Search the Community

I'm freaked out on this... Is there a 'cabal' in our club?

I'd say we need to move on other players first but interesting news nonetheless... http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4983-zaliukas-trains-with-gers

Following on from a thread in Footie chat about Morton knocking Celtic out the league cup, I thought had we still been in the competition then the trophy would be there for the taken. But my comment was Id still be happy to settle for a League One and Ramsden's Cup double. It got me thinking about the Scottish Cup. Oh yes I'd love to win that but are we ready to compete with the SPL sides? On paper we are. I wouldn't be swapping our squad for any in the SPL right now including Celtics as I think we have the basis of a good squad to compete. Add in a few quality signings when we are back to the SPL then Id say we will be top 2 for sure. It boils again down to our style of play and management ability as to how good we can be, as last season we were easily beaten by Inverness and Dundee Utd. But we are probably far more prepared this season. As we are more prepared with a stronger squad that have had a full pre-season: What is our realistic expectations in the Scottish Cup? Of course the luck of the draw will always come into it. Are some fans still wanting to boycott it in protest towards the SFA and anti-Rangers SPL clubs? I know I could understand that point of view. Does anyone want to avoid playing an SPL side yet in case a) we get turned over and b) assist in financing them? The jury is still out for me. I don't want to return to Tannadice nor head for Pittodrie to satisfy the vile hatred from elements of those places. But if we were to draw Ross County or Kilmarnock I'd take that right now as a) it would be a good test and b) I think we could beat those. I do think the sticky balls will be in play this season and we will get Celtic.

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/09/boardroom-cliches.html?spref=tw by Garry Carmody | Contributor As most football fans are able to get on with their "game of two halves", we fans that enjoy watching our football at Ibrox are still embroiled in one of the most notable boardroom battles in the club's history. It has gotten to the point that as a supporter of Rangers, I pine for the day when the most important debate becomes "4-4-2 or 4-5-1?". Instead, in the never-ending boardroom arguments, there is rarely time for this discussion to take a prominent place. Although the discussion is different, clichés most certainly still remain; "let's wait until the accounts are released" and "we should let the board get on with their job". In recent times, the above have become the official lines amongst many - the general idea is that we should all take a step back and let the norm continue. After all, why would the board do us wrong? Why would these individuals dare to affect the club lifelong supporters hold so dearly? There are a few very simple answers as to why those two familiar lines are simply doing us no good. "Wait until accounts are published" - Although no fan knows the details that will be included in the soon-to-be published accounts (any day now...), at the recent fan meeting at Ibrox, Financial Director, Brian Stockbridge, gave us an outline of what to expect. On the very basis that he "believes" that there is approximately £10 million left in the bank, can that possibly give any hope to fans looking for reassurance? This is the same board that have torn through an astonishingly high eight figure sum of money in the last 12 months - how can we possibly believe that this amount of money will last? It is also crucial to remember that this figure came from the same Stockbridge that told fans to their faces that he didn't know how much of the IPO money remained, but when it came to a cosy interview with The Sun, he was finally willing to lay bare the fact that not a single penny of the £22 million raised less than 12 months ago remains. The same Stockbridge that laughed his way to the bank after cashing in on his 100% bonus for Rangers winning the Third Division against part-timers. Is it really necessary to wait until accounts are published? Even behind the spin and avoidance of this current board, it doesn't take an expert to work out that these figures do not match up. Sure, a view of audited accounts will give a certain amount of confirmation, but unless an investor has recently ploughed a large sum of cash into the club without the boards' poodles letting fans know, the accounts will not be looking attractive at best – dire at worst. Search back within recent memory - can you name one isolated incident that shows that these are the right people to sort the issue out? There's also the idea that we should "let the board get on with their job". These people have been given the jobs for a reason - who are we to question what they do? For a start, the board have played fast and loose with the truth in previous times – for example, James Easdale was appointed to the board as media outlets reported that he personally held a shareholding of 6%, when in reality; he held approximately 0.5%, making the appointment somewhat baffling. Then there's the reappointment of Media House to deal with PR issues within the club - the same name that became toxic with fans due to their part in the cover-up of Craig Whyte's pillage of Rangers. The same Media House, of which employee, Jack Irvine, supposedly called "Greatest Ever Ranger", John Greig, 'thick'. That being the incident that CEO Craig Mather promised to act upon, but over three weeks later, it would appear evident that this has not happened. It is another incident that shows the complete lack of respect that is being shown to fans by the board which was also shown in bringing back Media House. It begs the question - are these spin doctors really there to protect the interests of the club or to safeguard the interests of individuals? Let's also not forget that this is the same board that voted against Chairman, Walter Smith, to allow Charles Green to return to the club as a "consultant". The move forced Smith into a position where he felt he had to quit and in his statement, said he felt the board were "dysfunctional", and urged fans to back change. If the board were to be commended by many for one reason, it would be their promise to tackle BBC Scotland on their constant mis-reporting and antagonising statements. However, that positive is clouded by the fact that some breaking stories are still making their way from the boardroom into the hands of BBC journalists. In the upcoming weeks, the AGM will be held. What is left inside Ibrox will be laid bare for all to see, and the board members will finally be up for judgement. If you believe you can decipher why they've earned our time, then by all means – continue to back the current regime. Or, if like me, you have sat for months on end in awe of how these men still remain in jobs, I would urge fans to take full advantage of the AGM. It is easy for fans to say "Our vote means nothing". If the split between investors is as close as both factions make out, this couldn't be further from the case. With approximately 12% of the club owned by fans, it is time fans started to make their voices heard. There may not be a better time. clichés

According to Leggo, RFC are being investigated by the Procurator Fiscal after allegations of fraud. It's getting nastier... #agm http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/procurator-fiscal-launches-fraud-probe.html

For some, myself included, the announcement by BBC Scotland that they were going to undertake a formal investigation into the circumstances leading to the current furore with their reporter Jim Spence, came as something of a surprise. I use the word surprise because in committing themselves to such a course of action, BBC Scotland are very much putting themselves on trial. I wonder if myself or any of the thousands of other Rangers fans who several months ago on BBC Sportsound heard the aforementioned Jim Spence declare "I don't care what the Rangers fans say - this is a new club" will be cited as witnesses in this investigation ? Of course there is no need - it’s all there in the BBC Scotland archives. Funnily enough on this point I agree with part of what Spence says. It doesn't really matter what the Rangers support say about this matter - we have neither the authority or legal expertise to pass conclusive and objective opinion. Neither does Jim Spence for that matter - his job is to report the conclusions of those who do possess such authority and expertise. The fact he has failed to do so represents considerable professional failings on his part (which are compounded considerably by the fact his own employers have previously reported on Lord Nimmo Smith's legal conclusions and the SFA's decision to transfer licence) But before a very vigilant Rangers support BBC Scotland's investigative process and its conclusions will be subject to the closest of scrutiny. The corporations standing not only with our support, but the club itself, is at an all time low, and I would hazard a guess that the widespread animosity shown by BBC Scotland in the last few years towards Rangers has been a contributory factor in the lack of confidence Scots have in the corporation. I'm not for a minute suggesting there is sympathy for us by non-Rangers Scots, just that a club with a support the size Rangers have means that any survey of Scots society would result in a fair number who cast a favourable eye towards Ibrox being surveyed. But its more that BBC Scotland's popularity which is on trial. It's journalistic integrity is in the dock, the very heart and soul of the press and media is going to be subjected to the closest of forensic examination. For a regional corporation already lagging behind its peers in terms of public confidence this could well be a watershed. And it should come as no surprise that it will be far more than just the Rangers support maintaining a watching brief on events. For the BBC Trust who have already had cause to intercede in this battle between the Rangers support and BBC Scotland there will be both a sense of foreboding and déjà vu. For barely a year has passed since the BBC were savaged for their failures in light of the Jimmy Savile scandal. Both their investigative processes and their ability to challenge the behaviour of one of their employees has caused the corporation massive damage. Some suggest perhaps fatal damage. The true extent cannot be gauged however until politicians sit down to discuss whether the corporation should be awarded the right to demand a licence and the subsequent public reaction to this. The problem for the BBC is that politicians have a tendency to do what is popular with voters rather than what is necessarily the right thing to do. And whilst the Leveson enquiry dealt with the behaviour of the written press it nevertheless has resulted in considerable change across the entire spectrum of the press and media irrespective of whether it is the written or spoken word. And what of the individual who was the catalyst to all this ? Is he displaying remorse or regret for the position he has forced his employers into ? Regretfully not instead he is busy playing to the gallery of "usual suspects - that intrepid band of Rangers hating individuals who just happen for convenience sake to carry an NUJ card - and have been too happy to squeal about "abuse of journalists" and "freedom of speech".(It is entirely co-incidental of course that this group only make an appearance when a journalist is challenged about anti-Rangers rhetoric) But let's stick with the word abuse here because it is pivotal to this whole debate. It appears the fact that the truth has been abused seems, sadly, to be of little consequence to many. But for those of us who wish to protect and maintain the ethos of a BBC whose accuracy and impartiality once earned world renown, perhaps the gravest abuse in all of this is a maverick journalist using the BBC as a platform to espouse not only his disdain for a football club - but expressing that disdain in a manner which is both inaccurate and misleading.

Do we as fans get too bogged down on people playing "out of position"? Reading on anther forum and people are going tonto at 2 left backs playing last night. Now granted I missed this one and it may have been atrocious. But I can quite reasonably see Smith playing in front of Wallace or vice versa working quite well based on the individual attributes they have. Gareth Bale started out as a left back. Were Spurs/Southampton fans going nuts about him being used out of position. Mascherano played for a long time at centre back for Barca despite lacking the physical qualities necessary. Rooney and Weelbeck have played wide in midfield for Man Utd. I realise these are exceptional cases or in some cases world class performers. But if I used obscure examples from my local team you wouldn't be aware of them and they would be no more valid. I don't think the issue is always whether someone is in their preferred position but whether or not they have the attributes to do a specific job for the managers game plan in another position. Is it really that big a deal? All that is before you get into the fact that formations are fluid throughout the game and so formations and positions don't define players completely anyway.

Scotland it would appear has a new form of immunity allowing persons to express an opinion with apparent impunity. All that is required is to precede whatever you have to say with the phrase "Some would say". The phrases' creator - BBC Scotland's Jim Spence - has overlooked one small detail however - his previous comments on the subject. A quick search through the BBC archives reveal that Jim Spence has previously alluded to Rangers having died or being no more. Therefore not only is he erroneous in with his use of this "get out clause" - he is also disingenuous. Perhaps the BBC Scotland investigation into this furore will consider this fact in it's conclusions. If it fails to, then their investigation will be deemed little more that a whitewash. In some ways it should come as no surprise to us that there is a movement to pronounce life extinct over Ibrox way. I say that, having recently re-visited American Psychologist Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice, where the conduct of these proponents that Rangers are dead display all the characteristics required of the prejudiced bigot. Allport's scale determines the following 5 stages :- Anti-locution – this would include jokes, negative stereotypes as well as hate speech Avoidance – the target is treated in such a way as to be effectively isolated Discrimination – Denial of opportunity, restriction of rights etc. Physical Attack – self explanatory. Extermination – the majority group seek extermination or removal of the minority group. Whilst often applied in situations which involves genocide, Allport's Scale is also used in modern day Britain as an industry standard in determining prejudice within the workplace. In such a setting the extermination stage manifests itself with the victim either leaving or being forced to leave the work place. For a Rangers support often referred to as “Huns”, likened to a “bunch of bigoted troglodytes, almost to a man”, and whose club were denied the fundamental principal of innocence until proven guilty, along with numerous other instances of unfair and unjust treatment, it should come as no surprise to us as we tick through the various stages that we would eventually end up at extermination. Of course that hatred and prejudice manifests itself daily on social media networks where Rangers supporters are no longer “Huns” or “Orange Bastards” instead they are “Zombies” or “Sevconians”. However this appears to be little more than a “wish-list” mentality, which requires “believers” to ignore considerable evidence, rulings and judgements to the contrary. I wont recount Lord Nimmo Smith's commentary regarding Rangers continuing as a footballing entity - it has been cited in many a previous discourse on this subject - suffice to say one of the most respected legal brains has passed his judgement on the matter. So too of course have the SFA, The European Clubs Association, UEFA and, perhaps as an indication of how desperate some are to confirm the death of Rangers, even the Advertising Standards Authority. Those proponents of “Zombies” and “Sevconians” appear more than happy to ignore the evidence in order that their wishes can be realised, in fact they give new meaning to the term “Ignorance is bliss”. Who said blind hatred was a bad thing ? But what of the Jim Spence's and Graham Spiers of this world, who, whilst not using the terms “zombies” or “sevconians”, continually repeat the mantra, that Rangers have died ? What separates them from the knuckle dragging element motivated by hatred bigotry and prejudice, who scream about “zombies” and “sevconians” ? The answer is – very little. For in arriving at such a conclusion they too have exercised the necessary exclusion of facts and chosen to ignore the authority and expertise of those previously cited. What is particularly interesting with both Spiers and Spence is that in making such assertions they refuse continually to mention or comment on Lord Nimmo Smith's ruling, the SFA Transfer of licence or the European Club's Association determination on Rangers. The real question for me is why they are doing this. Why are allegedly objective and impartial journalists choosing to ignore the considerable body of evidence available and arrive at conclusions which are at odds with that evidence ? Or do our journalists now have a right to deliberately mislead and misinform the public ? It is perhaps ironic that last week, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News, who has a colourful history with the Rangers support released the following tweet :- “it's a pointless debate - you cannot "kill" an FC like Rangers. Isn't this obvious? And an FC is more than a PLC end of.” So over to you Messrs Spiers and Spence, the floor as they say is yours – explain to this Rangers support why you have arrived at the conclusion that Rangers are dead. It shouldn't be that hard for you – you have after all repeated it often enough. Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong in his legal conclusions, why the SFA were misguided to transfer the licence and why the ECA have determined the situation incorrectly. Because at the moment their appears to be little to separate you from those whose motivations are based on prejudice, blind hatred and bigotry.

Dear Mr Fitzpatrick, Thank you for your letter of 11.09.2013, which enclosed a copy of a response you have received from David Gauke MP regarding the Rangers Tax Case. Whilst I am extremely disappointed with the content of that letter, I am however glad that you personally have now experienced the type of evasion and prevarication which gave rise to me contacting you in the first place, and which myself and many thousands of Rangers supporters, many shareholders with a vested financial interest, have also experienced. Before I proceed further however, I must take this opportunity to thank you personally for your efforts in this matter. Whilst Mr Gauke's response leaves a lot to be desired at least you managed to elucidate a response. I honestly do wonder however, if Mr Gauke and HMRC think we in Scotland "zip up at the back of the heid" for want of a better expression. ( I'm sorely tempted to send Mr Gauke my curriculum vitae and direct him to the part under training which states "Advanced Detective Training Scottish Police College" Perhaps dealing with Mr Gauke's response is the most fruitful way to proceed :- 2nd Paragraph "As I'm sure you will understand I am unable to comment on the tax affairs of individual companies as doing so would be a breach of taxpayer confidentiality" We most certainly do understand - in fact it's breaches of such confidentiality which give rise to our concerns and questions, which I note Mr Gauke, like HMRC before him, has chosen to avoid answering. Mr Fitzpatrick if you look at the previous correspondence I sent you, you will note that my questions centred around the conduct of HMRC and Westminster MP's with responsibility thereto, following the breaches of confidentiality in the Rangers Tax Case. The questions I have been asking HMRC and those Ministers are summarised as follows :- 1. When the leaks in the Rangers Tax Case entered the public domain did HMRC conduct an internal audit or investigation to determine the source of these leaks ? 2. What was the conclusion of such investigation ? 3. Did HMRC cross reference the content of such leaks in the catalogue of evidence they had seized for the Rangers Tax Case to determine if there was a match ? 4. Are there protocols and procedures within HMRC for breaches of confidentiality and if so were they adhered to in the Rangers Tax Case ? Furthermore did Westminster MP's with ministerial responsibility for HMRC, personally check that the protocols and investigations had been carried out by HMRC when the the Rangers Tax Case Leaks appeared in the public domain ? 5. Did HMRC contact the Police to report these apparent breaches of confidentiality which constituted a grave crime in Scotland ? If not why not ? 3rd Paragraph "I understand a case management hearing before the Upper Tax tribunal was set for 19 July 2013 after which HMRC expects to learn more about when the appeal is likely to be heard" This deals with the ongoing legal process and has no bearing whatsover on the questions I have asked, or HMRC's failure to respond. 4th Paragraph "As HMRC has previously advised it cannot comment on the affairs of any business or individual due to it's legal obligations of confidentiality" More or less a repeat of the 2nd Paragraph. However it’s interesting that the phrase "legal obligations" is mentioned. The jist of my enquiries as can be seen from the questions asked are not to probe confidential information relative to the Rangers Tax Case but to determine if the investigatory body has fulfilled its legal obligations in view of a breach of that confidentiality. 5th Paragraph "However I can confirm that these matters are being investigated by Police Service of Scotland in conjunction with HMRC and the PF West of Scotland" I must admit this paragraph made me laugh. They are only subject to such criminal investigation because Sir David Murray and myself lodged criminal complaints in respect of these leaks post Tax Tribunal Verdict. The real question is why didn't HMRC initiate such a complaint sooner ? It is quite clear that HMRC, and given the content of Mr Gauke's letter I suspect a number of MP's are hiding behind this "breach of confidentiality" to avoid answering very awkward questions. It is a master class in prevarication and evasion. It is blatantly apparent from the way I have presented the questions that they are an examination of the conduct of the Investigatory Body (HMRC) in the Rangers Tax Case following confidential information being leaked to a number of outlets, not any desire to seek information which would obviously be confidential concerning Rangers Tax Case. Finally I would refer to Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith's report into the SPL Investigation into Rangers where he concludes :- [98] Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust. It also listed the names of people where the BBC had seen evidence that they received side-letters. This event appears to have been the trigger for more activity in response to the SPL’s request. Mr Fitzpatrick we have a situation here now where a one of the most legal and respected legal brains in Scotland is alluding to the very evidence in the Rangers Tax Case being stolen and passed to BBC Scotland and the Investigatory Body (HMRC) responsible for the seizing and care of such productions refuse to comment. I'm sure you would agree this situation is totally unacceptable. In fact there is a sinister element of deliberate avoidance emerging. In no way does it breach confidentiality to examine the conduct, and ask questions of an investigatory agency in what has been the highest profile tax case ever in Scotland, and where the evidence has been appropriated and passed on allowing considerable breaches of confidentiality. As you can perhaps determine from the tone and content of this letter I feel the response from Mr Gauke to both you and I is totally unsatisfactory. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on proceeding with this. Do you think further correspondence would be fruitful or do you think the concerns raised in this letter and our collective experiences are worthy of further debate within Holyrood itself ? I look forward to hearing from you. Yours Sincerely

Mate sent me these quotes from today's Mail. Has Regan or Lawwell admitted before that they knew each other before Regan got the job? Don't buy newspapers so cannot verify quotes. "Peter was previously interested in what was going on in England and wanted to talk about opportunities for the future, so I met him when I was at the Football League" "I get on well with Peter"

STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/

from 26 mins in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2vty

Deal till the end of the season apparently... @RFC_Official: #Rangers can confirm tonight they have signed 34-year old goalkeeper Steve Simonsen until the end of the season: http://t.co/FFOrJANCaM @RFC_Official: .@andymitch8 has also gone out on loan to @AnnanAthleticFC & Scott Gallacher has joined @AirdrieoniansFC on loan: http://t.co/FFOrJANCaM

From the Herald: Shareholders claim Rangers' broker blocked compromise agreement with club's current directors Published on 13 September 2013 The shareholders who were seeking boardroom change at Rangers claim the club's broker blocked their compromise agreement with the current directors. Rangers announced on Thursday that a requisition to remove three directors and appoint Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board had been withdrawn in return for a guarantee that their annual general meeting would be held before the end of October. The two groups had appeared close to an agreement the previous week when Rangers released a statement claiming that Murray, Blin, Sandy Easdale and John McClelland would be appointed to a new nine-man board. But the "requisitioners" then denied agreeing to a vote of confidence in the current board. Talks continued but broke down this week as signalled by the club's statement to the London Stock Exchange, and Blin has now withdrawn from the entire process. Revolution remains on the agenda The disgruntled shareholders have now said that Strand Hanson, the club's nominated advisor (Nomad) and broker, vetoed any deal but did not explain why. The fate of the current five-man board - Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge, Bryan Smart, James Easdale and Ian Hart - now rests with the shareholders at the AGM. In a statement, a spokesman for the requisitioners said: "We embarked on this exercise seven weeks ago at the request of shareholders speaking for 28% of the club's shares. "They had concerns over a lack of corporate governance and financial transparency at the club and they wanted those issues addressed by the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin to the board and the removal of Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart. "Two significant events have occurred since we started this process. Firstly, Walter Smith resigned as chairman and secondly, the board informed us that the Easdale family had secured control over a significant minority of the club's shares. "As a result we came to the conclusion that the best way to secure a stable board and avoid further shareholder challenges was to negotiate a compromise with the board. "We have engaged in compromise discussions for the last three weeks. A key element of any compromise was that we could not give any guarantees to the current board members. It is democratic and fair that all directors, existing and new, will have to offer themselves up for a re-election vote at the AGM in October. "On this basis we agreed a compromise agreement with the board but on Monday evening they informed us that the Nomad, Strand Hanson, were refusing to approve it. Despite repeated attempts by us, Strand Hanson have refused to engage with us to explain the reasons for their stance. "With compromise impossible we have continued discussions over the last few days with a view to combining the AGM and the GM. These discussions broke down on Wednesday when the board refused to agree to our request that no further board members could be appointed in the run-up to the AGM. Without this protection Paul Murray and Frank Blin would have been uncertain as to what board they might be joining. As a consequence, Frank Blin will not seek election to the board and will have no further involvement. "In addition, the board informed us yesterday that Strand Hanson were not prepared to support Paul Murray's election to the board at the AGM. Yet again they have refused to engage with us to explain their reasons. "On the basis of the constantly changing circumstances and the lack of consistency in people's positions we have therefore decided to withdraw the requisition. We have done this on the condition that the AGM is held no later than 31 October. "We now believe that the AGM will provide the platform for the shareholders to decide who should lead the club. All the directors will have to offer themselves for re-election and we would encourage all shareholders to vote and show whether they have confidence in the current board or not." Strand Hanson was not available for comment. The company was appointed by Rangers on July 9, replacing Cenkos Securities, on the same day as former chairman Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell left the board and James Easdale was appointed.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239433-rangers-ebt-tax-case-hmrc-appeal-to-be-heard-in-public-judge-rules/ HM Revenue and Customs’ appeal against the Rangers tax case will be heard in public, it has been announced. The tax authority is appealing the First Tier Tax Tribunal that ruled in favour of the Murray Group Holdings and its subsidiary, Rangers oldco. In the tribunal decision released last November, a majority of two to one on the panel found that payments made through offshore employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to players and staff at Rangers should be classified as loans and did not attract PAYE and national insurance. There were five cases where the payments made to employees should be classified as wages and were taxable, the panel found. HMRC launched an appeal against the ‘big’ tax case in the Upper Tribunal last year and it is set to be heard on several days between January and March 2014. Colin Bishopp is the Upper Tribunal judge overseeing it and his directions issued at an earlier preliminary hearing in the case were released on Friday. In it, he confirmed that all further hearings in the case will be made in public, after the previous case was held in private. Judge Bishopp said: "It was common ground before me that the presumption is that tax appeals are heard in public, and with no concealment of identity or detail. I accept that, in the past, there was good reason to fear that the personal safety of certain individuals was threatened; but the information now before me indicates that the threats have abated and have probably disappeared. "Even if the identities of some individuals were concealed in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, the nature of the issues was not." He stated that the original decision to withhold the identities of those giving evidence in the case came about because of the "strong feelings" football can generate. Judge Bishopp explained: "It is undisputed that various threats of a serious nature have been made, and that the Strathclyde Police have been compelled to offer advice and protection to several individuals involved in RFC’s affairs. Some of the threats have come from disappointed Rangers supporters; others from supporters of rival teams who have formed the opinion that RFC’s use of the EBT gave it an unfair financial advantage. "Largely because of those threats the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal was held in private. Some of the witnesses who gave oral evidence were resident outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts and tribunals, and therefore could not be compelled to give evidence; they did so only on condition that their names were not revealed. The two HMRC officers who had dealt with the matter, too, were believed to be under threat and their identities were concealed. In consequence the decision was released in a heavily redacted and anonymised form." 'No special status' The judge also noted that many of those who gave evidence could be identified by piecing together their First Tier Tribunal evidence with the findings of the independent Scottish Premier League commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith that found Rangers breached the rules by failing to disclose EBT payments. After the case last year, former Rangers owner Sir David Murray stated that the decision left the oldco, which is now in liquidation, and his company facing a "minimal tax liability". Originally, HMRC had sought £36.6m from Rangers oldco for PAYE and national insurance for its use of EBTs from 2001 and 2010. It also alleged that four companies related to Sir David - Murray Group Holdings Ltd, Murray Group Management Ltd, the Premier Property Group Ltd and GM Mining Ltd – owed a further £10m in unpaid taxes on the EBT payments. The panel that heard the first case ruled that most of the trusts were "valid" and payments made to players and staff were loans that are "recoverable" by the trusts. Rangers oldco, now known as RFC 2012 plc, went into administration last February with debts of between £50m and £124m, depending on the amount allotted to the big tax case. Duff and Phelps were unable to agree a company voluntary agreement (CVA) among creditors and liquidators BDO were appointed last October. Rangers’ assets, including Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park training ground, were sold to a newco, formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd, which was backed by Charles Green’s consortium last June in a £5.5m deal. Judge Bishopp said he took into account the financial collapse of Rangers and subsequent fallout into allowing the hearings to be held in public. He stated: "Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a 'club', in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders. "From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant. "Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons." Under his direction, the HMRC employees who dealt with the case will remain anonymous in the Upper Tribunal hearing, while other witnesses who were not compelled to give evidence during the original case will not have to give evidence.

Further to the announcement on 10 September 2013, the Company confirms that the Board's discussions have been continuing with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"). The Company can confirm that the Requisitioners have withdrawn the Requisition which put forward resolutions for the removal of Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart as Directors of the Company and for the appointment Frank Blin and Paul Murray as Non-Executive Directors of the Company on the condition that the Company convenes its Annual General Meeting to be held no later than 31 October 2013. The Company confirms that all of the current Directors remain in office and that it is not appointing any additional Directors save that as previously announced, the Company confirms that it continues to actively seek to appoint a new Chairman. Further announcements will be made as appropriate. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...entId=11707849

Scotland manager Gordon Strachan has called up four players ahead of their World Cup qualification double header. Craig Bryson, Chris Burke, Kevin Thomson and Lee Wallace have been added to the squad after West Brom's James Morrison and Graham Dorrans withdrew. Strachan's side host Belgium on Friday before a trip to Macedonia the following Tuesday. Morrison withdrew with a groin problem while Dorrans's injury has not been disclosed. West Brom midfielder Morrison, who scored in Scotland's 3-2 defeat by England, suffered a groin injury in Sunday's defeat by Swansea. "He felt a pain in his groin just before half-time, the last couple of minutes in the first half," said Albion boss Steve Clarke. "The medical people will assess it but I would imagine he is doubtful for the Scotland trip." Scotland currently sit in fifth place in qualifying Group A with five points from seven games.

CAN the people of Scotland trust BBC Scotland? Can BBC Scotland be trusted with the news? Can BBC Scotland be believed? Can BBC Scotland’s many staff journalists and its numerous regular freelance contributors be trusted to report the news in a fair, accurate, balanced and totally truthful way? These are big questions, especially as we are the midst of a Referendum campaign which will decide whether Scotland remains as part of the United Kingdom or becomes a separate country, a decision which will impact on everyone. It is therefore of vital importance that the language of this debate, when used by broadcasters, accurately reflects what is factual and verifiable. The same is true of any other major political, economic, or, indeed any story, be it news, sport or the arts, which is reported by BBC Scotland’s broadcasters on television or radio. Unfortunately the answer to these major questions are all in the negative. No, BBC Scotland cannot be trusted with the news. BBC Scotland cannot be believed. BBC Scotland’s vast army of staff journalists and their numerous freelance contributors cannot be trusted to report in a fair accurate balanced and totally truthful way. These are the conclusions which must be drawn after the news has been leaked that BBC Scotland bosses are to challenge the judgement of the BBC Trust that Rangers cannot be referred to as a new club. The BBC Trust, the final court of arbitration within the BBC, reached this conclusion when it studied judgements from two learned Scottish judges, Lord Glennie and Lord Nimmo Smith, from the Scottish Football Association and from UEFA, among many others, who have all ruled that Rangers may be a Newco, but remain the same club with all of its history intact. At least two BBC employees dispute this. They dispute not one, but two legal rulings from two of Scotland’s most eminent judges. The two are BBC Scotland staff reporter, Jim Spence and BBC Scotland freelance employee, Graham Spiers – aka Odious Creep – who has now dragged the Herald into the row after being allowed by his supine sports editor, former Celtic View editor Donald Cowie, to write in support of Jim Spence. He has been joined in this by the fiercely pro Irish Republican National Union of Journalists and the union’s Celtic and Liverpool supporting Scottish organiser Paul Halloran, plus some of the other usual suspects, the fanatical IRA supporting Philmacgiollabhain – who holds a senior positon in the NUJ and who the Press Complaints Commision agree is a bigot - and his pal Angela Haggerty, who has roped the once respected Drum magazine, which claims to cover local media matters, into the rumpus. It is a curious alliance. Surely one would expect the National Union of Journalists to be a bastion in defence of truth and accuracy? The opposite, however, appears to be the case. The NUJ now seems to be saying that flying in the face of facts is to be accepted and admired as is official National Union of Journalists policy. The NUJ further seems to be saying that Jim Spence’s blatant disregard for the facts, that his inaccurate and truly low standard of reporting is not only to be accepted, but actually actively encouraged. Which is exactly the stance BBC Scotland appear to be taking. For a report in the Herald – the paper Odious Creep writes for – that BBC Scotland have apologised for what Jim Spence said, is more than wildly exaggerated. It is just downright wrong. As factually inaccurate and incorrect as what Jim Spence said on BBC Scotland to spark the row. The story, headlined in the Herald “BBC SAYS SORRY OVER SPENCE’S RANGERS COMMENTS” was, boasts the Herald, the paper’s on line edition’s most read story this week. Except, the BBC did not apologise, leaving the Herald looking as though it is colluding in BBC Scotland’s lie by printing a second lie. Let us be clear. BBC Scotland has not apologised for Jim Spence saying that Rangers are a new club. That, unlike much of what you hear on BBC Scotland from Jim Spence and Odious Creep and what Odious Creep writes in the Herald, is the fact of the matter. Now, the trouble for BBC Scotland is they have placed the organisation in a bad place by backing Jim Spence for what appeared his wilful disregard for the BBC Trust’s judgement and directive. That place is alongside the Republican militant and publicly branded bigot , Philmacgoillabhain and his sidekick, Angela Haggerty. It is a place which will see everything any of BBC Scotland broadcasters report or comment on, especially during the run up to the Referendum, disbelieved. That is what happens to a news organisation when its credibility is undermined and destroyed by rank rotten journalism. There are many fine journalists within BBC Scotland, both staff and on the freelance payroll. Men and woman who are diligent and painstaking in the way they report the news. I know many of them are worried about their integrity and their reputation for honesty, being damaged by BBC Scotland’s support for Jim Spence’s lie. A number of them may also privately express their concern at the nature of those who are lining up to support Jim Spence. For they know that BBC Scotland’s backing of Jim Spence and his lie means that BBC Scotland cannot be trusted by the people of Scotland to report the news in a fair, balanced, accurate and more importantly, honest way.

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

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

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

Written by The Ref: The definition of sabotage is:- 1. The destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war. 2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavour; deliberate subversion. The term "sabotage" derives from French factory workers throwing their wooden shoes ("sabots") into machinery to jam them and stop production. In a sense this was the very first use of industrial sabotage. The aim of industrial sabotage is to cause maximum disruption and/or damage by secretive means. Often industrial sabotage works hand in hand with industrial and economic espionage. Economic espionage is often orchestrated by governments and is international in scope, while industrial espionage is more often national and occurs between companies or corporations. The purpose of espionage is to gather knowledge about an organisation or organisations and it may describe activities such as theft of trade secrets, bribery, blackmail and technological surveillance. In any business, including football, information can make the difference between success and failure; if secret information is stolen, the competitive playing field can be levelled or even tipped in favour of a competitor. Although a lot of information-gathering is achieved legally through competitive intelligence; at times other parties feel the best way to get information is to take it. This commonly occurs in one of two ways. Either a disgruntled or dissatisfied employee appropriates information to advance their own interests or to damage the company or, secondly, a competitor or foreign government seeks information to advance its own technological or financial interest. ‘Moles’ or trusted insiders are generally considered the best sources for economic or industrial espionage. Individuals may leave one company to take up employment with another and take sensitive information with them. As a Rangers supporter, I read the above and draw great similarities to what we have witnessed over the last few years and continue to witness now. Have the normal operations of our club been disrupted? Yes, and they still are. As we endeavoured to rid ourselves of the debt we were carrying under David Murray, were we hindered? Yes. David Murray was being pressurised to sell the club by the Lloyds banking group, despite successfully managing to reduce the debt we were carrying. With the outcome of the ‘Big Tax Case, still in the balance, and with sensitive and confidential information surrounding the tax case being leaked illegally to the general public through the media and online blogs on an almost daily basis, it made it almost impossible for Murray to find a buyer. How convenient it was then, when a little known man by the name of Craig Whyte appeared on the scene to buy the club for the princely sum of £1. Quite who Craig Whyte is, where his loyalties lay, or the real reasons why he bought our club are still not known, but I for one would like to know what his real part was in the destruction of our club. Was he put in place to deliberately drag our club down? Was he a pawn in a much bigger game? Was he really just a charlatan and fly-by-night who saw an opportunity to fleece one of Britain’s great institutions? Will we ever know? When we survived with our history intact, I suspect many thought that we had reached the end game and could move on. It is obvious that we will not be allowed to move on. We are still being attacked; confidential information is still being stolen from our club and leaked to the public. Whether this is being done by a mole or electronically, I don’t know, but somehow that information is finding its way into the public domain and damaging our club in its efforts to stabilise, move on and recover from the events of the last few years, and it must be stopped. I am convinced that a major crime has been and is still being committed here, and the only way to get to the bottom of this is to have a full independent police investigation. The leaking of confidential information itself is a breach of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and warrants an investigation. I don’t want to appear paranoid, but something stinks in this whole saga, a saga which has brought Rangers fans into conflict with each other, simply due to the lack of honesty, truth and clarification surrounding this whole mess. The thought that a group or organisation may have deliberately tried to destroy the institution which is Rangers Football Club may seem like something from the film Mission Impossible, but could it actually be nearer the truth than some would like us to believe? http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=97&a=industrial-sabotage

Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:00 New Men Ready To Play Written by Andrew Dickson ALL bar one of Rangers’ news signings have now been registered to play for the club with the SFA after the club’s transfer embargo came to an end on Saturday night. Only Arnold Peralta has still to have his paperwork completed, although that is because the Light Blues are waiting on international clearance coming through. When that arrives will be dictated by the National Autonomous Federation of Football of Honduras, whom the midfielder was most recently registered with. The expectation is he will also become eligible in the next few days and certainly before next weekend’s home game with Arbroath at Ibrox. Nicky Law, Jon Daly, Nicky Clark and Cammy Bell have all been able to turn out as trialists to some extent in recent weeks. But because their registrations were last held by clubs outwith Scotland, Peralta, Stevie Smith, Richard Foster and Bilel Mohsni couldn’t feature competitively. The latter three all played for the first time in a month on Tuesday as a Rangers side lost 3-1 in a closed-doors game to Hibernian. That match was held for the new additions and some other players who have had injuries to get much-needed minutes behind them. Peralta missed the game as he is currently on international duty with Honduras ahead of their World Cup qualifiers with Mexico and Panama. As things stand, Ally McCoist should only be without injured trio Ross Perry, Kyle Hutton and Chris Hegarty. All three remain sidelined with ankle injuries and Perry went through a procedure this week in order to accelerate his recovery. Andy Little missed the 5-0 win over East Fife at the weekend with a knee problem but he should be fit enough to play after the international break is over. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4981-new-men-ready-to-play

I posted this in the footie thread,however I think it has a place here as he says ''He’s in charge of the biggest and most successful club in the country''. IF THERE was a Richter scale for Twitter then the news that Peter Lawwell had been appointed to the main board of the Scottish Football Association would have measured about a 5.5, the digital equivalent of a mighty earthquake. When the news came through on Tuesday there was a sudden tremor online, a reverberation that could have only meant one thing. Something had happened in Old Firm land. Again. There are very sound reasons why Lawwell should be on the SFA board. He’s in charge of the biggest and most successful club in the country. He’s run the finances of that club expertly. He has contacts and knowledge and experience. If it was any other country in the world then there wouldn’t have been such a hubbub about his nomination. The gist of the argument against it appears to be this: He’s Celtic and therefore anti-Rangers. He’ll have too much control. He’ll feather the nest of his own club and shaft the rest. Suspicion and conspiracy and poison, too, but not a lot in the way of commonsense. On Twitter the other night we waited for something that went beyond the usual one-eyed hysteria, some level of criticism of the appointment that had any merit. Eventually, a point was made quietly. And it was an interesting point, whether you agreed with it or not. Is it right that Lawwell should sit on a board that exists to protect Scotland’s footballing interests when his own club have argued for so long that the sooner they leave Scotland the better? That’s a legitimate talking point. Much of the rest of the reaction to Lawwell’s new role was depressingly predictable, though. After the online earthquake of Tuesday, the after-shocks will continue in cyberland for some time to come. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/tom-english-lawwell-s-sfa-appointment-causes-stir-1-3076647?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

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