Search the Community

Richard Wilson SELF-EXPRESSION, whether borne of exuberance or exasperation, was a recurring theme during this latest procession at Ibrox. Protests against the board, gaining momentum through old-fashioned leafleting campaigns as well as the now-inevitable use of the internet, reached a new level on Saturday with the grandest exhibitions of dissent yet being shown in the 18th and 72nd minutes, nods to the club's foundation in 1872. To suggest this is akin to the storming of the Bastille is premature, but more and more Rangers fans, never ones entirely comfortable with demanding necks on the guillotine, are warming to the idea of one way or another forcing out those inhabiting the boardroom. The centrepoint of the demonstration was the corner of the stadium between the Main Stand and the Broomloan Road Stand - and the unfurling of banners which read 'Spivs Out', 'No More Lies', 'Action Not Apathy' and 'Give Us Our Rangers Back' was well orchestrated. What may worry the likes of chief executive Craig Mather, as the temperature builds ahead of next month's AGM, is that these messages were not restricted to that area of the ground. They were raised throughout all four stands at the appointed time, with one or two perhaps a little too close for comfort to the directors' box and the stoic types in the posh seats. It would be disingenuous to suggest the chants of 'Sack The Board' and 'Get Out Of Our Club' emanated from all corners of the arena, but there was enough widespread applause to suggest the views expressed are gaining enough support to be taken seriously. This was not all clenched fists, stern faces and 'Wolfie' Smith politics, though. Passions are running high but they come out in positive ways, too, and the wonderfully chaotic half-time parade in honour of the armed forces was quite something to witness. Around 400 servicemen and women marched into the ground in perfect order behind a massed pipe band. But the minute they set foot on the hallowed turf all semblance of order dissolved. Squaddies were bouncing up and down on the trackside with the spotty adolescents of the Union Bears fans group, RAF pilots were queuing up for photos beside the substitutes as well as Broxi Bear, and there were a couple of Navy men you would swear were trying to get up the tunnel. One fellow who certainly shared the enthusiasm and joy of those soldiers and sailors revelling in their moment in the spotlight was central defender Bilel Mohsni. The 26-year-old French-Tunisian completed this rout with the most spectacular overhead kick in stoppage time and decided to embark upon a one-man lap of honour after the final whistle. Channelling the spirit of the afternoon, he was in no mood to keep his thoughts to himself. Despite being just in the door, he is already talking of the possibility of at least matching Rangers' record league win of 10-0 against Hibernian in December 1898, and more. "It's possible we could score double figures in a game at Ibrox this season," he said. "Stenhousemuir have some good players and try to play football, but they caught us on a great day. "That was the best goal I've ever scored and it was a special day, because my parents, my brother and some friends had travelled over from France. I enjoyed my celebrations. All I want to talk about with regard to the fans, though, is the relationship we have with them. There is a very close bond between every player and the supporters. If we play our best, we could win every game as we have good players in every position. I think we have the team to win every game." Mohsni did not hold back either when criticising last week's award of the SPFL League One manager of the month prize to Stenhousemuir's Martyn Corrigan. "It's just a pity Ally McCoist didn't get it," he said. "How many goals do you want us to score in one game before he gets recognised - 100? I know the Stenhousemuir manager got the award, so this was a good way for the manager to respond to that. People seem to ignore the job that Ally McCoist is doing and he should get more praise." His side did him proud here. Jon Daly scored four goals to complement other efforts of varying quality from Andy Little, Lee Wallace, substitute David Templeton and Mohsni. Ian Black also made an effective return from his suspension for gambling against his own team and will have been happy to emerge from the 90 minutes without any perceptible criticism from the stands. "I lost seven goals to Rangers in the cup when I was with Dunfermline and also lost seven at Parkhead, but I'd never lost eight before," said visiting goalkeeper Chris Smith. "It was, without doubt, my worst ever day."

Tam Cowan dropped by BBC Scotland after sexist newspaper column (Herald) Saturday 28 September 2013 Tam Cowan was ousted today by BBC Scotland from his normal Saturday lunchtime radio show after the publication of a newspaper column that was widely seen as unacceptably sexist. His article in the Daily Record belittled the Scottish women's football team's 7-0 win Bosnia Herzegovina at Fir Park, which was shown on BBC Alba TV. Cowan's column, which included a number of crude jokes, caused a storm of angry reaction on social media networks, and prompted the paper to add an editor's footnote to the online version, saying it should be "taken with a large pinch of salt". However, BBC Scotland decided to ban him from Off the Ball today. Management are thought to have seen the column as unacceptable. It is not known yet if his absence is temporary or permanent. Cowan, 44, was taken off air before the show went out at lunchtime, and was replaced at short notice by Annie McGuire, who has previously worked with Jim Traynor on his BBC Radio fans' call-in. At the start of Off the Ball, co-host Stuart Cosgrove made no reference to the Daily Record column, but explained Cowan's absence by saying: "Alas, Tam's been delayed today…we're looking for him. He's out there somewhere." Cowan's Record column began: "If I had my way, today's Premiership fixture between Motherwell and Ross County would have been cancelled. That's because Fir Park should have been torched on Thursday in order to cleanse the stadium after it played host to women's football. Why do they still persevere with this turgid spectacle? And why was it allowed anywhere near Motherwell's hallowed turf?" He added: "Admittedly, I've not seen a lot of women's football…and I'm not having a pop at the people taking part. Just the other week, I bumped into a couple of women footballers (I've still got the bruises to prove it) and they were honestly two of the nicest blokes I've ever met… "…Face it, folks, nobody cares about women's football. There was barely a thousand inside the ground, shocking for an international in ANY sport, and I guess putting the girlies head-to-head with Emmerdale and Eastenders was a bit daft." Among the critics on Twitter were Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who tweeted: "Fire up the Hillman Imp, Tam Cowan's going back to the 70s with his views on women's football." SNP MSP Humza Yousaf added: "Invite Tam Cowan to come watch Glasgow Girls FC with me one day - he'll eat his words! Top quality football and great atmosphere too!" Comedian Janey Godley said: "I like Tam Cowan but am disappointed he turned into a 70s misogynist ranter & tried to pass it off as 'comedy' Jim Davidson would be proud." Leading novelist Ian Rankin added: "I wonder if anyone's told Tam Cowan that Charlotte Green read out the football results tonight (on Radio 5 Live - the first female to do so)." After the backlash, the Record's online article was amended with the inclusion of an editor's note, which read: "Folks, we would like to point out Tam is a professional funnyman and what he has to say should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Also, his views are not necessarily those of the Daily Record as a whole." The Record then tweeted: "Tam Cowan's piece today is HIS opinion. Read it and make up your own minds. Not publishing would be censorship." Cowan is an ardent Motherwell fan and Daily Record columnist since 1998, producing a bi-weekly sports column and a weekly restaurant review. He has presented Off The Ball for many years in tandem with his friend Cosgrove, who holds a senior position with Channel 4. In February 2010, Cowan presented a six-part STV documentary series on literacy and numeracy difficulties among adults. In 2011, Cowan was also a co-presenter for STV's lifestyle magazine show The Hour, with Michelle McManus. The programme was axed four weeks after a move to a weekly prime time slot and a revamp led to low ratings.

written by Mr S. Funk I read an excellent article titled "The Rangers Support - Unfit for purpose?" today which was written by one of the widely respected writers and bloggers in the online Rangers community, D'Artagnan. The article tackled some of the issues our support and specifically the online Rangers community is currently facing and it inspired me to write something on the subject too because the following quote from the article says almost everything I've been thinking myself in one powerful sentence: If this online Rangers community is to fulfill its true destiny then it must change, because at the moment the schisms, historical feuds and bitternesses are holding us back from unleashing that potential on the real enemies of our club. That sentence will no doubt ring true with more than just myself because it's something which has been brought up on the various messageboards time and time again. A common factor in the discussions is that we aren't all in agreement as to how serious or difficult to overcome the problems actually are. Some people think the problems are completely blown out of proportion and could ideally be easily swept aside for the greater good, while at the other extreme some think they're so deeply rooted that they can't ever be fixed or even slowly healed. Others like myself believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle because we know these issues exist, so in theory we should be able to identify what they are and tackle them head on. To do so though, perhaps we need to start with the small things and some of the root causes of the ongoing and seemingly unending warring between sections of our online support. We won't even all agree on what some of the root causes of the problems are, but we don't need to agree about everything, we just need to talk about them respectfully and try to reach some common ground on issues such as our use of language and respect. I've seen a fair number of people mention that the constant 'spiv' references which are being used a lot at the moment to describe people in our club's boardroom are problematic, unnecessary and someone here on the Gersnet forum today even said they are undignified. The use of the word "spiv" to describe certain people who we've had and still have associated with our club and even sit in the boardroom wearing a club tie is very subjective, but depending on your point of view, in some cases it's possibly quite fitting by definition. I do think that the "spiv" references are now becoming overused and even misused at times, but it's absolutely nothing in comparison to the language used by sections of our online support to describe men like Jim McColl & Paul Murray. Recently, I've seen those men regularly being referred to as "cunts", "rhats", "bastards" and all manner of vitriolic abuse and the most astonishing aspect is that's on a Rangers forum, not Kerryfail Strasse or one of the other sites full of hatred for Rangers. They literally get called almost every filthy name under the sun. Is that befitting of Rangers fans? Is it befitting of our support to abuse people who are trying to help get our club to a better and ultimately safer place? Not only that, but this disgusting language has also been getting used to describe fellow Gers fans who've simply shown or voiced support for Jim McColl & Paul Murray. That's the sort of action from people within our own online community which is not only disgusting, but completely unacceptable in my opinion. Sadly, this behaviour goes almost completely unchecked in the name of freedom of speech and that same freedom which allows people to write moronic vitriol about fellow fans is pile driving a permanent wedge between sections of our online community. Despite not being our only issue by any stretch of the imagination, that must be regarded as an issue worth addressing. It would seem that the most obvious way to look at starting to address it is for platforms which allow the disgusting language and behaviour to introduce rules and guidelines to tackle the problem and also to tighten their existing rules. Yes, people who are accustomed to constantly being abusive in their faceless online cocoon will moan about losing their freedom of speech, but frankly, if people can't be trusted to treat others within their own team's fanbase with acceptable levels of respect, then they deserve to have some of their rights reduced. If they don't like it, then tough. Needs must. Please don't get me wrong because I know none of us are perfect or angels. I like having a wee dig, taking the piss and sometimes using colourful language myself just like a lot of us do, but when it's gotten to the stage of sections or pockets of our online community going to obsessive levels to use certain platforms to post abusive vitriol about fellow Rangers fans, then it's blatantly obvious that something needs to be done to help facilitate positive changes and to simply help tackle some of the root causes of the issues. If nothing is done, then these issues will only escalate and the problems our online support face in working together as one will just get worse. It's already so bad, that I actually read things on a daily basis that make me wonder if they were even written by a Rangers fan because the level of obsession and hatred in the drivel being posted seems more like mad tims infiltrating the Rangers communities than anything else. Surely that's when we need to be saying to ourselves "Houston, we have a problem!!"? Ultimately, it may just be as I suggest and that the onus is on the platform providers to alter or introduce the necessary rules and for forum admins, mods and posters to try to help mend these issues by setting standards and an appropriate example for everyone. I'll have to change my own ways too as many people will and the rifts and problems in our online support won't be magically fixed overnight, but for the love of Rangers, we need to at least try to do it. A united Rangers support might yet be a pipe dream, but where there's a will there's a way. We'll never know until we try, so why not start with language and a little respect.

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

Ever since they appeared in the press around April, as players in the ongoing struggle for the boardroom at Rangers, the Easdale brothers have been reported to have had various different share holdings and intentions for the club. If we look back through these reports now, then several of them appear to make no sense whatsoever. So whilst the intentions of the Easdales remain unclear, one thing appears certain, the misdirection of Jack Irvine, and the willingness of the BBC in particular to print whatever they are told about them, appears to have played a major role in getting the brothers to where they are now. http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/284-easdale-shares-mystery

..................... 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.

I'm interested to know whether or not I'm in a minority of one on this. Spence, despite being a wretch, claims to have been hassled in the street while out walking with his wife. I'd like the club to officially deplore such incidents because this way we not only (hopefully) deter the more aggressive fan from causing trouble but keep the focus on the journalist, not us. Aside from which, depending on how heavy the hassle was, its not really on either. I suppose this could be seen as a bit grovelly but we really need to up our political game because atm we are outsmarted every time. Yes, journalists, managers and players have been hassled by fans for decades without feeling the need to call (a) the police and (b) the papers but in the publicity war we are losing, heavily. 'Yes' to a statement or apoplectic 'get stuffed you handwringer'?

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4989-club-statement

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...

No-one likes a thorough examination. It could be a test for English, it could be a check-up at the dentist. God forbid, it could even be the prostate exam from an overweight medico with fingers like fairtrade bananas. This week saw the appointment of that bogeyman figure for many Rangers fans, Peter Lawwell, to the Professional Game Board of the SFA. Leaving aside the hilarious irony of anything connected with the game in our country having the sheer balls to call itself 'professional' - the name of the new league was, for me, the highlight of the summer, an act of self-mockery and criticism not seen since the Red Guards were touring the Chinese countryside in the 1960's - you'd think the raising of another Celtic employee to another administrative role ought to have aroused some examination. As things stand now with the SFL gone, the SPFL Board consists of Steven Thompson of Dundee Utd, Eric Riley of Celtic, Aberdeen’s Duncan Fraser, Les Gray from Hamilton, Mike Mulraney of Cowdenbeath and Bill Darroch of Stenhousemuir plus CEO Neil Doncaster. Even Celtic fans must realise Mssrs Riley and Lawwell's various roles raise some interesting questions. Is it good for the game, or their club? Is it good for them, personally? Can they avoid conflicts of interest, and can they operate best with a work-load of this nature? What does it say about the structures which oversee the much vaunted reconstruction of the game in Scotland? Gersnet poster Brahim Hemdani sums up the bemusement may feel when he said "Quite why the other clubs think that having two represetatives from one club in the top echelons of power is appropriate is beyond my comprehension but that is the state of play that we have to live with." I ask these questions because they will affect us, like every other club, and because the overall coverage of the move has been muted to the point of fearful censorship. Tom English has taken refuge in slating OF fans for being loonballs rather than look at the appointment itself, while no-one else seems to have mentioned it at all. Maybe no-one is a little concerned that one club looms quite so large over the landscape (you may recall Kenny Shiels swift demotion by the ever sensitive Pacific Quay from colourful entertainer to highly suspicious proto-bigot when he touched on this subject), or, more likely, maybe they're worn out by all these saga and don't care anymore. Dangerous attitude, if true. We need to care. My own view is that no-one from either Rangers or celtc should be on any governing body, nor anyone with a connection to them. Rules out a hell of a lot of people, doesn't it? But look at the history! Since the mid-1980's, the Old Firm have more or less run the game. First them then us have been, during that time, complete basket cases. Prior to that, with faceless, anonymous men who enjoyed the benefits, yes, but were primarily upholders of the game as a concept - that is, as a sport - Scotland actually did not too badly, certainly by comparison with its later, hideous self. Of the two potential scenarios - well meaning if possibly bumbling amateurs, or corporate OF types - one would have to be a follower of either side to support the elevation of the latter to the running of the game. If that maybe sounds like accusations of bias toward the media, maybe it is - given the outrage we saw over such issues as contentious capitalist contract practices and internal SFA inquiries, surely they would feel the make up of game boards also need a revolution? No? Happy to carry on as we have for thirty years, are you? Thirty years of continual decline and failure? Quite content to see the setup which has brought the game to the laughable stance of not even having a sponsor - bear in mind, this is a league which reaches both Rangers and celtc fans every week, that's market penetration many a company would give their right arm for; you are looking at well over 2,000,000 potential customers on a more than weekly basis being exposed to your product - and think this is a suitable plan for the future? Well, fair enough. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. But you can hardly be surprised when people raise a quizzical eyebrow, and wonder quite what the reason is for your optimism. celtc's current dominance is the reason put forward, I guess. That ignores their two decades of shambolic behaviour since the early 1980's; no doubt our period of insanity will be as quickly forgotten. It also forgets the wasteland that the rest of the game is; perhaps a momentary lapse in memory by our writers, or again, perhaps they just don't care. The game desperately needs diversity, in terms of cup winners and media coverage. We're unlikely to see the latter, since the media is as self interested as the next man. I can't see how having the people from the top club running the leagues will help create that diversity; the logical outcome will be a set up which favours that leading club. Cravenly avoiding the fairly obvious self interest inherent in this move, and whining about how Old Firm fans are loonies while you pretty much cowardly refuse to actually examine the move, won't impress anyone. Maybe, when this blows up in the face of Scottish football (as OF people running the game always will, in my opinion), those who have airily seen it through on the nod will have the guts to examine their own role in it. I won't be holding my breath, though. As the dire Neil Doncaster happily points out "“The relationship between the SPFL and the SFA is a good one and I think a much better one since the reconstruction’s completion on the 27th June.” This is unsurprising when the same people, two of whom are from the same outfit, sit upon these boards. If blissful happiness and an end to dissent is the aim, I can see the point. If running the game in a progressive and accountable way is the aim, it becomes rather more questionable. But questions are good, in a healthy democracy. We need our media writers to question, to examine. Their current craven obedience will be just something else we will all come to regret.

Police Scotland to investigate itself as Prosecutors reveal allegations PR team’s ex-cops may have asked serving colleagues for leaks on HMRC investigations crown office AMID an on-going investigation by Police Scotland into leaks of private emails, documents & sound recordings relating to Rangers football club and the saga which ultimately led to the club’s demise into insolvency, it has now emerged from sources at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) that retired & currently serving Police officers may be implicated in the burgeoning scandal. According to prosecutors, the revelations if true, may make it difficult for Police Scotland to impartially investigate the affair. Yesterday (Saturday), sources within the Crown Office identified allegations contained in material now in the possession of prosecutors which refer to possible discussions between former Police Officers employed employed by a media firm connected to Rangers FC and serving Police officers in what would have been Strathclyde Police under the command of Chief Constable Stephen House. Quotes from documents in the hands of prosecutors appear to indicate suggestions of discussions between “internal security people” and “still serving colleagues” with a view to obtaining details of operations & investigations being conducted by HMRC officials regarding the football club’s tax affairs. Prosecutors now appear to be convinced such conversations and possibly meetings between ex Police Officers & serving Police Officers took place. In an unannounced move, a senior Crown Office prosecutor has now been appointed to look at whether persons identified in the leaked documents may be charged with criminal offences over revelations that photographs & personal details of HMRC staff and civil servants may have been obtained and published online in an effort to derail investigations on the Rangers tax case in 2011. Prosecutors are also looking into whether the information identifying HMRC personnel may have been provided by serving Police Officers to former colleagues and those with an interest in defending the football club from the tax investigations. Meanwhile the Twitter account known as Charlotte Fakeovers (@charlotteFakes) at the heart of the investigation has been deleted and is no longer available. A number of documents published by the twitter account have also been withdrawn from circulation. No one from the Crown Office or Police Scotland was available to give official comment on the current state of the investigation. One can only suspect that the media firm involved is MediaHouse. Also, one may ask, how did this information get to the police? It appears to me that daggers are drawn http://scottishlaw.blogspot.ie/2013/09/police-scotland-to-investigate-itself.html

From poster McCoist_355 on FF: http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=932306 For posterity... Lord Nimmo Smith/Glennie/SPL: http://tiny.cc/ojiipw - NimmoSmith verdict's proving Rangers FC continues (JPG) http://tiny.cc/832kqw - Lord Nimmo Smith's report (PDF) http://tiny.cc/xn6kqw - SPL CEO Neil Doncaster: "It is an existing club, even though it's a new company" 1 minute in. http://tiny.cc/0ko6xw - Lord Glennie - distinguishing between company and club UEFA: http://tiny.cc/u8akpw - UEFA Rangers "Scottish Cup" squad (Elgin game) updated 8th Dec 2012 (LINK) http://tiny.cc/r12kqw - UEFA's updated Scottish Cup squad (JPG) SFL/SPFL: http://tiny.cc/8h832w - SPFL Rangers home page - "Founded 1872" - Full trophy list (LINK) http://tiny.cc/pyyzyw - Derek Longmuir, SFL CEO, congratulating Gers on 140 years. SFA: http://tiny.cc/xn832w - SFA statement - Newco are "the new owners of the Rangers Football Club" http://tiny.cc/b1kuyw - SFA Annual Review - RFC "entering liquidation and subsequently accommodated into SFL3" http://tiny.cc/qdfjqw - SFA's Scottish Cup archive: Rangers FC record continuous into 2013. (JPG) http://tiny.cc/gt3kqw - SFA Q&A: clarifying status of "Rangers FC" re. Div 3, 4 yrs of accounts, Scottish Cup entry (LINK) http://tiny.cc/lu3kqw - SFA statement "full membership has been transferred". (LINK) HMRC: http://tiny.cc/cryzyw - "the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale [of Rangers FC] can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation." (LINK) European Clubs Association: http://tiny.cc/yw5kqw - "The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company" (LINK) Advertising Standards Authority: http://tiny.cc/gs832w - Rangers' most successful club claim is rubber-stamped by the ASA BBC - Independent report by Editorial Standards Committee: http://tiny.cc/lezzyw - "where.. the BBC had made the distinction between an “old” and “new” Rangers.. club as opposed to the “old” and “new” company, ..due accuracy had not been achieved." Proof of post-liquidation survival precedents: http://tiny.cc/5jnqqw - Leeds WERE liquidated/No CVA - KPMG source http://tiny.cc/7tpqqw - Arbitration case proving Leeds no CVA http://www.theifo.co.uk/adjudication...llettfinal.pdf - Luton No CVA (IFO)/Bournemouth/Rotherham/Leeds too http://judgmental.org.uk/judgments/E...A_Civ_180.html Crystal Palace were also liquidated. http://tiny.cc/9xp6xw (PDF) and http://tiny.cc/8cq6xw (JPG) - Portsmouth were also "liquidated" in 2010 And finally....Dermot Desmond: http://tiny.cc/vqo6xw - "A fantastic club with great history"

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

Reading elsewhere that Jim Spence when talking on radio today about us said "the club that died". Anyone on here hear the cretin say that?

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/

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

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.”

Now I'm not one to get paranoid, or tell people what to watch/buy and what not to watch/buy. But going on the BBC site to perhaps see the highlights, I was shocked to see not one mention of the game. When you think that there were 42,000 TV Licence payers at the match, you have to wonder at their bias and just downright cheek. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/

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

Lifted this from FF, hope that's ok. Thought it was worth posting, seems that the guys who do the Founders Trail are getting abuse from VB. For those who have read the statement from the VB's and the avoidance of doubt i'll try to cover the nonsense that we at the Founders Trail are accused of. We've posted the reasons why many times on RM but the VB's continue to ignore this and are more intent on spreading lies. We as a group took the decision not to take the Founders Trail on to their website as under no circumstances were we wanting the Founders of our Club associated with certain rather obvious elements of that site. The easy thing to do would have been to stop posting on RM but there are many good Bears on there who've taken the Tour with us and we weren't going to deny them access to information relating to our research and subsequent events. We're also accused of A) not mentioning William McBeath on the Tour and B) not giving the VB's credit for the work done at Willie's grave in Lincoln. The fact is we tell William's story in it's entirety during the Tour including at Fleshers Haugh about how he probably organised our first ever match with his fellow ex-pats from his home town of Callander . We visit the location of two of his homes and the old St. Andrews Hall where he received a Gold Badge from his fellow Founders for his part in the inception of our Club. We also as part of our Tour hand-outs, which every passenger receives, have pictures of Willie's grave in Lincoln before and after the work that has been carried out . We acknowledge that ''this fantastic work was carried out by fellow Rangers supporters''. Those who have actually taken the Tour will of course verify this. Those who sit behind their PC's spreading poison in an effort to discredit the Trail and our Founders choose to ignore the facts. Only they know why. We don't mention Celtic during the Tour and we don't mention any website.We aren't interested in inter-website squabbles only spreading the fabulous story about our Founders. The Plaque at Fleshers Haugh and the work carried out was paid for by the world-wide Rangers support and this is highlighted. It belongs to you , the people. We're continually accused of '' Only running the Founders Trail to line the organ-grinder's ( Mark Dingwall) pockets''. Where do you start with this ? it's certainly not listed in our published annual accounts, however our donations to various charities are. If we were robbing Rangers supporters then why is the VB website so keen to be associated with us ? We've asked on countless occasions to be left alone to continue our research and to continue with the celebration of the greatest sporting story of all but they continue to hound us with threats and allegations. What hasn't struck them yet is they're actually doing the work of those whom they proclaim to challenge. Rangers first, at all times.

In times of trouble, the crown fits old Rangers King - The Herald 'IT would be reasonable to suppose that the Glasgow experience of John Barnes would have been enough to make the former Liverpool player shrink at a Scottish accent and positively bridle at the mere mention of the game north of the border. However, Barnes speaks of his brief tenure as Celtic manager with some insight and maintains a strong connection to the Scottish game through his role as a media pundit and his friendship with Dave King, the Scottish businessman and former Rangers director based in South Africa, who has been vocal in the unfolding turmoil at the Ibrox club. Barnes travels the world in his role as a football analyst and met King in South Africa, where the former England internationalist comments on both Barclays Premier League and Champions League matches. He believes strongly that King has a role to play as the power struggle continues at Rangers. The businessman lost £20m when the club was owned by Sir David Murray and has warned they could be in administration by Christmas. Barnes believes he was a victim of that high-spending Rangers, too, with his coaching career bludgeoned by the reality that he was facing greater resources at Ibrox. He also insists King could be the leader who rescues Rangers from in-fighting and brings the club back to the top league and to financial stability. Barnes lasted from June 1999 to February 2000 as Celtic manager, with a Scottish Cup defeat by Inverness Caledonian Thistle precipitating his demise. "I was not there long enough to learn a lot," he says, his sunny demeanour failing to disguise the disappointment of a opportunity that proved short-lived. Barnes was part of a "dream ticket", coming to Celtic Park in tandem with Kenny Dalglish, his one-time manager at Liverpool. He dismisses any notions he was an innocent thrown into the jungle of Scottish football. "Nothing happened there that I did not expect. I knew the expectations were high. I knew we were second to Rangers and if that continued it would mean that it would not work out." Standing in the BT studios in London where he is about to give his opinions on the English game, he pauses to reflect on the state of Scottish football then and now. "I think a lot of people are now looking at the dynamics of the game north of the border and saying it is not as easy at it seems. In those days it was very different. In those days David Murray was spending a lot of money. Rangers had better players and much more money than Celtic. They were signing such as Joerg Albertz and Michael Mols to join the good players they already had." Barnes was consumed by the imperative to defeat Rangers but with lesser resources. "It is strange to see how it has gone with Celtic and Rangers," he says. "The dynamic is different and it shows the way Celtic were doing things from a financial point of view was the right way and the necessary way to do it." He states bluntly: "Rangers are paying the price for that period." His friendship with King has given him the inside story on his rivals when he was manager of Celtic. King, who took up his role as a non-executive director in March 2000, began his formal association with Rangers as Barnes was ending his with Celtic but King and he have become close after regular trips to South Africa. "He tells me stories of what it was like back then," says Barnes, now 49 and travelling to the Middle East and elsewhere to talk football. "He tells me of the money Rangers were spending and that has impacted on where they are now. It is shame because they're a huge club." In March, King announced his intention to sue Murray, stating: "I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of £20m the basis of non-disclosure by the then chairman, David Murray, of Rangers' true financial position as far back as 2000." Murray said he would vigorously contend any such claim if and when it was lodged. The past at Rangers is thus clouded with much animosity for King, but Barnes is optimistic on the club's future if his friend becomes involved. "He would be good for Rangers because he is a fan. He wants what is right for Rangers. It is a huge brand that can be hugely successful and it will be successful once again. It may take a few years but the more they can have people like him involved from a footballing perspective the better. If you are a football supporter, you want people like him to involved in football." Barnes, too, would like to become more closely involved in football. He managed the Jamaican national team for a season, taking them to first place in the 2008 Caribbean Championships, and then joined Tranmere Rovers in June 2009, lasting just five months before being sacked. "I would love to get back into management but it is hard. There are a lot of ex-managers who want to get back in. Fortunately, I have the opportunity to do TV work but if something came up I would definitely look at it again." And what of a return to Scotland? Has his experience at Celtic soured him? "It was fantastic up there," he says. "Obviously, the politics were not great but the football was good. I loved it, " he says.' ______________________________________________ Excuses excuses Barnes. Not like those associated with the dark side to revise history is it?. There's no denying we spent a lot of money overall during the DA era. However, lets take a look at transfer activity of the season in question.... The Poor Wee Souls Players In Stiliyan Petrov £2.8m Ian Wright - Free? Rafael Scheidt - £5m Eyal Berkovic - £5.75m Olivier Tébily - £1.25m Players Out Craig Burley - £3m Phil O'Donnell - Free Simon Donnelly - Free Darren Jackson - Free Total loss = £11.8m Us Dirty Cheats that Bought Our Tainted Titles Players In Dariusz Adamczuk - Free Michael Mols - £4m Tero Penttilä - £0.3m Thomas Myhre Loan Billy Dodds - £1.3m Tugay Kerimoğlu £1.3m Players Out Theo Snelders - Retired Jonas Thern - Retired Luigi Riccio - Released Stephane Guivarc'h - £3.4m Charlie Miller - £0.45m Antti Niemi - £0.4m Derek McInnes - £0.3m Ian Ferguson - Free Gabriel Amato - £3.75m Colin Hendry - £0.75m Paul McKnight - Nominal Total profit = £2,150,000 Except Albertz had already been with us for 2 seasons at that point. The simple fact of the matter is that we had a good team and good manager while they had John Barnes who was about as shite as Scheidt.

Unbelievable. http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/for-the-avoidance-of-doubt/

AS has already been made clear the Board has been in discussions with representatives of the group which requisitioned a General Meeting. One of the aims was to avoid the disruption which would have been the inevitable consequence of such a meeting, as well as the totally unnecessary and massive cost to the Club. Having to convene two meetings, a General Meeting and then the Annual General Meeting, back to back would have caused a huge drain on Club resources. However, the Board is pleased to tell the Club's fans that it has managed to avoid such a damaging scenario. Through negotiations with Jim McColl, who has endorsed the General Meeting requisition, Rangers Chief Executive Craig Mather has managed to persuade this group that it would have been wrong to double the Club's expense, time and effort when the solution was always obvious. The Chief Executive has secured verbal and written commitment from the requisitioners that they accept the validity and logic of Mr Mather’s stance and are now willing to roll the two meetings into one session. It must be stressed this would not have been possible had it not been for the insistence of the Club’s Board and Chief Executive. The requisitioners had originally wanted to press ahead with a separate General Meeting until Mr Mather made it clear this would have been an unnecessary waste of the Club's money. It is disingenuous now of anyone outwith Rangers’ Board to attempt to claim any credit for this initiative. The truth is Rangers would have been spending well in excess of £150,000 to convene a General Meeting and then an Annual General Meeting almost back to back and it is categorically the case that it was only through the determination of the Board which made the requisitioners back down on this issue. The upshot of all of this is that this agreement means it is not necessary to meet the statutory deadline for producing the circular which must be sent out to shareholders to convene a General Meeting. The Club had prepared the document and was ready to send this but common sense prevailed. That was one of the main objectives of Mr Mather and the other Directors, although they are also striving to achieve a positive balance in the Board room. That’s why Mr Mather has made it clear to Mr McColl in their discussions he was open to change and additions which would include Frank Blin along with potential others. It remains the case that only individuals capable of strengthening the Board and the Club should be taken on. So that Rangers fans may be certain on this issue, it is absolutely the case that from the outset the Board has been willing to consider new Directors joining the Board who are capable of enhancing the Club’s strategy and vision. Our supporters should also be aware that after serious and profound discussion with as many fans as possible - both in the UK and abroad - it will be our intention to introduce a proper and modern Membership Scheme. The fans of a club this size should have a greater connection and influence. Fan representation on the Board is not something this Club should fear. Arrangements for the Annual General Meeting will be revealed in due course but the Board has managed to avoid what would have been unnecessary extra expenditure.

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

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