Search the Community

Evening times Michael Grant Regan: Rangers meltdown hasn't finished Scottish football, although wider financial concern remains Published on 15 January 2014 WHEN Stewart Regan was yesterday invited to give a state-of-the-nation appraisal of Scottish football as it enters 2014, it was safe to assume the Scottish Football Association chief executive knew which quote might boomerang back at him. It was on July 4, 2012, the day newco Rangers failed in their attempt to be voted into the Scottish Premier League, that Regan came out with the words for which he is always likely to be best remembered. He spoke of Armageddon, social unrest, and the Scottish game withering on the vine if Rangers were consigned to the anything beyond the old first division. They were not of course - instead of dropping one division as Regan wanted they fell into the fourth tier - but the game survives. In hindsight he misread the situation. There was no social unrest and no Armageddon. The game is hardly buoyant, but nor can it be said to be withering on the vine. Or more accurately, its established and long-term decline has not been accelerated by Rangers' implosion. "We're in a different place now," Regan acknowledged yesterday. "From a Scottish FA perspective we've got a television deal and the league themselves have put their own plans in place and protected their own commercial position. So we're in a different place. There's been some very competitive matches, which have resulted in quite an exciting competition at the top of the Premiership, and there's a number of emerging young players that have created quite a lot of excitement. Perhaps we're in a better place than we might have been 12 to 18 months ago. "But the financial state of football generally remains a concern for everybody and not just in this country. You go to some of the smaller associations as I do on a regular basis and talk about the state of the game. Scotland is in a healthier place than a number of smaller countries where they don't have the turnover we do and can't make the distributions we make. Everybody would like more money. It's like asking if they'd like a bigger pay rise, the answer is always yes." The SFA is working on a way to introduce Financial Fair Play rules for clubs to prevent unsustainable spending. A sub-committee of the SFA's licensing group, which includes representatives from the Scottish Premier Football League, is currently trying to draft regulations which might be acceptable to the clubs at a vote. "The game needs some degree of control," said Regan. "You can't argue with the principle behind financial fair play. There's a need to avoid overspending particularly on areas where money is dripping out of the game. You need to be able to cover your costs, pay your bills, not be breaching your banking position or getting into financial difficulties." Those are exactly the sort of difficulties which continue to hover over Rangers, of course. Like all 42 of the SPFL's member clubs Rangers must submit audited management accounts to the SFA by the end of March. The Ibrox club has admitted it is continuing to lose money, must make major cuts, and is the subject of a 120-day internal review under chief executive Graham Wallace, but that is not likely to cause any difficulty in terms of getting an SFA licence to play in 2014-15. "As far as Rangers' position is concerned clearly there is a lot of work that Graham Wallace is putting in place to get the club back to a stronger place," said Regan. "I sincerely hope he's successful. It's good for Scottish football to have the club back on a firm financial footing. "He needs all the support he can get to get that in place. It's a big challenge. We'll wait and see what comes in. We've spoken to Graham in the way you would speak to most of the clubs that have got challenges ahead of them. So we've had an opportunity to talk about some of the challenges he faces. You can't underestimate the work he's got ahead of him. "From a financial point of view, until we get our new Financial Fair Play rules in place, we don't really drill down to the management accounts and we don't drill down into saying what a club can and can't spend its money on. One of the proposals which is currently being debated is putting in place a measure which would restrict the amount spent on wages. That's one of the elements being discussed." Regan downgraded his prognosis for the game from "Armageddon" to "challenging". The SFA's own financial health is robust because of sponsorships which run to 2016 and the UEFA centralised television deal which runs to 2018. "At a club level there are a number of clubs feeling the pinch, and it remains a tough environment. So that's probably one of the biggest concerns." The merger of the SPL and the SFL into the SPFL was a positive, though, as were the introduction of play-offs for the end of this season, the formation of the Lowland League, and the progress made by the national team since Gordon Strachan was appointed a year ago today. "There are some encouraging green shoots. Gordon has made a big impact and turned around what was a very disappointing campaign and given us a degree of optimism for the qualifying draw next month. "Everyone's looking forward to France 2016. When you look at the emergence of young talent there's some very encouraging prospects starting to come through the system. I guess it's the classic school report card syndrome, isn't it? 'Progress has been made, but still a lot of work to do.'"

Rangers boss Ally McCoist claimed he was not bothered as his team's 100 per cent record in League One was ended with a 1-1 draw against Stranraer. The Ibrox men harboured hopes of winning all their matches in the third-tier this season but were undone with a stoppage-time equaliser from Jamie Longworth. McCoist admitted his team were below par, and felt the visitors could have got more from the game. He said: "I will be 100 per cent honest with you - I actually couldn't give a monkey's about the record. I really couldn't. "I'm not interested in the record, I'm only concerned about the level of performance that we gave and it was extremely disappointing. "It was a really disappointing day for us. Certainly I'm of the opinion that Stranraer more than deserved their point." I can remember a time when we had ambition.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/209-is-it-time-to-move-on It’s been a long time coming but finally the Rangers AGM arrived and at last we have some clarity on just how well supported the incumbent board is. In fact, the result was pretty conclusive – certainly for most of the Directors up for reappointment while those externally up for nomination struggled to achieve as much support. Therefore, whilst the issue of backing may not be as straightforward as it seems, no-one can deny it should now be time to move on and allow the club some space to consolidate its position. Such an abeyance of hostilities is essential for two main reasons: one, to give the ‘new’ board some time to deliver on their promises, and, two, to hopefully ensure the support doesn’t rip itself apart after a quite ludicrous period of belligerent disagreement between so-called rival factions of fans. So where are we now? Yesterday’s AGM statement to the London Stock Exchange revealed a short term ‘120 day strategic focus’ for the board on a range of important matters: including a detailed business review and attempts to re-engage with the fans to better capture our opinions. Along with other strategies highlighted in the statement, the aims are impressive and I doubt many fans would challenge them. However, we’ve heard similar buzz-words and phrases before – from Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte and Charles Green – all of whom failed to take the business forward during this modern era of austerity. What can this mandated ‘new board’ do differently? Let’s start with its make-up. Despite the institutional confidence placed upon most of the nominated incumbents yesterday, the scenes at the AGM were quite frankly incredible with specific focus on Finance Director Brian Stockbridge. It seems clear now that not only do thousands of fans have an issue with his position but also the vast bulk of the 1600 shareholders present yesterday. Moreover, the fact over 30% of other investors do not consider him re-electable arguably makes his position untenable on its own. However, add in his flawed performance and questionable behaviour of the last year then if the board is serious about trust, transparency and staff ‘pride’ in Rangers then Stockbridge must be moved on. Anything else would cast serious doubt on those that wish to lead the club back to success. Of course the rest of the board, other than Graham Wallace, don’t convince either. Neither Easdale brother speaks well or commands the respect of the support while new chairman David Somers appears inconsistent in his approach – one day signing his name to daft and inflammatory ‘open letters’, while the next saying he has no problem with people he previously labelled as selfish ‘fanatics’. It seems clear Mr Somers needs to familiarise himself with the high profile nature of the Rangers chairmanship and quick. Fortunately, new CEO Graham Wallace has been more measured in his approach so it’s not a surprise to see him warmly received by all so far. Mr Wallace can and should use this to his advantage by acting as a conduit to both investors and fans in the months ahead. With the above in mind, it seems obvious the board will need strengthened if the club’s 120 day plan is to be successful. I’m not sure adding either Murray to the mix will help but I’d hope Scott Murdoch and the impressive Alex Wilson are considered given Cenkos already gave their approval to their applications earlier in the year. That would go some way to bringing everyone around the same table ahead of the April finances ‘D’ Day. Speaking of which, obviously Dave King should be another who must be consulted with, even if his past and recent performance remains worthy of debate. I’m sure there are others out there who could add the right mix of independent business talent and Rangers-mindedness to improve the board. One such name I’ve heard mentioned is John McClure of Unicorn Asset Management who own(ed) upwards of 400,000 pre-IPO shares in the club. No matter who joins this board, the pressure will be high to deliver on their statement of yesterday. However, they do deserve time to implement the changes promised – just how much time may be reliant on their ongoing performance. For example, the issue of Jack Irvine’s retention cannot be kicked into the long grass. Moving on from the board the next important issue is that of the fans. The way many people (mostly online) have turned on each other over the last 6 months has been nothing short of remarkable. It seems polite disagreement cannot happen nowadays with insult and abuse being preferred instead. This has to stop and stop now. If not, our club will be easy pickings for those who wish to use it in a way to benefit themselves only. It also offers an easy excuse for the club not to engage with the fans as it should. Of course it doesn’t help that our fan groups seem so badly advised while struggling generally as well. I don’t blame the Trust, Assembly or Association for believing in the likes of successful businessman Jim McColl but jumping into his camp with both feet meant any sort of negotiation with the board was always going to be difficult. Add in their collective failure to achieve widespread support within the fan-base (via active membership more than anything else) then it’s debatable just how important the club will see them in the future. This is a great shame when we examine fine initiatives such as BuyRangers but perhaps something new can arise from embers of the existing groups? Hearts and Dunfermline fans have shown the way in this respect so we should be looking to them for inspiration. I’d certainly suggest each fan group outlines its own 120 day plan to show they’re capable of improvement. Only then may the club (and most importantly more fans) feel engagement with them is worthwhile. All in all despite yesterday’s conclusive AGM vote, uncertainty remains and that should be a concern for us all – the club director, the investor and the ‘ordinary’ fan. Indeed, financing the club is the biggest issue ahead and this can only be achieved by everyone working together for the greater good. We can all make sacrifices in that regard so I’d urge all involved to examine their contribution and ask if the betterment of Rangers is really their aim. If it’s not, then yesterday’s farcical AGM scenes will only be the start of more stormy waters ahead. That cannot be allowed to happen. Thus, in the spirit of Christmas and New Year, this is an opportunity to offer goodwill to others and start afresh in 2014. In that regard I’d like to wish all my fellow fans a happy holiday season and all the very best for the next year. Rest and be merry as, for the boardroom and the fan groups at least, the clock is ticking: 120 days and counting!

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/256830-rangers-supporters-trust-suspend-spokesperson-over-improper-conduct/

YOU couldn’t give a section of Celtic’s support a red neck with a blow torch, never mind the green flare they threw on to the pitch at Fir Park. There they were with their banner asking that Nelson Mandela, the ultimate man of peace, be allowed to rest in peace. And then they got on with the wanton damage that saw seats destroyed while Motherwell boss Stuart McCall was subjected to chants about being a “sad Orange b*****d”. Some people just have no sense of irony. The team the misguided had paid to watch is currently in the best form it has enjoyed for a long time. But the football is never enough for those who have taken a weird turn since Rangers went into liquidation. The obsession with insisting that Gers died – and the current side has a history 18 months old – has come with an arrogance that was unpleasant to watch at Motherwell. Lennon said his heart sank when he saw the banners depicting William Wallace and Bobby Sands which disfigured the Champions League game with Milan. Now the manager and his chief executive, Peter Lawwell, have to speak out against supporters who are blemishing the club’s reputation. Celtic have just updated and republished the book detailing their history over the last 125 years – and it is a story well worth the telling. A team started for charitable purposes has always had what their greatest captain Billy McNeill described as a fairytale aspect attached to it. Celtic’s appearance in the Nou Camp on Wednesday night vouches for their decent standing in Europe. And the derision their efforts receive from the rival support at Ibrox is an irrelevance since that is based on the need for something to camouflage their current, lower-league status. It is as unthinking as the damage that’s being done to Celtic’s good name by the unruly element who will now make their club the object of the SPFL’s attention. But all of that unwanted attention is meaningless to the vandals, flare throwers and obscene chanters. If you can embarrass your club while the team is 5-0 up then you don’t do sober reflection. And what’s even worse is that any attempt to draw attention to the supporters’ misbehaviour is always met with a hostility based on a belief that no such incidents ever happened, or could happen, where the Celtic support is concerned. There are signs of old-fashioned hooliganism returning to Scottish football. A flare was thrown on to the pitch during Rangers’Scottish Cup tie at Falkirk causing damage to the artificial pitch. Money is a constant source of concern at Ibrox, particularly when serious-minded men-in-the-know don't rule out the possibility of a second insolvency event. So how regretful should the culprits feel when they see to it that a cheque for damages has to be forwarded from Ibrox to Falkirk? The answer is they’ll probably feel no remorse whatsoever and they won’t until somebody does something to halt a growing menace. The Old Firm game used to be a safety valve that was periodically released to take the steam out of a poisonous rivalry. Now they live separate lives and the result has been the misfits have to release their troublesome instincts in another way. Confession, they say, is good for the soul. The first thing the majority of decent Celtic fans have to admit is they don’t recognise the kind of person they can find beside them today. I also got a close-up look at Motherwell’s incendiary division last weekend because they were fouling the air, and making a nuisance of themselves, in the vicinity of the press box at Hamilton’s ground. They go through their dance routines then let off their toys, at which point several people emerge from the crowd to film their smoke-shrouded pals on their mobiles. Older Well fans, meanwhile, were congregated well away from them and getting progressively more irked by their team’s performance. They made displeasure known in the traditional, verbally-colourful manner then started to leave before Albion Rovers scored the winner. But the dance troupe didn’t have any real sense of how badly their team had played due to the fact they didn’t appear to be that bothered by what happened on the pitch. In the meantime they had caused damage to seats belonging to the club who hosted their game as a courtesy to both Lanarkshire neighbours. That will cost Well money they shouldn’t have to pay at a time when every penny’s a prisoner. Those supporters also threw another canister on to the pitch, forcing the people in wheelchairs to take evasive action. You’d think supporters of a club whose manager was involved in a stadium disaster that claimed the lives of 56 people because of a fire would consider his feelings before setting light to canisters in a stand containing thousands of their fellow supporters. One of the most harrowing conversations I’ve ever had with McCall recounted his memories of that day in Bradford. The hand-burning sensation he felt when he tried to open his car door two hours after the dead and the dying had been removed to hospital. The search for his father that ended in a case of mistaken identity when Stuart was pointed in the direction of a man with first-degree burns. He had only recovered from a deep sense of shock in the hospital ward when he heard his dad whisper: “Son, I’m over here.” Now McCall is working in an environment where we’ve started to breed our own pyromaniacs. It is an offence to enter, or attempt to enter, a football ground while in possession of a flare, smoke canister or firework. Possession of either one carries a custodial sentence if the court believes that’s in order. So why are so many being allowed to endanger health and safety on a regular basis? That’s as much of a mystery as the suggestion that McCall has destroyed his own managerial reputation because his team had an off-day in a Scottish Cup tie. Put that in your canister and smoke it. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hugh-keevins-must-stop-rogue-2904421

This is from a well known poster on FF, jeez if this is true! Nae wonder Stockbridge is fighting to keep others out. " What would you say if we only got a couple of pence per strip sold in the clubshop? And that we pay, yes we pay someone from a large sport retailer £20k a month to run our retail arm and has never been seen at Ibrox".

@SonsofStruth: PROTEST ON TUESDAY Meet Copland Rd stairs seven o'clock. Protesting Stockbridge and Irvine to be removed from club. SHARE IF YOU CARE.

What is this about? https://twitter.com/LindsayJJ1/status/408246230616379392/photo/1 9 blatant fabrications by gersnet?

Good to see this - apparently the booked suite holds 500 people!

Did I hear this correctly today? If so, could Rhegan tell us what the SFA did to prevent Craig Whyte getting ownership of Rangers two and a half years ago? Despite warnings about Whyte's background from the likes of AJ and Jeff Randall the SFA sat back and allowed Whyte to get his hands on Rangers and we all know how that ended up. Did Whyte make any such prior application to the SFA ? If so can we see it? Or did Liewell & his PGB call the shots & allow Whyte ownership knowing what was likely to happen as that would benefit Liewell's club ? So what's changed regards Dave King ? is it because his arrival at Rangers & subsequent investment might be of considerable benefit to Rangers that an 'application' now has to be made ? Do some people at the SFA not like the thought of Rangers returning to the top of Scottish football? Also has the fat,sweaty, bespectacled lawyer been working behind the scenes to change the rules? King's arrival yesterday certainly seemed to concern the usual suspects in the mhedia. English for one.

Posed by the RST on Facebook, if this is in the wrong place or it's already been started... feel free to move or delete. Minutes of meeting with C Mather and B Stockbridge Minute of meeting between the Rangers Supporters Association, Rangers Supporters Assembly and the Rangers Supporters Trust had a meeting with club Chief Executive Craig Mather, Finance Director Brian Stockbridge and Director of Communications James Traynor. Ibrox Stadium 10 October 2013. SEDERUNT C Mather, B Stockbridge, J Traynor and J Hannah (Rangers FC). Fans reps - D Roberton, J Kirk, T Green, M Dingwall, R Johnston, A Sheppard and G Letham. INTRODUCTIONS CM - Introduced himself, keen to be open with the fans. Brief introduction of fan groups and rationale. IPO ISSUES GL - Queried the excessive £5.6m costs from fundraising, can we get a breakdown. BS - pre-IPO fees are high. Large cost to secure the club - at time of acquisition there was no license to play football and it was risky private investment and that attracts high costs. GL - normally fees would be 5% - why are these as high as 25% BS - fees paid were commensurate with normal legal and professional fees but the other costs were high. I came in on 14th June by which time these costs were already fixed. Payments agreed by the club prior to my joining were only paid if I considered they were properly incurred and constituted proper commercial contracts. Intends putting together a more informative analysis of historic costs ref the IPO before the AGM - this sort of information is not normally in the public domain. Will have to liaise with investors and advisors that they are happy to have fees disclosed. Hope to be as transparent as I can be. You must remember there were Inherited costs - in terms of wages these were around the £30m mark for example and will not remain at that level. GL - £450,000 arrangement payment to Zeus - is this transaction included in the cost of the IPO? What about refunds to investors such as Laxey, Eurovestech and Alan Mackenzie? BS - Yes, it is included. But there were no illegal returns of capital. CM - as far as fees are concerned I'm happy to state a £50k - 5% commission was paid on my introduction regarding investing in the company. GL - why have the costs of finance raising been so high? Charles Green assured Rangers fans that fundraising would be easy. BS - can't be responsible for CG statements or contracts. Only invoices club pays out are those which are contractual, reasonable and binding. We have cut costs considerably going forward. STAFF REMUNERATION The staff costs appear massive and should not have been incurred for the level of football or the amount of work undertaken. CM - certain salaries are in the Annual Report and some scrutiny is valid. My own salary is £300k and the major institutional investors are aware of that and happy with it. The structure of my bonus has been discussed but it will not be linked just to winning the league. Lots of other factors will have to come into play, meeting player and financial budgets. Both McCoist and myself are content to work together to ensure that we reach a balance on incentives regarding the PLC budget for players and saving money so that one part of the club is not working against the other. We're looking at reducing the historic level of professional costs - for instance, we are considering an in-house legal department to cap the level of expenditure there. We need to restructure and define cost centres. We are looking at the efficiency for example of Murray Park and wish to make that measurable in setting remuneration/bonuses. BS - the terms of my contract are public - £200k bonus for each of the next three years. I voluntarily agreed to remove my bonus payment that had been agreed for those years. It's about delivering financial performance, I'm not taking an automatic bonus. Expect that post-AGM my remuneration and bonus will be announced. I joined the company on 14th June and wasn't salaried until September. Paid a £50k electric bill form my own resources. Banners and chants do not reflect the reality of the situation. I have no outside interest and I have no 1p shares. BS paid 70p per share at the IPO. TG - why give up bonuses now? BS - with hindsight I should have been rewarded for financial performance not football basis. CM - I want Brian looking over my shoulder as finance director controlling spending. BS - the club is financially secure. We have a completely clear audit from Deloittes. We have no debt. CM - McCoist package - we've almost got it signed off. An agreed reduced package will be put in place soon. GL - termination payments appear very generous - for example Charles Green. BS - Green's package was decided by the Remuneration Committee. I sacked Imran for gross misconduct, he received no compensation. DR - I thought Green had resigned? CM - it was a compromise agreement to protect the club. Employees have rights they can exercise. BS - The Remuneration Committee contains no executives - it contained Malcolm Murray, Phil Cartmell and Ian Hart. CLUB ACCOUNTS GL - We don't want to dwell too much on the historical numbers, we would rather focus on the future. We would however record that the accounts just released were an appalling set of figures. CM - We recognise the losses. These were predicted and investors knew there would be a substantial loss in the first year. GL - pre-IPO research note issued by the broker Cenkos predicted a £1m loss compared with a £14m actual loss. Half-year forecast predicted a £7m loss. BS - We've seen leaks of price-sensitive information from illegal leaks. It's difficult to form an accurate opinion on partial information. We've removed £2m costs off operational expenditure. GL - your December management accounts predicted a £6.8m loss but the loss was £14m. BS - we've had problems with the retail division - the JJB contract going and the Puma deal being late. A lot of one-off costs - £1m for the Pinsents investigation. Pay-off for Green, etc. GL - do you have a monthly phased plan for the current year and are actual results reviewed against this plan by the Board on a monthly basis? CM - yes, and regular Senior Management meetings. GL - can you tell us what the budget revenue and operating profit/loss figures are for the current year 2013/2014? BS - I can't give price-sensitive info and hence can't give profit forecast numbers. However, Daniel Stewart are working on a research note for insitutionals. We do things by the book - we'll note non-recurring items and will break them down. RJ - what about provision for similar costs for next year? BS - difficult to predict as we did have a lot of non-recurring fees this year. RJ - but we keep losing executive and non executive board members on an almost regular basis and incurring associated costs. CM - unusual year of change. For instance we had season ticket sales on course as of 1st August but then the requisition for the EGM came in and killed confidence. Sales went from 174 a day to 6. But that's based on perception not reality. We're ahead of budget in many areas. I want to sort the club - the Board have to be able to look at themselves and if I am not the right man I will go. If I haven't performed then I deserve to be voted off at the AGM. I have successfully bought businesses out of administration before - I know what I am doing. What happens if we are voted out at the AGM and there is no alternative? BS - the Stock Exchange will suspend the company from the market.

I've had two legal letters sent to me via email by Biggart Baillie on behalf of the Rangers board and Brian Stockbridge over comments I made about him lying. They are threatening a civil defamation action. One came on Friday and one today. Meanwhile, Macgiollabhain, Galloway, Haggerty, Greenslade and CQN can say whatever they like about the club and the fans without any risk of the board lifting a finger to defend either. They are an absolute disgrace. Their attempts to silence dissension both through the action against FF and me is a clear attempt to bully, using the fans ST money to pay for it. I'll be making more detailed comment on it over the next couple of days.

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

I was wondering if any Gersnetters knew the name of Jum Spence's 'zine? He founded and Edited it for several years and his current designation at BBC Scotland is as a direct result of this particular publication. It was a case of BBC Scotland wanting to be seen to embrace the new media. I would like to peruse a copy/copies to how Jum referred to Rangers and Rangers supporters? Further, as Editor; what content was approved?

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

Amidst his unsurprising defence of Jack Irvine, it's interesting that Bill is suggesting a deal to avoid an EGM is 'likely'... http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/civil-war-stalemate/

WHEN Dundee chief executive Scot Gardiner invited John Brown to be interim manager in February, he knew he was not getting a shrinking violet. Indeed, with Dundee’s survival chances looking bleak at the bottom of the Scottish Premier League, Brown’s ability to stir things up was one reason why Gardiner wanted to hire him. However, it has since also got him into a lot of trouble. Gardiner has stressed to Brown that this has to stop: no more talking about Rangers, and no more talking in depth about other clubs, even if that is likely to put an end to his invariably colourful turns of phrase in newspapers. It is an order backed by Dundee’s new American investors, who are intent on promoting the club as a family-friendly place. Steps have been taken to ensure that Brown is aware of the dangers of speaking his mind – particularly about events that don’t concern Dundee. “We’ve had to say: ‘John, you now see this is how the game is’,” said Gardiner. “I think he took over with 13 games left and before the season had started, before we’d kicked a ball, he’d had three SFA charges. Some managers might go five years without getting one. “They are all related to things that he’s said in the papers, so if that affects his job then it affects Dundee and I’m there to make sure that doesn’t happen.” Brown was censured by the Scottish Football Association at the end of last season after comments made about referee Alan Muir, following the match which confirmed Dundee’s relegation after Aberdeen’s Peter Pawlett earned a penalty through simulation. The Dundee manager will return to Hampden Park next week to contest two of the latest notices of complaint made against him by the SFA. The first is for calling former Dundee goalkeeper Robert Douglas a liar in a newspaper interview, and the second concerns comments made in another interview in which, according to the charge levelled at him, he was “suggesting the use of violence” in connection with Charles Green, the former Rangers chief executive. It is the number of times that Brown has been drawn into the debate about the Ibrox club, where he spent nine years as a player and later took up a coaching post, that has begun to exercise Dundee, although Gardiner appreciates that it is a two-way street: journalists phone up Brown for his views on Rangers, and he is happy to entertain them with his often trenchant thoughts on the matter. The result is usually the receipt of a letter on SFA-headed notepaper. “Your truth is someone else’s disrepute charge,” acknowledged Gardiner yesterday. “John’s the go-to guy when something happens at Rangers and he can’t be that guy any more because he has a very serious job to do for Dundee,” he added. “John’s sole focus is Dundee, going forward. He’s very clear about that now. I think you’ll see that.” It wasn’t an easy baptism at Dundee for Brown, who had to deal with a section of Dundee fans who were angered by his appointment. Although he was a much-admired player for Dundee in the mid 1980s, many struggled to disassociate Brown from Rangers. His much ridiculed, although since partly vindicated, rant on the steps at Ibrox last summer didn’t help. Neither did his willingness to comment on Rangers’ affairs since taking over at Dundee. However much he admires Brown’s determination to tell it as it is, Gardiner has stressed to him that he has to be cute about what he says in a public forum. “Sadly you’re not able just to tell people what you think and that’s not acceptable to the SFA for a manager just to tell you what he thinks,” said Gardiner. “So we have to address that, along with John, and make sure he’s not in the papers every week for the wrong reasons. Dundee, who were recently taken over by a new, part-American controlled consortium, have now ordered Brown to avoid being lured into offering comment on the situation at Ibrox, and, especially, to desist from using images of violence. Brown was disgusted by Green’s comment that Ally McCoist had to win a trophy this season, on top of League One. He assured reporters that had his directors issued him with that instruction, he would have “taken every one of them by the throat”. That earned him a charge for breaking Rule 82: making offensive comments and suggesting the use of violence. Although they will support him as he defends himself on Thursday, Dundee’s desire for Brown to stop earning headlines with his hard-hitting views on Rangers is part of a drive to restore the reputation of the Dens Park club. Gardiner accepts that Dundee’s conduct in recent years has been less than exemplary after two administrations. “We’re working very, very hard to get our reputation back because there’s been a lot of hard moments in the last ten years,” said Gardiner. Even a recent experiment as a supporter-owned club ended with recriminations and bitter infighting. This month the Football Partner group, backed with finance sourced in Texas, took control of the club after a protracted process that required the Dundee supporters’ society to vote to allow their majority shareholding to be reduced. “The Americans are Ivy League, blue chip companies and individuals who have invested in us and we have to remember that we are 120 years old this year,” said Gardiner. “I’m working hard to get the club back to where it was off the field, earning respect and behaving in a certain manner as it once did and was respected for. John knows his part now and how we intend to conduct ourselves as a football club. If you call John about Rangers he has to realise it doesn’t matter. For Dundee fans, it’s very important his focus is only on Dundee. They have to fully believe that their manager is only concerned about the well-being of their team.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/dundee-s-john-brown-urged-to-stop-rangers-talk-1-3068970

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...

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?