Search the Community

There are real doubts about Rangers' ability to continue as a going concern THE chairman issued the dire warning, which he claims is a direct result of fan proposals to drip-feed season-ticket money to the club via a trust fund. RANGERS chairman David Somers has admitted that "material uncertainty" over season ticket income may cast doubt about the club's ability to continue as a going concern, as the Ibrox outfit announced its cash reserves fell by more than £17.5million last year. Rangers announced a loss of £3.7million in the seven months up to the end of 2013, an improvement of 50 per cent on the same period 12 months earlier. But they had just £3.5million cash on December 31, despite bringing in £22million in an initial public offering (IPO) share issue just over a year earlier. The main Rangers supporters' groups recently raised the possibility of drip-feeding season-ticket money to the club via a trust fund amid continuing distrust over the board's ability and intentions. And the club, who recently arranged loans totalling £1.5million from two shareholders, admits that casts a shadow over the club's immediate future. In the interim report, Somers said: "This possibility results in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast doubt about Rangers' ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the company may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. "Nevertheless, after making the appropriate enquiries and considering the uncertainties referred to above, the directors have concluded that there is a reasonable expectation that the company has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the directors continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing the interim results." Earlier this month, the Union of Fans, which incorporates all of the main Rangers supporters' groups, urged fans to put season ticket money into a trust, from which it would only be released to the club when assurances were met, including security over Ibrox and the Murray Park training ground. The club's independent auditor, Deloitte, stated the uncertainty might cast "significant" doubt over the club's ability to continue as a going concern. The club have made assumptions including that they "modestly" increase their season-ticket numbers, which stood at 36,000 in League One, next season and beyond. The improvement in financial performance is in large part down to increased retail sales with the club reporting its partnership with Sports Direct was worth £4.8million in the seven months, up from £900,000. Revenue was up 38 per cent to £13.2million, however operating expenses also increased slightly to £16.8million. Staff costs were down £800,000 to £7.5million but the club pointed out that £500,000 was spent on severance payments. Somers and chief executive Graham Wallace came in towards the end of the period and the latter is conducting a 120-day review of the business, and they explained some of the spending that meant cash reserves fell from £21.2million in a year. Somers said: "The majority of the money raised from the IPO in December 2012 had been spent by June 2013 on IPO related fees and commissions, severance payments, the purchases of the Albion car park and Edmiston House and to fund ongoing operating losses. "The club incurred a further £7.7m of cash expenditure in the six months to 31 December 2013, funding additional fixed asset purchases and operating losses. In total the club has spent over £4m on fixed assets since the IPO that are not yet generating incremental revenue." Somers admitted operating costs had been unsustainable. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fears-future-ibrox-chairman-david-3290753

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6545-club-statement

https://www.change.org/petitions/remove-media-house-and-jack-irvine

BARRY believes the Ibrox chief executive should be allowed to complete his 120-day review of the club before fans decide on whether or not to renew their season tickets. LIKE every other Rangers season-ticket holder, a renewal form will soon drop through my door and it looks as if I’ll be faced with a huge decision. Do I hand over my cash to the current board? Dave King has laid his cards on the table after his statement this week urging fans not to pump their money into the current regime and instead put it into a separate bank account where funds would then be drip fed in on a game-by-game basis. I know some leading supporters groups have already backed that idea but I have to say that right now I’m going to sit on the fence. The reason for that is simple. Graham Wallace asked for 120 days to carry out a complete review of the business and I believe he should be given that time. By my calculations that means April 18 will be the end of that period and it is then I would want to hear a full and frank assessment from the Rangers chief executive over what he has found and where he sees the club going. April is shaping up to be a huge month on the park for Ally McCoist and his players as they could be contesting a Scottish Cup semi-final on home soil for a place in the final at Parkhead on May 17 and what an achievement that would be. But less than a week later what Wallace tells us could be just as significant about the state of my old club off the park. What he tells us is going to be crucial. He asked for those 120 days and I’m willing to give him them before making a call on what to do next. I want to know what fresh investment they’ve got lined up and if they can get King or someone else like him who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. I also want to know what plans they have for strengthening the squad for the tough challenges ahead. Listen, I can’t speak for 40,000 people on whether they’ll withhold season ticket money and put it into the separate bank account, as King has suggested. All I can do is give the view of this season-ticket holder and that is I’m going to reserve judgment. Without a doubt I will part with the cash for a season ticket but as to where my money goes – to the current board or a group led by someone like King for example – I don’t know until I hear what the future plans are. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have King on speed dial or anything but I’ve met him a few times and know he has previously invested – and lost – a lot of money in Rangers, a club very close to his heart. I’m not doubting his credentials for one minute and he deserves praise for showing a willingness even to get involved again after having his fingers burned the last time. I’d love to see him and the board somehow working together for the good of the club but I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of it to comment on why that hasn’t happened. It’s no secret King lost £20million and you have to feel for him but he’s a Rangers man and I want not only him but all sorts of Rangers people on that board, pulling together and helping get the club back in the right direction. The coming months are going to be critical but I’m sitting on the fence until then. I know there are a lot of strong feelings out there but Rangers fans have turned out in their droves during this time of need and I can’t see that stopping. We have all seen the response since they went down to the bottom tier of Scottish football and I wouldn’t like to think they’d go down that road because it doesn’t help the club or players. Nobody gains from it. What I do know is that the thought of Celtic winning 10 titles in a row – as King has suggested if they don’t back him – will be a huge worry. And of course there’s always a chance it could happen. One thing is for sure and that’s that the management team and players will want to do everything in their power to avoid that happening. A lot of that will depend on what we hear after this 120-day period. As far as I’m concerned it won’t happen and Celtic won’t make it to 10 but you don’t know and McCoist needs the tools once they get to the Premiership to be able to topple Celtic. You need the money to get the right players and get Rangers back to where they belong which is getting through the qualifiers and into the Champions League group stage, winning League and Scottish Cups and winning titles. I still maintain there are wealthy fans and businessmen out there who would be willing to invest heavily in a massive club like Rangers with hundreds of thousands of followers. Wallace is experienced and has worked at the highest level with Manchester City so it is one of his jobs to try to find those people who can help the club and we can hear what he’s got to say after the 120-day review period. At that point I would want complete transparency on the financial situation. How much is in the bank? What investors are lined up? It’s not that I trust the current board as such it’s just that I believe people are entitled to a certain amount of time. They asked for 120 days at the agm in December and said they’d have answers so let’s see what they’re made of. There hasn’t been enough transparency under previous regimes so that’s why I want to hear from them. Let’s face it, 120 days is hardly a lifetime. It gives them time to find out what state the club is in and then we can make a call on it. I can totally understand fans are worrying over the need to borrow £1.5million because it was a worry to me when I first heard. I’m not burying my head in the sand and ignoring the fears of supporters but the last thing we want is for a repeat of the last scenario where the club was run into the ground. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-want-graham-wallace-3190675

...Former director wants board punished for assuming loyalty Dave King will fly to Scotland to spearhead his supporter revolt against the current Rangers board. The South African-based former director released a statement Wednesday urging fans to withhold their season-ticket money unless the current Ibrox regime provides full transparency over the club’s finances. The board responded with a brief, one-line statement, insisting that his comments were ‘potentially de-stabilising and damaging to Rangers Football Club’. However, having been frustrated in his attempts to lead a fresh bout of fundraising via a new share issue, King told Sportsmail he wants to meet fans’ groups face to face after claiming the ‘business is not commercially sustainable in the short term’. Amid anger over a £1.5million loan by director Sandy Easdale and investors Laxey Partners, the Castlemilk-born businessman has warned fans they risk pouring their season-ticket money down a ‘black-hole’ to repay the cash and wants to front a fan-based consortium in the acquisition of shares in the club. Confirming he plans a direct appeal to supporters in the coming weeks, King told Sportsmail: ‘For the moment, I can deal with things remotely. But I do believe it will be necessary to travel to Scotland in the near future to meet with fan representatives.’ King flew to Glasgow in October in a bid to unite the warring boardroom factions prior to the annual general meeting and work out an investment package — but he returned home empty-handed. A direct offer to lead a new round of fundraising via a share issue has been ignored, prompting anger among fans. King has now appealed to them to stop the in-fighting and join him in the battle for the club’s future. ‘The football club is at risk and it will take a united front to overcome the obvious challenges that are ahead,’ he said. ‘The board can continue with its stubborn refusal (to listen) but that would not be a prudent response.’ Repeating a recent warning in Sportsmail that Celtic will ‘shoot to 10-in-a-row — and beyond’ if cuts are made and a substantial one-off investment is not accepted, King said in his statement that Rangers are doomed to compete for ‘minor places’ in the SPFL Premiership without it. ‘The board is focusing on right-sizing the business — cutting costs to match the income,’ said King. ‘It is correct that any club must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant one-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. ‘Without this we will not get back to where we should be. ‘If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10-in-a-row — and beyond — while we slug it out for the minor places. ‘That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.’ King told Sportsmail that claims he offered a £1m loan to the club are inaccurate and rattled Rangers chairman David Somers also issued a statement, saying: ‘I have been in email correspondence with Mr King and suggested that, even though he is not a current shareholder, I would be interested in hearing any proposals he might have. ‘Mr King replied and indicated a willingness to consider participating in any future equity issue that the club might undertake. ‘This has been the extent of the discussion and I repeat that no offer of an interest-free loan has been received from Mr King, or anyone else, apart from Mr Sandy Easdale.’ Chief executive Graham Wallace is in the middle of a 120-day review of the club’ s finances in a bid to cut the spending that saw Rangers post an operating loss of £14.4m last season. Wallace has also instigated a survey of supporters on the running of the club. Convinced an unaccountable board are only interested in using fans as a cash cow, however, King says season-ticket money should not be used as a crutch for a failing business. ‘I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club,’ he continued. ‘If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2568814/EXCLUSIVE-Dave-King-issues-call-arms-Former-director-wants-board-punished-assuming-fans-loyalty.html#ixzz2uTQYwxMm Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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.

Club website link: http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6350-ready-to-listen Received by email Dear At our recent AGM I outlined our intention to undertake a comprehensive review of the entire Club and I am pleased to report that we are making excellent progress with this. A key element of looking at how the Club operates and engages is to understand what is important to you, the Rangers supporters. If we can obtain your constructive input and suggestions then we can develop a comprehensive insight into what is needed to address the areas that are important to the fans. We are in the process of rebuilding how your Club operates and based on feedback from many of you, it is clear that there is a need for professional business management, honest conversation, transparency and greater communication to allow us to move forward together. Your Club Executive and Board is wholly open minded on how we can work together for the better development of Rangers. The Club, and you the supporters, have continued to be tested in recent months as we work on developing the long term strategy for rebuilding the Club. We need you to know that by working together, we have the ability to position your Club for a stable, successful and sustainable future. We hope that you will engage with the Club and talk to us openly. We value your input and we are Ready to Listen. To start us on this journey together, I would ask if you could take a few minutes to complete this short survey which will give you the opportunity to commence the process of sharing your thoughts and opinions with us. We will consolidate all input received and use this as the basis upon which to move our wider supporter engagement initiatives forward. Please click here to start survey. Thank you for your support. Graham Wallace Chief Executive Officer Rangers Football Club

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

Been googling and looking through other sites to refresh my memory. The fact that we require loans now to get through the next few months has me questioning the ability/honesty of CEO Graham Wallace. This is what he said in a Q&A article in The Herald on 17th December 2103 " In the short-to-medium term there is sufficient cash within the club in order for it to continue trading on a normal basis." Now he was the Chief Financial Office at Manchester City so I'm assuming he has some kind of accountancy/financial qualification. That being the case when he made that statement only 8 weeks ago was he fully aware of the financial position at the club? Did he check himself? Was he assured by the board that we were ok in the mid term? Was he told the truth by the incumbents on the board and if not when did he realise we did not have sufficient cash for the short term never mind the mid term? In the same Q&A article he speaks about gaining investment for the club, can we also assume he has failed in this respect?

With all the talk this year on youth and whether we are utilizing and funding our scouting and youth academy correctly, thought it might be interesting to see what other teams are doing. http://www.ecaeurope.com/Research/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies.pdf if link doesn't work cut and paste into browser.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/celtic-close-to-deal-over-disputed-land-1.851123 One can understand the ire of those in the east of Glasgow, being investigated by the EU with regard to a land deal which on the face of it, looks fairly straightforward. But scraping below the surface of this deal perhaps offers an insight into why the negotiations referred to have been described by Mr Braiden as “often acrimonious”, and perhaps further as to why certain anomalies have caught the eye of EU investigators. The District Valuer of course is not the Council’s own surveyor, but an executive agency of HM Revenue & Customs who provide a range of independent valuations and surveying services to public sector bodies. On the 24th Novemeber, 2004, the District Valuer was tasked by Glasgow City Council to provide initial valuations for various Council owned sites ( though not all sites surveyed were those eventually sold to Celtic FC) including Westhorn Recreational Ground, which of course, as per The Glasgow Herald article, was subject of an eventual sale to Celtic FC. The Disrict Valuer proceeded as instructed completing preliminary examinations and providing a preliminary report on 19th Janurary, 2005. The completed preliminary report however, took no cognisance of what is referred to as abnormal ground conditions which existed on the sites. This in itself is particularly odd as Glasgow City Council acknowledge abnormal conditions at various sites within this area. “Outputs from high level desk studies for this area and the East End in general demonstrate that land is likely to be subject to significant abnormal development constraints that would require to be overcome during any development project. These include contamination from industrial activities, contamination from waste deposits and mining. As such the majority of land disposal transactions concluded by the Council in this area are subject to the consideration of abnormal costs” The District Valuer was not instructed by the Council to provide any further valuation reports. The negotiation of the sale of the various areas of land was carried out on behalf of the Council by one of its own Chartered Surveyors in accordance with the Council’s normal procedure, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ guidance and the European Commission’s Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (97/C 209/03). The Council’s own chartered surveyor in conjunction with chartered surveyors appointed by Celitc FC negotiated the market value of the land being offered for sale. Surprisingly, the preliminary, yet ostensibly incomplete District Valuer’s Report was then used as a starting point for negotiations on the sale of the land between the Council and Celtic FC As they say in Penny Lane – Very strange.

The shift to the offence principle is criminalising both words and people to all our detriment, writes Stuart Waiton THE philosopher Joel Feinberg has argued that, in cases of law, “we have moved from the harm principle to the offence principle”. What he means is that increasingly society and the law is less interested in actual physical or economic harm and more interested in policing things that are defined as being offensive. One outcome of this is that actual violence is being treated less seriously than words and the notion that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me is being turned on its head. Just this month we had a clear illustration of this in the cases of Paul McGowan and Michael Convery. St Mirren player McGowan was found guilty of assaulting police officers, repeatedly kicking one of them, and yet despite having a previous conviction for police assault received only 130 hours of unpaid work as a punishment. Michael Convery on the other hand sent threatening racist Twitter messages to two black Rangers players and received a six-month prison sentence. This is not an isolated example of words being treated more seriously than actual violence. For example, David Goodwillie, while playing for Blackburn Rovers, was charged with the assault of a man who he “repeatedly punched on the head and body and kicked”. He was sentenced to 80 hours of unpaid work, while David Limond, on the other hand, has just been sentenced to six months in prison for making sectarian threats to a journalist. The list goes on. I first noticed this trend to not only elevate the harm done by words but also to downgrade the issue of violence while watching the Panorama programme entitled Stadiums of Hate, which wrongly portrayed the coming Polish and Ukrainian European football tournament as a racist bloodbath in waiting. In this hysterical portrayal of racist and fascist Ukrainians and Poles, images of fascist saluting fans were interspersed with shots of a group of Asian men being kicked to bits by a group of skinhead thugs at a football match. What shocked me was that in the voiceover of these events there appeared to be not only no separation of the two things, one a gesture, the other actual serious (and I thought horrifying) violence, but the fact that far more seemed to be made of the singing and gesturing than the actual beatings themselves. This programme was illustrative of a number of trends that help to explain the increased policing of words. Firstly, there is the overblown fear of the racist (or sectarian) mob by our politically correct elite, a fear that has led to football (where the “mob” can be found) being a focal point for never-ending awareness campaigns, new laws, surveillance and so on. The control of language around football has been elevated into a largely unquestioned principle and words themselves have been increasingly criminalised. Secondly, there is the elitist elevation of certain “right thinking” and “tolerant” issues into moral absolutes, around which politicians queue up to illustrate their worth as people who “oppose racism and sectarianism in all its forms”, leading to the demand that something must be done – that something being an ever-increasing array of laws to police incorrect words. But it is not only at football or with issue of racism that this policing of language can be seen. There are a variety of “offence” cases, usually related to Facebook or Twitter, that incorporate a whole range of offences, for example the Tom Daley Twitter case. Society itself has shifted the goalposts in the last few decades and increasingly treats adults as vulnerable subjects who need protection. Radicals of the 1980s have helped this process by giving up on campaigns for social equality and shifting their attention to the need to police incorrect words – the campaign against institutional racism, for example, has shifted to the terrain of newly defined “hate crimes”. They also helped to construct the idea that certain groups in society were vulnerable groups and as such were more easily harmed and needed added protection. While there remains a caricatured hierarchy of the vulnerable, the genie is now out of the bottle and we can all define ourselves as being offended, abused, traumatised or harassed by certain words. And the newly emerged therapeutic state can step in and find a new role for itself, both to define us as being offended and to protect us from insults. Recently I noticed a poster that read: “We will not tolerate violence in any form including the use of foul language, verbal abuse and aggression.” I was reminded of the philosopher Slavoj Žižek’s profound statement: “What increasingly appears as the central human right of late-capitalist society is the right not to be harassed, which is a right to be kept at a safe distance from others”. For Žižek, in our fragmented world with few clear unifying beliefs or morals, the role of the state has become a problematic one, whereby our isolated insecurity is institutionalised, and they assist us by protecting us in our fragile hamster ball worlds. We are all vulnerable now, the state and law tell us, easily offended and undermined by insults, bogus threats or politically incorrect language, and must be protected. Tragically, this all runs the risk of undermining the moral legitimacy of the law, filling prisons with non-criminals, educating vulnerable groups (indeed all of us) to be increasingly offended, and creating a climate within which the new generation of adults is encouraged to be the most thin-skinned of chronically offended caricatures. • Stuart Waiton is the author of Snobs Law: Criminalising Football Fans in an Age of Intolerance http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-law-must-focus-on-actions-not-words-1-3271525

Fire up the rolls & slice, pour a cuppa and enjoy/suffer the latest epistle from your local Handwringer in Chief. Liberal democracy is a good thing. It certainly has its faults, but overall a system which allows you to disagree with it without consequence is always preferable to one which imposes penalty on speech or thought. You might think, given the experience of the 20th century, that this is a lesson humanity has finally learned, but alas the lesson of history is that mistakes are seldom, if ever, absorbed. These thoughts came to mind last week as I re-read my copy of Clive James's wonderful 'Cultural Amnesia', a collection of essays on the effects of totalitarianism on humanity and the humanities in the last century. As always with Mr James, it is genius written with the lightest of touches: the best kind of teaching. You can pick up a copy for about £3 on Amazon and I'd heartily recommend it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cultural-Amnesia-Necessary-Memories-History/dp/039333354X The defence of freedom of speech was quite the hot potato this week, with some idiot celtc fans feeling the need to compare a 14th century bandido with a 20th century murderer. As if the 700 years in between hadn't taught the Irish anything; no, they were fit to be subjected to medieval methods of warfare. If only they could see how insulting they are to the people they stupidly profess to defend! And in fairness, loud had been the opprobrium from on high within Parkhead. Mr Lawwell don't like it, Mr Lennon don't like it, and surely the final nail for celtc fans, even Mr Spiers, he don't like it. But what is it they don't like, exactly? Well, the timing and the place. Not the picture of a mentally unbalanced killer with a persecution complex added to a natural penchant for psychosis on banners, but the doing of it in such a way as to embarrass celtc fc. In what was probably a throwaway but nonetheless revealing comment last week, Mr Spiers was of the opinion that 'there are rights and wrongs about the IRA but the football is not the place' to discuss them. I have spend a few days trying to think what the 'rights ' of the IRA were and have drawn a blank. Perhaps some other readers can write in with their solutions to this problem. A free bus ride around Belfast town centre, loudly setting out your thesis, will be the prize. On the rare occasions I think about Ireland, I guess that in the long run of history, it will probably end up as the one country. Not exactly plan 'A' to make you popular in amongst the Vanguard Bears, but there it is. But if it happens, it will be through democracy, not violence. Terrorism is always wrong. So here's where poor Clive James is roped in to educate the wretched Mr Spiers and his pals in the east. Terrorism is always wrong. Whether it be Bobby Sands or, as we discovered last week, some madmen in the British Army running about acting like an Argentine death squad, it is always wrong. And using it to score cheap points is always wrong, and not just on the grounds of timing - on the grounds that rehabilitating terrorists in the way that celtc fans and the BBC have done this week ('IRA hunger striker' is so much less aggressive than 'terrorist murderer', isn't it?) is dangerous to democracy. As the lessons of the 20th century showed us, we need to be on our guard against those who would deny free speech. It may seem hypocritcal to ask for free speech and then deny it for the Green Brigade, but with the freedom to speak comes the need to speak with responsibility. No more throwaway remarks about 'rights and wrongs', some things are always wrong. You don't have to be a cynic to wonder where the Scottish Journalist's Book of Adjectives to Describe Current Buns went this week: no 'vile', no 'songs of hate', no 'embarrassment to Scotland in the 21st century', 'no sectarian bitterness', no quotes from Peter Kearney about how awful it all is. Just 'rights and wrongs' and 'maybe the wrong time and place'. We can only hope that such lunatics as Bobby Sands never return to our shores to demonstrate to the likes of Mr Spiers just how thin the divide between liberal democracy and terror in our society is. Hopefully he will get 'Cultural Amnesia' for his Christmas - one way or another, he, and the celtc fans, need to get the message: terrorism is always wrong. But, as always, there's a but. And while it has been lovely to bask in the reflected inglory of the other mob this week, we must be careful what we wish for. For should the amazing happen and Vincent Lunny actually dare chib celtc for once, you can bet he will be on uber-Orange alert for something to even up the score. And we will give him the ammo he needs, I fear. 'What's the handwringer moaning about now?' I hear you ask. Well... 'Super Rangers' for a start. It is going to have to go, and it would be better if we did it rather than had another war. But even that is a bit old hat, and I'm not keen to have that same argument over again. What's bugging me is maybe something that Lunny wouldn't notice, but a super sensitive handwringer such as myself does. When big Daly got us off the mark against Arbroath, about 50 Bears chose to express their happiness with a burst of The Sash. You may think that a coincidence: I don't. I think it was a classless and tasteless riposte, along the lines of 'Aye, well, you may have scored, but don't think we're going anywhere!' At least they left out the add on, which about 10 Bears didn't at kick off. Nevertheless, what a nice touch to thank a model professional. I hope they get over it, and soon. Now, I actually think that reducing the idiot rump of our fan base to about 70 or 80 away fans is something pretty amazing, and the club and most of the fans ought to be congratulated for it. But they won't, you know they won't. In a society which falls over itself to avoid offending the sensibilities of IRA supporters you know that as long as one Bluenose yells FTP we will be hauled up. We could easily lose the musical two fingers to Jon Daly, and we should lose the forbidden line in Super Rangers. It will make them look worse, and that's always good! And especially, we could lose the UVF tribute lines....terrorism is ALWAYS wrong, remember. Weirdly, in Scotland support for terrorism seems to be considered slightly less offensive than what I stubbornly believe is meaningless yells from football fans with a drink in them. You'll never persuade me that the Green Brigade were all steaming when they rattled up what must have been the least catchy slogan last week, and you'll never persuade me that the vast majority of 'sectarian' events in Scotland are little more than Rangers-Celtic tittle tattle. But that's how the chips are falling, thanks in part to liberal consciences like Mr Spiers'. We can't let distaste for the like of him push us away from defending liberal democracy, but there are one or two things we could do to make it better. It may make you feel slightly sick to actually have to tell people this is 2013: it should do. But Mr Lawwell, Mr Lennon, Mr Spiers, and our own hero-worshippers: terrorism is always wrong.

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.

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

The final results of the SD Scotland survey have now been published. The survey was completed between 17 - 22 December by 4,931 supporters from clubs across the whole spectrum of Scottish football ââ?¬â?? from the SPL and SFL through to Junior and non-league clubs - and was analysed by Red Circle Communications. Around one third of respondants left comments which is remarkably high for this type of survey. 68% of respondents were not Trust members. The main findings were: A clear preference for a larger top league. 77% prefer a 16 (50%) or 18 (27%) team league. 88% oppose a reduction from 12 to 10 teams. These results hold true for fans of both SPL and SFL clubs. A clear feeling that fans have not been consulted: 93% do not feel consulted. 87% want fans represented at the SFA level. 80% want fans to have more say at their club. Some elements of the SPL proposal have support: 77% support play-offs between top two divisions. 66% support a winter break ââ?¬â?? although there are reservations over when. 71% support an earlier start to the season. Other elements show mixed results and differences between fans of SPL and SFL clubs: Summer season ââ?¬â?? 48% support, 35% oppose Regionalisation ââ?¬â?? 48% opposition from SFL supporters (those most likely to be affected) ââ?¬â?? but overall 49% support the proposal 'B' Teams entering league structure ââ?¬â?? strong opposition (79%) from SFL supporters but general support (59%) from SPL fans. The full results have been sent to the clubs and football administrators ahead of the SPL meeting tomorrow.

Press Statement Survey shows fan opposition to SPL Proposals Supporters Direct today published the initial findings from their comprehensive survey of fans on the proposed reforms to Scottish football. The survey highlighted that: There is strong opposition to the reduction of the top league in Scottish football to only ten teams across all supporters with 88% of fans opposing such a move: 93% of fans feel they have not been adequately consulted over the proposed changes Fans want a greater voice in the SFA with 87% supporting fan representation in the SFA. The survey, which is ongoing, has already canvassed the views of over 3,000 supporters from clubs across the whole spectrum of Scottish football ââ?¬â?? from the SPL and SFL through to Junior and non-league clubs and results are currently being collected and analysed by independent research agency, Red Circle Communications. Supporters Direct Development Manager James Proctor said: ââ?¬Å?These findings raise some serious questions for everyone who cares about the future of Scottish football. There is a clear gap between what supporters have been telling us they want and the proposed reforms that are being put forward by some SPL clubs. There is strong opposition to the reduction of the top league to only ten teams and a clear desire for a larger rather than smaller top league. The option for a larger league is clearly one that fans want and should be thoroughly examined. He added "Without fans there is no professional game and if fans feel that they havenââ?¬â?¢t been listened to then that can only be bad for Scottish football. The worrying aspect of this study is that more than nine out of ten football fans donââ?¬â?¢t feel they have been adequately consulted on these proposals. The key to restoring the financial health of the game in Scotland is to put on attractive games that supporters want to watch. Therefore we would urge the SPL, SFA, SFL and others to work with Supporters Direct, its member trusts and fans to help change Scottish football for the better and ensure that we have make the right changes to help create a modern structure with clubs fit for the future and where our game can flourish". SD are going to close the survey on Wednesday evening and work on a fuller report to issue prior to the now cancelled SPL meeting which has been re-scheduled for Jan 4th.

SD Scotland is conducting a quick survey to get fan opinion on the SPL/Henry McLeish proposals for the reform of Scottish football. SD Scotland was the only fans' organisation consulted by Henry McLeish prior to publication of Part Two of his Report. Have your say on the vital issues affecting Scottish Football. Find the survey here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/scottishfootball

I spent Friday afternoon last week busying myself doing household chores, with the radio in the background tuned to Test Match Special, as England recovered from certain defeat to the brink of almost certain series victory in the space of a few hours. Once again, the summer game offered lessons for the winter one - but is it possible to believe that, like English cricket, Scottish football is capable of learning, or changing? The history of cricket in the last 25 years is very relevant to us, as we survey the wreckage of another failed European adventure - one in which we (Rangers) are quite likely, in my opinion, to share, as soon as we get started. Just as we are utterly uncompetitive at the top level (and even the second or third level), so too were the English test and one-day sides. Regularly thrashed throughout the 70s by the West Indies, English cricket in the 80s and 90s had to get used to being regularly thrashed by Australia, India and Pakistan, while previous minnows New Zealand and Sri Lanka began to record victories over the motherland. While on the surface, cricket appears the most conservative of sports, the administrators of the game were at least willing to try to find a way out of their pickle. Accurately perceiving that despite their failings, they still had a large fanbase willing to pay to watch their teams, the England and Wales Cricket Board split their divisions, withdrew restrictions on recruitment, altered the previous 5 or 6 Test fixtures against the same opponent each summer to 3 (or 5 against the Aussies) against different sides, expanded the one day calendar...the list goes on. Not all have proven successful. The long haul of a 5 Test summer, in all conditions, against players gradually getting used to English conditions, was one of the best facets of the game and one I miss. Another area I think the ECB have got wrong is the acceptance into their teams of too many pseudo-Englishmen. Even for this most tolerant of countries, it is a bit much to have a team with more non-natives than Englishmen in it; however, the facts are that as long as Pietersen, Trott, Strauss, Kieswetter, Prior and so on continue to win, no one else minds too much. And of course, the last few days have seen the ever present threat of corruption appear again, in the guise of some youthful and very probably penniless Pakistani bowlers who are unwilling to live in poverty any longer than they have to. How dare they? They ought to be content to perform for our sakes, yes, and for a pittance too! But they changed. They tried. So we can see that while conservatism certainly exists in the game of cricket, of itself it need not be a barrier to imagination. Can anyone expect the same here? For a start, who do we expect it from? The SFA? Or the SPL? SFL? Government? Everyone knows the shambles of administration we have so there's no need to go on about it, but it has to be said that until the current 'many chiefs' nonsense is rationalised, there's little or no prospect of change. Assuming it does happen, though, I can't see any reason why Scots football shouldn't rise again. After all, the target is hardly winning the Champions League or World Cup. The ultimate aim for our game ought to be qualification for final stages internationally with the occassional progression beyond, and at club level, regular participation up to the quarter final stages in Europe. Given the fan base, given the enthusiasm, given the lack of a serious competitor for attention, football has no excuse not to change. Why, then, even allowing for the administrative shambles, hasn't it done so already? I believe it's the inherent conservative nature preventing progression. As a country Scotland is not fond of change, and in football the mantras of the 1950s still hold sway here. How often have you heard these useless catchphrases trotted out by professionals, pundits and fans alike? "It's a man's game" "Play it long and get them turned" "He's not great, but he's a real trier" "So-and-so put in a great shift" And so on. The emphasis on strength and fitness would make us worldbeaters if allied to an equal fanaticsm for skill! What's needed is a new way of viewing foootball. And this is going to be very hard indeed to sell, because we have a media which relies on the football to keep breathing, especially at these time of recession. Summer football, for example, would be a Godsend for our game - years without international tournaments especially - but the media, which holidays in the summer, would be outraged at (a) having to work their break and (b) having to find something else to fill their winter schedules. This is not a small consideration; it must be borne in mind when media types are railing against summer football, that they have a vested interest in preventing it. Which in itself highlights another weak aspect of our game, the fear of the media. It's easy for me to type 'we must be bullish!' but that is whats needed. If someone at a paper wants to write something criticial, let them! there's no need to go on every media platform to discuss it...dignified silence, backed up with results on the pitch, would be the best riposte. An example: I found myself in a supermarket carpark on Saturday afternoon, after the football, and despite myself listened to some of the awful 'Your Call' show (well, my kids won't let me have 'Jazz Record Requests' from Radio 3 on in the car). Someone phoned in with an ambitious and well thought out suggestion which would see all training facilities pooled between regional clubs, and players produced allocated in the American collegiate system. Dismissed! None of your forward thinking, boy. Such a proposal would draw howls of protest from those who have invested already (such as Rangers) but the way around the problem is not that hard - there could be a levy for a period of years until an agreed sum is recouped by Rangers, or whoever, or else a rental fee could be charged continuously. It doesn't take a genius to work these things out, but it will take someone with the football nous of Rino Gattuso and the hide of a rhinoceros. Which is the main stumbling block I can see. Who will be the man? I thought Gordon Smith woud drive our football forward, but whether through his own failings, the system hampering him or whether I was just too optimistic, it didn't happen. Who will be the man who can achieve what would be a mammoth task against so many vested interests? If there's such a fellow currently active within the game, professionally, in the media or on the terraces, I haven't seen them. Without such a "Mandela" figure I just can't see how we will drive past the many roadblocks in the path of progress, which is a sobering and depressing thought to finish on. Perhaps we ought to be looking outwith the game for the man we need. Again we see how the conservative ethos, so firmly entrenched in the game, is a drawback - it's always the usual suspects whose names are put forward when a task like this is mentioned. Campbell Ogilivie, Henry McLeish, whoever is sports minister, blah blah blah. If we were to think outwith the box and come up with somone (completely at random) like Richard Branson or Stelios Haji-Ioannou, people who would be unwilling to take 'I shall refer that to the General Purposes' committie for an answer and who would, crucially, be given carte blanche to deliver, we may see some results. I fear, though, that that is a pious hope. Scottish football (indeed, Scotland's) inbuild leaning toward small c conservatism will continue to hold us back.

Yep, it is that time again! First up the football awards (both Rangers and SPL); 15 questions which sum up the season for each Gersnet user. Please take part here! http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/misc.php?do=form&fid=3 The survey will be open for a week or so, after which we'll collate the results and publish them for your perusal. PS: the User Awards will follow shortly in a different thread.

As is tradition on Gersnet, we like to take the chance to examine the contribution of our users in a fun way each year. Please do so by clicking below: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/misc.php?do=form&fid=4 As per the Football Awards in the other thread, the survey will be open for a week or so, after which we'll collate the results and publish them for your perusal. You can view last year's awards here: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=150747&postcount=81

COMPLETE online questionnaire on top flight now More...

Hi guys, I'm writing a dissertation on the topic of ticket pricing in the SPL and i'm looking to generate some fan discussion on the points below: What are your perceptions of ticket pricing in the SPL? - are tickets too expensive? - do you think you get value for money with regards to the quality of football on show ? In the face of this recession, are SPL teams doing enough with their ticket pricing strategies to encourage fans to attend football games? How satisfied are you with your clubs behaviour towards pricing? Importantly, given the poor financial situation of many SPL clubs, would fans accept a potential increase in ticket prices in order to ensure the financial stability of the club in the long term? I've created a survey to get a greater insight into what fans opinions are on pricing. Here is the link below: www.surveymonkey.com/s/splfansurvey I'd be grateful if you helped me out and filled in this survey, once i collect the data and make my conclusions i'd be more than happy to write you all an article on what the general consensus is. I'm surveying fans from all 12 SPL teams so if you know anyone who might be interested in helping out and filling in the questionnaire, feel free to pass the link on! Thanks for your time , rino.

Please take a moment to fill out this form... Be gentle... http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/misc.php?do=form&fid=2 Many thanks

The majority of football club chairmen in Scotland fear the credit crunch will inevitably lead to falling attendances, a BBC survey finds. More...