Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'lies'.
-
by ANDREW SMITH A BUMPER crowd is expected as Celtic bring in the bells at home to Partick Thistle on Wednesday. With free tickets dished out and buses laid on, who knows, the Parkhead ground may even be at least half full. It hasn’t been that way recently. Indeed, the past two league games are the first back-to-back such encounters to have attracted crowds of less than 30,000 while the championship has been a live issue since the stadium became a 60,000-seater arena in 1998. Then, accurate attendances were given out. Now, these require freedom of information requests, with the club aggregating the number of paid-for-seats, which amounted to 46,000 for each of the victories over Hibernian and Hearts this month. If that appears undoubtedly healthy then what is not is that around 20,000 season ticket holders – around half the entire figure, in fact – are electing to think better of occupying seats they have already parted with their money for. It will be pointed out that the weather and time of year led to a dip in attendances throughout the country but that doesn’t explain what is driving down Celtic’s capacity to have punters come out to watch them. In the year-and-a-half the top flight has been devoid of the Rangers brand, Celtic have made great play of the fact that they have a standalone strategy not dependent on rivalry with a club playing out of Ibrox. And, having turned a debt into cash in the bank and posted a near-£10 million profit last year, they are making good on their assertion. Yet the declining interest from Celtic fans in watching a procession to their third championship demonstrates that they would struggle to operate at their current level if there was never again a team called Rangers in the top flight. The last two home games offered a glimpse of what would be the norm if the club operated in an environment in which they had no major – even from a numerical and cultural sense – rival. The 20,000 no-showers among Celtic’s season ticket holder base probably retain their tickets currently for two reasons: they received a £100 reduction on them last summer and it will probably be only 18 months before there is a Rangers to ridicule and lord it over in the Premiership. Without that promise of ding-dong derby days, most of these fans would probably chuck their tickets. In a non-Rangers world, then, Celtic would have a rain-or-shine hardcore of around 25,000. When they won the last of their nine-in-a-row run of titles in 1974, that was roughly their home average, as it was when they hit rock bottom in 1994. To live within the means that a 25,000 season-ticket-holder base generated, there is no way Celtic would operate with the £30m playing budget they have at present, or spend even sums of £2m on a couple of players every summer. Such a reduced season-ticket-holder figure – with child and younger person reductions taken into account – would bring in around £8m. Celtic’s ticket sales for the Champions League last year alone were £10m. In the Martin O’Neill era, season tickets sales coined in £23m. Celtic are too cautious to rely on Champions League income every year to prevent major losses. However much their club’s supporters may want to be in denial about it, then, with no Rangers permanently in their domain, Celtic would undergo serious downsizing and most home games the club’s stadium would be morgue-like. In turn, a lower spend on player wages would inhibit the calibre of individual that could be recruited, which would result in the team being weaker and potentially more vulnerable across the three rounds of Champions League qualifiers they require to negotiate to reach the group stages. It is perhaps surprising just how quickly almost half Celtic’s season ticket holders have canned watching domestic games. Two years ago, their team wasn’t even champions. The apologists would claim that the club’s treatment of the now dispersed Green Brigade and its perceived attempts to “sanitise” the support has helped turn off sections of the support, but few are buying that. In the Glasgow domain, for a great many it is quite clear that hatred of the other side fuels interest more than love of their own club. And without this adversarial outlet, it is noticeable how the stuggles of both Celtic and Rangers have become internalised. When it was put to Celtic manager Neil Lennon that some of his supporters appear to have short memories, he said: “And a self-destrcut button. And it’s not helpful.” The Irishman said he “can’t look at” the possibility that some Celtic fans have turned to navel gazing about their club as a more satisfying pastime than actually attending games. “My objective is to take the team forward,” Lennon said. “I am aware of the point being made because it is almost as if they need something to fight or argue about. But I can’t do anything about that.” In terms of the lowly 25,000 crowd estimated to have turned up for the 12.15 visit of Hearts last Saturday, Lennon pointed to mitigating circumstances beyond climate. “It’s the first time we’ve had a home game televised for a while and it’s Christmas as well which might have had a big effect on the crowd. We are always looking to give fans value for money and we’re always looking to bring a player in who might capture the imagination as well. But we’re 16 games unbeaten and we can’t do much more than that. Our away form has been very good but it’s a little bit different at home where teams camp in for long periods of the game. I know it’s up to us to try and break them down but we try to give the fans value for money at home as well. “I don’t think [what has happened with the Green Brigade] has had any effect. There might have been a Champions League hangover as well. We’re out of that competition now. I would expect over the festive period the crowds will pick up again and we have Partick Thistle on New Year’s Day and I would imagine there will be a decent crowd for that one.” A “decent crowd” these days, is very different from what it was five years ago. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/poor-attendances-suggest-celtic-need-rangers-1-3249508
-
Bell; Faure, McCulloch, Mohsni, Wallace; Black; Peralta, Law, Macleod; Clark, Daly
-
McCOIST said there is "no appetite for boycotts" despite some fans threatening to starve the club of cash in order to bring about change at boardroom level. ALLY McCOIST last night insisted Rangers fans need to continue buying season tickets, and forget boycotts, if the club is to “survive, improve and progress.” And the manager sounded a warning for Ibrox chief executive Graham Wallace that any cuts to his playing budget would mean he couldn’t compete with Celtic. Wallace told shareholders at last week’s agm cuts would be necessary at a club where the wage bill is almost 100 per cent of turnover. But McCoist said: “If I have a budget of £3million and Celtic have a budget of £20m then it would be extremely difficult to compete with them, an enormous task. Rangers and Celtic have always had the highest budgets.” Some fans have threatened to starve the club of cash in order to bring about change at boardroom level. But McCoist added: “The fans are the most important part of our club. We wouldn’t be here today if it hadn’t been for them buying 72,000 season tickets over the last couple of years that have followed administration. “The fans must continue to buy season tickets if the club is to survive, improve and progress. “I’m sure, the way things look at the moment, there’s no appetite for talk of boycotts. “But I won’t tell the fans what to do. All I can do is state they will have a major bearing on how we move on from here.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-manager-ally-mccoist-need-2957386 -
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/449976/Fringe-Rangers-players-face-an-Ibrox-exit
-
Three members of the Rangers board have lodged complaints to the police after violent threats were made against them. Rangers chairman Sandy Easdale, his brother James and Brian Stockbridge all received threats on a fans website. One image on the website, which cannot be named, contained a picture of Stockbridge with the caption stating "where is Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him". Another posting advocates "torching" McGill's Buses, which are owned by the Easdale brothers. Stockbridge, the Rangers financial director, was one of the five board members re-elected at Thursday's annual general meeting. Solicitors have asked police to investigate violent threats made against him and the Easdales. http://t.co/mPyqWbn2OR
-
I wrote the above paragraph a few weeks ago in an article which was published in the inaugural launch of WATP magazine. Much of course has changed during that time with the coming and going of the AGM, and the confirmation of our board of directors. Even as a fence sitter throughout all of this, I cannot hide my inward disappointment that Brian Stockbridge remains on the board. But perhaps in that regard I am being unfair to Mr Stockbridge as I don’t have in my possession the information which allows me to make an informed choice. I don’t know for instance whether he, in his role as financial director, was merely rubber stamping the overly generous bonuses previous board members had arranged for themselves, nor for instance what part, (as has been claimed in this overloaded propaganda war) nominee Malcolm Murray had in the setting of such bonuses. That will always be the case of course so long as the Rangers support remains dis-empowered and disenfranchised from the systems and processes I alluded to several weeks ago. But the system and process which determines the make up of the Rangers board has spoken, and furthermore it has spoken in a way which is democratic. We may not all like the results it has delivered but that, I’m afraid, is life. Of course, we can attempt to usurp that democratic process. and there has already been talk of boycotts with regard to season tickets and club merchandise, and I have no doubt such action will make those who clearly wield power – institutional investors – sit up and take notice. Notwithstanding the damage such boycotts would cause to our club, perhaps we should also consider the damage such action would cause to democratic process and what kind of “notice” would be initiated within institutional investors ? If the democratic process to elect a board is usurped by way of boycotts, a refusal to accept the decisions that process has delivered, do you think this will instil confidence in any future investment in the club from others ? Ask yourself this – would you invest heavily in an institution where your majority shareholding and the decisions you make relative to that investment, through proper process, can be overturned by the militant actions of others with a lesser shareholding ? I don’t like where our club sits at present, nor do I have complete confidence in those who are charged with taking us out of our current predicament and to another place. But given the choice between giving them a chance as opposed to damaging both club and destroying confidence in that democratic process – then I know which one I will choose. Season Ticket renewed.
-
http://t.co/akFr5PEKH3 Rangers chairman David Somers believes the "majority" of the Light Blues' support trust the board despite the stormy scenes at the club's annual general meeting at Ibrox on Thursday and recent fans' protests. The Rangers board were booed on to the stage at the AGM but emerged triumphant after all five directors were re-elected and their four opponents failed in their bid to be appointed. Under-fire finance director Brian Stockbridge, who received a particularly rough ride from those who attended the AGM, received 65.3 per cent backing from shareholders while his four colleagues, Norman Crighton, James Easdale and chief executive Graham Wallace, who subsequently won over most of the body of the meeting, all secured more than three-quarters of the support. The four so-called requisitioners - former Rangers oldco director Paul Murray, former chairman Malcolm Murray, Alex Wilson and Scott Murdoch - all polled close to 30 per cent of votes to scupper their hopes. However, despite a clear mandate from shareholders, the fall-out from the meeting had Gers supporters and fans' representatives talking about boycotts and refusing to renew season tickets amid general disgruntlement. Asked if he accepted there was a lack of trust in the board from the fans, Somers told Press Association Sport: "Just at the beginning (of the AGM) there were boos but the rest of the meeting was very orderly. "I was pleased that I got a nice round of applause after my speech which I thought was very generous of them. "I thought the questions were fair and overall, I thought the mood of the meeting was very positive. "Hopefully it cleared the air and we can build on that and take the club forward in terms of stability. "I think there is trust from the majority of the fans but having looked at the dark corporate history of the club, I understand why, for some of the fans' groups, there is some distrust. It is our job to build up the trust but it will take time. "And actually, if we look at the result of the AGM, you can see quite clearly that were massive support for the board. "It is also interesting to see that the requisitioners didn't have the level of support from the fans that they were saying they had got - we can see that from the numbers." Somers, whose position was made permanent last month after he was given the chairmanship on an interim period, dismissed the fans' red card display at the last home game against Ayr United. In the 18th and 72nd minutes of the match, the majority of the 45,227 crowd held up cards which had written on them 'get out of our club' and 'vote out the current board'. "I wasn't at that particular one but I have had several emails from people who said they were led to believe that the red card display was about apartheid so there seems to be some confusion among the fans as to what they were displaying," said Somers. "But we have taken on board that we have got to engage with the fans, the supporters groups and we have plans to do just that." Indeed, one of the biggest gripes of Paul Murray and the fans' representatives in the acrimonious lead-up to the AGM was the failure of the board to enter into dialogue with supporters. Somers, who revealed he had been appointed to the chairman's post by Stockbridge and Easdale after being recommended by club advisors Daniel Stewart, explained his reticence. "A lot of it has been time-related," he said. "I have only been on the board four weeks, Graham has only been on the board three weeks. "I spent the first two weeks interviewing nine or 10 CEOs and also interviewing a bunch of non-executive directors and that took up quite a bit of time. "We knew the AGM was important so it meant we went round all the institutional shareholder groups and said, 'Here we are and this is what we plan to do' and we were using up time that should have been used in normal circumstances for the fan groups. "I think we reassured the fans (at the AGM) that we have to engage much more with them than we have been doing. "Some (meetings) have already taken place. Graham has already had two or three meetings." Somers, however, admits there are no plans to invite a fans' representative on to the board. "I think a fan on the board would be a very singular situation," he said. "We are looking to set up a mechanism by which we can engage more democratically with the fans and get more fan representation. "That is something that we will be talking with the fans groups about. "There are various options. One option is to have a fan advisory board where we have a number of supporter groups on it. " Somers also confirmed that there were no plans to invite any of the requisitioners on to the board. He said: "Not at the moment, no. The shareholders have made their decision so we have to respect what the shareholders have said." A "final statement" released to Press Association Sport on behalf of the requisitioners read: "Now that the dust has settled after yesterday's result we thought it was important to make a few final comments. "First and foremost, we would like to thank everyone who voted for us, particularly the fans whose overwhelming support has galvanised us throughout this process. "Secondly, we think it is important that yesterday's result is put in context. The reality is that Brian Stockbridge's vote and our vote was determined by a very small number of shareholders. "Four shareholders, Easdale proxy, Laxey, Mike Ashley and Zeus Capital control almost 50 per cent of the shares. Obviously none of them voted for us and all of them voted for Brian Stockbridge. "We therefore achieved 60 per cent support from the remainder of the shareholders whilst Brian Stockbridge achieved 30 per cent. "That said it was a democratic vote and we stand by the result. "We are proud of our campaign. We have brought all of the issues to the fore and we have exposed the mismanagement of the club. "This has brought positive board change particularly in the shape of Graham Wallace. "We now hope that he is given the authority to make his mark without outside influences. "Finally we wish Ally and the team continued success in the future." Copyright PA Sport 2013, All Rights Reserved
-
Not going myself so am hoping a few lads I trust to tweet accurately will keep us informed through the meeting. The Rangers board have already arrived ahead of the 10.30am start.
-
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/256830-rangers-supporters-trust-suspend-spokesperson-over-improper-conduct/ -
Saturday, 30 November 2013 13:55 Club Statement Written by Rangers Football Club THE Club is extremely disappointed that a flare was set off from the North Stand at today's game against Falkirk. These devices are inherently dangerous and represent a real risk to fans. players and match officials. Today's incident has resulted in the playing surface being damaged and the Club are now investigating this matter and will be supporting the Police with their inquiries. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5693-club-statement
-
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
-
For those unfamiliar with Harper Lee’s classic “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Boo Radley is a mysterious and reclusive figure introduced early in the book by the author. Her fear of Boo often stems from the author’s overactive imagination and is compounded by a fear of the unknown. It is only at the end of the book the true nature and character of Boo Radley is revealed. As some of you know I have access to the Vanguard Bears forums, I’m not a member but am allowed full and unrestricted access to their online discussions. As a certain Fanzine editor described in his Christmas Fanzine this type of membership could be described as Vanguard Bears (Soft Toys Section) – [Copyright No.1 Fanzine] But more on this later. Form the reading of WATP magazine more of you will be aware of my recent article which insists on the Rangers support having access to information which allows us to ensure correct governance at our club. I think it is untenable that in this day and age, after all we as a support have been through and given back to this club – that we are totally disenfranchised and disempowered from the processes and systems which allow us to be vigilant regarding our club, or for that matter to make informed choices. In the very same article I praised the rise of militancy within our support – far more digestible than dignified silence. I also added that such militancy came with certain caveats. I was deeply encouraged by reports in the Evening Times that the Sons Of Struth had narrowed the target of their protest to Brian Stockbridge and Jack Irvine. My belief and hope was this would be a cause of unity amongst our support as I was of the opinion it reflected what many of us felt. I was so encouraged in fact; I wrote an article about it, having confirmed this was the case with SOS via Twitter. http://immortalrange…acquires-focus/ This did not go down particularly well with everyone, but as I said to someone privately who wrote to me following its publication – I don’t write to be popular. Part of the criticism of this article argued that this was not the correct position of the SOS. This caused me to seek further clarification from SOS that this in fact was their position, and this was duly forthcoming. http://i41.tinypic.com/zo8cjt.jpg It came as a surprise to me therefore that on Saturday en route to the ground I was stopped by a young lady who offered me a red card explaining it to be a protest against the board. On receipt of same and perusal of its contents I was dismayed. Its contents were clearly at odds with the assurances I had been given from SOS via Twitter. It’s a pity that much of the discussion about Saturday’s card display has de-generated, particularly by the anti-requisitoners factions, into ridiculous computer generated percentages or suggestions that some were fooled into thinking it was an anti-racism display. The message on the card was clear and unequivocal. The problem from my perspective however was that it was contrary to what SOS had informed me, or claimed in the Evening Times. I know some Bears, some of whom will be known to many of you, who participated in the display whilst not agreeing with the card’s content in their entirety. I sought clarification via Twitter with SOS, and even provided them with a screenshot of our conversation for clarification – to date no explanation has been offered as you can see by my Twitter timeline. Some may not think this is important but for a campaign demanding clarity and transparency is it really too much to ask that the SOS would lead by example ? I doubt there will have been many Bears, irrespective of which side of the fence (or even on it) you sit, who has not been impressed by Jim McColl throughout this process. He has spoken and conducted himself in exemplary fashion, when he has made attacks he has always sought to substantiate or justify his reasoning. For many, I suspect his endorsement of Graham Wallace was a watershed moment in this campaign, as well as admitting that Colin Kingsnorth was no-body’s fool. Are we as a support going to go against the judgement of those who sought change, and if so where do we eventually draw the line ? Furthermore in terms of judging business acumen what are the qualifications of those who are suggesting we do not draw a line in the sand ? Which brings me back to the Vanguard Bears. I’m not here to defend them, as they are more than capable of doing that for themselves. Given my propensity for speaking out, via my blog and also on their forums, I’ve little doubt I have pissed some of them off along the way, we don’t agree on everything, but that’s life – it’s all about opinions. But I will not allow them to misrepresented as has happened in recent weeks. Their position on the current boardroom battle remains as per their statement – they remain neutral. I fully accept that some of their members have expressed different views as those held by admin on behalf of their organisation, but is that any different from any other organisation ? Given some of the voting patterns in yesterdays RST poll – apparently not. It’s perhaps significant that some of those responsible for the aforesaid misrepresentation of Vanguard Bears are named on material which has come into their possession. One is left to question not only the wisdom but also the propriety of Paul Murray writing directly to a group, let alone issuing instructions, knowing such a group are involved in protesting and campaigning for the removal of the current board, a campaign which if successful would likely be of considerable benefit to him in his own aspirations. Perhaps in the course of time, and without reading To Kill a Mocking Bird, some of you will learn for yourselves that sometimes the Boo Radleys of this world are not necessarily the bad guys.
-
The Reqs the facts. http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/requisitioners-the-facts/
-
Dear Mr King, This is a particularly difficult letter to write, despite it being penned from one Bear to another. It is difficult because I don’t necessarily believe the model of ownership you would bring to our club – a sole owner – has been particularly successful for Rangers, and if I’m honest I would much rather see the transparency and clarity which I would hope could be afforded by some measure of fan representation on our board. In short, in writing such a letter I am foregoing many of the dreams and aspirations I hoped would be achieved in my lifetime for our club. I mention the foregoing for one reason – to highlight how desperate and concerned I am and the circumstances which gave rise to this letter. Our support is literally ripping itself asunder in the current boardroom battle, the very heart and soul of this club are trading blows with each other and causing rifts, some of which I fear may prove irreparable. For a club such as ours, which attracts so much hatred from others, and whose strength and very survival has often relied upon our unity as a support, this presents a bleak and ominous outlook. Further more I am not convinced that either side emerging victorious from the AGM on the 19th December, will result in a cessation of hostilities, merely a lull in the fighting, which will be renewed, perhaps with greater vigour and further damage to our already fragmented support in the future. But I do not write to you as Dave King the financial saviour of our club. I write to you as the only man on this planet who can bring the much needed unity to our support, whose commitment to this club is without question, and who can capture, inspire and unite our support behind our club. As one. The English writer William Hazlitt once wrote : “No man is truly great who is great only in his lifetime. The test of greatness is the page of history.” I, and thousands like me, would implore you now to write your page in the history of our club. Yours in Rangers D’Artagnan
-
Next Thursday morning will see the club's AGM held at Ibrox Stadium. Clearly the business of the meeting is a hot topic for many Rangers fans and the event itself will prove fascinating as each resolution is voted upon. Within this article, I've included some of the business related primarily to the appointment of both existing and potential Directors of the company. Why not cast your vote now - you don't even need to be a shareholder! http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/204-mock-online-agm-cast-your-vote-now
-
How much money has been pocketed by so called board members since Craig Whytes takeover it is an astonishing ammount of money we are talking about close on £100 million pounds has went through the club and what have Rangers football club got for it, well come April we have £1 million pounds left, Now i ask you another question what has Craig Whyte got for it, What has Craig Mather got for it, What has Imran Ahmed got for it, What has Charles Green got for it, What has Brian Stockbridge got for it, What have the Easdales got for it? What will Jack Irvine get for it? Back this board at the clubs Expense as you will need to look yourself in the mirror every morning.
-
AS a listed company, the members of the Rangers Board have to be very careful and professional in the way in which we communicate information. This is clearly not the case for the requisitioners, who can make all sorts of wild and spurious allegations. My concern is that these unprofessional, wild allegations are being used just like bogey men were used when I was a child. But in this case, they are being used to frighten our supporters and shareholders. So, within the bounds of what I can say, I would like to put some of these bogey men to rest. Firstly, I read wild accusations that I may not be independent. This is usually accompanied by a list of names from the club’s past. Let me say categorically, that until I joined the Board a mere 4 weeks ago yesterday, I had never heard of Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Craig Whyte, or any of the other characters in Rangers’ history. To my knowledge, I have never met them, nor had business dealings with them. Nor would I recognise them if I passed them on a street. When I was approached to join the Board, the Company had only two directors and the immediate priority was to preserve the AIM Listing. Surely it is naïve to think that there is any way the Nominated Adviser could have allowed anyone not totally independent to take on this position at that time? I have now read over two years of board minutes and they make very depressing reading in terms of the scale of their lack of professionalism and worse. The minutes make it clear, in my mind, that the boards of recent years have been totally unfit to run this club. The mystery to me is why people should now be considering that members of these boards, which presided over the problems we face today, should be considered for re-election. Although I have learned one lesson, which is that if you shout long enough and loud enough in the media, you may be able to reinvent yourself. Recent inaccurate and, in fact, completely untrue allegations have included a new bogey man about Jack Irvine's contract. I have looked at this and can say that he has a normal contract, with no bonuses attached and the figures quoted by Mr Scott Murdoch are utter nonsense. Let me also say that Graham Wallace and I are beginning a complete review of every contract that is in place. You can imagine that this is going to take weeks and then more time where contracts need to be changed. I have been on board four weeks yesterday and Graham less than that, but we have already begun this critical process. One area, where we are conscious that we need to focus, is in improving our communication and engagement with all Rangers supporters. We have already commenced work to identify what is required to fully engage with our fan base and we will be bringing forward some significant proposals in the near future. The Board is fully behind improving the communication and engagement with the fans. Another bogey man relates to the club's finances. We have said publicly a number of times that any talk of the club going into administration is completely untrue. Yes, we will need to make decisions to improve cash flows and strengthen the business, but these will be the right decisions at the right time. Another new bogey man thrown about by the Gang of Four is the suggestion that we might be thinking of selling Ibrox. We are not thinking about this. Where do the requisitioners get these ideas from? I promise you we have no intention of a sale. Brian Stockbridge suffers most from the lies thrown around by the people in the process of reinventing themselves. Even the requisitoners must understand that finance directors are members of boards and their actions are largely dictated by the board. Reading the minutes of the last two years or more, I see that Mr Murray was involved at board level for long periods covering contract and financial negotiations. It is not that Finance Directors make mistakes, rather that boards make mistakes, or worse. Without Brian, the club would, in my opinion, have been de-listed months ago and ironically the club should owe him a debt of gratitude for holding things together. Going forward, his new CEO, Graham Wallace, needs time to evaluate the whole structure within the business and the people within it. This will be true for Brian as for everyone else. For the good of the club, for the good of the supporters and for the good of the shareholders, I sincerely hope that the shareholders will get behind the existing board and vote for us. In addition, I encourage shareholders to vote against the four requisitioners. Firstly, because some of them were members or chairman of boards which failed this club in the past. Secondly, we need a Board selected from the best available people. Not just from fanatics who put their own personal interest ahead of the greater good of the club. If these people were to join the board they would be taking up positions which should be held in future by the best, professional people with Rangers true best interests at heart and not having their involvement driven by their own personal self interest. Best regards, David Somers http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5759-an-open-letter-from-the-chairman
-
Rangers supporters' groups threaten to call time on financial support if boardroom battle continues after agm HAVING poured £10milllion into the club the Rangers Supporters Trust, Rangers Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association believe they have the power to force change in the boardroom. RANGERS fans’ groups last night threatened to pull the plug on financial support if the Ibrox boardroom battle continues to rage after the annual general meeting on December 19. A statement from the three main organisations – the Rangers Supporters Trust, Rangers Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association – came just hours before new chairman David Somers plunged into a new war of words with the four shareholders hoping to be elected onto the board at the agm. But even before his comments Ibrox supporters’ groups made it clear they’ve had enough. And having poured £10million into the club through season ticket sales this season, they believe they have the power to force change. Their statement read: “It is evident significant portions of the support want as a matter of urgency to see a RIFC board working efficiently as a unit to take the club forward effectively commercially and on the pitch. “Failure to achieve this will potentially result in fans disengaging with the club and the effect this would have on income streams would be disastrous.” Somers later issued an open letter defending himself against claims he had not proved his ‘independence’ from previous regimes operated by Craig Whyte and Charles Green. Somers’ intervention – in which he calls Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson the ‘Gang of Four’– appears to have blown any chance of them working together should the quartet be elected. The newly appointed chairman claimed many of Rangers’ problems over the last two years came during periods when the Murrays were directors. He accused them of ‘wild’ allegations to frighten fans and shareholders. Somers said: “Brian Stockbridge suffers most from the lies thrown around by the people in the process of reinventing themselves. “Even the requisitoners must understand finance directors are members of boards and their actions largely dictated by the board. It is not that finance directors make mistakes, rather that boards make mistakes, or worse. “Without Brian, the club would in my opinion have been de-listed months ago and the club should owe him a debt of gratitude for holding things together. “Going forward, his new CEO Graham Wallace needs time to evaluate the whole structure within the business and the people within it. This will be true for Brian as for everyone else. I read wild accusations that I may not be independent. “Let me say categorically, until I joined the board a mere four weeks ago yesterday, I had never heard of Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Craig Whyte or any other characters in Rangers’ history. “To my knowledge, I have never met them, nor had business dealings with them. Nor would I recognise them if I passed them on a street. “I have now read over two years of board minutes and they make very depressing reading in terms of their lack of professionalism and worse. The minutes make it clear in my mind the boards of recent years have been totally unfit to run this club. “The mystery to me is why people should now be considering that members of these boards, which presided over the problems we face today, should be considered for re-election. “I encourage shareholders to vote against the four requisitioners. Firstly, because some were members or chairman of boards which failed this club in the past. Secondly, we need a board selected from the best available people. “Not just from fanatics who put their own personal interest ahead of the greater good of the club.” But Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust last night jointly accused Somers of being out of touch. In response to his comments they issued a statement that said: “The comments from the chairman are deeply troubling and we call for an urgent meeting so he can acquaint himself with the reality of the feelings of the support.” Somers’ comments came on the day the four requisitioners made a statement to shareholders ahead of the agm. It read: “We have been relentless in our pursuit of change, as have the fans with whom we are completely aligned. “There are not many businesses who can choose to ignore their customers. This is what the past and current board have done and are still doing. All shareholders should be worried about the impact this may have on season ticket sales and other commercial revenues. “We would ask shareholders to support further board changes.” I would like to know how they get to the £10m figure, and if it wasn't the groups why they haven't corrected the journo. -
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".
-
What is this about? https://twitter.com/LindsayJJ1/status/408246230616379392/photo/1 9 blatant fabrications by gersnet?
-
KEITH reckons Rangers fans should remember that Paul Murray has always had the best interests of the club at heart ahead of agm on December 19 AFFAIRS of the heart can be complicated things. There must have been times over the last two and half years, for example, when Paul Murray will have wondered why he bothers. When loving his club may have become altogether just too bruising. When negotiating his way around this unrelenting Rangers saga must have exhausted him. As if he was playing five-dimensional chess. Trying to disseminate the filthy lies of the Craig Whyte takeover, see through all those murky, multi-million pound deceptions, get his head around the shameful cheating of the public purse and then suffer the eventual agony of watching his club being tipped over a financial abyss. It must have messed as much with his head as with his emotions. From day one Murray cried foul but found hardly anyone who was willing to listen. He was denounced as a trouble- maker, derided as a fantasist and turned upon by Rangers fans who had no wish to be confronted by such unpalatable truths. That kind of brutal abuse would have been enough to make most walk away. But when Murray’s nightmare scenario actually became reality and Whyte called in the administrators on February 14 last year he summoned up the will to keep on fighting. Then when his Blue Knights were blocked by Duff and Phelps from saving the club from Whyte’s clutches, Murray was savaged again for allowing his consortium to be trumped by Charles Green who had appeared on the scene at the very last minute, as if from nowhere. The rancid stench from that closed-shop sale – and the crescendo of criticism which came his way after – should have been enough to sicken Murray for life. He was humiliated. His credibility called into question by the very supporters he was trying to help. Many thousands of them hailed Green as some sort of gruff- talking, big-handed messiah. Perhaps they know better now because, finally, after all this time the fog of confusion around this Rangers debacle is beginning to lift. At last, Murray’s place in all of this is becoming clear. In fact, with little more than two weeks to go before the long-awaited and defining agm, it has never been so straightforward. On December 19 he will either be voted on to the board or he will not. The club’s shareholders must now decide if they trust Murray and his fellow rebels Malcolm Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson – or if Rangers would be safer left in other hands (be they big Yorkshire ones or otherwise). Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, now would be an ideal moment for some reflection on Murray’s role in all of this. They say you can judge the calibre of a man by the company he keeps. In Murray’s case, perhaps it’s even more pertinent to consider the enemies he has made over the last two and a bit years. Let’s start with Whyte, Duff and Phelps, David Grier, Green, Imran Ahmad, Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge. None of them has a good word to say about Murray. Which might be his biggest single validation of all. This is the definitive Who’s Who of the bogeymen in this unrelenting Rangers narrative. With that in mind, it is interesting to note Murray has expressed support for the club’s new chief executive Graham Wallace, whose appointment has been broadly welcomed by all sides. But while it is entirely possible that these two – and new non-executive director Norman Crighton – might yet find common ground, Murray has beaten most of the rest of them into retreat if not entirely into submission. Now two men are fixed firmly in his sights – Stockbridge and the PR consultant who helped bring about this whole collapse by acting in the interests of his client Whyte. Or, if you prefer, the onset of the Cuban Heeled Crisis. Last week it was alleged publicly by Murray’s team that this master of the dark arts is currently being paid £40k a month to spin on behalf of the Rangers board, with another £100k bonus to come for a favourable result at the agm. The man himself denied these figures on Twitter but declined numerous invitations to clear the whole issue up by declaring his real bottom line. There is no doubt whatsoever, though, that his company has been handsomely rewarded by the Whytes, Greens and Ahmads. As a result, at one time or another some or maybe even all of these characters have enjoyed a certain amount of backing. But at no point did they receive Murray’s. That’s chiefly because their priorities clashed directly with his. While they have all sought to exploit Rangers for financial gain, Murray’s motivation has always been to protect the club. Perhaps understandably, even now there will be Rangers supporters out there who cannot take to Murray, possibly because they think he has brought their club nothing but trouble. Perhaps, though, it is time for them to stop and think about why Murray bothered. Maybe now, in retrospect, they may wish they too had done more to stand up against this cast of opportunists and mercenaries. Murray bothered because of his love for Rangers and his deep-rooted determination to do the right thing. The rest? They have dipped in and out of this long-running debacle with the common goal of getting out with as much of the club’s money as they could stuff into their pockets. He clashed with all of them because his good intentions jarred with their greed. There are other central figures around this story who, with good reason, have lacked the courage to speak out in public about what they have known to be going on behind the scenes. Some of them have secretly reached out to Murray from within the heart of Ibrox and pleaded with him to continue his pursuit of the truth. Maybe one day soon these people will find their voices but, then again, some of them have been placed under enormous levels of intimidation, like the former senior employee who reported Rangers to the Serious Fraud Office earlier this year – offering information on alleged irregularities around last December’s £22m IPO. In an ideal world, this individual and others who are far more familiar to the Rangers support, will break cover and tell all before the shareholders go the vote. After all, a great deal more than just Paul Murray’s reputation is about to go on the line. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-ibrox-whistleblowers-must-2874396?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
-
AS the row over Peter Lawwell's Celtic AGM comments rumbles on, KEITH JACKSON reckons its time both sides of the Old Firm stopped the grandstanding and concentrated on their own priorities. LIKE Alan Partridge, Scottish football is bouncing back. In just 10 months Gordon Strachan has taken this team of ours and stopped it from being a laughing stock. As a result of all his hard work, Scotland are no longer driving from Norwich to Dundee in their bare feet, gorging on assorted Toblerones. Friday’s 0-0 draw with the USA at Hampden may hardly have been inspirational but even so it was yet more proof that Strachan has us on the road to recovery. His players are not losing games against supposedly vastly superior opponents, even when performing well below their own best standards. That’s progress and it comes at a time when things are looking up. All over the country, talented young players are emerging at club level and thriving with the responsibility of first-team football. Stuart Armstrong has just earned his first call-up to Strachan’s full squad while Ryan Gauld and Stevie May will soon be knocking on the door. At last, after years of internal vandalism, we’re getting our own house back in some sort of order. It’s not immaculate but no longer does it make us cringe with embarrassment. Until, that is, someone goes and mentions the Old Firm. I did it once but I think I got away with it. Oh no wait, that will be the sound of a thousand emails cascading into my inbox. A deluge of dementedness. “Don’t call us the Old Firm. We don’t want anything to do with that other mob.” They may hate the living daylights out of one another but what they do share – in fact what binds them together – is the capacity for ferocious bampottery. Every comment passed in public about one side or the other is picked apart forensically by supporters of both. Often the throwing of these titbits results in an online feeding frenzy, where all reason and logic are the first to be devoured. It has been this way since the invention of the internet. But, just lately, the landscape around Glasgow’s uneasy neighbours has become noticeably darker and poisonous. Which is why Peter Lawwell, of all people, should have displayed better judgment than to poke a big stick into this hornet’s nest at Celtic’s agm on Friday. By gratuitously branding Rangers Rory Bremner FC, Lawwell sent this bitter little world into meltdown. Lawwell’s words were a nod and a wink to the most extremist element of his club’s support and, in a way, a green light for them to pursue their own dubious agendas. Sound familiar? It should do. Because it was not that long ago that a certain big-handed Yorkshireman was doing precisely the same thing to win over the masses at the other side of this never so deeply divided city. It’s called grandstanding and, at a time when emotions are so volatile and feelings so raw, it’s a dangerous road for either of these two clubs to be going down, never mind both of them at once. In opposite directions. The sooner this pair remember that their purpose in life is to play the game, not the galleries, then perhaps the rest of us might be able to get on with the business of helping Scottish football back towards a state of good health rather than constantly being forced to rubberneck by these ceaseless attention seekers. And yet no sooner had Lawwell pressed the button on Friday (successfully diverting attention away from an awkward internal debate about paying his employees a living wage in the process) than Rangers responded with a blast of their own. You could almost hear them inside their Ibrox bunker working out the strategy, above the clicking of a PR guru’s Cuban heels. “Right, where’s that statement slaughtering Celtic and Lawwell. That’s genius. Punters will love it.” Talk about stage-managed rabble rousing? It’s almost as if the current remnants of this Rangers board are being given PR advice from the very same strategical experts who presented Craig Whyte to the world as a billionaire and told him how to go about winning friends and influencing people. Oh, wait a minute. They are. Yes, the very same people who said the Daily Record was lying when it first revealed what Whyte was up to with the club’s season tickets – a full seven months before his ruinous business plan tipped the club into administration. Whoever said motivation doesn’t grow on trees clearly hasn’t gone for a stroll down Edmiston Drive since Whyte stuffed the taxman for £15million under the cover of dark arts. That’s the truth of the matter. Whyte plunged Rangers under and his scandalous behaviour has left a black mark on the very soul of this football club which continues to operate at Ibrox, in blue shirts with the same badges and crests. Whyte was a near-death experience all right but Rangers live on. The real nature of the problem facing Rangers today is not that they have ceased to exist (they are still here after all) but rather they have become unrecognisable from their former selves. And to that end, Lawwell had a point. Like Bremner’s Tony Blair, today’s Rangers are a flimsy impersonation of the real thing. But none of that is the business of Celtic’s chief executive, who would surely be better off concentrating on his own club’s continued dominance, especially now that BT Sport are doubling the value of a ticket into the Champions League. Lawwell was right when he said Celtic are now a stand-alone club. They have proved they do not need Rangers in order to survive and to prosper. The less of UEFA’s loot they have to share, the stronger they will become. Rangers, for their part, face a struggle just to keep HMS Ibrox from sinking for a second time. Let them both get on with it, preferably as far apart from one another as is possible in this twisted little world. In the meantime, just don’t mention the Old Firm.
-
I think the best thing about this long piece is the trailer, but anyway, here's your Sunday morning... When we got kicked out the SPL, one thing I thought would be good was that when international breaks came around, we at least would have a game to look forward to. The idea that we could have internationalists playing for us down amongst the dead men never occurred to me, and while these dreary weeks without even a competitive international game to watch are dull, they do at least give you a chance to look a the bigger picture. As usual, it's a dispiriting one, with the main news of note being the appointment of a raft of directors at Rangers - temporary or otherwise, time will tell - and celtc's continuing attempts to remove Rangers entirely from the game in Scotland. Booooring!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsSbhdo0kQI So instead of waxing gloomical about the same old stuff I've groused above before, I shall this week offer a menu of possibilities for the future, things the game could engage with and maybe create a freshness about that stalest of products, the SPFL. These are all nicked from other sports, but that's no reason to dismiss them. Other sports are booming, thriving even, in these difficult financial times by innovating: we could learn from them. First up, a boring marketing/community bonding opportunity. BT show French Ligue 1 games, and you see every side has the regional tourist board advertised on their strips. Watching the Aussie football this weekend, I see they are the same. 'Do the CG experience!' exhorts the brightly coloured either Adelaide or Perth shirt (my Australian geography is not great). Given that there's plenty of space available on SPFL shirts, they ought to employ this device to get as much exposure (limited, I admit) for each club's region or city. Given how fast Scots clubs are declining, anything which re-engages them with their communities ought to be embraced. The current rugby world cup is attracting huge audiences in England, Wales & France; at the end of the game, both teams take a lap of honour, during which players pose for photos and sign autographs for fans. Perhaps this ought to be home fans only, and only then after a win, but it's an idea which would take an extra 10 or 15 minutes for the players and which would reinforce the bond between fan and player. And to any player who couldn't be bothered, they would have to shoulder the consequences should they dip in form! Cricket's 20/20 competition has brought in many innovations since it appeared about 10 years ago, nowhere more so than in the magnificent Indian Premier League. Features include an audio link between a fielder (usually the skipper) and the commentators while bowlers are walking back to their mark, or during a drinks break; while the heat doesn't require such a break in Glasgow very often, there's no reason why keepers could not be linked up by an audio tech behind the goal while their team are up the other end of the pitch - in cricket the interviewed player just breaks off should he have to, and goalies could do the same. Likewise, since there have been trackside reporters for decades, let's get them broadcasting the actual sounds of the sideline, rather than some mediated, filtered, cleaned up version. If this causes issues for managers or coaches who can't go 45 minutes at a stretch without effing or blinding, that is their problem - if they want TV money, they can behave to minimum live TV standards. This kind of technical innovation would allow the SFA or SPFL or whoever to approach broadcasters with a fresh product, offering superior access to players or staff, rather than a pale imitation of England's success. The IPL also require their grounds to build a little VIP booth, which is for competition winners rather than high heid yins, and include big comfy armchairs and fridges filled with Pepsi products. Practicalities might make this hard, but we are too much in the habit of saying 'we can't' when we need to be saying 'we have to'. Such competitions and prizes must be a money spinner as well as ideal product placement, an area we need to maximise in order to tempt what appears to be a highly reluctant commercial sector back to our moribund product. Joint managerial press conferences could be introduced, which ought to go some way to enforcing managers to act like adults. I think we can think of the one exception who would still stick out his petulant lower lip, and no doubt the media would be annoyed at losing their precious controversial moments, but the aim is to make the product better and financially healthier. Childish and whiny complaints will not bring in investment, a relatively mature product might. No doubt every reader will have ideas of their own. We all know that the game needs radical change at a purely functional level, especially the 4 games a season nonsense, but there's lots of room for tinkering around the edges and freshening up what is a sorely tired product. Just sometimes we need to turn our thoughts toward what we can do to make the game better, rather than the understandable constant harping on about what's wrong with it. Let's hear it for positive thinking, even just for a week!
-
I suppose this is blogger’s equivalent of the Samurai tradition of Seppuku – their unique suicide rite. At journalism college one of my course tutor’s used to invariably preach about the successful narrator knowing, and writing to the very heart and soul of their audience. This article will do quite the opposite and some may find the content uncomfortable, however I feel it asks a question which needs to be asked. The boardroom battle for control of our club has seen a thorough examination of the character and integrity (or alleged lack thereof) of the various candidates vying for control. It would be fair to say the Rangers support is well versed in the personal character strengths and weaknesses of the Murrays, the Easdales etc. The apparent weaknesses of the “other sides” candidates have been given maximum exposure during the ensuing debate, with the morality factor at times appearing as important as the size of the wallet they, or their backers, bring to our club. All is fair in love and war. Waiting in the wings is a man many Rangers fans would view as our club’s “Messiah” – Dave King. Almost as important as his money appears to be his ability to unite the fragmented factions within our support for he appears to have the unanimous backing of all. Perhaps the eventual winner in our boardroom battle will determined by which side, if any, Dave King decides to ally with. Such unanimous support for King has spared him the moral examination so many others have been subjected to in our boardroom struggle. With the exception of course of the Scottish Press. Let me make one thing clear – the Scottish Press have long surrendered the right to exercise moral judgement with regard to our club. They surrendered such a right long ago with their silence over 5 way agreements, their silence over unlawful transfer embargo’s imposed on our club and their desire to join with the haters in labelling us “cheats”and thus trampling over our right to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. This discussion is by invitation only, and those out with the Rangers support are not invited, cordially or otherwise. But it is nonetheless, a discussion which has to be had. Judge Southwoods assessment of Dave King in his tax battle with the South African authorities was damning. I’m sure most of you have read it, but to spare you the false morality of the Scottish press it can be found here : http://www.moneywebtax.co.za/moneywebtax/view/moneywebtax/en/page259?oid=56208&sn=Detail Are we satisfied as a support that the coat bearing glib and shameless will be discarded should Dave King return to Ibrox in any capacity ? Will an alleged disrespect for the truth be at odds with a support demanding transparency and clarity with regard to the governance of our club ? Or are the characteristics described by Judge Southwood exactly what are needed at our club in a battle where our enemies are not playing by the rules ? These are difficult questions but we will need to wrestle with them at some point. Failure to do so is just not an option.
-
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5579-club-statement Now that's a statement we can all agree with. Let's hope club means what they say rather than offering a sop to concerned fans.
