Search the Community

Press release to press association from the Union of Fans “We welcome the fact that Dave King has committed to travelling to the UK to advance the setup of the required legal structures for a Season Ticket Trust and a fund to purchase an equity stake in the club. We very much look forward to meeting him in the near future to push things forward. We also note that, like us, he shares a fear that Charles Green and the people he represents are still de facto in control of our club. At their meeting of 30th January with CEO Graham Wallace, the RST requested an updated copy of the register of shareholders in RIFC PLC, which is a legal entitlement of all shareholders. The club considered this request and asked for further information, which has now been provided. We are aware of similar requests by individual shareholders which have yet to be fulfilled. We are aware of concerns by shareholders that there has been a perceived delay in complying with requests for a copy of the members register, and that these concerns have lead to suspicions. We would urge the club to comply with these requests as a matter of urgency, and act on their promises of transparency and engagement with supporters. We also note that Graham Wallace recently attempted to justify the £1.5M loan from Laxey and Sandy Easdale, by indicating that it was part of a business plan he “inherited”. Just who did he inherit the business plan he is implementing from? Charles Green? Brian Stockbridge? Imran Ahmad? Also, why is he still implementing a business plan which is so clearly flawed? Particularly when it is clear that alternative routes are and have been available. We would like this board to explain just what has happened to the 5 million shares Charles Green awarded himself at 1 penny each and which constituted a 7.68% stake in Rangers. We are aware that some of those shares are now in the hands of Laxey. It was also widely publicised that Green had proxied his shares to the Easdales and struck an agreement to sell those shares to the Easdales in December 2013. But no record of such a share trade exists. Also the Easdales do not appear to have increased their notifiable interest in the company according to the most up-to-date information available. It is entirely unclear who now holds the balance of Mr Green’s shares and if indeed they have even moved out of his control. Dave King is quite correct to express his fear that Charles Green and those he represents are possibly still controlling Rangers. Just as we, as supporters and shareholders, are right to exercise our legal right to view the up-to-date shareholders register. Once again, we simply ask this board to answer the perfectly reasonable questions they are being asked and to not just speak about transparency but actually provide it.”

KEITH says it's time for Dave King to prove he can see a plan through to the end and says his actions from here on in will determine his legacy at Ibrox. DON’T know what the equivalent is in South Africa but in Castlemilk, where a young Dave King grew up, the vernacular goes something like: It’s time to p*** or get off the potty. Today, of course, King is a million miles removed from the hard-knock streets of the Glasgow housing scheme he once called home. But those who have stayed closest to him over almost 40 years of sun-kissed exile – and you can count them on the fingers of one hand by the way – insist he has never lost touch with his roots. King, they say to a man, remains steeped in his past. Fiercely proud of his working-class upbringing and crucially, at least where this week’s events are concerned, every bit as passionate about the football club he left behind. He remains, to use another home-grown term, the embodiment of a “Rangers man”. It is this one basic credential above all others that separates King from the succession of fly by nights, chancers and opportunists who have at one stage or another taken on lead roles in this seemingly endless Ibrox narrative. If these supporters cannot place their hopes and trust in one of their own, then all trust and all hope might perish for good. Throughout the past three years of turmoil and the relentless chaos unleashed upon them by the Whtyes, Greens, Ahmads and Stockbridges, King has been viewed by the boots on the ground consistently as the man most likely to save them from their plight. Unlike all the characters above and even former chairman Sir David Murray, who played his part in lumbering them with this list of charlatans in the first place, King shares a lifelong emotional attachment to the cause. In their eyes, the only difference between them are the millions King has stuffed in his bank account. If these people won the lottery tomorrow they’d have Rangers saved by Saturday. So it stands to reason King will one day feel a sense of duty to do the same. Does it not? It may be more pertinent to ask why has it taken him so long to take a stand? Or indeed to question if finally, this time, he intends to see it through to the end? Only King has the answers. What the rest of us do know, however, is his actions from here on in will determine his legacy. He’ll either go down in history as one of the all-time giants of the Rangers story. Or he will fail in his objective and risk being dismissed as a footnote. Either way the real Dave King biography is about to be written. Certainly his sudden re-emergence on to centre stage in the past few days appears to suggest his time is now. By pointing his big guns at the top of the marble staircase and taking on the current regime King has sent out a rallying cry to these supporters. They answered with one voice yesterday. They are with him all the way. This is as clear a case of “them v us” as Fergus McCann quite brilliantly utilised 20 years ago when he harnessed the power of the people to bludgeon down the big doors at Celtic Park. But McCann did more than simply talk a good game. When push came to shove the little man with the big bunnet also proved to have deep pockets and a willingness to empty them for Celtic’s benefit, as well as his own. King can quite legitimately point to the £20millon he previously pumped into Rangers as hard evidence of the colour of his own money. There has been a whispering campaign about this in recent weeks with shadowy suggestions that King quietly recouped around £18m worth of that investment. For the record this has been denied to me not just by King himself but also by Sir David Murray. The two men, incidentally, are no longer on speaking terms and have not been for a considerable time. Apparently, for 20 million different reasons. But even though King has had his fingers badly burned in the past it does seem reasonable to ask why he has remained on the outside looking in on this omnishambles for so long. Occasionally, he has dipped a toe in the water before scamper-ing back up the beach. Late last year for example he even arrived in Britain amid a great flurry of excitement, fluttered a few eye-lashes, held a few conversations and then retreated back to the solitude of his own world without nailing down a deal. King’s doubters, of which there are many, insist he has had ample opportunity to wade into this debacle and to buy his way into a position of power. In other words, to do a Fergus. It is worth remembering here, however, that King’s long-running tax issues first had to be resolved. With that in mind, he has only really become a viable player in this game in the last six months when he settled his affairs by agreeing to write a cheque for an eye-watering £44m. This is in itself creates another couple of issues. Not only does it pose an obvious question as to how much money he has left in the pot but also, King’s critics raise serious morality issues about the prospect of Rangers being saved by a man who was described as a “glib and shameless liar” by a South African judge and who faced a total of 322 criminal charges. Again, they have a point. Had, for example, Whyte appeared on the steps of the front door carrying baggage like this he would have been chased all the way down the length of Edmiston Drive and Rangers might have been spared from all this ignominy and suffering. But this is where King’s standing and status with the supporters kicks in. This, in fact, is what makes him an entirely unique case. King’s supporters remain convinced by his intentions to do only what is right for his football club. And that would be something of a first where this Rangers saga is concerned. They argue, quite correctly too, that there’s hardly a successful businessman to be found anywhere in the commercial world who has not attempted to run rings around the tax man. It is what these people do in order to maximise their profits. King is certainly no different in that regard. But what makes him stand out from the rest is his “Made In Castlemilk” credentials and the inbuilt sense of belonging which still brings his mum and sister to Ibrox every other week. There have been other wealthy good Samaritans along the way, such as Brian Kennedy and Jim McColl – men who clearly meant well but who ultimately just didn’t care quite enough to make the kind of sacrifices which will now be expected of King. This time the strong signals from South Africa really do indicate he is ready and willing to bear this almighty load, that he has now engaged fully into the fight for his club and he will not retreat until the war is won. With King now organising his travel plans and expected to pitch up in Glasgow some time soon the next few days and weeks will determine his fate and that of his football club. The King will either claim his rightful throne. Or abdicate the potty once and for all.

The third meeting of the CIC Working Group was held tonight at the Louden Tavern. It was agreed that the suggested contribution would be £18.72 per month but with a minimum of £5.00; and it was confirmed that the cost of collection will not exceed 1% of the contribution. I have been asked to draft Minutes for review rather than publishing a report here first. The Minutes with any post-Meeting notes will then be published asap on http://www.rangersfirst.org.

Stand back and survey the scene. The institution that once believed itself to be Scotland's premier football club; a national monument, an establishment-protected icon, a pillar of excellence and endeavour, is in disarray once again. The red brick Ibrox facade hides a multitude of sins and an array of secrets. The Old Lady is a bank of opportunity for hedge funds and a safe haven for overpaid, bonus-ridden, bean-counters. Its fading grandeur reflects the impoverishment of its host, and like a stately home with a leaky roof and a never-ending list of repairs, the old ground has an uncertain future. The Old Lady is a victim of the disease of avarice. As she struggles to hide the scars of neglect, a succession of carers has swanned off into the sunset with money-laden suitcases, and now a crisis loan is required to pay bills and keep third division players on top division wages. Rangers' problems have not gone away. Maybe they never will. As smaller football clubs receive public sympathy for their financial difficulties, Rangers, uniquely, stands accused of depriving schools and hospitals of income. As football minnows wallow in victim-status, Rangers is in the dock, roundly condemned by press comment and regularly vilified by public opinion. The world has changed: Scotland has changed: the political establishment has changed. Rangers has become a misfit. In modern Scotland, the club has few friends and even less powerful allies. The club has been so denigrated in recent decades that it taints reputations merely by association. As the club flounders and falters, there is an almost unspoken hope in polite society that its final act will be to disappear altogether. To Rangers fans, this is an unpalatable prospect, but there are people across Scotland - not just Celtic fans - whose most fervent wish is that Rangers goes away: permanently. To them, Rangers represents intolerance, sectarianism and bigotry, and in this hypersensitive and politically correct age, the club is perceived to be an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness. They want it to wither and die because only hardcore bigots and sectarian morons will mourn it. Decent people, in their eyes, will be glad to see the back of it. Beleaguered Rangers fans can attempt to deflect blame, point the finger elsewhere and proclaim innocence, but no-one is listening. The jury has already made its mind up. Rangers has lost the respect of a nation and edged towards the precipice. It has become the black sheep of Scottish football. Administration and liquidation didn't kill the club, but they highlighted something that should be deeply concerning to a support which aches for a leader to look up to and respect. Within the million-strong Rangers fanbase, there is a noticeable lack of people who have the means to rescue the club and the willingness to actually do so. When David Murray bought Rangers in the late nineteen-eighties, it seemed like a marriage made in heaven. Scotland's biggest club had been taken over by a young businessman who had the means, the cojones and the ambition to further the Rangers cause, and enhance his own reputation along the way. From being a well-known business figure, Murray quickly became a household name, and he relished the fame that was part and parcel of being owner of Scotland's establishment club. In time, he became Sir David Murray - a dream come true for a man whose ego matched his not inconsiderable bank balance. Would a thrusting young Scottish businessman buy Rangers today, or would he prefer to duck the opportunity and steer clear of the hassle that being custodian of Rangers brings? Given that there are no budding David Murrays knocking on the Ibrox front door, it would appear to be the latter. What respectable businessman or woman would want to take on an ailing institution that has incinerated millions of pounds at an alarming rate and now has to borrow to keep the wheels on the wagon? What entrepreneur needs his name associated with a club whose existence is played out while the spectre of sectarianism still haunts it? What hard-won reputation wants to take a chance on a club that habitually pays out too much money for too little reward? What business type would enjoy being the man or woman to sack the club's management team and bring in new blood more appropriate for the task ahead? Would the young David Murray be as quick to buy Rangers in 2014 as he was in 1988? Rangers Football Club is a bloody mess. The team plays dreadful football, the club spends exorbitant sums in the process, it makes the undeserving rich, it is owned by people whose God is greed; it has a reputation that will take years to repair, it can't afford to look after its stadium, and its fans excuse incompetence out of a misguided sense of loyalty. The Rangers support, for the most part, doesn't welcome soul-searching and reflection. It prefers to talk itself up and believe that a full recovery is not only possible, but likely, and this is a mistake. Rangers urgently needs to be re-born. In a relatively short time, the club has descended from being the centre of the Scottish football universe to become an outcast within the sport - and a much-ridiculed laughing stock within the country. The Rangers support has played a minor role in the club's downfall, but it will never fully recover until it plays a major part in its recovery. Fan ownership has to be the future for Rangers. Nothing else will return it to where most fans believe it should be. Only a revolution - a people revolution - will save this club now.

Disappointing that they aren't also asking for the Club to clarify whether the other credit facility for £2.5m has been, is being or is going to be used.

Can anyone confirm or not the differences that exist between these two schemes. 1. BuyRangers you can get your money back after 3 years if you decide to leave the scheme, with RangersFirst you lose the money? 2. BuyRangers all monies raised go to buy shares, in RangersFirst money could be used for other things? 3. BuyRangers and RangersFirst seen it posted elsewhere that more will be used on expenses/costs etc. with RF than BR. Is this correct?

Update on poll result Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly & Trust Statement The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have contacted the CEO Graham Wallace to ask for clarification on the proposed loan by directors and/or selected shareholders. It is of great concern that at the club's AGM in December 2013 Graham advised there was sufficient cash in the business for the club to be able to continue to trade in the short to medium term yet two months later we require a loan for working capital. We would also like assurances that the club have explored all options for attracting fresh investment and this is the best deal available to the club. On the day that the club launched a survey on listening to fans they have ignored shareholding fans overwhelming opposition to resolutions 9 & 10 at the club AGM. Resolution 9 seems to be being used to increase the influence of certain shareholders without affording the same option to others, which is an affront to shareholder democracy and rights. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend Copyright © 2014 The Rangers Supporters Trust, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website and you are currently a Rangers Supporters Trust Member or Follower Our mailing address is: The Rangers Supporters Trust RST / BuyRangers Administration Clydebank Glasgow, Scotland g80 United Kingdom Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

RST to leaflet Ibrox on Saturday The Rangers Supporters Trusts runs the highly successful BuyRangers scheme. Our members have trusted us with over £300,000 of their money and the we now own over half a million shares in the club. We are looking for members and supporters to help us publicise BuyRangers and our new direct debit facility by leafleting Ibrox on Saturday. If you can help leaflet around the ground from 1pm up to kick-off, even for a short while, or to take some leaflets home to friends or distribute on your supporters bus - please email RangersRST@gmail.com http://www.therst.co.uk/buyrangers/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter Our mailing address is: The Rangers Supporters Trust RST / BuyRangers Administration Clydebank Glasgow, Scotland g80 United Kingdom

https://twitter.com/TheLoudenTavern

Positive stuff! http://www.therst.co.uk/rst-share-purchase/

Despite being a decade long user of usually anonymous internet messageboards, I still prefer going out, having a bite to eat and a good laugh. With that in mind, I present to you: The 2014 Gersnet End of Season Boozy Do Gersnet stalwart Brahim Hemdani can provide the destination, this natty Mediterranean chophouse on the sou'side: http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186534-d1087980-Reviews-Malaga_Tapas-Glasgow_Scotland.html and if enough go, the owner is apparently willing to shut the doors to your ordinary, workaday customer in order to bow and scrape before us with the all deference due people in our position. The date is entirely flexible, so long as it is near the end of the season; whatever suits the most will win, I guess. Plainly this will be a poor night out if no-one goes, just a lonely, portly fellow (that's me, btw, not Brahim) sitting in a restaurant staring glumly out the window. Having been on a golf day out with RM and having met a good few posters from here, I can honestly say I haven't met anyone who isn't completely normal, so if you're a bit nervous about a night out with strangers I'd urge you to go for it. You can always leave!* * once you've paid

I don't have the article but suspect you can get all the info you need from this page shown on facebook:

.........and steer club into fan control 1 Feb 2014 07:56 PAUL GOODWIN believes the Light Blues legions could own the Ibrox club within 18 months following successful attempts by Hearts and Motherwell. SUPPORTERS DIRECT chief Paul Goodwin believes Rangers fans can assume control of their troubled club within 18 months. Goodwin, the head of SD in Scotland, has long championed the importance of community ownership within our national game. And he is convinced the Ibrox faithful can overthrow the current regime – providing they mobilise themselves into one powerful movement and start pulling in the same direction. At the moment there are four main fan organisations – The Rangers Supporters Trust, The Rangers Assembly, The Rangers Supporters Association and the Sons of Struth – with all groups battling for supremacy. But Goodwin, who helped oversee fan buy-outs at Stirling Albion, Clyde, Dunfermline and East Stirling has called for them to unite as one. Indeed, given the lack of trust in the current board, the lack of transparency, the current climate of financial uncertainty along Edmiston Drive and the plunging share price, he reckons this is an ideal opportunity to get the bandwagon rolling. Goodwin said: “I believe if the Rangers fans united, and that is the key, into one cohesive unit there is no reason why they can’t own the club within 18 months. “At the moment we have 8000 Hearts supporters paying £20 a month as they move towards fan ownership and if you have 20,000 Rangers fans doing the same you can go out and buy shares because it is a liquid market. “The simple maths say 20,000 fans paying £20 a month would give you £4.8million in a year. “It just needs the right type of people to pull that together and that is the hard part for Rangers. “I don’t have any doubt it can be done. SD have been working in conjunction with clubs right across Europe. “In Greece you have Olympiakos and Panathinaikos and there are plenty of clubs in Spain, Poland and France who are also going down this route. “Hearts are the biggest we know of in this country going down the route of fan ownership at the moment.” The Rangers share price has plummeted in recent months, from 70p to just 26p and for just over £4m, fans would be able to command a 25 per cent stake in the club. And Goodwin insists the Ibrox outfit’s supporters have nothing to lose pursuing the community ownership route having given their backing to the Craig Whyte and Charles Green regimes with catastrophic consequences. He said: “I believed that Rangers being placed into administration represented a significant window of opportunity to buy the club. “Of course, as we know, this didn’t happen for a variety of reasons; mostly because for many years the fans had been divided and ruled by previous owners of the club and had been left without a united voice, forced to pick sides in amongst political infighting. “Time has moved on and Rangers have unfortunately continued to be dogged by further challenges at the back end of the administration process. “It could have been so different if a credible fans’ bid had been used to galvanise the Ibrox faithful as we have seen at Dundee, Dunfermline Athletic, Portsmouth down in England and of course at Hearts. “Rangers supporters in the past have been used to following leaders whether it be Paul Murray, Craig Whyte or somebody else. “This is breaking the mould and now they don’t have to follow anybody. “What can the objection be? “It can give the fans the empowerment to pick exactly who they want to represent them. “We have four clubs in Scotland that are currently fan owned and we have another four waiting in the wings – Annan, Ayr, Motherwell and Hearts. It is the way forward because there is no other route.” Goodwin confirmed he has already spoken with supporters’ representatives from Rangers. He said: “I have been talking with them over the past 10 days and I will continue that dialogue to see whether there is something we can do. “There is a real opportunity here and I don’t think there is anything to lose. “We can advise and consult but it is ultimately up to them. “Some people have to emerge from the shadows and then we can give them all the support possible.” Goodwin was speaking at the launch of ‘The Colour of our Scarves’ initiative which has been organised by Supporters Direct to help highlight the issue of sectarianism. World renowned photographer Stuart Roy Clarke has been commissioned to produce a series of images captured at every senior ground in Scotland. The project has been funded by the Scottish government and Goodwin is hoping the sectarianism problem can be tackled through imagery rather than words. He said: “We wanted to try to demonstrate through Stuart’s amazing pictures that all fans are the same, apart from the scarves around their necks. “It is the same emotions that bind us all together and that was the reasons behind the project. “We are going round every single ground and also doing loads of workshops in schools and colleges. “It is becoming less of an issue but you need to keep working at it.” Clarke, who singled out Aberdeen as his favourite fans to photograph, has been amazed by the reaction to his pictures which will be on show at a touring exhibition around the country over the next 18 months. He said: “The response has been overwhelming. “While I like banter and edginess I don’t like hatred so hopefully this project can make a small difference to a big problem.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/supporters-direct-chief-calls-rangers-3100404

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/former-rangers-players-gough-and-rae-back-scheme-to-hand-clubs-supporters-power-at-ib.1392030197

Rolling Stone magazine has an article this week entitled "Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014". Being an American magazine Rolling Stone is taking a risk with this because for many in America being labeled a Marxist is career suicide, the phrase is so loaded as to be used purely as an insult now. Yet the article points out that for many people capitalism doesn't work very well and one of the 'people' it doesn't work for is us, the Rangers support. The opposition to 'fan ownership' puzzles me. I suppose for those under 30 brought up on a diet of Sir David's largesse, of the rise of the mega-clubs like Man Utd, Barca, Real Madrid and now Chelsea, Man city and PSG and the creation of the G14 organisation then money is everything, only those with the deepest pockets can succeed. That's how football works, isn't it? But I'm 43, I watched clubs like Nottingham Forest, Malmo, Red Star Belgrade and Brugge contest the European Cup Final, I know that football isn't all about money and the club with the most money doesn't have to always win. Football has changed though, and today the club with the most money usually does win, in every league we're now seeing that. TV rights, sponsorship, endorsements and countless other 'income streams' help fuel this. Add in megalomaniacs from Russia or Malaysia or much nearer to home and the clubs run with some sort of fiscal responsibility are left behind, derided even. But here's the thing, it's unsustainable, Marx predicted this and he was right. All of these business bubbles burst eventually and this one will too. They are "chaotic by nature" and one which is as unrestricted as football currently is will crash and burn eventually, nothing is surer. Have a look at some of the ticket prices being charged in the EPL this season. Have a look at the debt being carried by football clubs all around Europe. Tell me that's sustainable, tell me that someone bigger will come along and pick up the cheque. Yeah right, go read an economics book or two. We're the guys who'll be picking up the 'cheque'. I'm not a Marxist. Professionally, when I'm not wasting my time on football forums I help grow those capitalist bubbles and i've seen a few of them get too big and go pop now. Too many of us judge 'success' on how much profit a company makes, not on how good its product or services are, how well it treats its employees and customers and how well it's prepared for the future. Time and again we fall for this, short term gain over long term stability seems to be what we desire. So look at football clubs. History tells us they can disappear, no matter how unlikely that might seem, they can and do. It happens when people no longer care about them, so it is in the interests of all football clubs to ensure people keep caring. The best way to ensure that is to involve people in them. If football supporters become nothing more than 'customers' then eventually we'll start to behave like customers. As anathema as this might sound it is starting to happen now. Already English sides (and they and the already bankrupt Spanish sides are the driving force behind this) are seeing more and more of their tickets being sold to 'football tourists' rather than supporters. London clubs in particular are seeing this phenomenon but it is also happening in Manchester too. That's helping to drive the price of tickets up and force 'supporters' out. That the concept of fan involvement seems alien to us is puzzling to me. But then how many of us are actually involved in anything outside of our work or family these days? How many of us are on the PTA of their children's school, how many of us are involved in youth organisations on a voluntary basis, how many of are in trade unions or are members of political parties or help out at the local bowling club? Tell you what I bet it's a hell of a lot fewer than did in the 70s and 80s. The whole concept of taking responsibility for our community assets has been diluted now. My father was born in an Ayrshire mining village which consisted of three rows of houses, it was tiny. Yet it had a Junior football team an amateur football team, three Friendly Societies, a quoiting club, an ambulance corps, a juvenile football club, a brass band, a dramatic society, and a phonetics class. Today, in the Glasgow area I live in my daughter's Brownie group can't find enough volunteers to staff their troop. Don't get me wrong there's no shortage of parents who want their daughters to join, just a shortage of parents who are willing to give up any of their time to help out. This is the same. Too many of us want someone else to run Rangers. Too many of us want someone else to carry that burden, hopefully someone very rich too. We can blame factionalism in our support, unhappiness with how the RST has been run, personalities involved in various groups or find reasons to explain how fan ownership can't work. But then we can't complain when things go to hell. Can we really complain about the people running our club if we aren't willing to do it ourselves? How do we judge success? What do we want from Rangers? Do we care what the share price is? The football bubble will burst, nothing is surer, economics tell us this if we care to look. When it does there will be casualties, the clubs who are stable both fiscally and politically will be the most likely to survive that. So I'd argue it is in our best long term interests to own our club, to have a say in how it is run, to be keeping a watchful eye on things. Remember, no one else cares, nobody else gives a damn about our club, only us. Why entrust it to people who don't share our values or dreams?

By Chris Graham Let me state from the outset that it is the right, and to some extent the duty, of fans to question the team and the manager. Rangers fans pay good money to support the team and like fans of any other team they have every right to debate team selection, tactics, signings and everything else that effects the team they love. So in some ways the recent debate around Ally McCoist and the focus on the performance of the team is a welcome relief from the constant boardroom shenanigans we've had to put up with over the past two years. Having said that, the debate over the board was peppered with misinformation and the recent discussion and debate over Super Ally has been the same. There is a unique hypocrisy to claiming you are a loyal fan and then performing an attempted character assassination on someone who, no matter how skilled a manager they turn out to be, is a club legend who held the club together through one of the most turbulent periods in its history. If you find that you are prepared to publicly describe a man, who was widely acknowledged as having carried the club on his shoulders during the past two years, as having "sold out" then you better make sure you have something to back up your claim beyond internet rumour and an inability to comprehend publicly available information. There have been three main examples of where recent discussion around McCoist has moved from normal fan and press examination to something considerably more sinister. Michael Stewart's ill considered rant on BBC Scotland Sportsound was one. The barely concealed vitriol of Glenn Gibbons' recent Scotsman article was another, and last but not least, and the most disappointing of all since it appears to have been written on behalf of a group of Rangers fans, was an article on the Vanguard Bears front page. Let us first consider Michael Stewart and friends on BBC Scotland last Saturday night. Stewart's opening gambit is to tell us that he's had a run in with Ally McCoist earlier that week over something he had written in the Sun, and what follows certainly indicates that he hasn't taken terribly well to being put in his place by the manager. He's ably assisted by Graham Spiers who decides to break the BBC rule of not commenting on internet leaks by discussing the general content of leaked emails which he wants us to think should be "difficult" for McCoist. Apparently McCoist is "feigning" not having detailed knowledge of Rangers finances. The entire BBC panel are happy with their original assumption that McCoist must know more about the finances than he's letting on. Nobody wants to challenge it. At no point does this panel, with literally no knowledge of management or coaching at a big club, club finances, or the internal conditions at Rangers for the past two years, consider that McCoist might simply have been working to the, with hindsight, wildly inaccurate financial projections of former Finance Director, Brian Stockbridge. Quite how a discussion which starts with talk of Stockbridge's removal turns into a critique of McCoist is a mystery which will have to remain with the panel. McCoist, we are told, "knows how to work it". He knows how to "manipulate public opinion". The first caller is inexplicably a Celtic fan who continues the character assassination and is allowed several minutes to object to any, even timid, defence of McCoist. I could go on. The entire thing is a disgrace. The programme is well into its swing before Stewart is teed up, in a move clearly discussed before the show, to indicate his disdain for McCoist's coaching talent. This is Michael Stewart who hasn't coached a team in his life. Spiers is allowed to state, without challenge, that McCoist's salary is £850k a year - the latest falsehood from a man to whom accuracy is a form of kryptonite. Stewart has spoken to former Rangers players (unnamed) who have told him "the training is very standard" and "nothing exceptional is being worked on". Standard training! How shocking. Spiers, who has previous on unsubstantiated claims from unnamed sources, tells us that an SPL manager has told him that Rangers "don't play like a very well coached team". We are then treated to some faux outrage about McCoist and his backroom staff celebrating too much over a goal against Dunfermline. Yes, really, they think he shouldn't be celebrating goals too much. I'm not going to go into a huge amount of detail about Gibbons' article. If you haven't seen it then don't bother. It's exactly what you would expect from a man who cannot hide his hatred anytime he writes about our club. What was most remarkable about his article was not the content, or the malice in it towards McCoist, but the fact that certain Rangers fans were happy to promote the article on social media despite having full knowledge of what Gibbons was all about. All of which brings us to VB and the article on their front page. I should perhaps declare that I have previous with some members of VB but I largely ignore their more vitriolic output, even when it is directed at me and others I know. However, this article was so full of drivel, and frankly so disrespectful to a man who has given so much to the club, that it is worthy of comment. I'll pick up on a few points made by the anonymous VB scribe before moving on to try to lay out some facts about the past couple of years relating to Ally. The article states as fact that "at no point was McCoist working for nothing". This is nonsense. It tells us that Ally's salary was £825,858 per annum. This is wrong. It tells us that Ally's recent offer to take a huge wage cut is in fact a "deferral". Again not true. In addition to the above inaccuracy we have some pretty shameful language used to describe McCoist. He is a "so called Rangers man". He is "as much a drain on our resources as the people on the board who were branded spivs". Finally, in a show of both ignorance and arrogance the unnamed author tells us that "it appears we have been sold out by our manager". So let's examine McCoist the "sell out" shall we? Ally McCoist did work for free for 3 months during administration. He received no salary at all for March, April and May 2012. He has never received a penny of that money back. His gross annual salary is £750,000 a year. There were no bonuses. If you properly examine the accounts and the prospectus then this is quite clear. Following the takeover of the club, McCoist agreed to work for a lower wage of £600k for a period of five months. When £22m was raised from the IPO, his representative requested that his wage payments be returned to the contracted value and that those payments were brought up to date for the 5 month reduced period. At no point was McCoist's contract amended or was any suggestion made by the board that the wage reduction be permanent. McCoist did not at any point request an increase in his contracted salary. During Administration, when he should have been coaching the team, McCoist was constantly meeting with Administrators, the legal representatives of the SFA, SPL and SFL as well as the various office bearers and executives of those three organisations. Following that, he continued to take part in the process of negotiating the infamous five way agreement and the smart money is on the outcome of that being considerably worse had it just been left to Green. All of this was taking place when Michael Stewart would have us believe that McCoist should have been completely restructuring the playing side of the club. Even as late as November 2012, whilst still on reduced wages, McCoist was being asked, in addition to his football duties, to present to potential investors in London during a two week period ahead of the IPO. All of this was in addition to having to cobble together a squad which had been decimated by administration, to which the vast majority of additions were free transfers and where several of the additions were not of his choosing. Is his wage too high? With hindsight, yes, but he offered to reduce it in October 2013 and, for reasons known only to the Executives at the time, the agreed cut was not actioned until around a week ago. They seemed more intent on attempting to deflect attention away from their own disgraceful plundering of the club than they were on accepting a genuine offer from someone who cares as deeply as you or I about Rangers. The idea that McCoist should have offered to reduce his contractual wage when the original financial projections showed only a loss of around £1m for the financial year is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when you see the wages and bonuses being paid to others at the club at the time. Why would McCoist have thought the club couldn't afford it? Even when that predicted loss was amended to £7m it is quite apparent that those around McCoist, with a much clearer view of the club finances, were reassuring him that all was well. As recently as October 2013, Stockbridge was still telling everyone that player wages were "sustainable". As soon as it became apparent that Stockbridge, Green and Ahmad had got things woefully wrong and that the club was haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate, McCoist offered to reduce his wage in the region of 45%. Apparently, to some, this makes him a "sell out". The worst thing about this is that there is a coordinated feel to some of the recent attacks on McCoist and I sincerely hope that those Rangers fans taking part in it are doing so through ignorance rather than complicity. Criticise the manager to your heart's content for things you don't like on the pitch. Debate the team selection. Debate the signings. Moan about under par performances but remember the burden which has been borne by McCoist over the past two years. Ask yourself if anyone else at our club could have done it. Ask yourself if he genuinely should have had such in depth sight of our finances that he was able to contradict our own financial director's forecasts. Ask yourself if you really want the final, high profile employee at the club who has genuine feeling for Rangers, removed for failing to do a job that was never his to do in the first place. It's an odd situation to see a group of Rangers fans, who normally, often quite correctly, scream from the rooftops about BBC output, suddenly promote Michael Stewart's rant on Twitter and forums. It's odder still to see some of them promote the work of Glenn Gibbons whose previous they are more than aware of. When challenged on this approach we've seen the group in question's official Twitter account inform another Rangers fan to "take McCoist's c##k out your mouth". Frankly it's the sort of thing you'd expect from the most demented amongst the Celtic support. We've seen PR men, supposedly working for the club, not only look to undermine a potential investor in Dave King but now also attempt to turn fans against our own manager. Clearly some are more eager to believe this nonsense than others. You really have to wonder why. The time to judge Ally McCoist will be when he's had an opportunity to do his job unhindered. It will be when he's had the opportunity to build a team out of something other than free transfers and young lads. Despite that fact that none of these norms have been afforded to him during his time as manager, he's continued to do his best in trying circumstances and has comfortably achieved the required promotion from two divisions. I fully expect him to achieve the same next season. Perhaps Graham Wallace will show himself to finally be the CEO who will provide Super Ally with the basic tools to do his job and be judged in fairer circumstances. For all our sakes let's hope so. In the meantime, debate away but how about we show our manager, a club legend, some respect and don't lap up the vitriol from elements of the press and dark corners of the internet?

RANGERS supporters will seek new assurances from chief executive Graham Wallace about the club's finances today - as Lee Wallace edged nearer the exit. Wallace will hold talks with representatives of the three main fans' organisations, the Assembly, the Association and the Trust. And officials at all three bodies hope this afternoon's talks will be the start of a long-term working relationship. But the former Manchester City chief operating officer is set to face tough questioning about the money situation at the SPFL League One leaders. Sky Bet Championship club Nottingham Forest have had two bids - the second believed to be for £1million - for Wallace turned down. But there is mounting speculation the Scotland left-back will be allowed to leave if an offer of £1.5million is received. The 26-year-old stayed loyal to the Light Blues when they dropped down to the bottom tier last season and it is uncertain if he would agree to go. But the first-team squad was asked to consider taking a 15% pay cut earlier this month to reduce significant monthly losses at the Ibrox club. And the former Hearts player could be put under pressure to leave in order to generate income and drive down the players' wage bill. Rangers Supporters Association spokesman Drew Roberton stressed that fans remain concerned about the future despite being told that administration is not a possibility. He said: "I definitely see these meetings as a positive step. I think it is important for the club to have a constructive relationship with the fans considering what has gone on in the last couple of years. "Whoever is in charge of the club has to establish some sort of working relationship with the supporters. Let's hope that these meetings are the start of some kind of regular dialogue between us in the future. "The club needs all the fans fully behind them if we are to get back to where we were before at the forefront of the Scottish game and hopefully this is Graham Wallace's way of ensuring that happens." Roberton added: "But in light of the recent requests for the players to take a pay cut, and given that our former financial director said that we would be down to just £1m by April, there is real concern among the fans that the club has the money to continue to the end of the season. "To be fair to Graham Wallace, he has stated on more than once occasion that he doesn't see a problem arising and he has access to information and facts and figures that we as ordinary fans do no have. "But if the club do sell Lee Wallace it wouldn't go down well at all with fans. It would certainly add fuel to the fire about fans' concerns over club finances. "If there is no risk of administration then why bother selling your best player? Selling Lee Wallace is not a move with the future of the footballing side of the club in mind. "I am sure Lee would be one of the highest earners at the club. But would selling him really be worth it in the long run? "It may be the chief executive's and board's thinking for the future in terms of finances. But it would be a concern from a playing point of view as we prepare to move up to the Championship next season." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-seek-cash-vow-at-wallace-summit-150246n.23307892

Interested in views from fellow Bears about fan ownership at Rangers. I'm seeing a lot more chatter on the subject (especially on Twitter), but RST (the only vehicle at the moment) seem even quieter than normal. I've seem some good articles here: http://t.co/YEgcWYEeFe All the while Rangers market value sits at around £16-17 million. The opportunity to buy a decent collective stake in our club has never been bigger, but views seem divided. Why? Faceless investors sitting in London & elsewhere are buying into our club (at current prices I can see why), why aren't we? As I say interested to know views. I for one am puzzled.

Scottish football is ailing. There are many reasons for this, and we could doubtless compile a long list, but most would agree that the outlook is fairly grim. When we return to the top, there will be a flurry of activity for a while and the game will have a brief period of uplift as old battles fire up again, but Scottish football's best days were in the past - and in the past they will probably remain. Where will this leave Rangers? Within our own support, ambition is ebbing away and aspirations to do well in Europe are evaporating. If this is the future, where Rangers are content to fight for a title that has about as much prestige internationally as the Challenge Cup does domestically, unless we secure an invitation to a more lucrative and competitive league, something will surely have to give. We talk just now about the possibility of losing Ibrox and/or Auchenhowie due to boardroom incompetence or perhaps something more sinister, but if Scottish football is going to continue to be a marginalised poor relation in Europe, can we really afford to retain both of them - even if the club is run in a professional and competent way? Can Rangers, within the context of Scottish football, afford to retain an increasingly high maintenance stadium - and a modern training facility? I'm sure we don't want to part with either, but is the sale of one of them the inevitable consequence of our football environment being so impoverished?

Down to 30.4p, is there only one way for the shares to go with the present board ? Does the share price really matter?

​"'For an hour yesterday lunch-time Graham Wallace spoke about the state of Rangers, how the club got to this point and how he intends to move it forward. What struck home was how different he sounds compared to his predecessors; no trumpeting about brands and unexploited foreign markets, no playing to the gallery and telling people what they want to hear; no flannel and arrogance of the kind we have heard repeatedly over the years from Rangers executives as they sold a vision of the future while the present was crumbling around their ears. Wallace is enough of a realist to know the scale of what he faces at Ibrox. Everywhere you look, there are issues. TE: Since you lifted the bonnet and examined the finances has anything shocked you? GW: I?m not sure if shock is the right word. I followed what has happened to the club, albeit from a distance. It?s a situation where a lot of decisions were made with a very short-term focus. TE: When you say short-term focus is that a euphemism for panic? GW: Panic? I?m not sure I would call it panic. If you look at a football club you have to have a sense of what the next five years look like and then you plan accordingly. You don?t plan for 12 months in isolation. One of the things I have found is that the focus has (previously) been in the near-term. There?s been areas of expenditure where money has been spent and shouldn?t have been and other areas where we should have been spending and didn?t. The classic one was scouting and recruitment. At a time when this club needs to be identifying and scouting talent and acquiring talent at attractive levels our scouting and recruitment was largely dismantled. A small example of short-termism. TE: Did they blow it by not setting in place the scouting infrastructure when in the Third Division? GW: You could say that some of the decisions that should have been made then weren?t made and that?s a very good example. What the club should have been doing 18 months ago was investing more money in some of the things that could have borne fruit in the future. But that?s hindsight. TE: You need to save money, but you bring in another financial guru in Philip Nash. That?s not going to save money? GW: Phil can help us quickly get to the nub of some of the issues. He knows football structure. He?s leading the business review project for me so we can get up the hill really quickly. It?s about objectivity. I came here with a fresh pair of eyes and I brought Phil in on the short-term with a fresh pair of eyes and no baggage and preconceived ideas. It just helps us look at things in a more objective way. TE: Big decisions need to be made, big savings need to be found and it takes a big character to make those calls in a place that is not used to fiscal commonsense. Are you tough enough for this job? GW: I?m tough when I need to be tough. I know what needs to be done, I know how to do it and I?m focused on getting it done. TE: Are you prepared for a backlash? GW: You have to be prepared to back your own judgment and back your own ability. Yes, there was a bit of a backlash last week to the concept of a reduction in player wage costs. That?s an example of the area of the business we?re looking at right now. We said we were going to do a comprehensive review of the business from top to bottom and we?re in the midst of doing that. We?re looking at every angle and every opportunity to reduce our costs over the next couple of years so that we can position the business in a financially sustainable way. I keep talking about sustainability and it?s absolutely fundamental. The business has to be able to stand on its own two feet. It has to. It has to be able to stand on its own two feet without huge amounts of investment coming in just to fund the on-going operation. When we go looking for investment we will go looking for the right reasons on the back of a robust business plan. I?m confident in my own ability to be able to deal with situations that will arise. There will be things that will be easier than others. I?m well aware of that. TE: Do you know where you can save money? GW: In certain areas, we?ve a very good idea already. I?m not going to come out and tell you where they are but we?ve been working on the project for a little over four weeks and we are looking at every area. There are areas where we can definitely reduce the historic spend that we?ve had. By similar token, there are other areas where we know we need to invest and grow our top line revenue. TE: Okay, there was a proposal to cut players? wages, but what about a proposal to cut the wages of the executives? At what point do you target them? We all know who we?re talking about here. Rarely have I seen a more unpopular executive at a football club than Brian Stockbridge? GW: We?re looking at the executive team as well as the wider staff organisation. We?re doing it. And I will make my determination and judgment on each and every individual we have in the organisation. I?m well aware of the public criticism that comes with certain members of the staff. What I seek is the supporters giving me the time to complete the review. I will stand behind the decisions I make, good or bad. TE: So there will be changes at the top? GW: We?re looking right across the whole business and need a little bit more time to complete that project

Strange email discussion on 2 October 2012 between Sandy and the CEO. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Thanks for your email some parts were not asked for but if the papers have misquoted you should we not rectify The rest I will wait to see you face to face as feelings seem to be running high on certain matters . Just one point I have not moved page nor being influenced by anyone though some of the things that have been said are very close to what has happened . Yours Sandy Sandy Easdale Director McGill's Bus Service Ltd On 2 Oct 2013, at 11:59 AM, "Craig Mather" wrote: > Morning Sandy/All, > > Regarding Ally, I was asked to comment on Ally's wages in the accounts. I said I cannot comment on what wages where offered to Ally by the previous regime however I have asked Ally to consider his wages and take a significant pay cut. I said nothing has been agreed yet and no contracts have been signed however Ally has come to the table to discuss a pay cut which is good because we cannot make him take a pay cut. Nothing is in writing but Ally is aware of his wages and the associated costs when we are playing in the division we are in. I never once said he had taken a pay cut. > > I also believe Frank Blin has been stirring up trouble and talking rubbish creating a divide yet again. > > I am happy to talk on the phone or equally if the board believe they would be better served by a different CEO (which has been said to me by a number of people). Then as I have said numerous times I will give notice to the board and will stay until you find a replacement. I cannot do more than I am doing and am permanently critiqued by every side at every opportunity. > > It is not a good position when every side including at least one member of the Plc board is making statements to others about my abilities or the lack of them. > > The old saying divide and conquer comes into play here and if we stay solid then great, if not then the obvious will happen. > > I thought people maybe positive about how critical of Malcolm Murray I was and also defending Brian for his cost cutting efforts and the defending of the IPO costs. > > For clarity I will not change my allegiance and will not go back on my word. > > I won't be taking or encouraging contact with the requisitioners as they are not what this club need. > > Best as always > Craig > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 2 Oct 2013, at 13:55, "Sandy Easdale" wrote: >> >> Dear >> Craig I was amazed that you have been quoted saying that Ally has took a significant pay cut . >> >> It would be good to share this with us if this is the case as we all agreed that was not what we were saying because there has been no deal struck on his wages . >> >> If so what is the cut as I am being asked to quote my self on these matters and must defend all these pays >> >> Which frankly I can't . >> >> Sandy from: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rvdg36

1) does anyone else think Wallace, Somers and Crichton will all be gone before the end of the season ? 2) at what point will Dave King be approached to invest in and takeover Rangers? When I hear our new CEO talking about cutting costs I genuinely worry if that involves the first team squad. This team needs strengthened not weakened which these costs would ultimately achieve.If he goes ahead with this I genuinely believe we could return to what we were in the early 1980's with a sub-standard team which people won't pay to watch. I'd previously said this new board needs to be given time.Now though I'm not so sure. Some of the insinuations being made give me cause for concern.

The Trust Secretary had a short but positive conversation with club CEO Graham Wallace last week. Mr Wallace called our secretary last week, prior to hopefully arranging a meeting early in the new year, and similar calls were made to representatives of our sister organisations the Association and Assembly. We informed him of how our members had asked us to vote at the AGM, and he was pleased to hear our members were generally supportive of him. Mr Wallace took note of the various areas of concern our members have at present, principally in finance and governance. During the brief call, Mr Wallace outlined the need for the club to engage with supporters and also reiterated the importance for clubs with ambition to own their own stadium and training centre, as well as the need for a suitable scouting system. We are encouraged by our CEO's keenness to engage with us, and we look forward to meeting him, as discussed, in the new year.

Some interesting thoughts from Alan Harris (aka Brahim Hemdani) Company democracy v Club democracy