Jump to content



Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'incompetent'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start






Favourite Rangers Player




  1. Posted by Roy Greenslade It will be interesting to see if any newspaper covers the fact that members of Britain's armed forces appeared to join in with Scottish football fans as they sang sectarian songs at a match yesterday. Initial reports suggest not. Some 400 uniformed soldiers, seamen and air force personnel attended an armed forces day at Ibrox, the Rangers ground. After a formal march and band music, a group of soldiers (they were in khaki) were filmed dancing, clapping and singing along with the crowd. Although it is difficult to make out the exact words on the video posted on YouTube, people have identified sectarian songs and chants celebrating the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. Rival Celtic fans were quick to point to songs that are supposed to be banned from all Scottish football grounds under a new law passed by the Scottish parliament. One commenter to the YouTube site wrote of it being a "disgusting vile and tawdry spectacle". Another wrote: "Shocking stuff. I hope this vid is forwarded to the footballing and army authorities." Two media reports about the events that have been published - one here on the STV site and another here on the Daily Record site - make no reference to the soldiers' antics. The STV report mentioned that an army band "entertained fans" and quoted Major General Nick Eeles, general officer commanding Scotland, as saying it was hoped to make it into an annual event. The Record did write that "the match-day experience began in dramatic circumstances" but only because two marines "abseiled down the Govan stand ahead of kick-off, before delivering the match ball to the referee." How odd that both outlets missed the story? Or do their reporters think soldiers chanting jingoistic sectarian songs in unison with football fans is unworthy of comment? Incidentally, Saturday was not the official armed forces celebration day in Britain (that falls in the close season). The club, with the full approval of the military, decided to stage its own separate event. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade
  2. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5195-rangers-announce-annual-results
  3. LET me start with a confession: I like Monster Munch. In fact, I’m particularly fond of pickled onion. There you go, I just wanted to get that out in the open because something happened at Forfar at the weekend that made my mind drift back to one of the most controversial periods of my career. And, yes, I realise there were a few. But there was nothing quite like the time when Paul Le Guen told me I was finished at Rangers and people tried to make it out it was over a bag of crisps. For those who don’t remember, sit back and let me explain. We’ll start last Sunday at Station Park where Rangers struggled to a 1-0 win and got slaughtered for their display. I didn’t see it but by all accounts it was dire and a throwback to last season when Ally McCoist had a hard time of things in the Third Division. But there was one big difference between Sunday and the worst days of the previous campaign when so many points were dropped at places such as Peterhead, Stirling and Berwick. The difference was Rangers won. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying for a second there’s any excuse for a team like Rangers to be struggling to win at Forfar. There isn’t. What I am saying, however, is that even though they had a bad day at least they left the place with three points. That wasn’t always the case last season and, to me, it’s a sign some of the club’s old standards are on the way back. Standards that I was raised on. Standards that Rangers were built on. Standards that I thought might disappear for good during Le Guen’s time in charge seven years ago. A lot has been made about my relationship with the Frenchman. I know there are Rangers fans out there who still think I undermined him or stabbed him in the back. So I’d like to use this column to set a few things straight. First, you have to understand the way I was brought up as a kid working under John Brown and John McGregor. They kept things simple: At Rangers nothing less than three points is ever acceptable. Yes, they wanted us to play well and encouraged us to express ourselves but the most important lesson they taught us was that you’ll never cut it as a Rangers player if you pull that shirt on and think it’s OK to lose. That was driven into my head every day of my young life until it became a state of mind and a way of life. So yes, I’ll hold my hands up right now. To this day I am guilty of wanting to win every game I play. I know I run around with my wee face all screwed up, moaning at everyone and everything but it’s only because I care so much about winning. To me, that’s just the Rangers way – if you don’t care if you lose or draw then you’ve no business being there. And that’s was the root of my problem under Le Guen. The truth is, the longer it went on the more I was struggling to recognise the Rangers I had grown up with. Under Le Guen, it was becoming acceptable to drop points on a Saturday. In fact, it was becoming the norm. And I admit I just couldn’t get my head around it. Now, people have their own opinions about what went on between us. But I was there, I know what went on inside that dressing room and I’d challenge him to deny or contradict anything I’m about to tell you. Week after week I walked off the pitch to be told: “It’s OK, let’s stick together and just move on to the next game.” That’s alright after one bad game. Or maybe if a team is going through a wee sticky patch. But not EVERY week. After EVERY embarrassing result. It was a gradual build-up, over weeks and months. His shrug-of -the-shoulders attitude was eating away at me inside because this was the club I loved. I was the Rangers captain and these results were killing me. It was humiliating. And the worst bit of it was, I could see it rubbing off on others until there were players sitting in that dressing room who didn’t seem to care if we won, lost or drew. The standards I had grown up with were disappearing. I held my tongue as best I could but it was only a matter of time until I eventually snapped. That day came on December 27, 2006, at Inverness. We had been winning 1-0 but ended up losing 2-1. I think we slipped to fourth or fifth in the table. I mean, it was getting ridiculous. And what did I hear when I walked into that dressing room? “It’s OK. We must stick together.” That was it, I just couldn’t listen to it any more. So I said: “Aye, we must stick together. But it’s not f****** OK that we’ve lost another three points. What part of that don’t you get? This is Glasgow Rangers you are working for.” I admit I lost the head. I was just so angered by the lack of passion. I couldn’t look round any more at people who didn’t care if Rangers won or lost. Yes, maybe I was guilty of letting my emotions boil over. Maybe I lost my cool in that dressing room on that day. But I just couldn’t take any more of it. But that was it. It wasn’t as if I asked the guy outside for a square-go. I put my hand on my heart and say, I never caused that man one problem. I never once knocked down his door. Yes, OK I might have eaten the occasional packet of Monster Munch which might have been against his nutritional rules but come on? Listen, I’m all for players looking after themselves and eating well. But no one is going to tell me a packet of pickled onion now and again is going to take years off your career. It’s nonsense. Is that what people mean when they say I undermined him? Honestly, I don’t know where all that comes from and it makes me angry just thinking about it. It was all I read in the papers or heard on the phone-ins. I swear none of it was true. I was guilty of one thing – being passionate about my club and going a bit daft at Inverness. But I had no idea the price he wanted me to pay for it until I walked into Murray Park a few days later to prepare for an away game at Motherwell. His assistant, Yves Colleu, shouted for me and I went into the manager’s office and Le Guen began to speak to me like I was some sort of alien. I wasn’t even allowed to sit down. He just told me I’d never play for the club again and to leave the building. I was in a daze. I got my bag and walked to my car without saying anything to the other lads. I got a few hundred yards down the road before I pulled in and realised what had just happened. I was shattered. As things turned out, it was Le Guen’s Rangers career that was over. Very soon after that, Walter Smith was back in charge. And overnight Rangers got their standards back. That’s why the result at Forfar pleased me the other day. And put me right in the mood for a packet of my favourite crisps.
  4. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5150-club-statement
  5. Lifted from FF: I have been hearing from various sources that we as a group are being met with mixed reviews from forums etc so decided to come on and let everyone know a bit about us and our aims to allow each to make their own mind up We have been accused of being many people from tims to M Dingwall to D Leggat and even malcolm murray. We are none of these we are only normal concerned fans and if you read attachment below it will give you a better idea of who we are and how we came about. We only have 3 aims and I would question any fan who didnt want these things from their club regardless of who they are and which team they follow 1) Keep the stadium in clubs name to avoid Coventry situation 2) clear accounts which prove proper running of the club 3) a board that keep the club off the front pages and are above reproach We do not have any aims that can divide a support and only actually which to unite fans from all groups against a clear and present danger The following is a post from our facebook page that was first posted 2 weeks ago when we first started. Please take the few minutes to read and DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE surrounding The Sons of Struth https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth Here we go I will try and explain in as short a post a possible who is involved to date with the Sons of Struth and how this page came about. One of our main points of agenda and a main Struthism is openness. Some of you may be aware of the Rangers Rumours website and a regular poster named George or George protester number 1. I picked up on his postings only 1 week ago and was intrigued to know what his feelings and understanding of our clubs current plight was. George arranged to travel from London on Friday and meet anyone interested in what he had to say at Ibrox. Due to my own worries about our club I felt I had nothing to lose other than 10 minutes of my time and a whole lot to gain if he had any information that could fill my appetite to fully understand the situation at our club. The fact that only 10 people turned up confirmed my general feeling that our fans are very apathetic towards the current situation and George was very disappointed also. He did, as many have since held against him, arrive minus the promised leaflets and did introduce himself as a representative of George. Both these points seem to have angered some but I understand why he done both when as he could have possibly been faced with a far greater number of fans who he didn’t know who they where and he was let down by a local printer which was a point later proven to me. To the 10 who were at the first meeting and others who visit the Rangers Rumours site, I was the guy with the red jacket who some believed was Georges minder and I post on the site as Craig protester number 2 BFH. To set the record straight I had never met George before Friday and purely turned up as a disgruntled fan searching for some knowledge. I appeared to pick up on what George was saying very quickly but so did others around me, however George seemed to like the questions I asked him and what I had to say so he asked me after the meeting if I would like to talk further on a one to one basis. This “private” meeting consisted more of us talking like true fans and swapping stories of our favourite experiences following our club than it did about revelations which weren’t disclosed at the full meeting. We did prove our love for our club and our concerns for the future just as many discussions would go between Rangers fans all over the world when two strangers meet and they find they both support Rangers. We decided we would talk again during his stay in Glasgow and exchanged numbers. During the course of last weekend we talked several times over the telephone and agreed to meet on Monday and I would introduce him to my friend Sandy who was also interested to hear what George had to say. During the course of the weekend George had put his leaflet online as he promised. George, Sandy and I met on Monday and again the discussion was no different to hundreds of chats between Rangers fans many times over. We discussed our favourite games, best goals,most manic away trips and the like but most importantly we shared a huge concern over the current state of our dearly held club and a desire to do something about. We all agreed that doing something and failing was more acceptable than doing nothing but with the hope we could make a difference even if it was just to give the proper fans some information that may put some fire in the belly and arouse some passion from within the fan base. We then involved the man power from a well known body of fans, who if they wish to disclose their important and welcome involvement is matter for them, who helped along with hastily recruited normal fans like Paisley Gary to help with the distribution of Georges leaflets prior to Tuesdays game. The leaflets went out and received a mixture of reactions. On Tuesday not long before I left for the game I started the Sons of Struth facebook page. The reasons for this is to give the normal fan who wants our club to return to a stewardship of which we would expect from Rangers. You pick up a paper on Monday going to work and you are faced with another scandal about our club. You discuss it and try to make sense of it but before you have a chance to get your head round it a few days later you’re faced with another earth shaking scandal. This is not what we expect from the custodians of our club. The mere inclusion of the Struth name in the page harks back to an era when our custodians conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and respect. We must install this again from our boardroom. Who am I? I am a nobody. Not attached to any fan group or organisation. I am you. A fan and season ticket holder since the age of 8 years old. What do I want? I want to talk about my favourite memories of Rangers and idols and goals again, not have to discuss and deal with on a daily basis another boardroom scandal and just get back to the football. I want a board that won’t embarrass me and treat me like a fan without hiding facts from me. I want to be assured that the stadium where I have had many happy memories will be in the ownership of my club and not sold off and rented back to us by some spiv. The stadium holds the spirit of not one but three disasters and has to remain ours to honour those who did not return. It has to remain for the thousands who have the names of lost loved ones chiselled on the very bricks in their memory. It is not the crown jewels it is far more important to the very soul of every fan who has ever walked through the turnstiles. Who are the Sons of Struth? We all are and can be ordinary fans or members from any other fan body. If you are a Union Bear or a Supporters Trust member, as long as your principles and desires are the same as ours then we welcome your input and support. We are not affiliated to any other fan body but welcome their involvement and discuss common aims. Our biggest and most immediate threat is the possible sale of our stadium and let me explain why. The ground swell of opinion is the current board may not have 51% of the shareholder support in the near future and as such leaves them in a position of one last heist. Let me explain in simple terms and use your house as an example. You require cash due to your ailing financial position and own a home with a market value of £200k. I agree to give you £100k cash today to solve your short term financial problems and I will rent you the house back for £2k per month. I will also agree to allow you to buy it back anytime in the next 10 years for £300k. I cant lose. I either 1) have you in the home and draw £24k a year of you in rental 2) Get £2k a month off you until your able to give me £300k to get it back 3) You leave the house and I have a building costing me half market value. Now turn this story to Ibrox and what a spiv could do. Sell the stadium to a carefully selected company that a trusted friend owns and the spiv has a vested interest in and do it soon before he loses the majority of shareholders. Couldnt happen? Think of the Monday morning paper stories we have all had to deal with in the last couple of years. SONS OF STRUTH DEMAND THE TRUTH SHOW YOU CARE AND SHARE WITH A BEAR Craig
  6. by Glenn Gibbons Undecided Rangers shareholders who have been paying close attention to the hustings so far are likely to approach the power struggle at the Ibrox club’s forthcoming annual meeting with a deep yearning for a sudden declaration of candidature by a third party. The two factions presently on the ballot paper must seem to the non-aligned about as attractive as rutting wart-hogs. On one hand, a sitting board of directors whose imaginative response to the threat of usurpation appears to have been limited to the hiring of a PR company with a reputation for smearing opponents through liberal use of all available media outlets, from the club’s own to the social networks of the worldwide web. On the other, a band of would-be revolutionaries whose nominated “leader”, Jim McColl, is a billionaire who has stated that he has no intention in the near future of investing any money in Rangers or playing so much as a minor role in the governance of the company. For voters at the AGM, the election is likely to represent an invitation to choose the less harmful of the two. With the big event still at least a month off, there will be a bone-chilling number of opportunities for further demonstrations from both sides of the kind of infantile, risible and, in certain instances, sordid attempts at points-scoring that have been witnessed in recent times. For example, Paul Murray, the poster boy of the group agitating for reform of the board, including the removal of what may be called the office bearers – chief executive Craig Mather and finance director Brian Stockbridge, as well as director Bryan Smart – this week made a call for “transparency” from the directors by demanding the release of the identities of the people behind two companies who have invested in Rangers, Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings. As a shareholder himself, Murray will be perfectly aware of his right to obtain this information simply by asking for it. He may then go public with it, although it is impossible to fathom why the names of those behind the holding companies should be of any import. Murray’s attempted capture of the headlines was sufficiently pathetic to reinforce the impression – formed over the past three years – that his principal credential as a prospective saviour of an ailing institution is that he is a genuine, lifelong fan. Even so, the general weakness of his profile did not prevent the voice of one red-top from declaring his endorsement of Murray and his simultaneous condemnation of the PR company, Media House, and its busiest representative, Jack Irvine. The latter, himself a former tabloid editor, was roasted for his readiness to blacken the names of his employers’ opponents with some lacerating postings on Twitter. This reprehension of Media House was a startling renunciation of the paper’s previous accommodating policy towards the company. This willing collusion obtained in the days when MH’s primary objectives were the scandalous portrayal of the Celtic managing director, Fergus McCann, as some kind of villainous incompetent and the absurd promotion of David Murray, the Rangers owner, as an entrepreneurial and financial genius. That they could have been proved by subsequent events to have been so grotesquely and blatantly mischievous in their persecution of McCann and their miscasting of Murray would, of course, be a matter of complete indifference, as long as their fees were paid. It will be recalled, however, that their propaganda campaign was so successful that Celtic supporters actually booed McCann as he unfurled the league championship flag on the opening day of the 1998-99 season, an ineradicable testament to their shameful gullibility. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-fans-torn-between-rebel-and-light-blue-sea-1-3116658
  7. I'd say we need to move on other players first but interesting news nonetheless... http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4983-zaliukas-trains-with-gers
  8. BARRY FERGUSON vents his anger at the sentence passed down to Gunning for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk, and says it is a common occurrence during matches. 20 Sep 2013 07:22 Vincent Lunny.Vincent Lunny. I DON’T care much for the SFA. I’m unlikely to get a job offer from them any time soon, that’s for sure. And this column won’t help my relationship with them either because I find it impossible to discuss the people in charge of our game without working myself into an angry rant. Here’s the problem. This should be a positive period for the Scottish game. The national team is on the way back under Gordon Strachan and Celtic were a credit to the country in the San Siro. As much as it might stick in my throat as a Rangers man, Neil Lennon and his side were excellent against AC Milan. They were the better team for 75 minutes and didn’t deserve to lose. So that’s all good. We should be feeling better about ourselves again. I should be able to look guys in the eye in the dressing room at Blackpool again and say: “You see, I told you Scottish football isn’t as bad as you lot make out.” But then the SFA go and do something stupid and you’re left to wonder why you bother. The people who run the game in this country seem hellbent on turning us all into a bad joke. And I’m sick of it. For the last week I’ve had guys down here laughing at the Ian Black betting case and asking me: “What the hell is going on up there? Can you guys not get anything right?” And there’s nothing I can say in Scotland’s defence. Down here it’s a different story. The game is run with total transparency, clear rules and disciplinary procedures that are set in stone. Everyone knows where they stand. Cameron Jerome? He broke the rules on betting and got a 50 grand fine. It was all done and dusted in a matter of days. But how long was the Black saga allowed to rumble on for? It dragged from one week to the next, one meeting to another. Even when he was finally hauled to Hampden the SFA kept everyone waiting for the decision. They hummed and hawed but said nothing for hours. And when they did, they refused to give out the details. Would it have been so difficult for chief executive Stewart Regan to come out and explain exactly what had gone on? To give details of the games in which Black had bet against his team and the reasons behind his punishment? Why would he NOT want to get the facts out there? I just don’t get it. I’ve had my say on Black. If he was in my dressing room I wouldn’t be happy with him. But I’ve also been in trouble so many times at Rangers that I know the club’s disciplinary procedures inside out. They get you in, it’s done and dusted within an hour or two then they make a statement. Why do the SFA find it so hard to act as decisively? There’s another thing that annoys me. Can anyone tell me what Vincent Lunny does? Does anyone know his remit or on what basis he decides which player he’s going to ban next? Does he sit in his house with his feet up and glass of red wine on a Sunday night watching the highlights on the BBC? And if he sees some incident replayed in slow motion, is that when he takes it upon himself to act? Because that would be a disgrace. I’ve been playing top-team football for going on 18 years. In that time there must have been about 10 incidents in every game which could have led to a player being slapped on the wrists or fined. It happens all the time. If Vincent wants to apply the rules fairly and across the board he should be watching every minute of every game or, if that’s too much, employ people to watch them for him. There are plenty of ex-pros out there looking for work. But all the games should be reviewed by someone. Anything less is just not right. Look at Gavin Gunning at Dundee United, who was banned for three matches for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk. I must flick out a leg three or four times in every game I play. Now Lunny is giving three-game bans for it? Is that what Scottish football has become? On my Rangers debut at Tynecastle, Neil Pointon nearly took my head off 10 minutes in. He smashed me in the face with his shoulder, elbow and fist all in one go. And I thought to myself: “Welcome to first-team football.” I was so dazed I hardly knew where I was. But it was a great lesson for a young player. I knew I was in a man’s game. And that’s the way football should be. Look, if there’s some bampot running around charging into tackles that can break legs or end careers, Lunny should throw the book at him. But three games for flicking out a leg? Come on. I like to see a wee ding-dong out there. Players who are fired up and getting in a few faces. That’s what it’s about in the heat of battle. But I guess Lunny wouldn’t know that. So let me give him some advice, from the front line straight to office desk. The fans love to see these flashpoints too. It’s called passion, Vinny. It’s what this game is built on – and the more you stamp it out the less people will turn up to watch. They don’t want some faceless guy at Hampden making decisions on a random basis that can harm their team. It’s the same for the players. How do you think Gunning would feel if he was sitting suspended and saw a player doing the exact same thing as he did ... and then finds out Lunny hasn’t spotted it on TV? Would that be fair? Look, I get that the whole idea about this compliance officer was to try to modernise the Scottish game. But please, make it fair. It’s the same for Black. He’ll know plenty of players who have been betting on football matches. And yet he’s the only one who gets done for it. I can’t help feel if you’re at Rangers or even Celtic the chances are they will be all over you like a rash. That’s the way I felt when the SFA were dealing with me. And the treatment Black has received shows that, despite their talk of modernising the game, nothing much has changed.
  9. I would like to ask fellow fans their feelings on the quality of football kits from Puma as opposed to the kits from Nike and Adidas , me i think the Puma kit is pretty dire and how long are we tied to this company .
  10. Deal till the end of the season apparently... @RFC_Official: #Rangers can confirm tonight they have signed 34-year old goalkeeper Steve Simonsen until the end of the season: http://t.co/FFOrJANCaM @RFC_Official: .@andymitch8 has also gone out on loan to @AnnanAthleticFC & Scott Gallacher has joined @AirdrieoniansFC on loan: http://t.co/FFOrJANCaM
  11. From the Herald: Shareholders claim Rangers' broker blocked compromise agreement with club's current directors Published on 13 September 2013 The shareholders who were seeking boardroom change at Rangers claim the club's broker blocked their compromise agreement with the current directors. Rangers announced on Thursday that a requisition to remove three directors and appoint Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board had been withdrawn in return for a guarantee that their annual general meeting would be held before the end of October. The two groups had appeared close to an agreement the previous week when Rangers released a statement claiming that Murray, Blin, Sandy Easdale and John McClelland would be appointed to a new nine-man board. But the "requisitioners" then denied agreeing to a vote of confidence in the current board. Talks continued but broke down this week as signalled by the club's statement to the London Stock Exchange, and Blin has now withdrawn from the entire process. Revolution remains on the agenda The disgruntled shareholders have now said that Strand Hanson, the club's nominated advisor (Nomad) and broker, vetoed any deal but did not explain why. The fate of the current five-man board - Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge, Bryan Smart, James Easdale and Ian Hart - now rests with the shareholders at the AGM. In a statement, a spokesman for the requisitioners said: "We embarked on this exercise seven weeks ago at the request of shareholders speaking for 28% of the club's shares. "They had concerns over a lack of corporate governance and financial transparency at the club and they wanted those issues addressed by the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board and the removal of Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart. "Two significant events have occurred since we started this process. Firstly, Walter Smith resigned as chairman and secondly, the board informed us that the Easdale family had secured control over a significant minority of the club's shares. "As a result we came to the conclusion that the best way to secure a stable board and avoid further shareholder challenges was to negotiate a compromise with the board. "We have engaged in compromise discussions for the last three weeks. A key element of any compromise was that we could not give any guarantees to the current board members. It is democratic and fair that all directors, existing and new, will have to offer themselves up for a re-election vote at the AGM in October. "On this basis we agreed a compromise agreement with the board but on Monday evening they informed us that the Nomad, Strand Hanson, were refusing to approve it. Despite repeated attempts by us, Strand Hanson have refused to engage with us to explain the reasons for their stance. "With compromise impossible we have continued discussions over the last few days with a view to combining the AGM and the GM. These discussions broke down on Wednesday when the board refused to agree to our request that no further board members could be appointed in the run-up to the AGM. Without this protection Paul Murray and Frank Blin would have been uncertain as to what board they might be joining. As a consequence, Frank Blin will not seek election to the board and will have no further involvement. "In addition, the board informed us yesterday that Strand Hanson were not prepared to support Paul Murray's election to the board at the AGM. Yet again they have refused to engage with us to explain their reasons. "On the basis of the constantly changing circumstances and the lack of consistency in people's positions we have therefore decided to withdraw the requisition. We have done this on the condition that the AGM is held no later than 31 October. "We now believe that the AGM will provide the platform for the shareholders to decide who should lead the club. All the directors will have to offer themselves for re-election and we would encourage all shareholders to vote and show whether they have confidence in the current board or not." Strand Hanson was not available for comment. The company was appointed by Rangers on July 9, replacing Cenkos Securities, on the same day as former chairman Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell left the board and James Easdale was appointed.
  12. http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/282-jim-spence-rangers-jibes I won't post the article as there are a few images used at the link for context... Suffice to say, poor Jum gets nailed by an on-form Chris...
  13. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the deadline for the board to agree to the boardroom changes not extended to last Friday or an EGM would be called, or an agreement to incorporate it into the AGM ? I haven't seen anything mentioned about it over the weekend, unless I've missed it ?
  14. Haven't seen this on RM or here but according to the Daily Mail today McColl's gang tried to bring back McClelland as the chairman. Absolutely frightful stuff if true. A real return to the old days when he was Murray's puppet and presided over record levels of debt. I'm neither here nor there with the current board and prospective future board. To me they all remind of the South Park episode where a douche and a turd compete with each other. But it's absolutely disparaging that our prospective leaders want a return of one of our past failures.
  15. Published on September 2nd, 2013 by Andy Muirhead With all eyes on Rangers football club currently, due to the continued ‘political’ infighting between shareholders and the fan base, public relations for the club is needed more than ever. However, even the PR company used by Rangers – Media House – has come under much criticism and increasing calls from Rangers supporters to be sacked due to comments attributed to Jack Irvine, executive chairman of Media House. Scotzine editor Andy Muirhead caught up with Jack Irvine, amid a busy schedule for the PR guru, to discuss his time at Rangers and those who are criticising him. AM: When did you start working with Rangers Football Club? JI: 2006. There had been huge sectarian issues and the football authorities were going to hammer Rangers. There was a danger the team would be playing in empty stadia and face crippling fines. We worked with the legal team to articulate the initiatives from Martin Bain’s management team to curb the sectarian excesses which in turn lessened the possible draconian punishments. AM: We heard from Sir David Murray that he was duped by Craig Whyte in purchasing Rangers from the former Rangers owner – from your point of view and of working with Craig Whyte would you agree with Murray’s statement? JI: Yes I do agree with Sir David. He was led to believe that Craig Whyte was worth in the region of £80million and he had no reason to doubt that. The Bank of Scotland and their boardroom representative saw no problem with Whyte as a buyer and, in fact, couldn’t get the club sold quickly enough. Craig Whyte appeared to be the answer to all of David Murray’s problems. AM: You represented Rangers under Craig Whyte’s tenure at the club which ended with it going into administration and subsequently liquidation – looking back what are your thoughts on your role and Media House’s role during that time? JI: It was a surreal time. I tried to explain to Craig Whyte that he couldn’t possibly run the club himself and I even introduced him to the former Newcastle United Chief Executive Freddie Fletcher who was also a former Rangers man. Freddie would have been magnificent but Craig decided he could do the job himself. Like many businessmen he was totally consumed by The Blue Mist the minute he walked into the boardroom. Media House’s role was what it had always been. Represent the club and its board and attempt to present the good side of the club to the media and public at large. Of course the bad started to outweigh the good very quickly and it was like pushing water uphill. AM: There has been allegations made that Media House and Rangers used friendly journalists to publish positive stories about Rangers and Craig Whyte in particular hiding the truth about the Motherwell businessman – what do you have to say about those allegations? JI: Of course we promoted positive stories – that’s what PR people do the world over. However it didn’t take long for my old newspaper colleagues – and more importantly certain influential bloggers – to find out the truth about Craig Whyte and tell the world. There is no way I could have covered that up or would even have tried to. The dam had burst. AM: Many Rangers fans are now seeing Media House and yourself as culpable in the demise of Rangers under Whyte and are against your continued involvement at the Ibrox club – claiming that you are not there to represent the club but elements on the board? What is your take on this – what is your role at Rangers? JI: That is utter nonsense. We can only work with the tools we are given. Craig Whyte ran the club into the ground although you would have to say he inherited a pretty leaky vessel. Our role at Rangers is crystal clear. We carry out the wishes of the board in an attempt to help the business survive and prosper. However much I sympathise with the agonies the fans are going through, and I speak as one of the original Bond holders, it is not they who instruct me. It is the board. It is naive to think otherwise. AM: A twitter account called Charlotte Fakes has been publishing emails and other correspondence involving you, Whyte, some journalists and Rangers officials – which seem to paint all parties in a bad light. What is your take on what this person is doing? JI: It is illegal. It is a breach of the Data Protection Act and the perpetrator faces serious consequences when he is caught. It is frightening some of the stuff that is going on nowadays on the web. I often wonder what it would have been like in the early 90s when there was the coup to unseat the Celtic board. How would social media have treated that? Would Fergus McCann with his bunnet and squint been given a chance to mount his brilliant strategy or would he have been slaughtered by the fans with laptops? AM: Rangers fans have claimed that the ‘dignified silence’ approach was perpetrated by the likes of Media House and that instead of keeping quiet, you should have gone in all guns blazing. Making demands, threatening legal action etc. What was your approach during Whyte’s reign when negative articles were published? JI: I seem to remember we banned the BBC and if you knew me at all you would know that I am not slow to tell editors and journalists when they are talking bollocks. Lawyers were regularly involved . Do I go out and announce this in the Copland Road to the fans? What do you think? I worked with or trained a lot of the current crop of journalists. I’m not going to publically traduce them although I will make an exception for some of the more stupid ones. AM: Whyte met with several Rangers supporters groups and bloggers who were very friendly to him and backed him to the hilt during his reign at the club – they have now turned on him as if he is the anti-Christ. What is your take on this u-turn by said prominent groups and bloggers? JI: I presume you have certain groups in mind. I can’t think who you are talking about but let’s be fair. The fans loved David Murray then grew to hate him. Ditto Craig Whyte, Ditto Charles Green. So it’s not only bloggers who changed their minds. The economist John Maynard Keynes is alleged to have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” If that concept was good enough for him I hardly think we can criticise the bloggers. AM: Given the amount of flak, hassle and abuse you have taken – if you could do it all again would you still represent Rangers and Craig Whyte? JI: I have taken flak, hassle and abuse since May 1987 when I launched The Sun in Scotland. I thrive on it and the more I get the stronger it makes me. The answer to “Would you still represent Rangers” is obviously yes as I have just signed up for another season. I come from an East End Rangers family so I guess I’m stuck with it. Would I represent Craig Whyte? Not if I had known what I know now but it’s easy to be clever after the event as I keep reminding certain fans and journalists. Hindsight is a wonderful gift . AM: If you could stand in front of the Rangers fans today and talk to them what about the club and the way it is working and those wanting to take over – what would you say? JI: Give the board a chance. The Chief Executive has sunk a million of his own cash into the club. Fellow director James Easdale and his family have put in even more. Let’s all be mature. I know Frank Blin and Paul Murray are passionate about the club but to quote Mr Churchill: “To jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”
  16. SPFL chief Neil Doncaster insists “uncertainty” remains the key reason that the Scottish leagues remain without a sponsor. With Clydesdale Bank’s deal to name the SPL running out at the end of last season, the newly formed four tier SPFL is still searching for a title sponsor, almost a month into the season. Speaking at the draw for the third round of the League Cup, Doncaster said that “lengthy conversations” were still taking place with potential backers but added that the uncertainty of the summer was still having an effect. He said: “Work is ongoing to bring in a title sponsor for the league and also to support the League Cup. “There has been a huge amount of uncertainty as to what any sponsor would be getting involved with. “It is only since the end of June that we have agreed the way forward for a single league covering all 42 clubs. “Conversations are ongoing and we’re extremely hopeful of getting the right sponsor in to be part of an exciting time in Scottish football. “These are clearly lengthy conversations and we are talking about substantial amounts of money and people need to be sure of what they are getting involved with and what they are getting in return.” The Scottish football chief was delighted to see Celtic safely reach the Champions League group stages with their last gasp 3-2 aggregate win over Shakhter Karagandy and he said the financial rewards from Neil Lennon’s men taking their place at Europe’s top table would spread throughout the country. Doncaster said: “It is absolutely huge for Scottish football to have a club in the group stages of the Champions League. “It of course benefits the whole game in this country. All of the top tier will benefit directly financially from Celtic being in the group stages so it is a big result for the game.” http://sport.stv.tv/football/237751-neil-doncaster-uncertainty-still-hampering-efforts-to-secure-spfl-sponsor/?
  17. 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...
  18. 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…
  19. STEWART Regan insisted yesterday that he will not stand down as chief executive of the Scottish Football Association and called on his critics to stop putting personal agendas and animosity ahead of the overall good of the game. Regan was left to deal with the fall-out from an independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith which last week found Rangers guilty of breaching SPL rules regarding non-disclosure of payments to players. The Rangers Oldco was fined £250,000 but the commission did not strip the club of titles won during the period that they operated controversial Employee Benefit Trust schemes. The commissionâ??s verdict sparked further angry debate and there have been renewed calls for the resignation of high-ranking personnel, including both Regan and the Scottish Premier League chief executive, Neil Doncaster. But speaking after yesterdayâ??s annual general meeting of the International Football Association Board in Edinburgh, Regan said it was time for all parties to put the grievances of the past year behind them and start working together. â??When you look at the bones that have been picked over, itâ??s not particularly helpful for the game,â? Regan said. â??If we were as good at promoting the game in Scotland as we are at picking at the negative issues, the animosities and the conspiracy theories, weâ??d be world-class. Itâ??s time for all parties, once and for all to say, right, line in the sand, letâ??s look forward and work together to address some of the outstanding matters that still need to be dealt with.â? Stating he would not be standing down, he dismissed the notion that SFA president Campbell Ogilvieâ??s position should also be questioned, given his involvement with Oldco Rangers as club secretary and director, saying he was delighted that Lord Smith had ruled that Ogilvie played no part in the management and organisation of any element of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust. â??That is categoric enough,â? said Regan. â??Over the past 12 months, the Scottish FA, along with the leagues have focused on trying to put in place solutions and still allow Rangers, as a Scottish institution, to operate within the Scottish game and prevent the rest of the game becoming collateral damage. All that has ever been done is for the good of Scottish football and my inbox over the past 12 months has been full of messages on the one hand saying that Rangers have been treated too harshly and on the other hand saying they hadnâ??t been treated harshly enough. â??All you have to do when you are doing a job like mine is focus on what you believe is right for the good of the game and thatâ??s what I have done. â??It was an incredibly difficult situation where you have a club the size of Rangers getting into financial difficulties and, if the authorities hadnâ??t fully investigated the situation, and that situation involved a number of matters including bringing the game into disrepute and a number of then unknowns which involved tax matters and EBTs, if they hadnâ??t been treated seriously and fully investigated then the same people who are criticising the leadership now, would be criticising the leadership for not taking things seriously enough.â? Regan admitted it was highly unlikely any of the fine imposed on Oldco Rangers would be recovered. He also insisted that the SFA had not acted inappropriately by raising the possibility of titles being stripped with prospective buyers. â??When the consortium approached the SFA interested in buying Rangers Football Club, the leader of that consortium asked us through Imran Ahmed to outline what the worst possible punishments could be if they were found guilty of a number of crimes to football, for want of a better expression. They asked because their investors wanted to know what the implications were in investing in RFC. What came on to the table was literally every possible sanction and issue that could be raised, from bringing the game in to disrepute or the unknowns as we called them, which were still being discussed at the time. â??None of us knew what the investigation into the Big Tax Case was going to be or what the outcome of the SPLâ??s commission was going to be. So there had to be certain assumptions made and, at the request of the club, everything that could have been levied on the club was put on the table. A number of drafts of the agreement were made and, as part of that, a number of parts of it were negotiated out. That was part of an ongoing process involving the SFA, the Football League, the SPL, and both Oldco and Newco.â? He added: â??itâ??s crucial, with league reconstruction being such an important issue for the game, that we seek to work together collaboratively and seek to build a stronger game for fans to watch.â?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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