Search the Community

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?

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

Hugh Macdonald Chief Sports Writer Friday 30 August 2013 RANGERS chief executive Craig Mather has ordered an investigation into an email criticising Ibrox legend John Greig that was allegedly written by a PR executive employed by the club. In an interview with The Herald, Mr Mather said of the email allegedly sent by a member of Media House: "I do not know anything about that but I have asked people to do some digging on that and come back with a mini-report. "John Greig is a legend. I have tried on numerous occasions ... to see if he would come back to the club." The email questioned Mr Greig's intelligence and his contribution to the board. He served on it until the arrival of Craig Whyte, who took the club into administration. Mr Whyte employed Media House. Jack Irvine of Media House said: "The whole leaking of emails is being investigated by the police at the highest level, so I cannot comment on that." Mr Mather denied Rangers were running out of money, said high earners were open to wage cuts and added he was having peace talks with Frank Blin, one of a group demanding boardroom changes. He also said Rangers were seeking a prominent chairman after turbulence had "calmed down". Mr Mather, who has invested some £1 million in the club, was bullish about the Media House contract, saying: "There is a slight misconception regarding Media House. Media House had a contract here that came to an end in August. We renewed that." Asked if the club was running out of money, he said: "Categorically no." He also ruled out a share issue, but said talks were continuing over budget cuts. These included discussions with high earners at the club. He said: "Alistair [McCoist, the club manager] has said he is going to talk about his pay package. We have had discussions on this and these are *ongoing. He is very open-minded and positive about change, about addressing that. I have done the same." He promised that Charles Green, the former chief executive, would not return. * Ex-Rangers director Dave King has avoided jail and will pay around £44m to South African tax authorities after a case against the Scot was settled. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-launch-probe-into-email-critical-of-john-greig.22009432

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/281-toxic-mediahouse-and-rangers-toxic-board Once again the Rangers fans have been treated with contempt by a Rangers board which continues to show it is totally out of touch of with the fans and often reality. The re-appointment of Jack Irvine as a PR adviser to the club, just weeks after his organisation, Mediahouse, were correctly removed from their position, smacks of the same type of weakness which saw Charles Green return as a consultant. Mediahouse have had a long and troubled association with Rangers. Their meddling in the club’s affairs did not stop when they were recently removed from their position as the club’s media advisers. When Jim Traynor said recently that “Jack Irvine does not speak for this club” he was correct, and he is still correct despite their reappointment by Craig Mather. Jack Irvine and Mediahouse have never represented Rangers Football Club. They have represented a number of regimes, including the toxic Craig Whyte, which have failed to put the club and the fans first. It is clear from the nature of this appointment that Irvine will be representing the wishes of a board of directors who are desperate to cling to power and not the interests of the club we all love. Let us not forget the record of Mediahouse during their time at our club. They presided over a complete capitulation to UEFA, and the authorities in general, over the behaviour of our fans. Yes, at times that behaviour was indefensible but Mediahouse allowed every single negative headline, and at times baseless accusations, to go unchallenged. The term “dignified silence” has often been used to describe Rangers’ inability to challenge our critics even when we had the opportunity. That was a policy which continued during the years Mediahouse called the shots. Only recently have we seen any attempt to fight back. It is no coincidence that the fight back stepped up in pace after the removal of Mediahouse. Documents leaked on the internet suggest that Jack Irvine actively assisted Craig Whyte in gaining control of Rangers by suppressing negative media stories which may have brought his past to light ahead of his takeover. This was done whilst Mediahouse were supposed to be working for Rangers. Mediahouse set up the recent interviews which saw Charles Green make a mockery of the club and its board. The board know this. They themselves condemned Green’s actions in front of the fans at a recent meeting, but have now seen fit to hire the company who put that strategy in place. I know of nobody who can name a single benefit that Mediahouse have brought to our club, although I am sure Craig Whyte was delighted with Irvine’s assistance. However, it is worth noting that none of this is Mediahouse or Jack Irvine’s fault. They do what they are paid to do. If someone like Whyte wants to ensure their interests are put before those of the club, and they are willing to pay, then Mediahouse will accommodate them. It is not up to Mediahouse to do anything other than what they are paid for. The issue is that once again the club are paying for them to put the interests of individuals ahead of those of the club. It was recently announced that Jim McColl was willing to forgo a GM in order to roll the institutional investor proposals for the club’s board into the AGM. This was seen as a sensible approach to save the club up to £80k because it would allow just one meeting of shareholders to take place rather than two. The board have taken that money (and probably considerably more of the club’s money) and handed it to Mediahouse. They have hired expensive media consultants to defend their own jobs and positions at the club. It is reprehensible behaviour but entirely in keeping with the actions of a board which thought that bringing back Charles Green was a good idea and then had to perform an embarassing U-turn. It is incredible to think that, in a week which saw Craig Mather’s ham fisted attempt to take credit for the decision to combine the GM and AGM, we see the club squander money on yet another unnecessary expense. Does Mather not appreciate how this looks? He cannot stop the GM without the consent of McColl’s group of shareholders, yet tries to take credit and then goes out and spends the money that could have been saved. We already have a Director of Communications in Jim Traynor. Someone who has not only been taking the fight to our detractors with the BBC Scotland ban and legal letters to the Daily Record, but who has also been improving our club media platforms immeasurably. The club also already pay media consultants Keith Bishop Associates, brought in by Charles Green as part of the Sports Direct deal but who do no obvious work for the club, £140k a year. So what will Mediahouse be doing for Rangers Football Club? The answer is nothing - they will be working for the individuals on the board. The club will simply be paying for it. Perhaps Brian Stockbridge could have used some of his £200k bonus for the team winning the league last year to pay for the defence of his untenable position at the club? Perhaps Craig Mather could have used some of his £300k salary to pay for this attempt to keep him in position? Instead, the money will come from the dwindling reserves of season ticket money that our loyal fans have poured into the club. Mather’s actions are particularly disappointing. He had an opportunity to show he was the right man for the CEO position, and that he could whip this hapless board into shape, but he capitulated over the return of Green. He has now done the same with the return of Mediahouse. It is also now clear that this board are willing to stoop to any level to cling to power. Jack Irvine’s first move was to issue a veiled threat to the representatives of concerned shareholders. It was disgraceful. Is this what Rangers Football Club has been lowered to? Can this board not win the day based on their own record, their plans and their reputations? Exactly what type of “media scrutiny” is it that Jack Irvine would like to subject people to? Has he answered to the board for the allegations, via leaked emails, that he ensured a smooth path to power for Craig Whyte by supressing negative media stories about him? Did they even ask Irvine to explain this before they rehired him to defend their own interests? Are the board comfortable with Irvine’s approach? I wonder how comfortable they would be with their own actions being subjected to “media scrutiny”? Irvine, it appears, will do literally anything to spread his message. That extends to the promotion of the work of Paul McConville. McConville is a Celtic blogger (and discredited lawyer) who has spent the last two years attacking the club at every opportunity, but Irvine was happy to promote a recent article of his on Twitter because it suited his own agenda. Principle is left at the door. Furthermore this move raises questions of exactly who is running the club. It is clear that the board did not consult Jim Traynor before reappointing Mediahouse - this despite Mather, Hart and Stockbridge all nodding their approval for allowing Traynor to direct media strategy at the recent fan meeting. Traynor appealed for the directors to allow him to do his job and they have failed to do what they committed to. This is becoming a regular occurrence for them. Say one thing and do another. Who would blame Traynor if he decides to follow Walter Smith and walk away from this toxic board? Jack Irvine is the Easdale family spokesman. Do the Easdales now run Rangers Football Club? Did his work for them, despite its eccentricity, lead to them being appointed again at Rangers? Rumours abound that Sandy Easdale is now taking an active part in the decision making of the club’s directors despite not having a place on the board so it seems an obvious conclusion that Mediahouse are back at their behest. The RST, Assembly and RSA have continued their unified approach and expressed their contempt for this decision and the toxicity of Mediahouse is an issue which seems to unite even the most fractured elements of our support. Is it always going to be up to the fans to explain to this dysfunctional board what is acceptable and what isn’t? What next? Should we expect to see them bring Charles Green back a third time? Nothing this board now do would surprise me. It’s clear that anything goes in their desperation to cling to the power that they regularly abuse. They are beyond contempt and beyond parody. They are also unfit to represent our great football club and I sincerely hope the attempts to remove them are successful. If they are not then our club faces an uncertain future.

Interesting change from business journalist as opposed to the normal sports variety http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/opinion/investors-must-provide-ending-to-sorry-soap-opera-at-rangers.21937520

Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992

MOVES to remove Rangers directors from the club's board are to be pursued despite attempts to hold out an olive branch to influential investors trying to push through the radical changes. Billionaire Jim McColl - who headed a group of shareholders demanding a extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to force the removal of chief executive Craig Mather, financial director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive director Bryan Smart - has said they remain committed to it. The meeting would also seek the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin, the former executive chairman of accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, to the board. On July 31, those behind the calls for change at the top level said that if directors did not convene within 21 days they would organise the EGM and bill the club. The deadline expires today. The club has opened the door for Mr Blin to join the board in an attempt to head off an EGM, but do not want Mr Murray. The move on Tuesday appeared to echo Mr McColl's desire to see people with more corporate boardroom experience at that level in the club. But a spokeswoman for Mr McColl said: "He says we are pursuing the requisition that was presented to the club." Fans continue to support the removal of the directors because of further financial issues at the club. A fans' meeting earlier this month learned there was only £10 in the club's account, despite raising £22 million from a share offering and more than 70,000 season ticket sales over two seasons. Fans had already reacted angrily after the club was plunged into a civil war with the resurrection of Mr Green as a consultant earlier this month, after resigning as chief executive in April amid a probe into his alleged links to the disgraced oldco club's owner Craig Whyte. The board has agreed Mr Green's involvement with the club is to be ended. Drew Roberton, general secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, said: "What the board have done is a starting point, to try to reach an agreement, but if the meeting has to go ahead, it has to go ahead." http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...board.21937899

Sure to be an interesting day ahead as the board meet to discuss various issues... 1. Charles Green's position as a consultant - sack, censure or promote? 2. EGM requisition - do they accept it's requested board changes, confirm the EGM or reject the requisition altogether? 3. New chairman - erm, see 1. 4. Expedited publishing of audited accounts 5. Reaction to Ian Black notice of complaint I'm currently standing outside the Norton House Hotel awaiting the arrival of the key players...

MYSTERY still surrounds just what sort of a dodgy deal disgraced former commercial director Imran Ahmad struck with the even more disgraced and totally discredited Craig Whyte in order to get his hands on the former owner’s Rangers shares. However, by the admission of Imran Ahmad’s front man, Charles Green, we do know that some sort of shady back street deal was struck between Imran Ahmad and Craig Whyte. We know it was more than just the “stringing Whyte along” tactic claimed by Ahmad and Green. We know because Charles Green revealed it in a letter to the Scottish Football Association in which he wrote that in July last year, after liquidation, Imran Ahmad was given the task of getting his hands on Craig Whyte’s shares. The reason, again according to Charles Green in the same letter, was that this was necessary in order that a name change could be effected from Sevco Scotland to incorporate the words, Rangers Football Club. What Charles Green insists Imran Ahmad did not do, again the Green claim is made in his letter to the SFA, was make any form of legal commitment in relation to remuneration or compensation for the shares. So, just how did he get them? For we know, according to the gospel of Charles Green, what Imran Ahmad did not do. What we do not know is just what sort of deal – which did not involve any form of legal negotiation – Imran Ahmad actually did cook up with fraudster Craig Whyte. And that is something which will surely thwart any outrageous plans Imran Ahmad may be making to return to Ibrox , despite the fact he has now sold almost all of his Rangers shares and made an obscene profit. And Charles Green’s close association with Imran Ahmad and his unwillingness to make the nature of the Imran Ahmad-Craig Whyte stitch up known, will also bar his way to the Blue Room. For the Scottish Football Association have already pounced on this latest gaping hole and inconsistency in the letter Charles Green sent to them in April when he was still chief executive. By the time the SFA replied to Rangers, Green had been booted out of that role, therefore the reply was sent to then chairman Malcolm Murray, now, of course, no longer on the board. In the letter, the SFA said they were a little bemused by the events of July 2012 in relation to securing Craig Whyte’s shares, as the understanding was by that time the Ahmad-Green Consortium had indicated to Whyte that he would not be part of the structure in the future and that once the asset transfer had gone through they had essentially severed their connections with him. The SFA further added that in that context it seemed curious Whyte was willing to co-operate with Ahmad to transfer shares and to facilitate the passing of name changing resolutions. Then, quite properly, the SFA asked what arrangements had been entered into at that point to procure Whyte’s co-operation. The SFA also pointed out that the Administrators had appeared to have insisted on the release of the debenture relating to shares earlier than July 2012. Finally, the SFA asked why this did not enable the Consortium to take control of the shares? Why indeed? It seems, once again, Charles Green has indulged in his old tactic of believing bullshit baffles brains. And once again been caught out. With still no real clarity as to what the real relationship, as late in post liquidation in July 2012, was between Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Craig Whyte. ..... AND...... I am looking forward to meeting The People at a special dinner at Ibrox to launch the first ever biography of the great Bill Struth. The event, on Saturday September 7th, is being organised by Simon Leslie, the man behind the successful tribute dinner to Iron Curtain goalkeeper Bobby Brown which celebrated his 90th birthday last April. Further details of the Struth celebration are available on the Follow Follow site or by contacting Simon at sie1872@googlemail.com

THE following quotes were published on the official Rangers website on January 31, 2011. “First, I would like to address specifically the latest attempt to undermine Rangers in today’s Daily Record which devotes five pages to trashing our efforts to get this club back on a sensible financial footing. “In the most lurid terms, the Record accuses the club’s management and, specifically me, of using supporters’ money to help fund the buy-out of Rangers. Not true. “The club is accused of not paying £5million in VAT. Not true. “The Daily Record’s approach to this story sought to distort and dramatise the matter. I for one will not be reading or buying the Daily Record again and I’m sure many other Rangers fans will share my disgust at yet another smear on this football club. “These are challenging financial times for Rangers – as they are for many other businesses. What I can say to you as a Rangers fan is that everything I will do as chairman will be in the interests of the club and I thank you for your continued support.” For the avoidance of doubt, these quotes were attributed to Craig Whyte. On the day the Daily Record revealed the truth about his ruinous financial chicanery. Two weeks before he plunged the club into administration. And a full six months after he had banned yours truly for revealing what he was up to with the club’s season tickets in the first place. A story which he aggressively dismissed as a pack of lies to the delight of many of the club’s supporters. Much could have been done to save Rangers from Whyte, in those intervening months, if only the Daily Record had been listened to. Which is why there was something chillingly familiar about the latest populist propaganda to have been churned out by the club’s politburo at the weekend. It read thus: “Nor can we react to every journalist and publication who appear to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda, publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. “This paper’s intent is clear and we urge our fans to see it for what it is. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms.” These will be the same platforms which trumpeted all of Whyte’s many denials – including the very website which, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, removed quotes from the club’s own manager after McCoist had harpooned Charles Green in a press conference at Forfar. And now they wish the world to know that the Daily Record has adopted some form of anti-Rangers agenda? How absurd. How infantile. How very sinister. Let’s deal in the facts here, just for the avoidance of doubt. This newspaper is a staunch supporter of Scottish football. Commercially, the more the game thrives in this country, the better it is for our business. And while doubtless there are skewed and malevolent people out there who long for the day Rangers self-destruct for good, these extremist views are not shared across this office floor. On the contrary, the Record knows that, in order for Scottish football to be returned to a fit state, Rangers will first have to be fixed or, to use another of McCoist’s own words, “cleansed” from the inside out. The sooner this happens the better for all of us who love our national sport. With that in mind, this newspaper has done more than any other in an attempt to shine a light on some of the murkier operations which have been carried out behind closed doors ever since Whyte’s pointy shoes first crossed the threshold. I take great pride in the work this paper undertook to prove Whyte was a liar and cheat. It was a six-month slog throughout which Whyte consistently cuddled up to our rivals and fed them scraps from his table. Such subservience is an affront to journalism. But it is the easy option and one favoured by the Scottish Sun in particular. That publication has repeatedly handed over its pages to people such as Whyte, Green, Imran Ahmad and most recently Brian Stockbridge, the financial director whose own questionable conduct regarding videoing Malcolm Murray and then releasing it has also been revealed in the Record. Not one of the above has a good word to say about this paper and for good reason. We nailed Whyte, chased Green and Ahmad relentlessly in pursuit of the truth and exposed Stockbridge. When this column suggested earlier this year that huge chunks of the club’s money was disappearing into other accounts, scattered to the four corners of the globe, it was accused of trouble making. Last week, of course, Stockbridge spoke exclusively to the Sun to admit the £22m of IPO cash raised at the turn of the year has now gone – but to insist with his very next breath there is absolutely no need to be panicked by this mind-boggling cash burn. Of course, there isn’t. And yet, only days earlier, Stockbridge claimed at a supporters’ meeting not to know how much of that money was left. If he really did not know such enormous amounts of cash had been spent then he ought to be fired for gross negligence. Instead, tomorrow, Stockbridge will pull up a seat at a board meeting to discuss whether or not Green should continue in his role as club “consultant”. Chief executive Craig Mather has called this gathering and he had better hope Stockbridge and directors James Easdale, Ian Hart and Bryan Smart choose to do the right thing – because if they do not agree to axe Green then Mather’s own credibility will be shot to pieces and his position untenable. There is, of course, another critical issue to be discussed and that is a shareholders’ requisition for the removal of Stockbridge, Mather and Smart and the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin as directors. If these changes are not approved by Friday, an egm will be triggered and a bloodbath most probably will ensue. This can still be avoided by compromise and clear thinking. But only if Green is first removed from the internal affairs of a club which continues to self-harm so spectacularly. Saturday’s official statement was another indication of just how confused this outfit has become. And it came 24 hours or so after McCoist and his squad checked into five-star luxury at Turnberry to prepare for a League One trip to Stranraer – an extravagance which was not lost on the club’s anxious staff, many of whom have been living in fear of redundancies and restructuring. It went on to point out in its very last line: “Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this club.” This appears to be in response to weekend quotes from the PR mogul, who is representing James and Sandy Easdale. Up until very recently Irvine’s Media House enjoyed a highly-lucrative contract with Rangers. Over the past two years it acted also to protect the reputations and interests of Whyte, Duff and Phelps, Green, Ahmad and Stockbridge. Earlier this month Irvine selected a group of hand-picked “friendly” journalists to interview Green at the Easdales’ bus depot. Green used those platforms to demand £14m from Jim McColl, while admitting to being devious and an embarrassment. For the avoidance of doubt, the Daily Record was not invited. Nor did it have any wish to be.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/157-rangers-pr-problems-boycotts-and-bloggers Another weekend, another statement from the club complaining about newspaper A and blogger B. This time it’s the Daily Record in the firing line – as well as some mischief-making Celtic supporter websites and a PR guru the club have used for longer than some owners have been in charge. Fair enough, the club is entitled to have a moan and the statement seems strong and has validity. However, where does all this stuff really get us? Boycott the Daily Record? Sure, done it years ago – not necessarily because I think the Record is anti-Rangers per se but simply because newspapers are old-hat and their content usually at least 12 hours out of date. Of course the Record have had plenty examples of good, old ‘Rangers hating’ but any more than any other media source; I’m not so sure. After all, picking between the Daily Record and The Sun is like choosing between Jo Brand and Ann Widdecombe for a new life-partner. I’ll pass thanks… Use the club’s website for content? Definitely, visit it several times a day and it’s a much improved resource in recent times. However, it clearly won’t cover every subject and, even if it did, would it offer a balanced analysis of every issue? I doubt it so it’s inevitable such information vacuums are filled by alternatives – be them pro-Rangers or not. It’s up to the club to challenge these when and where appropriate. Ignore ‘malicious and wildly inaccurate’ coverage elsewhere? Absolutely, the day I accept a Celtic blogger’s attempts to derail our club, is a long way away. However, if their content is so dangerous and inaccurate, the club’s lawyers’ should be doing more than monitoring such stuff. How about taking them to court and/or being cleverer in how you deal with them? After all, I don’t see much evidence of these people back-tracking in their claims? In fact, they seem to be becoming bolder and multiplying. Not to mention their content often used by the mainstream media. Jack Irvine does not speak for Rangers? Great, this chancer’s impact on Rangers – both financially and logistically over the last five years has been the epitome of a conflict of interest. From working with Sir David Murray; to Craig Whyte; to Charles Green; to, erm, current director and investors James and Sandy Easdale, MediaHouse will know more than most about almost every single subject related to the club in the modern era. Does this mean making a public enemy of him is a good idea though? We better hope the non-disclosure agreements are well written and secure. Well, more guarded than the plethora of official club emails and documents that seem to be released on a daily basis on social media anyway. You know the Twitter account that the club’s lawyers continue to ‘monitor’… I think all the above shows us just how much of a mess the club’s PR operations are in. Doesn’t matter if its new directors using recently sacked contractors and banned media organisations or regular boardroom leaks (sometimes even to the Record), we seem completely incapable of getting our house in order in that regard. Is this the fault of ‘Director of Communications’ Jim Traynor? Not necessarily but it’s interesting that his strong website words have not always resulted in strong action. Again, that doesn’t mean he’s to blame but he’s the obvious target for many bears, even if the recently appointed Keith Bishop Associates are responsible for the club’s PR work nowadays. With that in mind, it’s fair to question Rangers in how they intend to deal with the various PR issues we clearly have. The club says it can’t lend Celtic fan blogs ‘credence’ or ‘react’ to every single story. Fair enough, that would require a lot of resources. Despite that, in recent months, Rangers has banned BBC Scotland, removed Radio Clyde as a media partner and taken legal action against the Daily Record and one anonymous blogger. Is (or should) there be discussions for addressing mainstream media coverage or should they be banned indefinitely? How does the club separate action against organisations such as the BBC from individuals like Graham Spiers (who has arguably been the worst offender historically) and anonymous blogs? We can’t ban or sue everyone so with the situation arguably getting worse, it’s up to the club to show the supporters what solutions they’re considering. Generally speaking this isn’t an easy conundrum to solve though. The media is and always will be a constant that the club (and fans) will have to interact with. They cause mischief, they print spin and all too often lack the balance Rangers fans would like to see on many important subjects. All that is a given from every source so the club often just has to suck it up. Unfortunately, while I’d consider statements on our website as occasionally helpful, the lack of action – or perhaps more accurately – the lack of genuine results in addressing the most malicious stuff just makes every new statement appear like impotent sabre-rattling. Like everything else at Rangers, our strategy seems inconsistent and poorly carried out yet we pay a small fortune for these services. At some point, those responsible have to start delivering real results or ‘the truth’ Saturday’s statement highlights will just become another casualty of a war that is tearing our club apart.

MCGILL'S bus tycoon Sandy Easdale has called for stability at strife-torn Ibrox and condemned a group of influential shareholders for demanding the removal of key Rangers executives. Mr Easdale, who owns the bus firm with his brother James, met chief executive Craig Mather yesterday after capturing a bigger stake in the company that operates the club by buying 1.2 million shares. After discussions about the way forward for the club, the Easdales criticised the group of shareholders who forced a general meeting to demand the removal of Mr Mather, financial director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive director Bryan Smart. The revolt led by leading businessman and entrepreneur Jim McColl calls for the appointment of two new directors, ex-Rangers oldco boardroom figure Paul Murray and Frank Blin, the former executive chairman of accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers. Mr Mather, consultant Charles Green and finance director Brian Stockbridge have been garnering support in London for the board amid attempts by Mr McColl and his allies to oust the key figures. Mr Easdale and his brother, a board member since July, have sought to increase their influence at the club and are key allies of Mr Green, the former Rangers chief executive. Mr Green resigned from that job in April and has recently returned to the club as a consultant. His future at Rangers will be discussed at a board meeting on Tuesday, with the three main fans groups calling for his removal. The Yorkshireman has already been involved in a war of words with Rangers manager Ally McCoist since his return, after claiming the manager would have a problem if he failed to win a cup as well as the league this season. The Easdale family's spokesman, Jack Irvine, said Sandy Easdale believes the general meeting was "an appalling waste of money", estimating that it would cost the club £60,000 to £80,000 to stage. He said: "We find it a bit appalling that they are going to cost the club they profess to love this money and Sandy thinks it is a complete and utter waste of time. He is very keen that that doesn't happen. "They will be outvoted anyway and embarrassed." He said that, while Sandy Easdale does not see himself as a future figurehead, the meeting was organised to "discuss the way ahead as he sees it as he is becoming an important shareholder". Mr Irvine added: "His vision is for all the strife to stop, for the board to remain as it is and he feels with the football season on we should be talking about football, not about boardroom nonsense. "He has said in many other businesses this would just not happen and he is pretty appalled by it. He runs a fantastically successful business in McGill's and he thinks Rangers should be run the same way." Mr Easdale made his latest share purchase after former club director Imran Ahmad, who was ejected from the board in April, sold the majority of his 2.2 million shares in Rangers. The purchase, worth £498,000, brought Sandy Easdale's individual stake to 2.1%, around a seven-fold increase. His wife Gail and brother are also shareholders. The development came as Mr McCoist indicated he is open to the idea of fans being involved in running the club. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...room.21895652?

“Not the Rangers way" was the cry; as our previous boardroom turned our club into both a media circus and a laughing stock with their behaviour and antics. Leaks, accusation and counter accusation characterised this troubled period. For us, who as Rangers supporters, expect all connected with our club to behave to a certain standard, it was indeed a most unedifying sight to behold. Whilst the "generals" in this battle certainly have not changed, both the battleground and the “support units” most certainly have, with Rangers bloggers entering into the fray as the theatre of war shifts from the tabloids to the internet. You know how the saying goes - "Hearts & Minds" – it would appear some believe ours are up for grabs to the most persuasive bidder. A considerable irony in all of this was that these same bloggers ravaged our old board for washing its dirty laundry in public. We appear to be missing both a goose and a gander. "Tweet" sounds such an innocuous word, yet the tweets being exchanged via twitter are anything but that. Perhaps a 140 character barb would be a more apt description, as both sides, sadly appearing to have unlimited energy for the task, trade those barbs according to whichever faction they happen to be in. Particularly unsavoury were the attempts by either faction to claim the moral high ground by playing the race card against the enemy. The problem was there was no moral high ground to be claimed – both the comments of Charles Green and Jim McColl were in themselves particularly vulgar, with perhaps surprisingly the latter managing to outdo even Green in the vulgarity stakes. The old adage that “truth is the first casualty of war” has certainly held true. In the midst of all this carnage is a support rightfully concerned about their club and looking for answers and information. For those of us who don’t have a source inside the club, or access to powerful players in this game we are all left totally bewildered by it all. With both sides being so deeply entrenched perhaps the casualty which is the truth has been lost from sight, obscured by a fog of egos, spin and recrimination. Along with truth, objectivity seems to also have fallen in the heat of battle. Bloggers such as I, started writing to counter and challenge some of the media lies, imbalance, and, on occasion, downright harmful articles about our club. It was a war against lies and misinformation. We strived to give the Rangers support a different angle from the hateful one being taken by so many of Scotland’s press. But in every war there is always collateral damage. Perhaps the lasting indictment of this conflict will be that the Rangers support will have to return to the Scottish press to glean objective, agenda free information, with regard to what is happening at our club.

Friday, 16 August 2013 AHMAD, GREEN AND THE MONEY-LAUNDERING FEARS OF WHYTE'S £137,5000 RANGERS have been placed at the centre of money laundering fears over the mysterious £137,500 paid into the bank account of Imran Ahmad’s mother by Craig Whyte. And further doubts have also been raised over just what that the money was for after a letter from Charles Green was leaked. For the leaked letter from Green to the Scottish Football Association – now available on-line - gives an explanation for the mystery money which is different and entirely at odds to the one Imran Ahmad trotted out at the time the deal was first revealed four months ago. At the time Ahmad insisted that it was all just a devious scheme to trap Craig Whyte into believing he was investing in their group’s move to gain control of Rangers through a CVA, in order that he would be easy to deal with. The story Ahmad spun was that the £137,500 was a payment made by Whyte to show his good faith in the Ahmad-Green promises that he would be part of the future of Rangers and that they needed to get Whyte’s agreement to get his shares if they got their CVA proposals accepted. All of which seemed pretty plausible. However, that is not the same story as the version which was spun by Charles Green in a letter to the Scottish Football Association which claimed the £137,500 was money from Whyte to reimburse Ahmad for the £200,000 payment Ahmad personally made to Duff and Phelps to secure exclusivity on their bid for Rangers. That was not an investment in Rangers, but a fee to Duff and Phelps. The only real point where the Imran Ahmad story and the Charles Green tale of woe merged was when they both claimed they had no idea where the £137,500 paid into the bank of account of Imran Ahmad’s mother actually came from. And that is the point in Charles Green’s letter to the SFA which Hampden bosses quite rightly pounced on and which saw them raise the serious spectre of the sort of financial jiggery pokery, the sort of shady fiscal dealing which flags up concerns about money laundering. For there are strict regulations in place concerning the movement of money. Just try to open a bank account without a whole host of documents to prove your identity and you’ll see what I mean. Yet Imran Ahmad and Charles Green want the SFA to believe that £137,500 was accepted into the NatWest bank account in London of Imran Ahmad’s mother without the NatWest having a clue where it came from. By the time the SFA replied to the claims made in Charles Green’s letter, he was no longer chief executive, therefore they drove a their bus through the gaping hole in the Green story in a reply sent to the then chairman Malcolm Murray which has also been leaked and is available on-line. The SFA letter quite properly pointed out that the money Imran Ahmad got from Craig Whyte did not appear to have been subjected to the normal anti money laundering procedures and asked why that did not occur. It would be interesting to hear from Imran Ahmad on that point. It would also be interesting to hear from Charles Green on that point. I wonder if they will sing the same song this time, or if their tales of woe will again fail to tally. All of which once again raises the question of just where Craig Whyte gets the cash to sustain his considerable lifestyle? Just where did he get that £137,500? After all, as every examination of Craig Whyte’s business dealings reveal, he has no visible means of support, a fact I have mentioned on numerous occasions and a mystery Charles Green and Imran Ahmad must have been aware of at the outset of their dealings with him. However, they seemed to have been quite happy to take £137,500 of Craig Whyte’s dough without any of the normal checks on just where his funds were coming from, procedures which Imran Ahmad must be familiar with given his history of work in the financial sector. It was also something which Imran Ahmad was happy to keep secret until the shady transaction was exposed in April. Then he tried to explain it away as a con trick on Craig Whyte. Charles Green also sought to find an explanation. Unfortunately for him, his version of events, as we can now see, does not tally with what Ahmad said. And these are the two men some deluded folk still want to see back inside Ibrox, running Rangers. posted by leggoland @ 09:09 http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/155-mccoll-the-messiah-some-key-questions From a cursory look across the various forums this sunny Wednesday morning, I note Jim McColl et al appears to be requesting EGM support from the Rangers supporters who are shareholders (apparently around 12% of the whole). Fair enough and not an unexpected development but this is actually an important issue so please allow me to labour the point somewhat. First of all, I'd fancy, under normal circumstances Jim McColl would be exactly the kind of investor and/or board member and/or outright owner our fans would literally carry up the marble staircase to victory. He's substantially rich, apparently a genuine fan and his business reputation is clearly impressive given his various successes. What's not to like? Unfortunately, as we know, the situation at Ibrox is far from normal and McColl’s influence with specific regard to Rangers has hardly been impressive in recent times: 1. McColl has been involved with previous failed bids – including an aborted attempt at fan ownership in conjunction with the RST and purportedly a rejected post-D&P deadline bid for the club along with Walter Smith last year. Has he learned from these experiences? 2. McColl has always come across as reluctant at best and quirky to a fault when it comes to Rangers. Sure, a football club can’t be seen as a sound investment by someone used to making money rather than losing it but, if he’s a fan, then his involvement would only ever be an emotional one anyway. Where does he draw the line between personal concern and business? 3. Fan trust of anyone involved is at an all-time low. The most recent regimes from Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte have failed completely whilst the current incumbents are struggling to retain supporter backing with a variety of poor decisions. Thus, anyone who wants to control Rangers has to accept public scrutiny will be higher than anything they’ll have experienced before. Does that fit with McColl’s preference for remaining in the background? 4. His current share-holding is hardly impressive (even if he may have the backing of others). No-one knows just how many shares McColl owns but it must be lower than the LSE-notifiable 3%. Is that reflective of his overall interest or just someone who prefers to stay under the radar? Just how much money is he willing to spend? 5. McColl and/or his group have never made their plans clear and, in fact, it's impossible to tell from one day to the next if they want to buy the club and/or if they just want to be a short-term controlling bloc to ensure ‘effective’ ownership (perhaps via a new share issue) is transferred to someone else like Dave King. How exactly do they see the club’s financial future? All these valid questions means, instead of having the automatic backing of a huge majority of supporters (and indeed other shareholders), many people are - quite rightly - less than clear about what he's offering. Ergo, to make calls for fan backing without being completely open on his intentions is not the best strategy in my opinion. Indeed, it could be said he’s suffering from the same problems the Blue Knights stumbled into last year; namely failing to grasp supporter attention amidst a variety of strategic errors. To conclude, I'll say again: Jim McColl should be the right man for the job, but the very fact we have doubters (based on constructive criticism rather than daft stuff about his politics), doesn't reflect well on his efforts so far. Thus, I'd argue that McColl still has a bit of work to do if he wants to be successful; even if the fact he's come this far suggests he's clearly confident. However, if it's a straight choice between a Charles Green and a Frank Blin along with an Imran Ahmad and a Jim McColl, I don't see many fans opting for the former. Of course, as always, it's not as simple as that so McColl and his group would be well advised to avoid complacency and/or assume fan backing. If not, he only needs to phone Paul Murray to release what over-confidence can do to your reputation. What Rangers fans want more than anything is a well-run, self-sustainable club. If McColl can provide that, then great but instead of hiding from the debate on how this can happen, why not show the support why you’re the right man for the job. That’s real leadership quality and, if the plans are viable, then backing would be a given. Over to you, Jim…

Last night, Vanguard Bears were granted a meeting with Rangers Chairman Craig Whyte.3 Delegates from the site attended the meeting, which was brokered by one of our influential contributors. The meeting was unprecedented, and a first for any Rangers supportersâ?? website. Happening the same week as our planned Demo at the BBC, and at a very busy time for the club, and Mr Whyte in particular, we are very grateful to Mr Whyte for actually taking time out of his busy Schedule to discuss topics of interest to Rangers fans across the globe, with Rangers Supporters Liaison Mgr Jim Hannah present. The meeting lasted 90 minutes and covered a variety of topical points, which we found productive. Jim Hannah advised us that this meeting would be a one-off meeting out with normal Assembly procedures, due to the imminent BBC protest. With Vanguard not being represented through this forum, Craig Whyte felt it appropriate in this instance in order to listen to us. Minutes as follows: Agenda for Meeting with Craig Whyte on Tuesday 1st November 2011 at 5pm. Vanguard Bears â?? who we are, what we do, and why we exist. Mr. Whyte and Rangers F.C. â?? The Future The Media The Support 1. Vanguard Bears â?? Who, What and Why: We started the meeting with a spirit of open dialogue, explaining our reasons for existence. During the last decade in particular, the club we love has been the focus of several attacks by the media No dedicated group to co-ordinate a fight back against detractors of the club Frustration at other groupsâ?? historical hesitance to fight back in a controlled and driven manner through to completion Years of experience and knowledge of the methodology behind the attacks on the Club Dedication to defending the traditions of the club Dedication to enhancing the legacy of the club No conflict of interests whatsoever; no profits, no bonuses, or contracts to be won, and no desire for power Explained that some of our senior members were founder members of the Rangers Supporters Trust Highlighted our work, successes and achievements William McBeath grave Continued highlighting of agenda of certain bloggers and journalists, who are now being ridiculed by mainstream media, and their peers Explained our members activity in marginalising certain bloggers from radio stations Previous two demos and petition granted face to face meeting with senior BBC Management in Glasgow by BBC Director General in 2009 BBC Staff responsible for two disgusting incidents regarding the titling and properties of photographs on the BBC Website disciplined Explained our reasons for leaving fans joint working group Felt that only one response to our request to demonstrate a symptom of malaise and inaction The one response, for a â??strongly worded letterâ?, woefully inadequate, naïve and two years behind us Aware of communications between certain group members excluding Vanguard Indicated our delight at common support and public backing from our friends at Gersnet, Rangers Media, Blue Order, Union Bears and several Rangers Supporters Clubs Informed that previous BBC Demos have gone without incident and that attendeesâ?? behaviour was commended by Strathclyde Police Explained that we have issued strict guidelines for attendees this Saturdayâ??s Demo Advised that photographs of demonstrators were taken of protesters at previous demo from inside BBC Building and posted on Celtic fan websites Stated our desire for Mr Whyte to address imbalances in the media, and that VB in particular supported that stance whole heartedly. Stated that we believed the previous management team had sufficient information to make informed choices, but had little appetite to do so. Durring this session, Mr Whyte was supportive, open and candid about the scale of the agenda against the club, and appreciated it is widespread and not an isolated issue at one broadcaster. He explained that the club has to evaluate the importance and reach of media outlets, the severity of the slur, the legal implications, and accept â??digsâ? from journalists or bloggers if these â??digsâ? are not libellous. We both agreed that constructive criticism was completely acceptable. My Whyte explained that he is still being advised by Carter Ruck with regards to allegations made on the BBC Programme â??Rangers â?? The Inside Storyâ?, its researchers and contributors. Those who have repeated said allegations may also be pursued. We explained that while VB was set up to act primarily as a conduit for supporters to right wrongs, and address agendas against the club, above all else we are Rangers supporters who care deeply for the club. Therefore, it would have been foolish not to ask questions on the future of the club: 2. Mr. Whyte and Rangers F.C. â?? The Future Some direct questions were put to Mr Whyte VB â?? Reports of Rangers going in to Administration continue to dominate the media in Scotland, including a rumour from a credible source to VB that the club will voluntarily enter Administration on Monday 7th November. Is there any truth in this rumour? CW â?? Not at all. Our phones were red hot last Friday (28th October) with the same rumour, which led to us having to contact media organisations to inform them it was business as usual for us VB â?? Do you have a value in mind that you could settle at with HMRC that could allow the club to pay off any amount due, should Rangers lose the â??mainâ? case against the organisation, and avoid the scenario of Administration or Insolvency? CW â?? Yes, although that value is sensitive VB â?? Would that value be paid directly without offsetting against future season ticket revenue? CW â?? Yes VB â?? Are you confident of winning the case? CW â?? Yes VB â?? Do you genuinely see Administration as an option, or is it part of a game with HMRC? CW â?? Sadly, it is an option, and not a game in the slightest, although we see it (Administration) as worst case scenario. A Plan â??Dâ? if you will. Administration is not, and never has been a Pre determined Strategy to deal with any possible loss of the â??mainâ? tax case. Rangers are talking to HMRC on a daily basis VB â?? What is the legal/contractual position of â??Murray Parkâ?? Can is be put to the fans to rename, perhaps as a symbol of a new era? CW â?? There is no obligation to keep the name of â??Murray Parkâ?. VB- We've have no representation on either the SFA professional board or the SPL board since Martin Bain has left? With Peter Lawwell, Eric Riley & Stephen Thompson among those now in senior positions there seems little influence for Rangers within the management circles of Scottish Football CW â?? The SPL is democratic, and Ali Russell will take over from Eric Riley at the SPL next year. The SFA has obviously been through some restructuring which we will monitor throughout the coming months. VB â?? The previous management at Rangers attempted a Share issue, which was undersubscribed, largely due to a lack of trust between the support and the custodian. Is this an avenue that you have considered? CW â?? Itâ??s not something we have considered to any great degree. Do you think the support would invest? VB â?? If given confidence that the money would be used wisely, yes We then moved on to more general Media issues 3. The Media VB - We have already covered the BBC Demo, and the Documentary, and note your action against The Record and Herald during this season has resulted in quick apologies, what is your position on Graham Spiers CW â?? I decided when I took over the club, that while I would address media imbalance, I would start with a clean slate, and expect the same in return. After seeing Mr Spiersâ?? involvement in the BBC Documentary, we were considering whether to withdraw all press privileges, but decided against it, as we were of the view that his influence and readership is not significant enough to trouble us. That said, when we took that decision we only considered â??The Timesâ??â? reach in Scotland, not their reach in England and beyond. [Following discussion with JH] It is too late to reverse that decision. If Mr Spiers appears on our radar again for the wrong reasons, we will take a more holistic view. In football terms heâ??s on a retrospective yellow card VB â?? Are you aware of any journalists that he considers as having a sympathetic ear to the club? CW â?? To a certain degree yes, but some are constrained, and outnumbered within their outlets to put the required balance back in to reporting. Some also have their work edited. (CW named two journalists, who VB were non committal on our view of them) 4. The Support VB - One of the reasons our plans for a BBC Demo were delayed, were the reports coming in from fellow fans about their treatment at the hands of Stewards at Ibrox, where we felt that our fellow supporters were being unfairly targeted by G4S at Ibrox, and treated like cattle on their travels. We temporarily put our energy in to offering advice and support to those affected. The SNP and â??Anti Sectarian Billâ? â?? How can the club help the support, when our behaviour in recent years with regards to â??Sectarianismâ? has been exemplary? CW â?? Will will continue to lobby strongly, and ask that our supporters not be singled out without good reason. G4S have been spoken to since the incidents you refer to, but are still constrained by a lack of clarity from the authorities VB â?? It is our understanding that there is a specific letter from UEFA with respect to â??The Billy Boysâ?, but that it has never been distributed. [CW looks to JH] JH â?? Yes, there is a letter specifically outlining â??The Billy Boysâ?, and it was shown to members of the RST, Assembly and Supporters Association. It does exist and is not a myth. VB â?? We are concerned at the double standards on the term â??Fenianâ?, and how the goalposts have moved on a word historically an exclusive term referring to â??Irish Republicansâ? of all religions, to have a dual meaning interpreted by certain factions as they see fir. CW/JH â?? Case law and legal advice tells us that those of influence in Justice deem that the term can be deemed Sectarian in certain circumstances, but that there is a lack of clarity over what these circumstances are. The time to argue this was before case law. That time has passed. VB â?? We are also concerned over the double standard in usage of the sectarian word â??Hunâ?, which also has case law to support it being sectarian, but there is a distinct lack of action on those using the term CW â?? We were unaware of this case law and will look in to it VB â?? In recent years it has been noticeable that there is a significant political presence at Celtic Park both within the boardroom, and in stands, why does it not appear to be the same at Ibrox? Are we looking at engaging with Political figures CW â?? Believe it or not, there are a handful of MPs and political figures not shy to show their allegiance. They may not be household names, and the cameras as Ibrox generally being on the same side of the pitch as the main stand perhaps doesnâ??t show them regularly. In any event, I donâ??t think they are here to be on telly. VB â?? Regards our BBC Demo, do you back it? CW â?? I can fully understand the frustrations that have driven you to organise it As we were about to wrap up proceedings we asked one final question. VB â?? We understand that there was an incident in the Tunnel at Ibrox before you bought the club, where an opposition manager is rumoured to have racially abused Vladimir Weiss and El Hadj Diouf. Did this happen, and if so, why werenâ??t the press told? Do the club have evidence? CW â?? I wasnâ??t here, so canâ??t comment. We donâ??t want anyone to lose their job do we? JH â?? No Comment VB â?? Thanks for your time Mr Whyte CW/JH â?? Our pleasure JH signed off with a reminder that VB should consider becoming part of the Assembly. VB Representatives stated that we would consult our members. Admin Vanguardbears.co.uk

Rangers face Euro ban unless accounts are signed off by independent auditor Dec 2 2011 Keith Jackson TOP BRASS at UEFA last night warned Rangers face expulsion from European football next season unless the club's financial house is put in order. Record Sport can reveal that as things stand, the SPL leaders would be denied an £18million ticket into the Champions League even if Ally McCoist led his side to a fourth consecutive league title - but Rangers sources insist they still have four months to ensure their accounts are signed off and submitted to the SFA ahead of the March 31 deadline. The Ibrox club have breached UEFA president Michel Platini's tough new Financial Fair Play Regulations by publishing their latest set of account WITHOUT having them signed off by an independent auditor. On Wednesday night, the club announced their annual financial figures for the year ending on June 30 to the PLUS Market but, for the first time in the club's history, the figures were not approved by appointed accountants. Edinburgh firm Grant Thornton have refused to discuss why they have not signed them off but UEFA have made it clear Rangers will be denied entry into the Champions League or the Europa League unless their accounts are rubber-stamped before the end of the current campaign. It's understood Rangers have until December 31 to publish a fresh set of figures and then lodge them with Companies House in Edinburgh. But if those results are not given a clean bill of health by the auditors, the club's chances of being granted a licence in time for next season will be damaged further. Although the situation would then become ever more serious, the stricken club believes the vital date for Euro approval will not arrive until next March. A UEFA statement read: "Glasgow Rangers FC, as with any club participating in UEFA competitions, will have to go through a licensing process which the national association in question manages. "Subsequently, the national association (not UEFA), the SFA in this case, will assess whether or not the club has fulfilled the mandatory licensing criteria. "This will take place in March/April. If the answer is yes, the club can take part in UEFA competitions next season and if not, they won't receive a licence." The SFA, who last night announced their own probe into Rangers owner Craig Whyte, are already aware of the breach in Platini's policy. They are now bracing themselves for the potential fall-out should they be forced to freeze a member club out of European football. The Hampden beaks refused to comment on the situation last night but, as things stand, they would have to turn Rangers down flat. UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations article 47 spells out the need for all financial results to be signed off by auditors. It says: "Annual financial statements must be audited by independent auditors." And last night an SFA insider informed Record Sport that Rangers will have to "work extremely hard" between now and the spring if they are to pass UEFA's criteria. The source said: "When Rangers submitted their application for this season they were up front about a number of financial issues they were dealing with. "They were in dispute with the tax man but this was declared and, as it was a legitimate dispute, it was allowed and they still satisfied the criteria. "But if they do not satisfy the criteria this time then they won't get a licence for Europe. "There is a lot of work to do before they can qualify. Right now Rangers and the SFA are in a difficult position. The club has an obligation to provide a signed set of accounts and if they are unable to do so then their application cannot be approved. "It really is becoming quite a serious mess."

Tom English: â??Paul Murrayâ??s bid was well-meaning but not based in realityâ?? Published on Sunday 4 December 2011 01:32 PAUL Murray, the former non-executive director of Rangers, raised his head above the parapet in The Scotsman yesterday when expressing his concerns about the way the club is being run by Craig Whyte, his old foe from the takeover process earlier in the year. This column has given short shrift to Murray in the past â?? and especially to his cohort, Alastair â??No Surrenderâ? Johnston, the great show-boater of the old guard. That is not to dismiss Murrayâ??s concerns over Whyte. Heâ??s entitled to be uncertain about Rangersâ?? future and worried about Whyteâ??s stewardship. There is so much secrecy and inconsistency surrounding Whyte that cynicism is not just an understandable instinct, but a necessary one. The contradictions are many. In October, Whyte gave an interview to STV in which he stated that he nothing to hide in his professional life. An hour later a BBC investigation revealed that Whyte had been disqualified from being a company director for seven years. At the outset of his ownership he rubbished the possibility that Rangers might go into administration. Now he is saying that it has always been an option. He said from day one that he would appeal should the HMRC decision go against the club, but he appears to have changed his mind on that one. In the wake of the BBC documentary he stated that he was going to waste no time in suing the broadcaster, but it seems he has not taken that step yet. He might yet, of course. There is a suspicious air around Whyte and much of it is of his own making, born out of his determination to keep his business affairs as private as possible. When he is asked to name a couple of his companies that he is particularly proud of and then refuses to name them, people are entitled to wonder what heâ??s all about. The mystery creates an information vacuum that then gets filled with speculation. Informed speculation, some of it. But the fact is that, when it comes to Whyte (his money and his motives), a lot of what is out there is little more than guesswork. His merits as Rangersâ?? owner can only be judged in time. This is where this column and Murray go our separate ways because there are things that Murray says that just donâ??t stand up to any kind of scrutiny. First of all, Murray expresses surprise at the talk of Rangers, potentially, going into administration. â??I am puzzled that administration is even being discussed,â? he said. â??The HMRC tax tribunal will not deliver a decision until well into next year so at the moment there is no tax liability to pay.â? Puzzled at administration being discussed? Hold on a second, there. Johnston, his big mate on the old board, was talking about administration away back in April. In fact, he got himself embroiled in a controversy about whether or not he stated the club could, in a worst-case scenario, actually go bust. â??Yes, if there is an excessive (HMRC) judgment against us then we might not be in a position to pay it,â? said Johnston on 1 April. â??But I never said the club would go bust as a result of it. The very worst thing that could happen is that we lose the case and, as a result, could be looking at going into administration.â? So it was OK for Johnston (and by extension, Murray) to talk about administration but, when Whyte does it, Murray is â??puzzledâ?. Heâ??ll have to explain that one. And, while he is at it, he might enlighten us further on his supposed counter-bid for the club and why he waited and waited and waited before he did something, which, effectively, was nothing. According to Whyte, it amounted to a â??five line e-mail sent from his Blackberryâ? when the Whyte deal was as good as done. Sir David Murray, it is understood, gave it no credence whatsoever, nor did Lloyds Bank. And nor would Johnston have given it the time of day had he applied his own rules to his mateâ??s offer. Johnston wanted transparency, but the Murray bid supposedly involved a £25 million share issue underwritten by a businessman whose name he would not reveal, with other backers coming on board as well. He wouldnâ??t name them either. The â??bidâ? also stated that Lloyds would only be paid off in stages, this despite Johnston having earlier stated that a prerequisite of any takeover was that Lloyds were paid off in full and removed from the Rangers landscape permanently. Murrayâ??s solution to the HMRC issue was to get Sir David to pay whatever bill came the clubâ??s way. Lovely idea, but unless he is an expert in hypnosis there was no way Paul Murray was going to get the then owner to agree to that. So his â??bidâ? was probably well-meaning but not based in reality. Meanwhile, Whyte was ploughing on and doing a deal. Itâ??s not a deal that Paul Murray or Johnston like and Whyte is not a man they have faith in, but the alternative was that Sir David kept the club â?? and they didnâ??t want that either. The fact is that, when Johnston came in as chairman, the mission statement he set out for himself was to find a new owner who would liberate the club from the grip of Lloyds Bank. Johnston found nobody. He failed. Paul Murray failed, too. He had his chance to buy the club and he didnâ??t take it. He sat and waited and came up with far too little, far too late. â??Everything we said has come home to roost,â? said Murray. â??I donâ??t take any pleasure from that. . . Talking about administration, being pursued by suppliers and the possibility of a fit and proper investigation at the SFA. . . itâ??s humiliating and embarrassing.â? Yes, itâ??s troubling, no doubt about it. But there was no nirvana option available to Rangers. The club had to accept Whyteâ??s offer or stick with Sir David and live with the consequences. There was no third way worthy of consideration. Sniping from the sidelines is understandable. For sure, Whyte needs to be scrutinised given the potential horrors that await the club. But to Paul Murray we ask: â??What would you have done?â? Once the attempted brainwashing of Sir David into accepting liability for a £49m tax debt ended in failure, what was the alternative? And the answer is, there wasnâ??t one.

http://ibroxnoise.blogspot.com/2011/12/takeover-by-craig-whyte-right-thing-for.html I guess there's no real answer to this yet, time will tell, but I've tried my best to look at the facts, both the negative and positive, and sum up where I feel we might be as a club now under this regime.

I love God's own county, Lanarkshire. Born'n'bred, it's home but it has a flaw. The deepest, darkest county does not have a decent curry house. This necessitates an occasional 40 mile round trip to the west end of Glasgow. Attending University thirty-five plus years past, introduced me to the culinary triumph that is Gibson Street. A thoroughfare that was the perfect sub-continent sandwich. The oldest puryeyor of curry in the country, the Shish Mahal at the top end, the then best, the Koh-i-Noor at the bottom. Neither are still located in Gibson Street, the Shish resides in Park Road and the Koh-i' fell into the River Kelvin a couple of decades ago and moved to Charing Cross. At seven bells last evening, we alighted from the Park Road establisment, entered our vehicle and heard BBC Radio Scoland tell us the good news. Atletico were one up at ra Stade de Gadd. It was half time and the match analysis could wait as Rangers financial results could be discussed. BBC Scotland's Financial Correspondent, Douglas Fraser was brought on to provide a sypnopsis. Then, Richard Gordon turned to Chic Young, yep that Chic Young to interpret the results. I felt a reflux of my bangan pakora as Chico insisted Rangers supporters were anxiously confiding in him and demanding he act as our conduit. Fearlessly, Chico wanted answers(on our behalf) on the date of the club AGM, "it's always at this time of year". Here's me thinking it's usually early Autumn. Anyways, Chico was now unstopable, "I want answers(remember, on our behalf) from Craig Whyte". Such insight from Chico's location ie trackside at the Brendanbowl. Seamlessly, Chico moves on to more comfortable ground, "Celtic don't deserve to be behind". BBC Radio Scotland's other two employees at the ground take their cue, Murdo McLeod tells the listenership, "before the goal, I saw US controlling the game". Wullie McStay chips in with, "WE were providing a high platform". It all concluded with Richard Gordon summarising the half time positions in the group, "OUR group looks like, eh sorry, of course I mean Celtic's group". There you go, in the space of a couple of minutes it was "US", "WE", and "OUR". How far do I need to travel from God's own county to receive accurate and objective broadcasting?

LEICESTER have told Rangers they will make a £7.5million January bid for Nikica Jelavic. Ibrox owner Craig Whyte rejected a £6.5m bid from the Foxes for Jelavic in August. The big spending Championship side remain interested in the Croat who has netted 11 goals this season for Ally McCoist's side. Last month's sacking of Sven-Goran Eriksson won't stop Leicester's wealthy Thai owners stepping up their chase for Jelavic as a gift for new boss Nigel Pearson. With Gers' finances remaining precarious and a potentially crippling £49m tax bill looming it's highly unlikely Gers chief Whyte could afford to snub such an improved offer for Jelavic. The 26-year-old hitman cost £4m from Rapid Vienna in 2010 and has since delivered 30 goals from 40 starts. That's despite Jelavic missing almost four months of last season through injury. Boss McCoist desperately hopes all bids for his main frontman can be rebuffed and has been in constant dialogue with Whyte over their transfer window plans. He remains worried, however, an offer will come in that can't be refused. SunSport also understands Sheffield United are still keen to lands Gers' fringe men John Fleck and Kyle Hutton on loan deals. Blades boss Danny Wilson was left gutted back in August after a move for the duo fell through, but he will try again for the youngsters. Fleck was a sub in Saturday's 0-0 draw against St Johnstone while midfielder Hutton has impressed on loan at Partick Thistle since September. Meanwhile, Gers have joined a host of Premiership clubs in tracking Dulwich Hamlet centre-half Michael Chambers, 17. The 6ft 2ins prospect is also being watched by Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3950827/This-time-Gers-cant-say-no-to-Foxes.html#ixzz1eQLgxSI3

Chettri, left, and Lalpekhlua, below. RANGERS are weighing up a shock move to sign two Indian international strikers - in the hope of opening up a new market in the subcontinent. Record Sport can reveal Jeje Lalpekhlua and Sunil Chettri are expected to arrive in Glasgow before the end of this month to begin a trial with Ally McCoist's squad. And the visit - which has been set up by director of football Gordon Smith - has been timed to allow McCoist to make a move to sign one or both when the transfer window opens in January. The potential double swoop is also being looked upon in the Ibrox boardroom as a chance to open a new revenue stream into the lucrative Asian market where both players are held in high regard. Lalpekhlua is hailed as the hottest kid in the Indian game after bursting into the international team this year at the age of 20, scoring four goals in his first three games. He plays for Pune. jeje lalpekhlua rangers Image 1 Chettri - under contract with I-League rivals Mohun Bagan AC - was regarded as the country's poster boy and has been linked with Celtic and QPR. In August 2009 his agent claimed the Parkhead club were considering an offer after sending scouts to run the rule over the striker. But later that month Chettri signed a three-year contract at Loftus Road only to have his dream move to Europe collapse after failing to secure a work permit. He then failed to make an impact in the USA after a failed stint with Kansas City Wizards in 2010. Meanwhile, anxious shareholders could be given the chance to grill new owner Craig Whyte at a much-awaited agm just six days before Christmas. Record Sport can reveal that although no date has been set officially, Monday December 19 has been pencilled in for the meeting at Glasgow's Royal Concert Hall. That would mean Whyte will have only three weeks left to make public the first set of accounts since buying Sir David Murray's majority shareholding for £1 in May. It's understood the auditing process should be signed off in the next few days. If December 19 is confirmed Whyte will then have until November 28 to send the accounts to shareholders. The meeting should provide much needed clarity on the financial health of a club that has been rocked by rumours of administration throughout Whyte's six months at the helm. Whyte insists he has become the target of a malicious whispering campaign designed to blacken his name and undermine the SPL champions. This week a longrunning £49million dispute with HMRC was reconvened in court, with a final decision expected in February or March.

RADIO pundit Stuart Cosgrove last night sparked a new BBC row with Rangers when he JOKED about the horror injury that nearly ended Ibrox legend Ian Durrant's career. Off The Ball presenter Cosgrove was discussing possible names for Aberdeen's new £40million stadium which were unacceptable. He said: "The Ian Durrant Stadium â?? something like that?" Durrant was put out of the game for nearly three years following a sickening tackle by Dons defender Neil Simpson in October 1988. A Rangers source said the comment was "crass in the extreme". The BBC has been banned from Ibrox after a programme about club owner Craig Whyte. A BBC Scotland spokesman said: "We have received complaints." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3936201/BBC-Stu-in-Durrant-joke-row.html#ixzz1dks4onu8