Search the Community

Wallace about to come under greater scrutiny re assets. Also, his man Tyrrell speaking to BBC behind McCoist's back. Today's Sun back page a deliberate attempt by sports editor Ian king - been called by Wallace - to discredit McCoist. Hardly subtle Ian. Put on twitter by someone who has been very insightful recently.

THEY were dismissed, by some at least, as troublemakers with personal grievances against Rangers. They were accused of being opportunists who were simply after a place on the Ibrox board without spending a penny of their own money. But now the grave fears they expressed about their beloved club have been shown to be far more than just scaremongering. Scott Murdoch, Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray and Alex Wilson all failed in their bids to be elected directors at the Rangers agm in December. The backing of many institutional investors and major shareholders ensured the existing incumbents were all returned by sizeable margins. Yet, the Requisitioners, as they became known, have since been vindicated in their view that all was far from well behind the scenes at the club. And their prediction that limited funds would run dry without fresh investment - which they had managed to line-up - has also been proved to be accurate. The revelations contained in the 120-day business review carried out by Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace, then, came as no surprise to the group. "I read the review on Friday and noted what Mr Wallace had to say about the previous regimes and how they conducted their business with alarm and interest," said Wilson today. "To be honest, it is what we as a Gang of Four were saying in the build-up to the agm. "We also had a degree of disbelief that the club had enough money to see it through to the end of the season. "We had no inside information. It was just a general feeling. If you looked at the existing funds and the cash burn and then tracked forward you could see it running out. "Everything that we said was going wrong was indeed going wrong. Everything that we said we felt was going to happen has transpired. It is really, really, really frustrating." A complaint has been made to Police Scotland about Wallace allegedly misleading shareholders at the agm by stating the club had enough money to see out the season. Wilson said: "Whether Mr Wallace knew or not is for the police to investigate. "He had a financial director, Brian Stockbridge, who we had no confidence in and we said he was a disgrace at the time." But the Scot, who has worked in HR for multinational companies including BT, Ford, Guinness and ICI during a successful 40-year business career, feels another matter should be scrutinised. He was taken aback by an interview that shareholder Sandy Easdale gave to BBC Scotland last Thursday - the day before the review was released to the London Stock Exchange. Easdale revealed the Rangers finances were "fragile" and then expressed the belief that the Ibrox club would be unable to survive a second administration. Wallace distanced himself from the comments made by the bus tycoon in a series of media interviews on Friday. However, Wilson agrees wholeheartedly with the Union of Fans who have publicly called for club chairman David Somers to look into the matter. He said: "I have worked on boards before. Stuff like that is price sensitive. Speaking publicly about it breaks all sorts of stock exchange rules. "Mr Easdale is not on the main board. So how did he have access to that information? "If a board member has price sensitive information and has released it to another individual it should be looked at. "The director responsible should, at the very least, be censured." Somers broke cover to issue a firm denial of the "odious and unfounded" allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" against Wallace on Monday night. But there was no mention of the remarks made by Mr Easdale who has been accused of an "utter lack of corporate governance" by the Union of Fans. Wilson said: "The chairman has been notable by his absence and by his lack of comment on some of the issues which have arisen at the club. "If serious accusations are made, as has been the case, then you would expect the chairman to step forward and make a statement saying what will be done or saying that no action is necessary and why. "Graham Wallace's rebuttal of Sandy Easdale's remarks on Friday, when he said he doesn't speak for the board, was interesting. "Was he trying to save the situation with regards to price sensitive information being used?" Wilson was also scathing of the possibility that senior executives, including the chief executive, at Rangers could receive substantial bonuses at a time when staff are being made redundant. He said: "To make a ham-fisted approach to the players last year and ask them to take a 15% pay cut without at the same time taking an identical cut was a disgrace. "Again, I don't know what the situation with bonuses at the club is, but I would hope there is no executive on that board taking away a bonus when the finances are in such a parlous state. "We (the Requisitioners) said we would serve on the board for nothing. "Our purpose was not personal gain or self-aggrandisement. We were all prepared to work together for the good of the club." Lifelong Rangers fan Wilson, who has two season tickets at Ibrox and commutes to games from London, was also unhappy about supporters being blamed for the loss of credit and debit card facilities. It has been alleged that First Data withdrew their services in January - the month before fans were first urged to pool their season ticket money in a trust fund. Wilson added: "By all accounts, withholding season ticket money was not a serious proposition when they (First Data) first asked for security back in January. "I am sure that the action being taken by the Union of Fans has hardened their resolve. "But it has a lot more to do with just fans saying they were going to withhold season ticket money. "Once again, this smacks of the board looking to blame somebody else for the club's problems." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-requisitioners-warned-cash-storm-clouds-were-gathering-161584n.24094362

If the board acquiesce to UOF demands who will then hold first charge/security on the stadium rights to our club ?

By TheLawMan on RM

DAVE KING has savaged Rangers’ 120-day review and branded it good news for CELTIC fans. The former Ibrox director dismissed chief executive Graham Wallace’s findings — claiming an office junior could have produced the same in a day.

"HMRC don't respond to speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality". How many thousands of us have received this, or a similarly worded response from HMRC ? Or for those of us who have pressed MP's for an answer the appropriately named Ministerial Correspondence Unit of HMRC ? Some of you older Bears will remember how the producers of the American TV soap Dallas, wrote off the events of a whole series by suggesting one of the characters had merely dreamt it all. That's fine - perhaps I will awaken tomorrow morning to find the Rangers Tax Case Blog never existed or "The Men Who Sold The Jersey's" BBC Scotland documentary was just a nightmare. But of course they aren't just figments of a bad dream, they are every bit as real as the leaked confidential information which gave the foregoing blog and documentary a modicum of credibility. There is no "speculation" about it, nor is it an "alleged breach of confidentiality". Those of you who have read Follow We Will, by The Rangers Standard, will be well aware of the considerable injustices foisted upon our club and will be familiar with the damaging press articles written at the time of our fall. These happened, not simply because a charlatan had managed to gain effective control of our club and run it into the ground; it was because those dispensing injustice or penning scathing articles were doing so because they had bought into the lie that Rangers had indulged in “years of cheating”. That erroneous supposition was as a consequence of not just leaks and breaches of confidentiality, but the further subsequent manipulation of that obtained information. I remain convinced to this day that the SPL vote not to re-admit Rangers into the SPL was based on a presumption of guilt over EBT’s rather than anything else. “If you wanted to know the latest news on their tax travails, rangerstaxcase was a place you went because, unlike newspapers or radio stations, rangerstaxcase was connected to the heart of the FTT and everybody knew it. It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal” (Tom English – The Scotsman 25.11.2012) I had originally written to HMRC as part of an ongoing process of elimination; expecting them to assert that they had cross referenced the documents and evidence they had seized and undoubtedly catalogued, and were satisfied that the leaked confidential information appearing in the public domain had not come from themselves. Their response, as per the opening paragraph, not only astonished me, it also suggested to me something was clearly not right. However after numerous exchanges of correspondence it became clear neither HMRC, nor government ministers at the Treasury with ministerial responsibility for HMRC, were going to deviate from the clearly well rehearsed, but nonetheless erroneous "speculation" and "alleged" generic reply. At this point it’s is perhaps worthy of a short re-cap. Confidential information regarding Rangers tax dealings was appearing almost daily on a web blog and had already been subject of a documentary produced by our national broadcaster. The revelations by both the foregoing was to earn them awards in their respective fields. Whilst all this was happening the Investigative Agency responsible for collecting and securing evidence and information in the Rangers Tax Case was referring to breaches of confidentiality using terminology such as “speculation” and “alleged” Then the unthinkable happened - the experts sitting at the First Tier Tax Tribunal disagreed with Graham "Selective Amnesia" Spiers and all the other "internet and Scottish media tax experts" in declaring Rangers not guilty. This result was to prove the catalyst for the emergence of Professor Peter Watson of legal firm Levy & McRae, who announced on 27.11.2012 that he had written to Crown Office on behalf of Sir David Murray, asking them to launch a criminal investigation into such leaks. The only problem was that we heard nothing more on this, nor in fact was it even confirmed if Crown Office had indeed launched a criminal investigation. Consequently I raised my own criminal complaint in respect of the various breaches of confidentiality, in my capacity as a shareholder of Rangers oldco. In due course I received a letter from Ruaraidh Nicolson, Assistant Chief Constable Strathclyde Police, who confirmed the matter was already subject of an ongoing Police investigation. I presume this is as a consequence of Professor Watson’s complaint although this has never been confirmed – but confirming the investigation was ongoing was my priority not who had made the complaint. At this point I decided to test the water again with HMRC. Only this time I decided to do so with some political clout. Two options were available to me, my MSP or my MP. The latter, Jim McGovern, Scottish Labour, was the only Scottish member of Parliament to sign George Galloway’s Early Day Motion 913 – accusing our club of using insolvency law to avoid paying tax – a subject he and I had a fairly acrimonious exchange of letters with regard to. I therefore opted to engage the services of my local MSP – Joe Fitzpatrick SNP. But before I managed to meet Mr Fitzpatrick an event occurred which was to prove to be a significant “game changer” If words speak to you then the ones I was reviewing on my computer monitor were positively screaming at me. People speak of that "Boom - Headshot" moment, well this was one of them. Furthermore the author, as well as the context left no doubt whatsoever as to the absolute veracity of the narration. I was reading Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith's summary of the SPL Independent Commission Enquiry:- “Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust.” For those who are unfamiliar with legal jargon the word "productions" refer to evidence. It was simple enough to understand - a considerable volume of evidence had been stolen from The Rangers Tax case and passed on to BBC Scotland, and of course perhaps others. This stolen evidence then became the research material and driving force for the documentary "The Men Who Sold The Jerseys". So why is Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s Report such a significant game changer ? Well it establishes that the material utilised in the BBC Documentary, and published on the BBC Website (and possibly utilised elsewhere) – originated from material seized by, and in the care of HMRC who, as the investigatory agency, were ultimately responsible for these “productions”, irrespective of who had custody, charge or care of these documents at the time of the theft. You will recall in my last article I highlighted how hundreds of Rangers shareholders writing to HMRC to complain about these breaches of confidentiality were subjected to a standard response of “HMRC do not comment on speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality.” Lord Nimmo Smith’s report completely destroys and usurps that HMRC generic response, and serves to confirm it was neither speculation nor alleged breaches of confidentiality. The consequence of this is that HMRC have some considerable explaining to do to the Rangers supporters who highlighted these breaches of confidentiality, as HMRC’s assertion of it being “speculation and allegation” is not consistent with the facts and circumstances alluded to by Lord Nimmo Smith. Either the security surrounding the evidence was so inept, so poor, that it was compromised on numerous occasions, or in one “grand heist” allowing the perpetrators to not only supply BBC Scotland with stolen evidence, but also other outlets such as The Rangers Tax Case Blog which, almost on a daily basis managed to produce documentation relating to Rangers tax affairs. Are we honestly to believe that HMRC were unaware that such theft (s) of evidence occurred and furthermore due to incompetent management of their evidence they were unaware that “copious material” was being removed and passed on to others ? It is worth remembering at this point that contained in HMRC’s own Charter, under the heading “What you can Expect From Us” is a commitment to “Protect your information and respect your privacy” But this theory is not without considerable problems. It would mean that HMRC totally ignored the material being published by BBC Scotland and The Rangers Tax Case Blog, ignored the concerns of the many hundreds of Rangers shareholders who wrote complaining of the breaches of confidentiality – in short that they adopted a head in the sand mentality to reports of apparent breaches of confidentiality which were being flagged up to them. Investigative Agencies seizing numerous items of documentary evidence, catalogue it for ease of reference – it would have been a simple task for HMRC to check the material appearing on the BBC Scotland and Rangers Tax Case Blog Websites by cross referencing it with their own catalogued evidence in order to establish if a problem existed. Quite simply believing this theory requires us to accept a level of negligence and incompetence by HMRC which would in my opinion, be tantamount to criminal neglect. A further possibility is equally unpalatable however – quite simply that HMRC were aware of the breaches of confidentiality and the theft of evidence, but for reasons best known to themselves, decided to deliberately mislead and misdirect the complaints from Rangers shareholders with their generic “speculation and allegation” rebuttal, perhaps in the hope that it would all blow over and in time interest would wane. During the course of this sojourn I have received confirmation that the ongoing Police enquiry into the Breaches of Confidentiality in the Rangers Tax Case is as a consequence of the complaint raised by Lord Peter Watson on behalf of Sir David Murray. It is significant that this complaint was raised after the conclusion of the first tier tax tribunal. Which begs the question why HMRC had not raised a similar complaint earlier? Is it really acceptable that in the highest profile tax case ever seen in Scotland, the Investigative Agency, HMRC, had the evidence stolen and they failed to report this theft to the Police for investigation – despite it appearing on National Media outlets as well as anonymous web blogs ? I am currently awaiting a response from HMRC to several Freedom of Information Requests served upon them via my solicitor. I am of the opinion that as well as failing to deliver upon their own charter, the subsequent response from them, if provided, will confirm they have also failed to uphold their own operational guidelines with regard to the loss of evidence in the Rangers Tax Case. Given the level of inconsistency, ambiguity and possible misleading of the public, I think it is high time that the investigators themselves were subject to investigation. Let us all push for the Government Enquiry, both our club and our support deserve.

In response to a number of threads which kinda veer into polarised positions, I'd like to set out why I think the running of our club is in the wrong hands at present. I avoid calling them 'the board' because it's hard to remember who is actually on which board at the moment, who is responsible for what and who gets to lock the safe, so to speak. That in itself is a criticism of those at the top & I haven't even started! The two people who are most often seen & heard as our main people are Sandy Easdale & Graham Wallace. To begin with Mr Easdale: he's had a struggle to be accepted, since he came with baggage. I would be the last person to insist that to be a Rangers fan or official you need to sign up to the whole manifesto of beliefs. But when it comes to blazers, I do feel that 'not having been to jail to VAT fraud' is a broadly non-controversial opening qualification. This raises the philosophical debate about whether jail is for punishment or rehabilitation: as a lapsed socialist I see it more as the first than the second, since those who are there tend to have harmed society and, bluntly, society deserves to get a kick back. Even, however, if you lean toward rehabilitation, does Mr Easdale strike you as rehabilitated? The world of West Scotland's bus garages may not sound like the sort of place to find Sonny Corleone tied to a chair, but neither is it a clear, visible symbol of someone having learnt a hard lesson and overtly trying to do better. You could liken it to a pimp who is jailed, does his time and buys a strip club; not criminal, but not much use in persuading folk you are a reformed character. All this is speculation and could - who knows? - be most unfair on Mr Easdale. Nevertheless image counts and his image, which is now tied to our club, is not a good one. Coming with such baggage, he would have had a hard fight to get some fans, maybe puritan ones, onside in any event, but he has decided that steady, unobtrusive work with tangible results is not the way to go and plumped for issuing legal threats to fans, questioning the loyalty of fans, and blaming fans for the club's problems. Whether you agree with the man that he was being impugned unfairly, threatening Rangers fans while ignoring the libelous attacks of fans' of every other team in Scotland is, bluntly, an insane policy if the aim is to promote yourself as a trustworthy figure. The lack of the ability to think a situation through and deal with it is dismaying; when the UoF or Sos were at Murray Park last week for a photo-opportunity it showed how anyone with any sense ought to have dealt with it. His remarkable access to ST sales figures and the financial status of a plc of which he is not a board member could, you might argue, point to a searingly sharp analytical business mind. Graham Wallace certainly made it clear that Mr Easdale was speaking in a personal capacity as shareholder last Thursday; I wonder if every shareholder, should they chap Mr Wallace's door, would receive such detailed information as Mr Easdale apparently gets? Mr Wallace, Mr Wallace. His deflection of Mr Easdale's blatant presence as eminence grise didn't do much for his credibility either, which was a shame because he at least of all the players who have high-kicked their way across our stage in the last two seasons seemed to come without baggage and with, it seemed, the tools to get the job done. He didn't have to lay out his credentials, they were there to see. However, trying to sell the most obvious of nutmegs over Mr Easdale's position did not leave him looking very sharp and counts against him. If it has been disappointing to see him bullshit us over Mr Easdale's interview. It has been doubly disappointing to find out, a day after the event, that far from Rangers credit facility being withdrawn due to the actions of fans or agitators, it was withdrawn because credit companies see us as a bad risk. I'd urge you to consider for a moment that credit firms - the leeches, the parasites, who cause so much suffering by lobbing bales of cash at people in no state to repay them - even these people don't want to touch us. This is not, in my book, an achievement which goes down in Mr Wallace's 'debit' account and, although it cannot be exclusively laid at his door as 'his fault', his dealing with it has been pitiful and serves only to erode both trust and credibility. His legal case seems a little vindictive; frankly there are deals and tranches of missing money more deserving of investigation. I think Mr Wallace dealt well with the media following the 139 Day Fantasy press conference last Friday, and in an ideal world he could probably do the decent job we all hoped he would. But you have to assume he sanctioned or was at least asked about hiring Paul Tyrell a day before he announced job losses; on the one hand we know we have to cut costs, on the other cutting them to pay someone to defend he and the rest of The Keystone Kops seems grotesque. You have to assume he is going to take a bonus unless more pressure is brought to bear, since he declined to answer questions on the subject and that seems grotesque; you have to assume he was aware that it was not fan issues which led to the credit situation described above but decided to blame them anyway. That's a lot of assuming, but since Mr Wallace won't answer the questions what else can I do but assume? So my view of the 'current lot' is one person with a dreadful reputation and image who constantly engages in battle with the people he then asks for money and trust from; and another person who is either massively out of his depth or finds clarity and transparence subtle concepts to be moulded as needed. Neither inspire any confidence in me, not because I desire Dave King and his millions to bail us out, nor because I have a reflex condition which means anyone in office is immediately a crook. There's no doubt we're heading for complete division as a fan base between those who back the board (beyond belief in my view but it's a free country) and those who perceive that the malaise lies at the boardroom door(s) and until they are cleaned out we're going nowhere. As a lonely handwringer these many years I am not especially freaked about splits in the support: but it's going to be sad to see nonetheless. Anyhoo, that's how things look from here.

"The Union of Fans is absolutely appalled by Graham Wallace’s business review and revelations over the weekend regarding Mr Wallace’s alleged behaviour and that of this board. Given the serious nature of the allegations, we expect David Somers, in his role as chairman, to suspend Mr Wallace until these investigations are complete. It is our firm belief that shareholders have been misled. First of all we would like to address the London Stock Exchange statement, and Mr Wallace’s subsequent comments in his press conference, which attempted to lay the blame for the withdrawal of credit and debit card facilities at the door of UoF and Dave King. We are aware that FirstData, the payment processing company, first alerted Mr Wallace to the need for security for these facilities on 23rd January of this year, a full month before Dave King and the Union of Fans spoke about the idea of a season ticket trust. FirstData clearly communicated that this was due to the shocking financial results released in December and Mr Wallace’s attempt on the 16th January, just four working days before FirstData raised the issue, to get the players to take a wage cut. FirstData did not at that time raise any issues with a possible decline in season ticket sales as being a reason for the need for security. Once again we have seen a Rangers board attempt to deflect the blame for their own incompetence onto fans who only want the best for the club. Even more seriously, this is a blatant attempt to mislead shareholders as to the underlying reasons for the club’s inability to provide these facilities. As if this was not bad enough, we now find out that Mr Wallace has been reported to police over his comments at the AGM about the club’s financial position. We have consistently stated that his AGM undertaking that the club had sufficient funds was false and nothing that has happened since has shaken us from that belief. We are not surprised that his consistent refusal to address this issue has led to angry shareholders taking this action and we hope there will be a full and thorough investigation. Mr Wallace’s ‘120 day’ review could have been written by any Rangers fan before Mr Wallace even took up his position. It is full of vague promises for the future which read like a wish list from a fans forum. Whilst much of the content in terms of football progress is certainly desirable, there is a complete lack of any detail as to how this board can achieve it. They have provided no evidence that they can raise the necessary funds to take the club forward and we have no confidence in them to do so. We note Mr Wallace’s criticism of previous boards. James Easdale sat on the previous board from July of last year. Is he now going to be removed for his part in this financial mismanagement? Sandy Easdale became a de facto member of the previous board in September last year and has clearly had unprecedented and unjustifiable access to the PLC’s financial details since. His public statements just prior to the review showed that he has access to information he should not, were share price sensitive and showed the utter lack of corporate governance being enforced by Mr Somers in his role as chairman. It is time for Mr Somers, our absent chairman, to step forward and clear up this mess. He must explain why his CEO, Mr Wallace, misled shareholders. He must suspend Mr Wallace pending the conclusion of police investigations. He must deal with the serious questions over Sandy Easdale’s role and why he is being treated like a privileged PLC board member when he is simply a minority shareholder with undue influence. He should also inform shareholders and fans whether the board as a whole was aware that the reason given to the London Stock Exchange for the need for security to obtain credit and debit card facilities was misleading. He is responsible for the total lack of corporate governance on this board and must act now or his own reputation with be irrevocably damaged. This board is a disgrace to Rangers Football Club and the current members of it are running our club into the ground whilst simultaneously making a mockery of the positions they are privileged to hold." http://www.unionoffans.org/statements/2014/4/27/uof-statement-270414

I’m going to start this blog with a warning – We must ensure, for the future of our club, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I say that because it is important we focus on the facts and not the personalities involved. There is a considerable amount of information circulating at the moment and it’s vital we scrutinise it in a totally objective manner. Not only because it is the right thing to do – but because the future of our club may depend on our ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. The Union of Fans only have themselves to blame to an extent, that their anti-board message has not been widely accepted by all. Their insistence on being so deliberately confrontational with our current board, as well as their sometimes puerile rhetoric, may go down well with those already in their camp but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with all the support. As I’ve written previously, when the man you are openly supporting suggests some are “looking for a fight” it’s surely worthy of re-assessing how you are coming across to people. It’s a real pity the debate has become so polarised. There is almost a sense that you are either pro or anti-board. I’m aware of a supporter yesterday who was threatened for refusing to chant “sack the board”. – a sad indication of the state of play. The reality of course is that for every pro or anti board supporter there are probably many more of us who are utterly confused, worried and trying to get to grips with facts amongst a deluge of propaganda. It’s important that those in our support who are against Dave King, for whatever reason, still realise they have a responsibility in holding the current board to account, and reticence of the possible alternative does not mean we ignore unacceptable standards from those currently in power. And just why should our current board be viewed with suspicion and be subject to challenge ? Well for starters we have employed a new PR Guru. Such an appointment baffled many within our support, particularly with the crying need for a chief scout. One is left to ponder what our board’s priorities are for our club. We have a non-executive director, Sandy Easdale giving interviews to the BBC where he suggests intimate knowledge of financial matters pertaining to the club. This should raise serious questions about the level of governance at boardroom level. From the CEO’s review we have learned that contracts were signed off by the previous board without any legal representation on behalf of the club. Quite simply that is nothing short of scandalous. Do the current board intend to investigate these matters and retrospectively pursue those responsible ? As many us are learning to our angst, the ability to renew season tickets by Credit or Debit Card is no longer available due to the merchant, 1st Data, requiring what is viewed as an unreasonable level of security for such a privilege. The CEO’s review states : “The Board believes that one of the major factors influencing the merchant acquirer to change its terms was the extensive negative coverage of calls in some quarters for supporters to refrain or delay purchasing season tickets. “ The Union of Fans have denied this and their denials have been supported by a National newspaper which claims it has viewed correspondence which suggests this is not the reason for the increased levels of guarantee. The ball is now in the board’s court. The integrity and veracity of both the board and the review has been challenged by a national newspaper – it is up to the board to instruct 1st Data to clarify the reasons behind the additional security requests. Quite simply if the board fail to take action over such a critical point then they have failed both themselves and the Rangers supporters who were patient enough to wait for the 120 day review. We must not let personal feelings or personal dislikes affect our ability to exercise vigilance or judgement. It’s a luxury not only we cannot afford, but more importantly, our club cannot afford.

IN THE standard media take on Rangers’ affairs, Graham Wallace is the big, bad bouncer barring entry to the club to Dave King, a man whose deep pockets would ensure everything went with a swing for those inside. Yet, Ibrox chief executive Wallace has tried to create the impression that King will be welcome to join the party. Just not take it over. “We have quantified a range [of investment, the figure being £30 million] where we think the club needs to be looking at in order to be competitive,” said Wallace, as the club published a damning 120-day business review which showed £70m had been haemorrhaged over 18 months. “Right now we don’t have the authority to issue a fresh batch of shares and say to Dave King ‘Here you are… £20m? In you come...’ “What we’ve said is we will go to the shareholders for authority in the autumn and the timing of that is important because it gives us time to demonstrate stability in how we’re running the business from an investor’s perspective. When we do that, the equity offering will be open to existing shareholders, it should probably also be open to fresh investors, including Dave King, and potentially others. There’s no one stopping Dave King or anyone else putting money into the club today other than the regulatory authority the board needs to have. “Dave has said before, there may be 15 per cent of the existing shareholders who may not want to participate further, in which case there’s a significant block of stock that would be available.” Wallace denies the current directors fear their power being diluted by King’s involvement. “When we met with him, when you look at his ambitions and his vision for what he would like the club to be, they’re not dissimilar to what we’re trying to do,” insisted the chief executive. “We want to be competitive, we want to be punching at the top of the Premiership and in order to do that we know the club needs investment.” Rangers supporters find themselves in an horribly invidious position. They are understandably contemptuous of the current board for the cash burn and calamitous contracts that Wallace excoriated in his review. However, through a gushing press for King, the only alternative being presented is a man who mismanaged his own financial affairs so profoundly he had to repay more than £40m to the South African tax authorities and lodge certain payments to 
prevent his convictions landing him in prison. “A wide cross-section of the fan base is looking for some form of guidance, some form of reassurance as to how their club has been run,” Wallace said. “I hope as they look at this review that they get a sense of where it’s been, where it is now, and more importantly where it can go. “People are worried about putting their money into the club and three months later it not to be there and they’ve lost their £400. I completely understand that, and I’ve been repeatedly asked if the club is under threat of another administration and I’ve said the same thing every time – no, it’s not. “The point about the fans is, yes, there’s a desire on behalf of a segment of the fanbase to support someone like Dave King, who’s offering up – on paper, at least – a potentially significant amount of money to invest in the club. I understand that. “We’re giving the assurance that if the fans continue to back the club in the way they have, then there is no threat to the financial stability of this business. That’s the single most important thing. If fans are really concerned about the financial health of their club, if they give us the support by behaving as they have done and renewing their [season] tickets, then we’re in a very very strong position.” That is tantamount to the emotional blackmail the supporters’ coalition the Union of Fans has railed against. Wallace might not be so tainted in the eyes of the wider support, and might have been perceived more as a figure to trust by them, were it not for the £1.5m loan at exorbitant rates the club required only months after he stated such an injection would not be needed to keep the club afloat. The chief executive now accepts his credibility was damaged. “It was an issue, yes. I responded to a question at the AGM about [whether there] ‘is sufficient cash to continue to trade in the near term’ and I said there was. That was an honest answer made on the assessment of what was available at the time. As we’ve gone through the review, there were certain assumptions made in the business plan which, when we went to push the button on them, we found they didn’t exist. So yes, we got to a position where we had to look at an alternative strategy for a very short, defined period of time. So yes, our credibility was questioned. “Subsequent to putting the deal in place there were offers of similar amounts at vastly reduced monies. I think we’re in a better place now.” A huge measure of sensible husbandry is required at Rangers, but with Wallace stating manager Ally McCoist’s playing budget for the Championship will be “comparable” to the indefensible £6m with which the club have bulldozed their way through two part-time lower divisions, questions can be asked about lessons learned. Perhaps in one sense they have been. Rangers announced in their review that they will appoint a chief football operations officer, essentially a director of football, who will “concentrate initially on developing player talent identification, scouting and recruitment capability”. In the past two years, Rangers have certainly been guilty of having a flawed recruitment strategy that has been the largest consistent drain on their revenue and resources. “In terms of building this club to be competitive back at the top level, the level of infrastructure is not there,” said Wallace. “So scouting, recruitment, talent identification, managing and driving value from sourcing players [needs to be addressed]. Bringing players in here, if they’re good enough to play for us great but if they’re not then they might do a season and move along and get some value. “We’ve no one looking at that. That’s what I see this particular role focusing on. It’s very much a support role for me, for the manager, at an overall level. The hunt for this person begins now and it’s about getting the right person, with the right skill set and the right experience. I’d hope over the course of the coming months to have someone.” Wallace maintains this new appointment did not reflect on McCoist’s job security. “I have never even had a thought about the manager’s future. We speak every day and meet two or three times a week. “He’s obviously interested in the financial budget. We’ve talked about it. He knows we’re going to make funds available for the summer. He doesn’t know the magnitude, the number. We will sit down and agree that.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-open-the-door-to-dave-king-1-3390262

Amazing day at ibrox today, signed my professional contract for rangers⚽️ hopefully the future is bright??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27165564 Graham Wallace's 120-day business review provides a snapshot of Rangers' potential future. The challenge for the chief executive and his fellow directors is guiding the club to that point. There is detail in the document , certainly, and some commitments to act in the months ahead. How supporters react will determine the extent of the difficulties that Wallace will face, though, which means that trust is as much of a critical commodity as finance. Both have been in short supply in recent months. The review is a mixture of regret and hope. The amount of money that was squandered after the launch of Rangers International Football Club on the Alternative Investment Market is startling, and blame is placed firmly on previous executives, and by extension the directors who oversaw them. That analysis is accurate, but does not also take into account the fact that the appointments of previous and current directors were all sanctioned by the same group of aligned shareholders. Rangers' power structure is ultimately gathered around those shareholders who granted their voting proxies to Sandy Easdale, himself the holder of a smaller shareholding, ahead of the annual general meeting last December. It is only change at shareholder level that will alter the power structure. Wallace arrived as an independent figure, but he is now inextricably linked with events at Ibrox. His credibility as chief executive relied, to some extent at least, on the contents of the review, but also now on his ability to deliver it, the accuracy of its contents and his judgement in recent months. Easdale has expressed concern about Rangers' finances The latter is already in question following revelations that the club were informed last January, several weeks before any talk was raised of a season ticket boycott, that accepting credit card payments would require security being granted. This was because of the accounts, and Wallace's suggestion that the playing staff might accept a pay cut, rather than any fan initiative, yet the review - which was delivered to the stock exchange - states otherwise. With season ticket renewals "slow" according to Easdale - and believed to be significantly less than they were at this stage in the process last year - it would seem that Rangers fans were waiting to be convinced by Wallace. It did not help, for instance, that he said at the AGM that there was enough cash in the bank to sustain the business until the end of the season, only for the board to then seek a £1.5m loan from Easdale and George Letham (who offered better terms than those initially offered by the single largest shareholder, Laxey Partners) in February. It was also a crass juxtaposition for Wallace, following the release of the review, to fail to deny the bonus arrangements in his contract while at the same time revealing that there would be a "small number" of redundancies amongst the non-playing staff. This also followed the appointment of Paul Tyrrell, the former director of communications at Manchester City, Liverpool and Everton, in a consultancy role in the immediate run-up to the publication of the review. Wallace has, at times, seemed unable to negotiate the political intricacies of his position. It would have exasperated him, for instance, that the day before the review launch, Easdale gave an interview in which he described the club as being in a "fragile " position and suggested that it would not survive an insolvency event. He was revealing information sensitive to the RIFC share price, but isn't a plc director, in contravention of stock market rules. Wallace insisted that administration was not discussed during the 120-day review, but the message in the review is clear that if season ticket sales fall substantially, then the business will be unable to trade. It seems inconceivable that if insolvency is a possibility then it hasn't been discussed. The same message is contained in the revelation that Rangers cannot accept credit or debit card transactions for season ticket sales because the merchant provider was seeking security, which is likely to reflect a threat of insolvency should season ticket sales fall. This is a consequence of past recklessness, since supporters have lost faith in those running the club. It will only irk them further to read assessments in the review that £2m was spent on stadium wifi, LED displays and jumbo screens which were "non-essential"; that players were signed last summer that executives should have known the club could not afford. There were promises of optimism, in assertions that Ally McCoist will be given funds to spend over future transfer windows in a "more structured and planned" signing policy and that a three-year plan has been drawn up to deliver the Scottish Premiership title. Former Rangers director Dave King Fans will also like the notion of a chief football operations officer, an academy fund and commercial developments. Wallace's position as chief executive will rest on his ability to deliver these, though, as well as persuading the fans to renew their season tickets to such an extent that there is an overall uplift in sales. So what does the future hold? In part, that is dependent on how much money is left, and whether or not immediate costs can be met in the meantime. For now, there remain a number of scenarios. Should there be a shortfall in renewals, the intention is to hold a pre-emptive share offer, of up to 43,400,000 shares, to existing stakeholders. This would likely be at a discounted market price - and the share price fell by 15% to 22p following the review - and so would only raise up to around £9.5m. There is a further intention to seek the approval of shareholders in autumn 2014 for a new rights issue, to raise equity for investment. This would, again, be a pre-emptive offer, allowing current shareholders first refusal on a pro-rata basis to protect the size of their stake, but unsold shares, commonly known as the rump, are normally then offered to non-shareholders. This is where Dave King, the former Ibrox director, could make a move. There are other options for King, and he could in theory potentially acquire the right from existing shareholders to take up their allocation from a share issue. As with the Union of Fans, King chose to keep his counsel following the publication of the review, out of respect to the family of the late Sandy Jardine, the former Rangers defender who died on Thursday. South African-based businessman King now at least has options, as he looks to implement his strategy to invest in the club. King has publicly asserted that he wants to invest up to £30m in the club, if needs be, but that would be on the basis that he also gains control of how that investment is utilised. In the end, it came down to several thousand words, some reflection back and some casting forward. The review emphasises that Rangers are in a potentially dire financial position, and signalled what attempts might be made to address this. Can Wallace deliver? Will supporters buy into it? And what will King do now? The following days will be more revealing than the review itself.

RANGERS chief executive Graham Wallace has insisted that major shareholder Sandy Easdale was not speaking for the Ibrox club when he cast serious doubt on their financial position and repeated his own assertion there is “no threat” of a second administration. Easdale, who controls more than 26 per cent of the shares in Rangers, described the club’s situation as “fragile” in a BBC Scotland interview ahead of Wallace’s publication yesterday of his business review and strategic plan for the League 1 champions. The long-awaited document painted a damning picture of Rangers’ operations since its business and assets were *purchased by Charles Green’s consortium in May 2012 following the descent into administration and liquidation under Craig Whyte’s ruinous tenure. Despite raising £70.7 million through a share issue, season ticket sales and commercial income between that date and December 2013, only £3.5m was left at the end of last year. Wallace’s review admits the club “mismanaged almost all of its cash reserves following administration” and that a “perfect opportunity to rebuild Rangers has been completely missed”. Wallace has now set out a strategy which will require capital funding of up to £30m over the next three years and which he believes can culminate in Rangers winning the Premiership title in 2017 and qualifyingfor the Champions League. The club intend to have another share issue later this year to raise cash, but their immediate financial position is dependent on the sale of season tickets against the backdrop of former director Dave King’s call for supporters to instead place their renewal money in a trust fund. But, although Wallace *admitted poor season ticket sales would have an impact on the club’s financial operations, he distanced himself from Sandy Easdale’s bleak assessment and the possibility of a second *administration at Ibrox. “Sandy Easdale’s comments were made by him in his *capacity as a shareholder,” said Wallace. “He’s not a director of the PLC board, so they were not made in a capacity in respect of the PLC company. “I’ve gone on record before to say there would be no threat of administration and my position today is exactly the same. There is no change to my view based on the club’s current position and our future projections. “Sandy Easdale wasn’t put out to comment by the club. “He made them as a shareholder. You would have to speak to him directly to ask the context in which he made those comments. “If you are asking me if ‘administration II’ is a possibility, then I’m saying categorically ‘No’. There would need to be a significant reduction in season ticket renewals to present a major problem to the club.” Wallace denied that the current level of season ticket sales was as much as 9,000 down on the same period last year. But the situation has been further complicated by the withdrawal of credit and debit card services to pay for season tickets after the company who processed them for the club *demanded security over Ibrox Stadium to protect itself against any potential liabilities. Rangers turned down that *request and supporters will now only be able to purchase season tickets by bank transfer, cash or cheque payment. “We have extended the season ticket renewal window through to 16 May and we will monitor the progress of the fans renewing over the coming weeks and assess it,” added Wallace. “There is no sense of panic – no sense of panic at all. Season ticket sales have been slow and I don’t think that’s surprising. A lot of people have been waiting to see what we were going to see coming out of the review, a sense of comfort and security that if they put their money in, the company is still going to survive, but also a sense of ambition in terms of where we want to take the club. “We’ve never said that we would look to run this club on a limited cost basis. What we did say was that we would look at every pound we were spending and ask ourselves if we were spending it in the right areas. I think we’ve been true to that. “So what we’re setting out is a summary of the position as it was, an assessment of where we are today but, more importantly, a vision of where we want to take the club over the next three to five years. We’ve spent a *decent amount of time on a proper robust business plan. “I said at the time of the AGM that there was no point in going out and looking to raise funds if you haven’t got a robust plan that sits behind that. “So that’s what we’ve done and I very much hope that the Rangers fans will look at what we’ve said and support us with a sense of comfort that we’re running the club in the right way, that we have a sense of ambition and that their aspirations for a successful team on the field is equally matched by those of us in the boardroom who are *trying to grow and develop the club.” What Wallace described as a “small number” of staff will be made redundant as a result of the review findings. He also outlined plans for two new major roles at the club – a chief football operations officer, responsible for player talent identification, scouting and recruitment, and a chief commercial officer tasked with maximizing club revenues. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/wallace-at-odds-with-easdale-over-rangers-finance-1-3389705

According to STV the review will be published to LSE today as planned. Please ensure all discussion takes place in this thread where appropriate. Full review for download here: http://t.co/HNRfyvKDAe

Rangers manager Ally McCoist has admitted major shareholder Sandy Easdale’s description of the Ibrox club’s finances as “fragile” is a significant concern ahead of today’s publication of a 120-day business review. Rangers manager Ally McCoist has admitted major shareholder Sandy Easdale’s description of the Ibrox club’s finances as “fragile” is a significant concern ahead of today’s publication of a 120-day business review. McCoist was visibly taken aback when he heard Easdale had already given an interview to BBC Scotland yesterday, ahead of the manager’s own press 
commitments before tomorrow’s final home league of the season against Stranraer. Although Rangers will be presented with the League 1 championship trophy after the game, it is today’s long-awaited business review, prepared by chief executive Graham Wallace, that dominates the agenda at Ibrox. Staff at the club are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the review and whether it will impact on their jobs amid fears of further cost-cutting. McCoist said that the welfare of employees was of paramount concern. “Nothing’s changed in my opinion with regards the livelihoods of the staff,” he said. “That’s arguably the most important thing. Obviously the future and health of the club is of vital importance, but without doubt the people within the football club and their livelihoods are extremely important.” Easdale, who is also chairman of the club’s football board, yesterday admitted Rangers were “at a crossroads”. The businessman urged supporters to keep buying season tickets. The most recent set of interim accounts published by the Ibrox club saw accountants Deloitte note that “the company has made key assumptions in relation to the timing of season ticket monies”, adding that uncertainty over the receipt of season ticket income indicated “the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”. Compromising the club’s plans is a strategy of some fans, backed by former Ibrox director and potential investor Dave King, to withhold season ticket money in a fund. The sum will only be released when certain conditions are met by the board. Season-ticket sales to date were described as “slow” by Easdale. Also concerning for McCoist was the major shareholder’s sopinion Rangers could not survive another administration. “In 140 years, the club’s gone into administration once,” said Easdale. “I don’t think it would survive a second one. So I would ask every loyal Rangers fan – and I pick my words correctly in saying ‘loyal Rangers fan’ – supports the club at this time and gives it a chance.” It was this kind of rhetoric McCoist admitted was troubling, although he had not yet been fully briefed on Easdale’s comments. “He told the BBC that?” asked McCoist. “That’s news to me. I wouldn’t react to it until I had time to digest it to be honest. But if that’s what he’s said then that would be a little bit concerning.” The manager, who had a series of meetings yesterday with club hierarchy, was cautious when asked to comment on what he expected would be the contents of the review. “I would be hopeful of non-negative news,” he said. “We will react accordingly to the news we get. I don’t want to pre-empt this. There is no point in guessing what might or might not happen.” Earlier in the day Easdale had admitted he was uncertain what the future held for Rangers. “At the end of the day, the club is at a crossroads at the moment and a fragile position,” he said. “It can either go forward with a strategic view, with a long-term view, steady as she goes, or be pulled apart in other directions.” The bus tycoon also outlined his concern over season ticket renewals. He said: “I don’t actually know the figures but I think there are a couple of situations there; we’re a couple of weeks early. People are waiting for a report. At this moment in time, ticket sales are slow.” McCoist, meanwhile, is braced for being told there are limited funds with which to strengthen his current squad, who have gone through the current league season unbeaten. He said that being challenged to win the Championship title next season with an equal or even lesser budget would “go with the territory” of being Rangers manager in the current times. “It’s not a concern because I accept it,” he shrugged. “Whether I like it or think it’s right or wrong is immaterial – I accept it. It goes with the territory and I’ll have to handle that. “The budget has dropped in the region of 70 per cent of two or three years ago and it’s dropped again this year from last year. But what everyone needs to realise is that I don’t set the budget. I didn’t give the new players their wages, I had nothing to do with that, that was the previous regime, so you’d have to ask any questions relating to that to them. I was only working within the parameters that were given to me. I wasn’t the one who offered them x amount of thousand pounds a week. That wasn’t my gig. I just wanted to play them and thankfully I got the players.” McCoist is relieved that at least his options, if he has any, will become clearer by the end of today when it comes to the matter of signing players. The club have been linked with moves for Motherwell defender Shaun Hutchinson and St Mirren midfielder Kenny McLean, as well as Gavin Gunning and Kris Boyd, of Dundee United and Kilmarnock respectively. More crucial, McCoist pointed out, is the need to sort out the futures of players nearing the end of their contracts. “I’ve still only spoken to two players but in the crazy situation we are in, I haven’t been able to offer them anything,” he revealed. “If I get the go-ahead we would be interested in talking to them. “That’s all I can say to them,” he added. “It’s anything but ideal. My priority is to speak to the guys here at the club first. That’s the very least they deserve.” The Union of Fans, a coalition of Rangers supporters, issued a statement last night hitting back at Easdale’s comments. It said: “The financial position of the club is not down to lack of support or loyalty from any of our fans, it is down to two years of mismanagement and the squandering of huge sums of money. “We would like to know why Mr Easdale is being pushed out to speak on behalf of a PLC board he is not part of. Mr *Easdale’s comments about the financial position of the club are share-price sensitive, as are his comments about possible *administration. “These comments directly contradict those of the CEO, Graham Wallace, who is on record as saying that a second administration is not a possibility. “Once again huge question marks are raised over corporate governance at Rangers by Mr Easdale’s role at the club, which has never been clarified.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/mccoist-frets-over-fragile-rangers-1-3388199

Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace is expected to reveal some of the contents of his 120-day business review on Friday. Having announced that he was embarking on the process at the annual meeting of shareholders in December, it has become the focus of attention, a symbol of the intentions of the current board but also of Wallace's ability or willingness to win over the Rangers support by being open and transparent. So what are the main issues and why is the completion of the review considered so significant? Here are the main questions ahead of its publication. Is it not just normal practice for a new chief executive to examine the business? Yes, but having made the pledge at the AGM - which had been built up into a momentous occasion by the attempts of four nominees, Paul Murray, Alex Wilson, Scott Murdoch and Malcolm Murray, to be appointed to the board - Wallace tied himself into his outcome. Even the timescale was scrutinised, since football clubs are essentially simple businesses to understand, with fixed costs and cash flows. It could have conceivably been completed in a quarter of the time, yet the 120-day deadline passed on Thursday 17 April with only notification from the club that an update would be published eight days later. Wallace has acknowledged that cuts are required, since costs are higher than revenues, so the review is expected to reveal how he intends to rebalance the business but also how fresh investment will be sought. It has attracted such attention, much to Wallace's exasperation, that it has become the defining moment of his regime so far. How specific will the update be? That is the key point. Having asked for 120 days and then taken longer to produce it, the expectation is that the review will provide significant detail and clarity about the way the board intends to rebuild Rangers. Wallace was only appointed late last year so cannot be held accountable for the spending of money raised when Rangers International Football Club was launched on the alternative investment market and the two tranches of season-ticket income. That is in the past and supporters and investors also want to know how future funding requirements will be met. Rebalancing the business by cutting costs will buy time but will not address the need for new investment. The playing squad needs refreshed - with departures as much as arrivals - the football infrastructure needs modernised and improved, and there are maintenance requirements at Ibrox and Murray Park, all of which needs to be paid for. What options does Wallace have? He is a chief executive restricted by circumstance. To meet costs, Rangers needed to seek a £1.5m loan in February from shareholders - Sandy Easdale and George Letham, although the latter's loan was the replacement for one provided by the majority shareholders, Laxey Partners, who were being paid a higher fee. Rangers have no financial slack, with cash reserves having run out and no access to credit. Season-ticket sales are crucial, since the interim results released in March revealed that going concern status was only granted on the basis that there would be a rise in uptake and an increase in prices. How much money comes in from renewals will determine how long Rangers can operate without seeking external funding. If the renewals fall, and there is material doubt about the business's ability to trade for the next 12 months, any season-ticket income ought to be ring-fenced to protect it. Is a fresh share issue likely, then? Wallace has said in the past that the business will need to return to the market to raise finance. His intention has been to complete the review, identify the funding requirements and then take a business plan to shareholders and potential investors. Dave King, the former Rangers director, has spoken of his intention to invest again, despite losing £20m that he put into the club under Sir David Murray's ownership. King has been critical of the board and has supported the Union of Fans' plans for a season-ticket trust fund, which would pool supporters' renewal money but only give it to the club in return for security over Ibrox and Murray Park, although the current directors are on record as saying they have no intention of seeking borrowing against the two main property assets. If King was to underwrite a new share issue, though, current shareholders would need to reinvest to maintain the size of their stakes and King could end up fundamentally changing the shareholder dynamic and effectively taking control of the business. If season-ticket sales do fall, is there a threat of administration? Without enough season-ticket revenue, Rangers will be unable to trade for the next 12 months without drastic cost cutting. A second administration can be avoided if the board seek external funding, with the only likely source being a rights issue. This requires shareholder approval, although it is questionable if it would raise enough funds with the share price currently being so low. This is where King wants to enter the fray, but those currently in control of the club would likely lose their grip on power. It is this impasse that Wallace needs to find a way round. His own credibility is on the line, as well as his professional judgement. Can Wallace win the fans over? Anybody taking the role of chief executive after Charles Green and Craig Mather would have faced an onerous task; supporters were weary and cynical. Wallace has made significant decisions - such as removing the finance director, Brian Stockbridge, and the PR consultant, Jack Irvine - but the Union of Fans has asked if he has removed the bonus culture at Ibrox and sought clarity on his own remuneration package. King also posed pointed questions about whether or not the board were seeking finance in December, at a time when Wallace was insisting that there was enough cash in the bank to see them through to the end of the season. He has been a chief executive under scrutiny and that will become more focused when some of the contents of the review are released. It has a lot of expectation to meet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27134373

#Rangers Union of Fans statement in response to comments made by Sandy Easdale today: “We note Sandy Easdale’s comments to the BBC today and would like to clarify some matters for him. Firstly, his attempt to blackmail the supporters is both transparent and expected. The financial position of the club is not down to lack of support or loyalty from any of our fans, it is down to two years of mismanagement and the squandering of huge sums of money, which Mr Easdale has been a part of for the past 7 months. Mr Easdale, despite his apparently intimate knowledge of the PLC’s financial position, was unwilling to provide the club with a loan without taking security on it. He now urges fans, who are completely in the dark regarding this board’s ability to take the club forward, to put their money in to sustain the current regime, fronted by him, on behalf of nameless, faceless shareholders of BPH and Margarita. We would like to know why Mr Easdale is being pushed out to speak on behalf of a PLC board he is not part of. Mr Easdale’s comments about the financial position of the club are share price sensitive, as are his comments about possible administration. These comments directly contradict those of the CEO, Graham Wallace, who is on record as saying that a second administration is not a possibility. Why is the PLC board allowing Mr Easdale to make these comments on their behalf and why does he have access to such information in any case when he is not a director of the PLC? Once again huge question marks are raised over corporate governance at Rangers by Mr Easdale’s role at the club, which has never been clarified. We would also like to state that we will not be lectured by a Greenock Morton fan on loyalty to Rangers. We have fans in our ranks who have had season tickets for over 20 years and have contributed more to Rangers over the years than Mr Easdale ever will. It is a measure of the distrust and complete disillusionment with this board that people who have devoted most of their lives to following Rangers have already cancelled their season tickets. Perhaps, rather than meaningless sound bites, veiled digs at those opposing Mr Easdale’s regime and unfulfilled promises about investment, Mr Easdale would be better clarifying what his position at the club actually entails and why he has access to sensitive PLC information when he has been unable, despite trying, to get himself onto that board. Perhaps he could also tell us what has happened to the investment he said was lined up for the club prior to the AGM in December? Did it ever actually exist? Maybe he could also clarify why Jack Irvine is still attempting to brief journalists on Rangers’ stories? Is it on Mr Easdale’s behalf? The board have stated that he has been removed and we are not aware of any previous philanthropic work carried out by Mr Irvine on behalf of Rangers. Finally we would question why Graham Wallace has just recruited another highly paid, PR spin doctor, Paul Tyrell, to replace Jack Irvine when the club does not even have a Chief Scout. We have moved from a PR man who disgracefully denigrated club legend, John Greig, to one who likened his own fans to the Khmer Rouge when at Liverpool. It is interesting that this new spin doctor arrives a week after Mr Wallace refused to clarify the position with his 100% bonus, and the suspicion is that this is another appointment to help the board rather than the club itself.”

Full interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27142340

Rangers are also understood to be on the verge of appointing Paul Tyrrell, the former director of communications at Manchester City, Liverpool and Everton, in a consultancy role. This from Richard Wilson BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27134948 During his time at Anfield, Tyrrell was alleged to have written a report comparing some Liverpool supporter groups to Cambodia's Khmer Rouge.

We've waxed lyrical about the board, team, manager, youth set up, supporters groups, membership scheme, infrastructure, share issue and anything else that we might find relevant. So, if you were Wallace, what areas would you prioritise that would shape your strategy? Wee bit of fun but after all the debating it'd be nice to see where we stand and how close our concerns are to the board's intentions.

You would need to have been living on the moon for the past few weeks to have escaped the media frenzy surrounding David Moyes and his ill-fated tenure as the boss of Manchester United and the repeated references to Manchester United’s “Class of ‘02” who are, one by one, starting to appear back at Old Trafford like the prodigal sons of an empire gearing up to face an impending crisis. Ryan Giggs has already been installed as Interim Player Manager and one of his first actions has been to bring in Paul Scholes and Nicky Butt to assist him in addition to Phil Neville who has kept his job on the coaching staff following the departures of Steve Round and Jimmy Lumsden. Phil’s brother, Gary is the next frame to make an emotional return to Old Trafford in some capacity and that leaves only David Beckham to be approached (if he hasn’t already) to take up a role. All this activity got me thinking about our very own “Class of ‘92” and how they might fit in to the relative roles at our club, both on and off the field and what each of them would bring, should the opportunity present itself for them to return. We already have two prominent members of the Rangers Class of ’92 at Ibrox of course, in the shape of Ally McCoist and Ian Durrant and so I’ve picked four other members of that famous team who were within one game of the inaugural Champions League Final and who swept aside a strong Celtic and Aberdeen to claim a fifth domestic treble in the same season. I’ll leave it up to you nice folks to debate whether my choices are appropriate and whether the addition of these men would rescue McCoist and Durrant from a potentially similar fate to that of Moyes after being recommended for the job by their predecessors. First on the list is Stuart McCall. Making 54 appearances in the ‘92/93 season and chipping in with six goals Stuart was a stalwart in the team and I would compare his role in the team to that of Nicky Butt at United. Voted into the Hall Of Fame in 2008 (presented with his award by one Alistair McCoist) he is held in high esteem by Rangers fans and given the magnitude of his contribution to the season in question and throughout the proceeding glory years of Nine In A Row I doubt that there are many out there who would disagree with his inclusion here. The big question about him for me would be, in which capacity? He has been a relative success at Motherwell as head coach and can be rightly proud of his achievements there, operating with a limited budget and a much lower wage bill than his compatriot McCoist has at his disposal. For me, and given that this is (at the moment at least) a fantastical concept I’d put him straight into the role currently held by his friend McCoist, moving Durrant into the position currently held by Kenny MacDowall and making McCoist the assistant manager. Next up is Richard Gough. Eagle eyed readers will have noticed that I reserved the right to include off field positions for my Class Of ’92 and of the potential members of that team, I cannot see any better suited to boardroom leadership than Gough. He is of course currently Dave King’s spirit guide and is likely to play a big part in any future boardroom machinations, should King triumph in any meaningful way. He was a leader on the pitch and his role in ’92 cannot be underestimated. As the teams lined up in the tunnel before the Leeds United game at Ibrox it is said that he put the fear of God into the likes of Cantona and Strachan with his roaring, booming encouragement of his colleagues and that he took great pleasure in embracing Gary McCallister and making it clear that he expected his countryman to “do his duty as a Scotsman” much to McCallister’s and his team mates bemusement. To continue with the theme of comparing our heroes with their United equivalents, I’d put Gough in as our Gary Neville. The Light Blue equivalent of Gary’s brother Phil would be my third (and possibly most controversial?) choice David Robertson. A classy and attack minded full back, Robertson would bring some much needed tutelage to the likes of Smith, Peralta and Foster and would undoubtedly jump at the chance to return to the club he enjoyed so much success with. He was an ever present in the team who swept all asunder on the way to a treble and was for me, the most under rated player of that era. I have absolutely no idea what he’s doing now and if he has any qualities that would put him in the frame for anything more than just a defensive coach but given our current inadequacies I’d welcome him in our little thought experiment. Choosing the last of the quartet was a difficult task and I’ve put myself through much inner turmoil by passing over the likes of Mark Hately, Andy Goram, Ian Ferguson and John Brown. My rationale is as follows: If McCall is our Nicky Butt, Gough is our Gary Neville, Robertson is the other Neville and McCoist and Durrant are Beckham and Giggs then this only leaves Paul Scholes without a Rangers equivalent. Trevor Steven is as close as we ever had (in the same era)to the media shy midfield maestro and he is the final member of my own personal Class Of ’92. Signed from Everton to the amazement of his England peers, Steven chose to renew his partnership with Gary Stevens and buy into the European dream sold to him by Graeme Souness. His signing was over shadowed by the arrival of a certain Maurice Johnston and I think had he been signed at any other time, a much bigger deal would have been made of his acquisition. Steven was a cultured, right sided midfielder and was capable of unpicking even the best of defences with pin point passing and crosses which put many of McCoist and Hately’s goals on a plate. His form at Rangers earned him a place in England’s World Cup squad in 1990 ahead of the likes of David Rocastle and along-side John Barnes, Glen Hoddle and Chris Waddle. Added to that, he left to ply his trade in Europe for Marseille and returned for a second term arguably a better player just in time to guide us to that fateful tie with Bernard Tapie’s corruption tainted side. I realise that I have left out some fantastic footballers and indeed virtuous men here but I’ve chosen players based mostly on their abilities as footballers, abilities that made them a pleasure to watch something that cannot be said about the current Rangers side and I feel that each of these would be fitting appointments to take us forward onto the Championship and the inevitable meetings with our oldest of foes. Will it happen? Of course not, not in such a wholesale manner but we already have two of the six and who knows, maybe Gough and McCall would be realistic targets for a revitalised and bullish Rangers post ****? We can as always but dream.

Anyone hear anything before Friday? A rumour on twitter that former Liverpool and Everton Media Chief Paul Tyrrell will be on board before Friday.

Help required tonight. Meet at Ibrox underground at 6.45pm.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/239-renewals-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place The last few years have been hugely difficult for Rangers fans. Administration, dysfunctional directors and confused coups from ‘Rangers men’ who believe they would be better placed to run the club; all this contributes to an ongoing period of uncertainty and frustration for many bears. Time is a great healer they say but, in actual fact, we appear no closer to finding genuine stability for Rangers football club in the short term – indeed the decision-making for the average fan is now even more of a challenge than before. Why? Well, the deadline for renewing season tickets is fast approaching. While some fans still have around two weeks to make up their mind, those who pay in instalments only have until next Monday to confirm their payment plan. Thus, with the club waiting until this Friday to finally publish their 120-day Review (no-one knows if this will be an update or a detailed report), fans have next to no time to decide whether or not the current board can be entrusted with millions more season ticket cash for 2014/15. Meanwhile, at the time of writing, Dave King and the Union of Fans have similarly failed to outline why their Trust fund is a better option or, indeed, how this would even work. To say fans are stuck between a rock and a hard place is an understatement. In an ideal world we’d all renew regardless. Despite the under-performance and inconsistency of the team on the park, next season is sure to be an exciting one and it’s safe to say will present much more of a challenge than the first two stages of the ‘journey’ back to the SPFL Premiership. Not only will Hearts be as eager as us to return to the top league at the first time of asking, there’s a good chance another Premiership team could be joining us both. In addition, as the existing Championship table shows, there will be at least two more teams more than capable of forming a title/promotion challenge for next season. Add in the recent defeats we’ve suffered from teams like Raith Rovers and Queen of the South, it’s safe to say next year will be far from a walkover for Rangers. The fact is for 2014/15 the SPFL Championship will be the most exciting competition in Scotland so I can’t be the only bear looking forward to the challenge. Renewal of our season ticket should be automatic. Yet it isn’t. Not only are thousands of fans unable to trust the board of directors with their money, for those uninterested in the often tedious boardroom politics the match-day experience is also average at best. Sure, it may appear somewhat bizarre to complain about a team (and manager) who look likely to deliver an unbeaten league campaign while scoring over 100 goals but aside from a few sporadic early season performances we’ve really struggled to achieve genuine quality home or away on a consistent basis. This is perhaps summed up by the difficulty in picking a Player of the Year for 2013/14. Yes, a few lads have done well in patches but I don’t think any player (and I include Lee Wallace in that) can really say they’ve been a stand-out all season. I don’t want to be hyper-critical but there really isn’t a lot to be positive about ahead of a new campaign. In that sense, I’m eager to hear from the manager in how he intends to address this ahead of renewals. So far, like many others who form part of the Rangers saga, he hasn’t. Of course, that’s possibly an unfair expectation when McCoist, like the rest of us, is supposedly unaware of his budget for next season. For example, we’re told Graham Wallace wanted squad wage cuts (to the manager’s credit, he seems to be the only one who has accepted a decrease) while recent loans show the club apparently doesn’t have the finance to complete a season of football – this only one year after raising £22million via an initial share offer, not to mention two tranches of match-day ticket income (in itself around the same figure) since 2012. Clearly, season ticket money (possibly around £12million for the coming year) defines the club’s operations going forward. Yet, many fans are being asked to renew without knowing exactly how competitive the club is going to be. With that in mind the content of the 120-day Review is now overdue and vital to the future of the club. I won’t bore the reader of this article with the plethora of questions about the review but the detail simply has to reveal the club’s direction for next season and beyond. While every single Rangers fan wants our club to be of a right-size for future demands, it’s also clear it needs to be re-capitalised for the challenges ahead. However I’d also suggest no fan wants money to be wasted on short-term player signings but instead (as what should have happened in 2012) the club stream-lined and positioned to be self-sustainable for the long term. This means investment in youth, scouting and the stadium to bring success for many more years to come. Yes, this isn’t easy to achieve (ask Sir David Murray) but we’re told Graham Wallace is of the highest calibre (and he’s apparently very well paid) to clearly explain how this is possible in his review. I’d certainly say four months is ample time to provide a report which offers the kind of detail and evidence based submissions to excite every Rangers fan about our future. In short, Wallace must make his plan one we can all buy into one way or the other for many years ahead. No bland generalisations, no business-speak and, well, no excuses. In saying that, what is the alternative for Rangers fans? Well, Dave King and the Union of Fans appear equally less than convincing so far. Statement after statement from King implores us not to renew our season tickets while the Union of Fans promise us some sort of Trust fund to release our money on a match-per-match basis to the club. Yet, a few months down the line, they’re also no closer to revealing their plans in that regard. Can fans retain their preferred seat? Who or what is entrusted with the property securities they’ve requested? What happens if the club enters further financial difficulty in the interim? So far, we’ve seen no answer to any of these questions. Similarly, Dave King’s actions have been less than consistent as well. Just how keen is he to invest in the club and what affect will his own past business dealings have on his and Rangers’ reputation? No-one can deny King’s previous impressive financial commitment but that cannot make him immune from the same questions we have of the incumbents. The lack of clarity in that regard remains a huge disappointment. To conclude then, despite months of uncertainty and superficial debate, Rangers fans remain no closer to a solution for their renewal conundrum. I don’t doubt the vast majority of last season’s 36,000 season ticket holders want to sign up for what will be a more exciting challenge next term but I also believe our incredible passion has been taken advantage of all too often in recent years for fans to hand over their hard-earned no questions asked. There’s absolutely no shame or disloyalty in wanting more for our money. Taking that into account, I’m disappointed in the club’s disregard for open fan consultation vis-à-vis the review. However, I feel equally let down by Dave King in his inability to turn words into demonstrable action by means of a viable alternative to the status quo. In light of all the above, I can’t be the only fan who feels they’re in an impossible position ahead of the forthcoming deadlines. This may well change today, tomorrow, or later in the week but it seems our annual investment will continue to be the pawn of others for the foreseeable future. Rather than stand by and let ourselves be used in such a manner, I’d hope fans would now begin to realise our power when it comes to Rangers and actually become a player ourselves instead of being played. Only then can we really have a proper say in the future. Anything else will just see that rock become a harder and harder place….