don’t know, but somehow that information is finding its way into the public domain and damaging our club in its efforts to stabilise, move on and recover from the events of the last few years, and it must be stopped. I am convinced that a major crime has been and is still being committed here, and the only way to get to the bottom of this is to have a full independent police investigation. The leaking of confidential information itself is a breach of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and warrants an investigation. I don’t want to appear paranoid, but something stinks in this whole saga, a saga which has brought Rangers fans into conflict with each other, simply due to the lack of honesty, truth and clarification surrounding this whole mess. The thought that a group or organisation may have deliberately tried to destroy the institution which is Rangers Football Club may seem like something from the film Mission Impossible, but could it actually be nearer the truth than some would like us to believe? http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=97&a=industrial-sabotage

Statement on Rangers website: "If RFC fans want the truth they will find it only on the Club's official platforms." < Respectfully disagree. (Peter Adam Smith – Twitter 17.08.2013) The above tweet by STV journalist Peter Adam Smith reflected both caution and frustration with the current situation at Ibrox regarding the press and media. I doubt very much a Rangers support still very much in recovery post Craig Whyte will ever take official statements emanating from Ibrox as "gospel". It was a lesson which was learned the hard way and such an erosion of confidence is just one of the many legacies where Whyte's tenure has left its indelible and ugly mark. I have considerable sympathy for journalists such as Peter Smith and Richard Wilson at the Glasgow Herald, honest hard working journalists whose job is made a whole lot more difficult in view of the press shutters at Ibrox being firmly shut. The term "Iron Curtain" springs to mind. It goes without saying this is not a healthy situation for either the press and media but more importantly, nor for the Rangers support. But rather than limit their criticism at Rangers alone, perhaps those journalists, victims of collateral damage, would benefit from looking inwardly for a moment at the cause rather the manifestation of that Iron Curtain. The recent hard-line statements from within Ibrox directed towards the press and media have been the subject of considerable discussion within the journalistic fraternity, particularly those who use twitter. Many are quick to mock suggestions of an anti-Rangers agenda or bias amongst our press and media - it is after all a fairly sensational claim. But their speed of dismissal of such notions slows down considerably when certain examples are put before them. (I'm still waiting for an answer from STV journalist Neil Sargent over a number of points I raised with him via twitter) As Rangers fans we take criticism of our club personally. When that criticism is based on lies or misrepresentation then that hurt anger is significantly compounded. Our media would do well to realise they are dealing with a support who have been conditioned to very negative and false representation with regard to our club even pre Craig Whyte. The Ibrox grass being cut to represent a sash, and Eggs Benedict being removed from the Auchenhowie menu are just a couple of examples which role of the top of the head. Perhaps its ironic that the newspaper which carried these stories is no longer in existence - due to the immoral and criminal conduct of some of its journalists. And our support, almost to a man allegedly, were just a bunch of bigoted troglodytes according to Mr Graham Spiers. The same Graham Spiers who resorted to lying on national television rather than have the strength of character or integrity to admit, when challenged by Chris Graham, that what he had written was wholly and fundamentally wrong and inaccurate. It seemed Rangers bashing was one of the few growth industries in Scotland. Is their any basis whatsoever for Rangers supporters mistrust of the press and media or is it , as some would have up believe, just a figment of blue tinted paranoia ? I will start with BBC Scotland mainly because during the preparation of this article an example of the type of journalism which this article hopes to challenge manifested itself. Jim Spence on BBC Sportsound, just this week, commented on the alleged mortal state of our club. This prompted the normal flood of complaints from Rangers supporters with the usual denials from within Pacific Quay. Casual observers, given what has transpired over the last couple of years would probably class this as “situation normal” BBC Scotland themselves reported on Lord Nimmo Smith's ruling that Rangers under Charles Green post administration were accountable for the actions of the pre administration Rangers as there was continuity of the football entity if not the business side. Jim Spence of course is not alone at BBC Scotland in conveniently ignoring what either Lord Nimmo Smith, the European Club Association, the SFA (or perhaps as an indication of how ridiculous this has become - the Advertising Standards Agency) - all had to say about the continuity of the football entity which is Rangers. The fact that the BBC Trust had to adjudicate on this matter indicates how widespread disdain for Rangers football club is within BBC Scotland. A complaint regarding the manner and descriptive terms used by BBC Scotland to describe Rangers had to be escalated through all management levels at BBC Scotland until eventually it was referred to the BBC Trust with the Trust finding in favour of the complainants , much to the ire of many within BBC Scotland. And which even resulted in their business and economy editor, Douglas Fraser, having a pop at Rangers via Twitter. One has to wonder how long individuals like Spence will be allowed to use the platform of the BBC to peddle their misinformation and lies regarding the club ? Furthermore the circumstances surrounding the making of the BBC Scotland documentary – The Men Who Sold The Jersey's – is worthy of comment (albeit limited due to the criminal investigation relative to this) BBC Scotland received evidence which was stolen from the Rangers Tax Case, not leaks, not some minor e-mails, but as Lord Nimmo Smith described them “productions” from the Rangers Tax Tribunal. Rather than return this evidence as one might expect from a responsible organisation in receipt of stolen property, BBC Scotland decided to retain this appropriated property and used it as the basis to for their sensational documentary, the balance and fairness of which was certainly questionable. As Lord Nimmo Smith describing the documentary commented :- This event appears to have been the trigger for more activity in response to the SPL’s request. A public funded media organisation felt it was appropriate to engage in criminal conduct (Reset) in order to engage in a bit of Rangers bashing. Forget any excuse about “whistle blowing” - these facts were already in the public domain and subject to legal proceedings thus usurping any claim that it was whistle blowing. But this Rangers bashing is not limited to BBC Scotland either unfortunately. The Daily Record, a recent target of fairly hard line statements within Ibrox only have themselves to blame. On the 24th May, 2013 the Record ran the following story: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pierre-van-hooijdonk-says-rangers-1908009 Perhaps journalistic standards have dropped in recent years but would it not have been wise for the Record to check the dates in question ? Had they done so they would have learned that Rangers never had EBT's during the time alluded to by the “victim”. Furthermore, in case the Record missed it, (though... “Its a fucking Government conspiracy” comments, allegedly by their staff, appear to suggest otherwise) Rangers were found not guilty at the Tax Tribunal. Furthermore it was no secret that the Record Editor. Alan Rennie, was keen to recruit the persons behind The Rangers Tax Case Blog, for a regular column within the newspaper. In fact he openly pleased with them via Twitter to get in touch. Perhaps their spiteful, malicious and vindictive conduct towards our club jumped out at Mr Rennie from their CV. Quite simply Mr Rennie should be utterly ashamed of himself. But the unashamed appears to know no bounds when it comes to the Scottish media. Perhaps some of you will be surprised by my next example, particularly given some of the lies this individual has concocted about our club and support in the past. But for me the following article from Graham Spiers is the epitome of Rangers bashing: http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/spiers-on-sport-rangers-new-club-or-old-and-the-bbc.1371631860 It breaks all the rules of debate, it breaks all the rules of evidence. (Well the ones BBC Scotland haven't received and retained) Note the author's use of examples from snapshots of time, following emotionally charged meetings or events. Perhaps worthy of greater note are the comments which Mr Spiers fails to cite in his article – Those of Lord Nimmo Smith, The SFA, The European Clubs Association to name but a few – in short a complete absence of comment from those who have either the authority or qualification to adjudicate officially on the matter. Sub standard, lazy and poor journalism ? Probably. But given the author it would be fair to include the ingredient of malicious mischief making into the pot. I haven’t proven beyond reasonable doubt a concerted conspiracy within the press and media in Scotland towards Rangers – but I do think I have demonstrated why there is something of an Iron Curtain around Ibrox towards the press and media. As I said in the opening this is not a good thing for wither the press or the Rangers support. But it's not from within Ibrox that the change must come, but rather with the cause rather than the manifestation. Malicious, inaccurate, lazy and sub standard journalism are the real enemies of the truth – not those within Ibrox who pull down Iron Curtains – that’s just the medicine for the malaise. But until the gentlemen of the press learn how to self-regulate (and apparently Lord Leveson does not think them capable) then Iron Curtains are sure to descend. But how do they self-regulate ? Well for a start perhaps journalists could spend their twitter time criticising those who cause Iron Curtains to descend, due to malicious, poor. sub standard and inaccurate articles. Over to you Peter.

Petition by Sevco Scotland 5088 Glasgow, United Kingdom 134 Million pounds was lost to the Scottish taxpayer when Rangers died and were liquidated. Now a year after their liquidation they are claiming the 5 stars of the liquidated club. This club has only won the now equally defunct SFA Division 3 of Scottish football and claims to the contrary are a disgraceful attempt to claim the history of a liquidated club. Transparency is needed. If they claim the oldco's history then they should pay its debts! http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/spfl-take-the-5-stars-of-the-oldco-rangers-off-the-newco-s-shirt

I'd say we need to move on other players first but interesting news nonetheless... http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4983-zaliukas-trains-with-gers

by Andy McGowan | Contributor Agenda, propaganda, hand wringers, apologists—just a few of the terms thrown around in the Ibrox game of buzzword bingo. The irony of our current situation is that the men throwing these words around seem to be the ones with an end game that isn’t in the best of interests Rangers Football Club. The end game The Copland Road Organization is hoping for? Simply, the best outcome for Rangers and our fans. We have nothing to gain from the current board being cleared out other than that it is what Rangers need to move forward. There’s no blazers or freebees in our future; only attacks from the lunatic fringe backing the current board to all ends for a variety of reasons. The attacks on anyone willing to speak up against our dysfunctional boardroom will no doubt ramp up in the weeks to come with the return of Jack Irvine. I’m sure most Rangers fans hadn’t heard the name Jack Irvine until a few weeks ago, but everyone will remember Media House, the utterly useless PR firm who ‘represented’ us for years under both David Murray and Craig Whyte. Media House oversaw years of dignified silence under Murray while Rangers' name was dragged through the mud by the more extreme elements of the mainstream media. They also helped Whyte act like a playground bully, threatening to sue anyone who dared to reveal the truth about the pretend Billionaire during his time at Ibrox. With the club’s fresh start in SFL 3 it was a chance to reshape the club on and off the park. While we struggled on the park last season we done our best work off it in many years. For all the things Charles Green did wrong one thing he did right was to see the potential of Rangers’ self-produced media. Over the last 12-18 months the work done by staff at Rangers, RTV in particular, has been nothing short of exceptional. From documentaries such as "The Rising," to match day coverage for UK viewers and a fantastic interview with Ally McCoist, it is clear our in-house media had improved substantially. The club even used the official website to deal with propaganda being spread by Celtic bloggers determined to destabilize the club with rehashed versions of the same rumours they have been touting for years which previously went unchallenged. There is also a common misconception of the job Jim Traynor is doing at Ibrox. While our in-house media begun to thrive there was a boardroom war brewing in the mainstream media with both sides of the boardroom using certain newspapers to leak stories about each other. Traynor seems to have spent the majority of his time at Ibrox putting out fires started by our board, mainly those started by Charles Green himself. Jim Traynor worked wonders to have The Sun hold the Craig Whyte/Sevco ownership story to give the club a chance to reply only for Green to start a race row by calling Imran Ahmad a paki the very next day in the same paper. In the few months he’s been here, despite the constant fire fighting, Jim Traynor has done more for Rangers than Media House done in years. There is a lot of criticism of Jim Traynor because we don’t see him in front of the camera more often, but he is the Director of Communications — you don’t often see the Director appear in the movie he is directing. It’s not his job to be in front of the camera. It is his job to try and control how the club presents itself, one that he is doing exceptionally well under the most difficult of circumstances. Such is the good job Traynor and our staff have done and the poor job Media House have done that Rangers finally and correctly decided to part ways with the firm much to the delight of anyone who has witnessed their limp-wristed attempts to act on behalf of the club over the years. Sadly, it was a delight that didn’t last long. Despite the best efforts of the men they had been using to attack McColl et al public opinion had turned on Charles Green, Imran Ahmad and the board members who will now put aside what’s best for Rangers in an attempt to hold their positions. They needed a real attack dog, the ramblings of a discredited blogger shouting about politics weren’t cutting it and so Jack’s back. Jack wasted no time in telling us he’s here to represent Rangers and not the board. He certainly has a funny way of defending the club. His cosy relationship with Paul McConville and Scotzine’s Andy Muirhead—two men who have been slandering the club with half-truths and full lies for years now—should set alarm bells ringing for anyone unconvinced about this man’s intentions. There is something very strange about the relationship between these two Rangers haters, Irvine and his PR pawn Bill McMurdo. McConville even has a link on his website dedicated just to McMurdo which is akin to a link on the Rangers website to the Celtic store. Are these the men Rangers fans are willing to put their faith in? Jack has certainly made a great start to his defence of Rangers with the surfacing of his email from the Whyte era insulting the greatest ever Ranger John Greig and showing complete disdain for the fans. It certainly made for an interesting dynamic between Irvine and McMurdo who had to play down the incident on his blog. It’s not often you see the monkey defending the organ grinder. I’m no public relations guru but when the PR man immediately becomes the story, a highly negative story at that, then there is something deeply wrong. The PR campaign is about to be ramped up by Media House and I would urge fans to take everything they read with a pinch of salt. Taking these men at face value is incredibly dangerous for the future of Rangers football club. The recent Craig Mather interview for example which taken in and of itself seemed to be a forthright and robust piece until you look deeper as Shane Nicholson did. Curiously, Irvine chose to do an interview with Scotzine, a website which is nothing but a diet Celtic fanzine. You’d have to ask Jack why he chose Scotzine, a website even McMurdo describes as ‘ESPECIALLY media hostile to Rangers’ to speak through rather than one of the several Rangers websites who would be willing to sit down with him. Maybe he’s worried he wouldn’t be given such an easy ride from those who have Rangers at heart. I have doubts about Jim McColl, Paul Murray and Frank Blin but those doubts pale in comparison to the doubts I have about the men currently in our boardroom. Our CEO speaks well but he’s all talk — he’s tried to play both sides of this divide and now we can all see him for what he is: A yes man who will flip-flop on a moment's notice in an attempt to keep his position at Ibrox secure. We have a Financial Director who isn’t entirely sure how much money we have and a host of undesirables who manage to scare away two chairmen in Malcolm Murray and Walter Smith who, whatever your opinion of them, undeniably have Rangers' best interests at heart. And these men chose to be represented by a firm who did nothing but damage to us for years and who choose to keep the company of Celtic bloggers. We are in danger of seeing all the good work done by our media department undone by Media House who are already peering over their shoulders and who will have full control of our Club's output if Jim Traynor walks away like the many men who put Rangers first already have. There may yet be the opportunity to broker an uneasy peace between the current board and the group demanding change which is potentially a far more palatable outcome than our AGM being hijacked as a vehicle for both sides of the civil war, neither of which is without fault. It is looking more likely we will see a compromise from both sides but however it plays out whoever ends up sitting on the board it changes nothing with regards to Jack Irvine and Media House. Fans demanded the removal of Charles Green as a consultant when he became the story and the fans need to do the same again before Jack Irvine is allowed the time he needs to cause more havoc for the Club. He is here to muddy the waters as much as possible before the AGM and he will do so at the expense of Rangers and its fans in an attempt to keep the current board in power. Don't buy into it. For the avoidance of doubt Jack Irvine does not speak for Rangers. http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/09/and-they-couldnt-prevent-jack-from.html

Do Garrion not have the contract at Ibrox? MR CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN Information from appointment at GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED »Home»GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED»Charles Green Address IBROX STADIUM 150 EDMISTON DRIVE GLASGOW UNITED KINGDOM G51 2XD A different address is used for appointments at: THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED 48 other people also use G51 2XD in their address 12 companies are also registered at G51 2XD Information Date Of Birth:May-1953 Age:60 Years Nationality:BRITISH Country of Residence:ENGLAND Occupation:CHIEF EXECUTIVE Appointments Company Role Appointed Status ASDFGHJKL LIMITED Director 21 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED Director 28 Sep 2012 Active RANGERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC Director 4 Dec 2012 Active Details RANGERS MATCHDAY SERVICES LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details RANGERS MEDIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details RANGERS MEDIA LIMITED Director 8 Nov 2012 Active Details RANGERS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details RANGERS.CO.UK LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details SEVCO 5088 LIMITED Director 3 May 2012 Active Details THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Director 29 May 2012 Active Details THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED Director 14 Jun 2012 Company Dissolved Details Find other directors with similar names Return to GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED

Published on September 2nd, 2013 by Andy Muirhead With all eyes on Rangers football club currently, due to the continued ‘political’ infighting between shareholders and the fan base, public relations for the club is needed more than ever. However, even the PR company used by Rangers – Media House – has come under much criticism and increasing calls from Rangers supporters to be sacked due to comments attributed to Jack Irvine, executive chairman of Media House. Scotzine editor Andy Muirhead caught up with Jack Irvine, amid a busy schedule for the PR guru, to discuss his time at Rangers and those who are criticising him. AM: When did you start working with Rangers Football Club? JI: 2006. There had been huge sectarian issues and the football authorities were going to hammer Rangers. There was a danger the team would be playing in empty stadia and face crippling fines. We worked with the legal team to articulate the initiatives from Martin Bain’s management team to curb the sectarian excesses which in turn lessened the possible draconian punishments. AM: We heard from Sir David Murray that he was duped by Craig Whyte in purchasing Rangers from the former Rangers owner – from your point of view and of working with Craig Whyte would you agree with Murray’s statement? JI: Yes I do agree with Sir David. He was led to believe that Craig Whyte was worth in the region of £80million and he had no reason to doubt that. The Bank of Scotland and their boardroom representative saw no problem with Whyte as a buyer and, in fact, couldn’t get the club sold quickly enough. Craig Whyte appeared to be the answer to all of David Murray’s problems. AM: You represented Rangers under Craig Whyte’s tenure at the club which ended with it going into administration and subsequently liquidation – looking back what are your thoughts on your role and Media House’s role during that time? JI: It was a surreal time. I tried to explain to Craig Whyte that he couldn’t possibly run the club himself and I even introduced him to the former Newcastle United Chief Executive Freddie Fletcher who was also a former Rangers man. Freddie would have been magnificent but Craig decided he could do the job himself. Like many businessmen he was totally consumed by The Blue Mist the minute he walked into the boardroom. Media House’s role was what it had always been. Represent the club and its board and attempt to present the good side of the club to the media and public at large. Of course the bad started to outweigh the good very quickly and it was like pushing water uphill. AM: There has been allegations made that Media House and Rangers used friendly journalists to publish positive stories about Rangers and Craig Whyte in particular hiding the truth about the Motherwell businessman – what do you have to say about those allegations? JI: Of course we promoted positive stories – that’s what PR people do the world over. However it didn’t take long for my old newspaper colleagues – and more importantly certain influential bloggers – to find out the truth about Craig Whyte and tell the world. There is no way I could have covered that up or would even have tried to. The dam had burst. AM: Many Rangers fans are now seeing Media House and yourself as culpable in the demise of Rangers under Whyte and are against your continued involvement at the Ibrox club – claiming that you are not there to represent the club but elements on the board? What is your take on this – what is your role at Rangers? JI: That is utter nonsense. We can only work with the tools we are given. Craig Whyte ran the club into the ground although you would have to say he inherited a pretty leaky vessel. Our role at Rangers is crystal clear. We carry out the wishes of the board in an attempt to help the business survive and prosper. However much I sympathise with the agonies the fans are going through, and I speak as one of the original Bond holders, it is not they who instruct me. It is the board. It is naive to think otherwise. AM: A twitter account called Charlotte Fakes has been publishing emails and other correspondence involving you, Whyte, some journalists and Rangers officials – which seem to paint all parties in a bad light. What is your take on what this person is doing? JI: It is illegal. It is a breach of the Data Protection Act and the perpetrator faces serious consequences when he is caught. It is frightening some of the stuff that is going on nowadays on the web. I often wonder what it would have been like in the early 90s when there was the coup to unseat the Celtic board. How would social media have treated that? Would Fergus McCann with his bunnet and squint been given a chance to mount his brilliant strategy or would he have been slaughtered by the fans with laptops? AM: Rangers fans have claimed that the ‘dignified silence’ approach was perpetrated by the likes of Media House and that instead of keeping quiet, you should have gone in all guns blazing. Making demands, threatening legal action etc. What was your approach during Whyte’s reign when negative articles were published? JI: I seem to remember we banned the BBC and if you knew me at all you would know that I am not slow to tell editors and journalists when they are talking bollocks. Lawyers were regularly involved . Do I go out and announce this in the Copland Road to the fans? What do you think? I worked with or trained a lot of the current crop of journalists. I’m not going to publically traduce them although I will make an exception for some of the more stupid ones. AM: Whyte met with several Rangers supporters groups and bloggers who were very friendly to him and backed him to the hilt during his reign at the club – they have now turned on him as if he is the anti-Christ. What is your take on this u-turn by said prominent groups and bloggers? JI: I presume you have certain groups in mind. I can’t think who you are talking about but let’s be fair. The fans loved David Murray then grew to hate him. Ditto Craig Whyte, Ditto Charles Green. So it’s not only bloggers who changed their minds. The economist John Maynard Keynes is alleged to have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” If that concept was good enough for him I hardly think we can criticise the bloggers. AM: Given the amount of flak, hassle and abuse you have taken – if you could do it all again would you still represent Rangers and Craig Whyte? JI: I have taken flak, hassle and abuse since May 1987 when I launched The Sun in Scotland. I thrive on it and the more I get the stronger it makes me. The answer to “Would you still represent Rangers” is obviously yes as I have just signed up for another season. I come from an East End Rangers family so I guess I’m stuck with it. Would I represent Craig Whyte? Not if I had known what I know now but it’s easy to be clever after the event as I keep reminding certain fans and journalists. Hindsight is a wonderful gift . AM: If you could stand in front of the Rangers fans today and talk to them what about the club and the way it is working and those wanting to take over – what would you say? JI: Give the board a chance. The Chief Executive has sunk a million of his own cash into the club. Fellow director James Easdale and his family have put in even more. Let’s all be mature. I know Frank Blin and Paul Murray are passionate about the club but to quote Mr Churchill: “To jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”

MOST football fans in Scotland do not support Celtic. The majority are not Rangers fans either. MORI and Gallup do not exactly do polls on this sort of stuff so there is no way to be scientific about it, but maybe each of them has about 35-40% of the people who follow a team and the rest are shared around all the other clubs. What those of all allegiances are coming to terms with - whether they rejoice in the fact or resent it - is that Celtic have turned the Scottish game into a one-party state. For most of its history the league title has been an endless tennis rally between Celtic and Rangers, the championship switching from one to the other every year or two. Only now and again has one of them emerged into the clear daylight of a sustained period of dominance. Celtic won six in a row from 1905, Rangers five from 1927. In the late 1960s and early '70s there were times when it looked as if Jock Stein had built a force that would never be caught. When Rangers emulated Stein's nine consecutive titles - latterly buttressed by the bountiful revenue stream of the Champions League - it felt as if Sir David Murray, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith had moved the Ibrox club to a position of power which would obliterate any competition. And what happened? The Lisbon Lions era was built around Stein's individual genius and when his powers waned Celtic were drawn back into the pack. In the late 1990s Rangers grew old and tired, and misspent their resources, to the point a rebuilt Celtic got back among the titles. Currently the record books show only two consecutive league wins for Celtic but that is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of Usain Bolt in the early stages of a 100m race. Everyone can be pretty sure of what is coming next. At Tannadice on Saturday there were the latest renditions of a tune that the Celtic support has been singing for quite a while: "Here we go, 10 in a row." It's part-celebration, part-triumphalism, part-threat to you-know-who. There are 40 clubs which have long grown accustomed to the idea of having no real chance of being Scottish champions any time soon, and one which has a demanding fanbase unused to being denied anything for long. It is common these days to hear people talk about how Celtic have the potential to begin a period of unprecedented domination "if they use their money wisely". What they mean is that if Celtic keep running themselves prudently, employing the right manager and players, staying out of debt and always having money to spend to replenish a winning squad, it is going to take an almighty effort for Rangers to ever catch them. The apocalyptic scenario for Rangers is that Celtic keep getting into the Champions League group every year. They secured £20m in Uefa money alone last season and now they have another £16m this season. That is almost twice as much dough as Rangers raised from a one-off share issue. If Celtic pull off another two qualifications in 2014 and 2015 that would amount to around £80m washing into the club before Rangers even have the chance to take them on in the league. Given that all the fundamentals - season-ticket, commercial and sponsorship income - are otherwise broadly comparable between the Glasgow clubs, the long-term difference between them will be Champions League income. And that means that when a player's agent tries to bring a talent to Glasgow (the same player is often offered to both clubs at the same time), Celtic should be able to pay higher transfer fees and wages every time they both want the same man. All of this is a chilling thought around Ibrox. Horrifying, in fact. The Uefa golden goose that was once Rangers', and then shared, is now exclusively Celtic's. They can thank David Murray and Craig Whyte for that. It used to be the rest of Scottish football that was excluded at one or both of the Old Firm's expense; now Rangers are out in the cold too. Rangers have been in the Champions League group stage 10 times and Celtic are about to play in it for the eighth time. At a very conservative estimate (Champions League income has grown over the past 20 years) that is about £180m of Uefa money the Old Firm have enjoyed, in addition to their already vastly superior regular income. Last season Motherwell made around £195,000 from Uefa, and Hearts and St Johnstone £75,000 each - a tiny fraction of Celtic's £20m. The champions' excellent campaign also meant £100,000 in "solidarity" payments from Uefa for all other top-flight clubs, but that amounts to (welcome) crumbs. The Champions League embodies the concept of a self-perpetuating elite in which the rich get richer. When I spoke to a couple of SPFL Premiership club directors about how they reacted to Celtic generating Uefa income on a scale which makes it impossible for them to be given anything more than the odd bloody nose over the course of a season, one said: "It almost doesn't concern us. We're resigned to them always winning the league now and our competition is to finish second. Most clubs are happy for them to get into the group because it means a bit of Uefa money for us. It's probably very different for Rangers." Every empire falls eventually. The eras of Stein and Souness/Smith came to natural ends. Rosenborg show that even monopolising a country's Champions League access does not guarantee permanent rule. But Celtic's position of strength, and their advantages, are greater than any board of directors have known since Scottish football began. By Michael Grant (Herald)

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/164607084

August 31, 2013 The Team We All Adore When all the dust has settled I expect the Easdales to be the power at Ibrox for a considerable time. My understanding is that the Easdales see themselves as being the proprietors of Rangers and are in it for the long haul. Sandy Easdale’s take-up of the remaining Charles Green shares is a big indicator of his intent to become Mr Rangers. Easdale is like a kid in the sweetie shop at Ibrox. He loves the club and has dreams of his boy running out in the Light Blue one day. This love of the Gers, something every bluenose will resonate with, will not cloud Sandy Easdale’s business judgement. He and his brother James have built up a bus and taxi empire nudging towards £100 million by being shrewd operators and ruthless cost-cutters. It is no secret that the Easdales are open to selling this business and this would allow them to concentrate on running Rangers. Sandy Easdale sees Rangers as a club with the potential to be on the same levels as top EPL teams and bigger than even the likes of Arsenal. It is this potential which brought investment from institutional investors at the IPO. Of course, there are those who are not happy at the Easdales’ involvement but that will have zero effect on their determination to turn the club into a formidable force once more. For those detractors, I have bad news and good news. The bad news is I understand that the Easdales want to make a lot of money from Rangers Football Club. The good news is they are in it for the long haul and will likely only cash out when Rangers is the big player in European football the Easdales plan the club to be. Whatever you think about it, the Easdales intend to be the future of Rangers Football Club. It’s a brave man who will stand in their way. What is needed at Ibrox is stability in the boardroom and at the club in general. Manager Ally McCoist doesn’t need the hassles generated by the civil war being waged at Ibrox. This is why I have backed the present regime. Craig Mather and the other directors need to be given time to prove their worth at the club. Now that Charles Green and Imran Ahmad are effectively out of the equation, those left must be given the opportunity to make their mark. It seems incredible that certain people are touting the involvement of three men who probably don’t have £2 worth of shares between them, while decrying people who are investing serious money to have shares in the club. That is the crazy world Rangers supporters are living in these days. It’s time we understood that backing the club means backing everything at the club. Including the directors. It’s a bit like being British. I have said some unkind things about Prime Minister David Cameron on this blog lately and I make no apologies. But I would oppose any attempt to oust him that was based on injustice and lies. And I would back Cameron to the hilt if he was making a genuine stand for British interests. I didn’t agree with everything Charles Green did. If you read my blogs quite some time ago I was both sceptical and critical while others were fawning over him and giving him honorary memberships in their fan groups. There comes a point where you just have to get behind your team and be an actual supporter, not a detractor. This doesn’t mean you must be sycophantic or ignore issues; it just means you learn to deal with things in a dignified manner. Like many other Rangers fans I lament the lack of unity in our support. It saddens me to say it but I think there are some people in our fanbase who thrive on discord and sedition. These people just don’t want unity. They do, however, want power and for other bears to be obedient to them. On this blog I have consistently said my loyalty is to Rangers. While Charles Green was there it was to the Green regime at Ibrox because that was who was running the club. Now that Green has left the building it is to the present regime. As I have said in this piece, I fully expect the future at Rangers to be the Easdales and they will have my backing. That might change and I might not like the way they do things. The point of it all is if you don’t like the present regime there are honourable ways to go about it and dishonourable ways. There are ways that don’t damage the club and ways that do. The present McColl takeover gambit is, for me, a destabilising and destructive move. Hence my opposition. As I keep saying, it should be Rangers first. We pride ourselves on tacking “Loyal” to ourselves as an identity. Time for Rangers fans to really be The Rangers Loyal. Not the Rangers Insurrection. One more thing. Let’s remember what it’s really all about. The eleven men on the park in the famous Royal Blue. ______________________________________________________________________

What's that old phrase? Fool me once shame on me Fool me twice shame on you What about fool me thrice? We are a walking joke. Why do we let this happen to us?

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.

by Shane Nicholson | Executive Editor Spin, agendas, gravy and blazers – let's set all that aside for right now and deal in some hard facts. We know Media House has been contracted by Rangers to do work on behalf of the board. Simple fact, no question. However, in his interview with The Herald that dropped this morning CEO Craig Mather said, "Media House were here anyway. Media House had a contract here that came to an end in August and we renewed that." Purely a misconception on behalf of the wider support, various media outlets, bloggers being fed info by Media House and Jack Irvine himself. For, if you remember, on 14 August various media outlets had reported that Media House was confirming an end to its contract with Rangers. It was said that the PR firm which had failed us so consistently had ended its relationship dating back to 2006. Two options: 1) Media House and the board were lying and the contract had a renewal clause that had been activated, as Mather said today, none of which had been hinted at in any report prior or acknowledged by the Club. 2) Mather lied in his interview today by saying that Media House had been here the whole time. In either case, Rangers are now employing two PR firms, one of which, Keith Bishop Associates, appears to be nothing more than a £130,000 per year rider attached to the Sports Direct deal, and the other of which has been an abject and much derided failure in defending the Club, its supporters and its interests during its seven year stay. Not to mention our Communications Director Jim Traynor who was brought in to run the whole show. All told, we have three separate entities being paid to produce PR work for Rangers at the moment. We should be seeing a release (or a BBC exclusive) at the top and bottom of every hour at that rate. Next fact: Mather in his interview says, "We bought Edmiston House for £1m, we bought Albion car park for £1.6m..." Let's revisit out old friend Imran. You know, our ex commercial director who reportedly plans to sue the Club for £3.5m just to sink it back in out of "principle." Imran in his figures given to Bill McMurdo stated that Edmiston House was purchased for £1.5m and further claims that when developed it will generate fully £2m per year in revenues for the Club. So is it £1.5m as the ex commercial director and man behind the dream team on the board claims or is it £1m as our current CEO who decided to re-hire/re-new the contract of Imran's PR team claims? And in either case, who gets the five percent kicker? To the Albion, Imran in the same blog from McMurdo claimed categorically that he "saved the club £3.5m over 10 years as lease was an astronomical 350k per year." As pointed out by many prior, why not claim a savings of £35m over 100 years if we're working in such terms, even though Imran's claims in his intended suit are based solely on realized "cash profit" for the Club. So we have another pair of points here: 1) If the figure stated by Mather is correct, Imran's claim is garbage as he would have saved the club merely £1.9m over ten years (or £33.4m over 100). 2) If Imran's figures aren't correct, and remember he's openly planning to sue Rangers (just to put the money back in), why have none of our three PR arms refuted this ridiculous and well reported claim? Media House is there "to defend Rangers Football Club" according to head honcho Jack Irvine. Surely spurious claims from former commercial directors would be in their sights, no? Back to Mather, who touts further savings as "We have brought security back in house." "In house" is a relative term, is it not? For the "in house" security firm is a separate entity, Garrison Security Services Ltd, featuring Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge as its sole directors. Now of course we have to wait for those audited accounts to see just what the savings are and what the outlays to this firm have been. In either case, calling it "in house" when it's a separate entity overseen by a current Club director and our ex CEO is perhaps a bit misleading. Or is it in fact "in house" and Charles still has a say on operations? On to the return of Big Chuck, where Mather says, "I looked at the views of our fans and reacted quickly and decisively to address that." This was decisively addressed by first bringing him back over a weekend, days later sitting in front of assembled fans and saying that the position of a consultant, presumably answerable to the CEO himself, would be considered within the week, then delaying this meeting until the week following the stated deadline, upon which Charles resigned. Decisive action indeed. On the John Greig email from the Whyte era: "I do not know anything about that but I have asked people to go digging on that and come back with a mini-report so I can judge that accordingly." Here's a link to the email. In fact, here's the direct quote about the man you yourself call a "legend" (we didn't need reminding): "Greig is just thick and contributes nothing." The man who got you this interview (allegedly) in The Herald today wrote that two years ago. The man whose company you either variably ceased doing business with or continued to do business with despite their saying that the contract with Rangers had expired. The company that failed us with UEFA, the Scottish media at large, shilled for Craig Whyte and now represents you (or has the whole time). So hopefully you now have enough information to comment further. Asked, "What about spending £80,000 on an egm while paying Media House to defend you too?" the response again presented the same Media House Complex™ that seems to be an issue here: "Media House already had a contract. This is a renewal." Renewal or expired and re-hired, either way it was a choice to retain Media House's services when we already pay for one do-nothing PR firm and our own Director of Commutations. How one turns the cost savings of an egm into "It's okay for us to pay for three wholly separate PR outlets" is a bit strange. But hey, we're still rolling in the money right? Which brings me to a final point, and one with Mather did not address. How is it leaked December accounts (might want to pin down who's running the Xerox, by the way), the ones which I presume are at least in part the basis of the "everything's okay" argument Mather put forward in this interview, show a projected net gain of over £7m for the commercial operations of Rangers? And need I remind who was in charge of those operations at the time? How, if that is viewed as a reasonable outlook of the finances, and given the figures Brian Stockbridge presented to us in an exclusive interview not long ago, can we believe that there is nothing to worry about? Mather went well out of his way to talk up revenue streams but failed to once mention or even hint at what the outgoings were. Was he unaware that a document was floating around Twitter showing anyone who cared to read just what was going on with the money? Should his new/old PR team not have briefed him on this prior to the interview? In the end, there were a lot of "facts" that were woefully unrepresented in today's first effort by Media House to show us why it's all okay and that they've got it all under control. They were here all along, mind. Except for when they said they weren't. So let's wait for the next "it's all okay so long as you ignore the small details" exclusive. Or maybe a tweet or two from the well regarded (at least in some PR circles) BBC journalist Chris McLaughlin. Maybe by then they'll have their facts straight. http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/08/mather-media-house-and-some-unavoidable.html

JACK IRVINE is more than merely toxic as far as Rangers supporters are concerned. Jack Irvine is more than just a spent force and a busted flush. Jack Irvine is actually a liability. A £100,000-a-year liability to chief executive Craig Mather and the Rangers board. Jim McColl, Frank Blin and Paul Murray could not have dreamed up a scenario better suited to their cause than the re-employment by Rangers of Jack Irvine, who is, of course also employed as a spin doctor by Rangers director James Easdale and his convicted fraudster of a brother, Sandy. Acting for the Easdales is just about his level In fact, Jack Irvine is a man who is dramatically out of his time and whose gutter threats, while sinister, are also laughable. Has Irvine never heard of Leveson? Has he no idea of the changed and continually changing culture of relative restraint of tabloid newspapers in this, the near half way point of the second decade of the 21st century? Does he really think that his thinly veiled threats of a sleaze campaign will work? Has Irvine got no idea just how tabloids work nowadays? Apparently not! Which is no surprise to those of us who know the truth about Jack Irvine and his career. For instance, did you know that Jack Irvine has not worked in newspapers since 1991? Well, you know now. That was when he was head honcho on the short lived Sunday Scot. A paper he torpedoed in fewer than six months with his bad journalistic judgement. Before that he was editor of the Scottish Sun, which launched in 1987 and never managed to put on any appreciable circulation when he was in charge. It was only after he left in late 1990 that the Scottish Sun started the circulation climb which today sees it as Scotland’s biggest selling daily newspaper. These are the facts about Jack Irvine. And they are a long way from the fiction he peddles about himself. There is a gaping chasm between the truth and the myth wee Jack wants people to believe about him. Now, in the wake of the outcry about Irvine’s cheap and insulting remarks about the Greatest Ever Ranger, John Greig, a true giant, a real legend, Rangers chief executive Craig Mather, who was railroaded into re-employing Irvine by the Easdales, has today announced that Rangers are launching what he calls a mini investigation into Irvine and the email he sent to Craig Whyte, in which Irvine branded John Greig as thick. That’s a start! But it would seem by what he said in his interview in the Herald, Mather does not know just how hated and reviled Irvine is among the Rangers’ fan base? He will soon be presented with that evidence, as Irvine’s cheap insult to Greig has now hit the mainstream media and those fans react. Jack Irvine is a deeply unpleasant wee man. In fact, therein may lie the clue to him. Wee Man Syndrome! For Jack Irvine is more Friar Tuck than Malcolm Tucker. http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/jack-irvinethe-truth.html