Search the Community

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24204555 3 months into his 1st managerial position and sacked already. Wonder what's next for Davie? Will Moyes try and tempt him to OT in some capacity? Perhaps Ally could tempt him out of retirement, afterall, it's been a while since we were linked with another CB

​​Tycoon Dave King set to return to Rangers as chairman and is expected to plough cash into the Ibrox coffers straight away 10 Oct 2013 07:12CHIEF executive Craig Mather flew to Johannesburg at the weekend for talks aimed at bringing millionaire King, 58, back on board. King could be back in charge before the club’s AGM on October 24. ALLY McCOIST last night welcomed the move to bring exiled millionaire Dave King back to Ibrox as chairman. And the Rangers boss hailed King’s return as a masterstroke that can help steer the club back to the top. McCoist knows South Africa-based King well from his previous stint as a director of the club under Sir David Murray and he accepts the 58-year-old will do his all to bring back the glory days. Record Sport understands King is ready to complete a sensational comeback as chairman before the annual general meeting on October 24. He has been locked in talks with chief executive Craig Mather, who flew to Johannesburg for a face-to-face meeting at the weekend in a bid to bring the businessman on board. Those discussions appear to have borne fruit, with an announcement expected soon that King – who poured £20m into the club during the Murray era and lost it when the club went into administration – will invest significant sums of money which will effectively see him take the reins at Ibrox. McCoist believes that having a “Rangers man” in a position of power can only be good for the club and praised the board, which has been under fire from fans, for making the move. He said: “Dave has already invested vast sums of his own money into Rangers and that tells me he’s the kind of investor we need at this club again. “The recent accounts have been well documented and the fact is we will need reinvestment at some stage in the future. If we are going to get reinvestment it would be good to get it from someone who has the best interests of the club at heart. “Dave has and clearly the board also believe that to be the case. “The fact a member of the board has flown to South Africa for talks would indicate they feel it would be hugely beneficial to have Dave back on board. It can only be a good thing for Rangers. “I believe the board deserve credit for making such an effort to attract someone like Dave back to the club. “This is a message that they are trying to do their best for Rangers. “They have a difficult and important job to do and it is encouraging to think we are talking to someone who could help move the club forward. It would be a great thing for us all.” Despite losing a fortune in the club previously, Castlemilk-born businessman King has never hidden his determination to return when a long-running tax dispute with the South African government was resolved. That issue came to an end last year and King is now free to become a director. Record Sport understands King has decided that the time is right, although a number of conditions have still to be met. But last night it was looking increasingly likely King was on his way back and with a shareholding and influence that would dilute the power of the directors, who have been under fire for the manner in which the club has been run since Charles Green arrived in May 2012. The Ibrox support has been protesting fiercely against the current board and stepped up their campaign following the publication of accounts last week which showed Rangers had lost £14m over the past 13 months. That is the period in which Green, who has now left the club, and finance director Brian Stockbridge took massive executive salaries and pocketed huge bonuses for winning the Third Division. Fans want the removal of the current board and shareholders are expected to call for dismissals at the agm. But if as expected King joins as chairman, many of their fears may be allayed. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tycoon-dave-king-set-return-2356060

Ally McCoist is poised to agree a new pay deal that will see his £825,000 salary cut by half in the coming days. The Rangers manager’s current remuneration — while his team play in the lower echelons — has been the subject of intense debate in the week club accounts showed an operating loss of £14.3million for the 13 months to June. McCoist recently went public with his belief that taking a wage cut was ‘the right thing to do’, a view shared by his backroom staff of Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall. Ally McCoist Wage cut: Rangers boss Ally McCoist is poised to see his £825,000 wages slashed ‘The management team have been in negotiations with Craig [Mather, chief executive] and have, in fact, just agreed to take a wage cut,’ said McCoist last week. ‘I didn’t feel under pressure to do it. When I became manager, I had a contract placed in front of me and I just signed it. ‘I didn’t look at the wages or the length of contract or anything. I think it’s then a little harsh to criticise someone for doing that when you don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. But I do understand my responsibilities. ‘That’s why as a management team we’re taking a wage cut — we feel it’s the right thing to do and we can help the club.’ Sportsmail understands McCoist will see his pay drop to just over £400,000 once talks with Mather are concluded, with the wage bill of the management team falling from £1.2m to around £700,000. McCoist’s salary was not specifically mentioned in Tuesday’s 48-page annual report but has been a matter of public record for some time. With the club rebuilding after liquidation, supporters were dismayed to see former chief executive Charles Green made £933,000 in the period in question, while finance director Brian Stockbridge pulled in £400,000 — including a £200,000 bonus for Rangers winning the Third Division title. Former commercial director Imran Ahmad made £300,000 — the same salary Green’s successor Mather is now on. Despite a £7.8m wage bill for players being cut to around £6m, there has been widespread anger from fans that the £22m raised from December’s share issue has been frittered away, partly on high executive pay. This has led to a war of words, with Mather insisting former chairman Malcolm Murray approved such arrangements before he joined the club in April. Murray hit back by insisting ‘Green placements’ had effectively decided the levels of remuneraton. Murray claimed former director Phil Cartmell was head of the remunerations committee — a group who never met despite the latter’s best efforts. However, McCoist’s salary was predetermined when the old company was liquidated last year by virtue of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). This means that he automatically reverted to the sum he earned in his first season in management when Rangers were an SPL club. Meanwhile, Rangers have successfully applied to the SPFL for the postponement of their League One clash with Dunfermline a week tomorrow because three Ibrox players — Lee Wallace, Lewis Macleod and Arnold Peralta — will be on international duty. With Dean Shiels and Andy Little on stand-by for Northern Ireland, the league leaders decided to request a new date for the match with the Pars, who are five points behind them in second place. Although disappointed with the postponement of the game, which could now go ahead on Tuesday, November 5, Dunfermline manager Jim Jefferies said it was also the ‘biggest compliment ever’ for his team. He said: ‘I always thought the game had a chance of being postponed. They postponed their Ramsdens Cup tie against Queen of the South when it was on the weekend of the Belgium game. ‘Ally did say to me if they had boys away there would be the possibility they would apply for it to be changed, which is in the rules. ‘Ally was expecting it to be five players called up — but I joked with him it was just because we had beaten Ayr United 5-1! ‘I told him we were keen for the game to go ahead because we just want to keep playing — and so does Ally, but it’s their prerogative to appeal and they’ve had the go-ahead. ‘That’s the rules, there’s not a lot we can do about it. ‘I told our players Ally had given them the biggest compliment ever. Even with the size of squad they’ve got, they feel they need their international players for the game.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2443297/Rangers-boss-Ally-McCoist-set-agree-400-000-wage-cut.html#ixzz2ghr66WmS Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In the teeth of fierce fan dissent - and a continued campaign to dislodge existing Rangers directors by a group of investors including the former chairman, Malcolm Murray - the Ibrox chief executive, Craig Mather, mounted a forceful defence of the accounts issued on Tuesday which posted an operating loss of £14 million for the 13 months to June this year. The results were in vivid contrast to those of Celtic, revealed last month, which showed a pre-tax profit of £9.74 million on a group turnover of £75.82 million. Rangers’ turnover to June was £19.1 million, most of which was derived from gate receipts and hospitality income. Playing squad salaries fell during the period but so too did earnings from sponsorship and the media. Throughout the accounting period and also subsequently there has been a persistent concern amongst supporters and some investors that the cash burn at Ibrox has been out of control. Asked why the costs associated with the public share offer last December were as high as £6.1 million, Mather replied: “There are the physical IPO costs, the costs of raising money and what we would deem non-reoccurring costs - for example, exceptional costs in excess of £4 million. “Nobody can shy away from the fact that the IPO cost was high and the cost of raising money was high but if you go into the detail of that – and the devil is in the detail, without fear of contradiction – at the time, when I wasn’t CEO, just for clarity - there was no football security. What I mean by that is the club didn’t know what league they would be playing in. “It was never ever going to be cheap to raise money against that backdrop but Rangers had to be saved. For me, and to five million fans looking at it around the world, it was imperative that this club was saved. “Under normal circumstances, people in the City would take a view of somewhere up to 7.5 per cent is a normal cost of raising funds. This wasn’t normal and I’m not trying to defend the people involved - I wasn’t there, I wasn’t party to it - but it’s obvious that you have to look at what you can offer the investor in return for the investment. “If you can’t tell them if you’re going to be able to kick a football, or if you’re going to be able to play in a certain division or get membership of the SFA it’s not an easy sell.” Another bone of contention is that the directors have set their own remuneration, to which Mather replied: “It was a decision taken by the remunerations committee and the chairman at the time, which was Malcolm Murray. “So Malcolm Murray decided the remunerations for Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge and unfortunately the directors are duty bound to honour those scenarios historically. I can assure you on my watch that won’t be happening. “If you look at my pay, there was talk about £500,000 but the actual amount I agreed to in the end was £300,000. Brian Stockbridge was on £200,000 plus a contractual bonus. Again, quite openly he’s agreed to waive that contractual bonus of his own accord.” The accounts reveal that £6.75 million was used to purchase trade and assets. Some critics have suggested that Charles Green’s consortium did not buy Rangers, but rather that the club itself did. “That’s categorically untrue,” said Mather. “It’s just mischief making. The club was bought by the Green consortium and I wasn’t part of it at that juncture. Monies were paid in good faith for those trading assets, full stop.” As to the Ally McCoist’s wages, Mather said: “I’m not suggesting Alistair become the lowest paid manager but he’s very happy to take a pay cut of his own volition. It’s a substantial pay cut.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10348112/Malcolm-Murray-to-blame-for-Rangers-directors-high-wages-claims-Craig-Mather.html

DAVID TEMPLETON and Dean Shiels will be among those featuring for the under-20 team tomorrow in their latest SPFL fixture against Motherwell at Ibrox. Both players have been left frustrated by a lack of game time lately, a result of their limited involvement in the pre-season programme due to injuries. They have each scored in substitute appearances – Templeton most recently at the weekend against Stenhousemuir – but boast just six starts between them in 11 games so far. They’ll each be in the first XI for tomorrow evening’s meeting with the Steelmen, which kicks off at 7pm. Entry is free. It’s a match in which coach Gordon Durie is looking for a positive reaction from his side after its 2-1 defeat to Aberdeen in its most recent outing almost a fortnight ago. Even before that, in a 2-1 win over St Mirren in Paisley, the Light Blues weren’t always at their best. Durie wants a better performance as Gers look to build on other victories against Dunfermline and Ross County, as well as an opening-day point against Hamilton. They currently sit fifth in the table, three points off the summit with a game in hand, ahead of a full card of fixtures this midweek. Durie said: “We’re looking forward to the game after the result a couple of weeks ago against Aberdeen and we want a good reaction from the team. “We’ve played five games so far and we feel there’s a lot more to come from the side so hopefully that’ll come tomorrow. “We’re happy with our points return but we’re looking to win every game we play in and in that respect we’ve not got what we’re looking for up to now. “I’m sure in the coming weeks we’ll get that from the boys and it can be quite hard for them because we’ve got to chop and change the team quite a lot with first-teamers coming in. “That’ll happen again this week and we’ve got Temps and Dean coming in, along with Kyle and Steve. “David and Dean need match time. You can train all you want but you need minutes under your belt in games. Hopefully the two of them will benefit from getting 90 minutes.” http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/academy-news/item/5193-duo-set-for-20s-test

Rangers manager Ally McCoist has hinted that the club will be unable to offer transfer fees for any of his targets during the January transfer window. The Scottish League One side saw moves for Bosnian defender Boris Pandza and former Hearts captain Marius Zaliukas fail this week. McCoist has said that he is uncertain if he will be allowed to spend money as the club aims to secure a return to the Scottish Premiership. "It's my job to get the best possible team out on the park for the fans. Like any other manager I've got a budget to work within," quotes McCoist as saying. "Without doubt I am more mindful of what I spent after all the hardships we went through last year. I have to think about the long-term future of the club because we don't want what has already happened to happen again. But we're talking about [wage] budgets here, not even about transfer fees. "I believe longer term, we will definitely need to spend once we get back to where we want to be. But I can understand the argument right now that we should have a team built within the budget limits to get through the divisions." http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/rangers/transfer-talk/news/mccoist-rules-out-rangers-deals_107547.html

LET me start with a confession: I like Monster Munch. In fact, I’m particularly fond of pickled onion. There you go, I just wanted to get that out in the open because something happened at Forfar at the weekend that made my mind drift back to one of the most controversial periods of my career. And, yes, I realise there were a few. But there was nothing quite like the time when Paul Le Guen told me I was finished at Rangers and people tried to make it out it was over a bag of crisps. For those who don’t remember, sit back and let me explain. We’ll start last Sunday at Station Park where Rangers struggled to a 1-0 win and got slaughtered for their display. I didn’t see it but by all accounts it was dire and a throwback to last season when Ally McCoist had a hard time of things in the Third Division. But there was one big difference between Sunday and the worst days of the previous campaign when so many points were dropped at places such as Peterhead, Stirling and Berwick. The difference was Rangers won. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying for a second there’s any excuse for a team like Rangers to be struggling to win at Forfar. There isn’t. What I am saying, however, is that even though they had a bad day at least they left the place with three points. That wasn’t always the case last season and, to me, it’s a sign some of the club’s old standards are on the way back. Standards that I was raised on. Standards that Rangers were built on. Standards that I thought might disappear for good during Le Guen’s time in charge seven years ago. A lot has been made about my relationship with the Frenchman. I know there are Rangers fans out there who still think I undermined him or stabbed him in the back. So I’d like to use this column to set a few things straight. First, you have to understand the way I was brought up as a kid working under John Brown and John McGregor. They kept things simple: At Rangers nothing less than three points is ever acceptable. Yes, they wanted us to play well and encouraged us to express ourselves but the most important lesson they taught us was that you’ll never cut it as a Rangers player if you pull that shirt on and think it’s OK to lose. That was driven into my head every day of my young life until it became a state of mind and a way of life. So yes, I’ll hold my hands up right now. To this day I am guilty of wanting to win every game I play. I know I run around with my wee face all screwed up, moaning at everyone and everything but it’s only because I care so much about winning. To me, that’s just the Rangers way – if you don’t care if you lose or draw then you’ve no business being there. And that’s was the root of my problem under Le Guen. The truth is, the longer it went on the more I was struggling to recognise the Rangers I had grown up with. Under Le Guen, it was becoming acceptable to drop points on a Saturday. In fact, it was becoming the norm. And I admit I just couldn’t get my head around it. Now, people have their own opinions about what went on between us. But I was there, I know what went on inside that dressing room and I’d challenge him to deny or contradict anything I’m about to tell you. Week after week I walked off the pitch to be told: “It’s OK, let’s stick together and just move on to the next game.” That’s alright after one bad game. Or maybe if a team is going through a wee sticky patch. But not EVERY week. After EVERY embarrassing result. It was a gradual build-up, over weeks and months. His shrug-of -the-shoulders attitude was eating away at me inside because this was the club I loved. I was the Rangers captain and these results were killing me. It was humiliating. And the worst bit of it was, I could see it rubbing off on others until there were players sitting in that dressing room who didn’t seem to care if we won, lost or drew. The standards I had grown up with were disappearing. I held my tongue as best I could but it was only a matter of time until I eventually snapped. That day came on December 27, 2006, at Inverness. We had been winning 1-0 but ended up losing 2-1. I think we slipped to fourth or fifth in the table. I mean, it was getting ridiculous. And what did I hear when I walked into that dressing room? “It’s OK. We must stick together.” That was it, I just couldn’t listen to it any more. So I said: “Aye, we must stick together. But it’s not f****** OK that we’ve lost another three points. What part of that don’t you get? This is Glasgow Rangers you are working for.” I admit I lost the head. I was just so angered by the lack of passion. I couldn’t look round any more at people who didn’t care if Rangers won or lost. Yes, maybe I was guilty of letting my emotions boil over. Maybe I lost my cool in that dressing room on that day. But I just couldn’t take any more of it. But that was it. It wasn’t as if I asked the guy outside for a square-go. I put my hand on my heart and say, I never caused that man one problem. I never once knocked down his door. Yes, OK I might have eaten the occasional packet of Monster Munch which might have been against his nutritional rules but come on? Listen, I’m all for players looking after themselves and eating well. But no one is going to tell me a packet of pickled onion now and again is going to take years off your career. It’s nonsense. Is that what people mean when they say I undermined him? Honestly, I don’t know where all that comes from and it makes me angry just thinking about it. It was all I read in the papers or heard on the phone-ins. I swear none of it was true. I was guilty of one thing – being passionate about my club and going a bit daft at Inverness. But I had no idea the price he wanted me to pay for it until I walked into Murray Park a few days later to prepare for an away game at Motherwell. His assistant, Yves Colleu, shouted for me and I went into the manager’s office and Le Guen began to speak to me like I was some sort of alien. I wasn’t even allowed to sit down. He just told me I’d never play for the club again and to leave the building. I was in a daze. I got my bag and walked to my car without saying anything to the other lads. I got a few hundred yards down the road before I pulled in and realised what had just happened. I was shattered. As things turned out, it was Le Guen’s Rangers career that was over. Very soon after that, Walter Smith was back in charge. And overnight Rangers got their standards back. That’s why the result at Forfar pleased me the other day. And put me right in the mood for a packet of my favourite crisps.

Lifted from FF: BR3 Staunch BR3 Staunch is online now FF Squad Member Join Date: 31-12-2012 Posts: 697 Default Kenny Miller is currently in McGills garage talking to Easdale Ronseal. Kenny Miller is currently in the McGills bus garage in Greenock talking to Easdale and as he doesnt own any buses you can guess why. Admin can PM me for source.

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.

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.

IT IS unlikely that Ian Black is going to sit down any time soon – if at all – and explain what he was thinking about that day he struck a bet on East Stirlingshire to get a draw against his own team, Rangers, at Ochilview on April 27. That’s the first question you’d like to ask him. Not about the 159 other bets he placed that contravened the SFA’s betting rules, but that one wager, as part of an accumulator, on Scottish football’s most hopeless senior club getting a draw against the newly crowned Third Division champions with Black himself at the heart of their midfield on the day If you leave to one side the fact that any such betting on football was against the SFA rules, how did Black come to the conclusion that that was the wager he wanted to place? What weird rationale made him opt for a draw? East Stirlingshire were not only bottom of the league but they hadn’t had a draw – not to mind a win – in any of their previous eight games. In fact, they ended up losing their last ten games of the season conceding 39 goals in the process. In the games leading up to Black’s bet on a stalemate, East Stirlingshire had lost 5-1 to Queen’s Park (the week before the Rangers match), lost 2-1 to Annan, lost 6-0 to Peterhead, lost 2-0 to Clyde, lost 2-1 to Montrose, lost 2-0 to Berwick and lost 9-1, yes, 9-1 – to Stirling Albion. Where was the form-line that suggested they were capable of holding Rangers? East Stirlingshire had conceded 101 goals in their 41 games leading up to Rangers match. Black had already played against them three times that season. On none of those occasions was there the slightest bit of evidence that the worst team in Scottish senior football was capable of getting a draw against Ally McCoist’s side. In the first match, Rangers beat them 5-1. In the second, Rangers won 6-2. In the third, Black’s team won 3-1. Three games and an aggregate score of 14-4 and then Black goes for a draw? Does that make sense? Black has been found guilty of betting on football, and betting against his own team, but is there no suggestion of anything more sinister, such as deliberately underperforming in that East Stirlingshire game in order to make the draw a little more likely. Black scored the goal that put Rangers 3-2 ahead, thereby helping to sink his own bet. In that regard, he was a bookmakers’ dream. A punter who deliberately stymied his own wager? That’s nirvana for a bookie. All of this is weird and demands explanation but we won’t get it because Black won’t talk (not for a while at any rate, you’d have to imagine) and the judicial panel won’t publish their findings. None of this is helpful. Here is a footballer who has admitted to betting against his own team and yet, effectively, he will serve the same suspension as a player found guilty of a bad challenge. On Friday, Rangers manager Ally McCoist said that he had no issue with Black or his betting and that, too, is unsatisfactory. How could the Rangers manager not have an issue with one of his players taking the field having had a bet on his team not to win the match he was playing in? McCoist’s words are actually a betrayal of sorts. Imagine McCoist trying to explain himself to a Bill Struth or a Scot Symon? Imagine those gentlemen trying to get their head around this business of Black betting on Rangers drawing with East Stirlingshire before going out to play against them? Amid all the hoopla surrounding the Black case, there was one point on which nearly everybody was agreed and that was that a player should never bet against his own team. Black has admitted to doing precisely that at the end of last season. The Rangers man has been fined, in essence, little more than a week’s wages and is banned, in effect, for three games, the same punishment doled out to Dundee United’s Gavin Gunning a few weeks ago for having a sneaky kick at Virgil van Dijk of Celtic. At times like this the easy thing to do is to give the SFA a shoeing for a verdict that makes little sense to most people but what has to be remembered is that it was their judicial panel which handed down this sanction on Black and that that panel is independent. It stands alone but it is the SFA that must deal with the fallout. Three matches, with seven more suspended, does not amount to zero tolerance of players’ gambling on football. Players gambling isn’t really the nub of the Black affair, of course. Players have a punt. Managers have a punt. Many people in the game have a punt on football even though they are not supposed to. But they don’t bet on their own team not winning. That’s crossing the line. Quite frankly, you won’t stop players betting. It’s instructive to note that Black’s punishment only relates to betting on games involving the club he was registered with at the time. For more than a hundred other breaches, all admitted by the player, he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist. What is the point of a rule if there is no sanction when it is broken multiple times? From the outset of this case, the major question was whether Black had bet against his own team in a match in which he was playing. He did and he deserved a bigger sanction than the one he got. He certainly deserved harsher words than his manager was prepared to offer in public. McCoist didn’t have to sack Black, although Rangers fired Fran Sandaza for a lot less under the pretence of disloyalty. Isn’t betting against your team the very essence of disloyalty? We still don’t know why he did it. That’s the truly mystifying part. The panel discounted match-fixing and ruled out any notion that he tried in any sinister way to influence the game to bring up his bet. Once he stops breathing his sighs of relief at such a lenient punishment and the undeserved support of his employers which followed in its wake, Black might want to explain what he was thinking. The bet, as part of the accumulator, flew in the face of form and logic and integrity, it was against the rules of the game and against the spirit of the dressing room. For breaking the one rule that most football people (McCoist excluded, it seems) say cannot be broken, Black will serve a three-game ban. Hard to fathom, just like his bizarre wager at Ochilview that day.

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.

Lifted from FF: I have been hearing from various sources that we as a group are being met with mixed reviews from forums etc so decided to come on and let everyone know a bit about us and our aims to allow each to make their own mind up We have been accused of being many people from tims to M Dingwall to D Leggat and even malcolm murray. We are none of these we are only normal concerned fans and if you read attachment below it will give you a better idea of who we are and how we came about. We only have 3 aims and I would question any fan who didnt want these things from their club regardless of who they are and which team they follow 1) Keep the stadium in clubs name to avoid Coventry situation 2) clear accounts which prove proper running of the club 3) a board that keep the club off the front pages and are above reproach We do not have any aims that can divide a support and only actually which to unite fans from all groups against a clear and present danger The following is a post from our facebook page that was first posted 2 weeks ago when we first started. Please take the few minutes to read and DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE surrounding The Sons of Struth https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth Here we go I will try and explain in as short a post a possible who is involved to date with the Sons of Struth and how this page came about. One of our main points of agenda and a main Struthism is openness. Some of you may be aware of the Rangers Rumours website and a regular poster named George or George protester number 1. I picked up on his postings only 1 week ago and was intrigued to know what his feelings and understanding of our clubs current plight was. George arranged to travel from London on Friday and meet anyone interested in what he had to say at Ibrox. Due to my own worries about our club I felt I had nothing to lose other than 10 minutes of my time and a whole lot to gain if he had any information that could fill my appetite to fully understand the situation at our club. The fact that only 10 people turned up confirmed my general feeling that our fans are very apathetic towards the current situation and George was very disappointed also. He did, as many have since held against him, arrive minus the promised leaflets and did introduce himself as a representative of George. Both these points seem to have angered some but I understand why he done both when as he could have possibly been faced with a far greater number of fans who he didn’t know who they where and he was let down by a local printer which was a point later proven to me. To the 10 who were at the first meeting and others who visit the Rangers Rumours site, I was the guy with the red jacket who some believed was Georges minder and I post on the site as Craig protester number 2 BFH. To set the record straight I had never met George before Friday and purely turned up as a disgruntled fan searching for some knowledge. I appeared to pick up on what George was saying very quickly but so did others around me, however George seemed to like the questions I asked him and what I had to say so he asked me after the meeting if I would like to talk further on a one to one basis. This “private” meeting consisted more of us talking like true fans and swapping stories of our favourite experiences following our club than it did about revelations which weren’t disclosed at the full meeting. We did prove our love for our club and our concerns for the future just as many discussions would go between Rangers fans all over the world when two strangers meet and they find they both support Rangers. We decided we would talk again during his stay in Glasgow and exchanged numbers. During the course of last weekend we talked several times over the telephone and agreed to meet on Monday and I would introduce him to my friend Sandy who was also interested to hear what George had to say. During the course of the weekend George had put his leaflet online as he promised. George, Sandy and I met on Monday and again the discussion was no different to hundreds of chats between Rangers fans many times over. We discussed our favourite games, best goals,most manic away trips and the like but most importantly we shared a huge concern over the current state of our dearly held club and a desire to do something about. We all agreed that doing something and failing was more acceptable than doing nothing but with the hope we could make a difference even if it was just to give the proper fans some information that may put some fire in the belly and arouse some passion from within the fan base. We then involved the man power from a well known body of fans, who if they wish to disclose their important and welcome involvement is matter for them, who helped along with hastily recruited normal fans like Paisley Gary to help with the distribution of Georges leaflets prior to Tuesdays game. The leaflets went out and received a mixture of reactions. On Tuesday not long before I left for the game I started the Sons of Struth facebook page. The reasons for this is to give the normal fan who wants our club to return to a stewardship of which we would expect from Rangers. You pick up a paper on Monday going to work and you are faced with another scandal about our club. You discuss it and try to make sense of it but before you have a chance to get your head round it a few days later you’re faced with another earth shaking scandal. This is not what we expect from the custodians of our club. The mere inclusion of the Struth name in the page harks back to an era when our custodians conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and respect. We must install this again from our boardroom. Who am I? I am a nobody. Not attached to any fan group or organisation. I am you. A fan and season ticket holder since the age of 8 years old. What do I want? I want to talk about my favourite memories of Rangers and idols and goals again, not have to discuss and deal with on a daily basis another boardroom scandal and just get back to the football. I want a board that won’t embarrass me and treat me like a fan without hiding facts from me. I want to be assured that the stadium where I have had many happy memories will be in the ownership of my club and not sold off and rented back to us by some spiv. The stadium holds the spirit of not one but three disasters and has to remain ours to honour those who did not return. It has to remain for the thousands who have the names of lost loved ones chiselled on the very bricks in their memory. It is not the crown jewels it is far more important to the very soul of every fan who has ever walked through the turnstiles. Who are the Sons of Struth? We all are and can be ordinary fans or members from any other fan body. If you are a Union Bear or a Supporters Trust member, as long as your principles and desires are the same as ours then we welcome your input and support. We are not affiliated to any other fan body but welcome their involvement and discuss common aims. Our biggest and most immediate threat is the possible sale of our stadium and let me explain why. The ground swell of opinion is the current board may not have 51% of the shareholder support in the near future and as such leaves them in a position of one last heist. Let me explain in simple terms and use your house as an example. You require cash due to your ailing financial position and own a home with a market value of £200k. I agree to give you £100k cash today to solve your short term financial problems and I will rent you the house back for £2k per month. I will also agree to allow you to buy it back anytime in the next 10 years for £300k. I cant lose. I either 1) have you in the home and draw £24k a year of you in rental 2) Get £2k a month off you until your able to give me £300k to get it back 3) You leave the house and I have a building costing me half market value. Now turn this story to Ibrox and what a spiv could do. Sell the stadium to a carefully selected company that a trusted friend owns and the spiv has a vested interest in and do it soon before he loses the majority of shareholders. Couldnt happen? Think of the Monday morning paper stories we have all had to deal with in the last couple of years. SONS OF STRUTH DEMAND THE TRUTH SHOW YOU CARE AND SHARE WITH A BEAR Craig

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/

Hey folks, Just a heads up that Jon Ritchie (aka nacho_nacho_man) on the RangersMedia forum is running a poll for a silk scarf design. He'll be getting the winning design manufactured in limited quantity (two or three hundred I think) and selling them for a great price. There's 5 designs to choose from, so if you're interested in this sort of thing, then check them out and place a vote on your favourite design! The thread is here - http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=258550

I very much doubt it. Share Transfer to Killie Trust Marie Macklin cares passionately about the future of Kilmarnock FC and has always believed that community ownership is the best way forward for local clubs like Kilmarnock. Marie owns 46,677 shares in the club and will gift 45,677 shares to the Killie Trust. She believes that her shareholding on its own provides her with only minor influence but when combined with those shares already owned by the fans, could strengthen their collective voice and enhance their ability to effect change and help Kilmarnock FC in achieving its potential, for the benefit of the club and Kilmarnock as a whole. Marie’s passion for the club is undiminished and, as a businesswoman and life-long fan, she will watch developments at Kilmarnock FC with interest.

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

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

Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 3 Sep Despite the 5 way agreement published earlier, the SPFL are considering transferring the 250k fine from oldco to newco. https://twitter.com/CharlotteFakes

NEW recruit Bilel Mohsni believes Rangers have the potential to win every league game this season after enjoying an emphatic start to the Scottish League One. The Light Blues sit at the top of the table with a 100 per cent record and 18 goals from four games so far. Mohsni is well aware that some teams will pose problems with their staunch defensive displays but he says Rangers have the quality to overcome every other side in the division. He said: “I hope we can win every game, although it will be difficult. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/bilel-mohsni-rangers-can-win-every-league-game-1-3075505

Behind closed doors match earlier today: RANGERS: Simonsen; Foster, Mohsni, Cribari (Gasparotto 70), S Smith; McKay (Crawford 63), Law, Kelly (McAusland 70), Templeton (Walsh 63); Shiels, Daly (Clark 46). SUBS NOT USED: Gallacher, Faure. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4973-rangers-1-3-hibernian

Here is a link to an article by Stefan Szymanski in the Soccernomics blog. http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=529 He presents some data, about the relationship between homegrown talent and success, that may surprise a few people. It is taken to be axiomatic among many that we need to develop home grown players to improve our lot. Is this just received wisdom with no basis in fact?

Published on September 2nd, 2013 by Andy Muirhead With all eyes on Rangers football club currently, due to the continued ‘political’ infighting between shareholders and the fan base, public relations for the club is needed more than ever. However, even the PR company used by Rangers – Media House – has come under much criticism and increasing calls from Rangers supporters to be sacked due to comments attributed to Jack Irvine, executive chairman of Media House. Scotzine editor Andy Muirhead caught up with Jack Irvine, amid a busy schedule for the PR guru, to discuss his time at Rangers and those who are criticising him. AM: When did you start working with Rangers Football Club? JI: 2006. There had been huge sectarian issues and the football authorities were going to hammer Rangers. There was a danger the team would be playing in empty stadia and face crippling fines. We worked with the legal team to articulate the initiatives from Martin Bain’s management team to curb the sectarian excesses which in turn lessened the possible draconian punishments. AM: We heard from Sir David Murray that he was duped by Craig Whyte in purchasing Rangers from the former Rangers owner – from your point of view and of working with Craig Whyte would you agree with Murray’s statement? JI: Yes I do agree with Sir David. He was led to believe that Craig Whyte was worth in the region of £80million and he had no reason to doubt that. The Bank of Scotland and their boardroom representative saw no problem with Whyte as a buyer and, in fact, couldn’t get the club sold quickly enough. Craig Whyte appeared to be the answer to all of David Murray’s problems. AM: You represented Rangers under Craig Whyte’s tenure at the club which ended with it going into administration and subsequently liquidation – looking back what are your thoughts on your role and Media House’s role during that time? JI: It was a surreal time. I tried to explain to Craig Whyte that he couldn’t possibly run the club himself and I even introduced him to the former Newcastle United Chief Executive Freddie Fletcher who was also a former Rangers man. Freddie would have been magnificent but Craig decided he could do the job himself. Like many businessmen he was totally consumed by The Blue Mist the minute he walked into the boardroom. Media House’s role was what it had always been. Represent the club and its board and attempt to present the good side of the club to the media and public at large. Of course the bad started to outweigh the good very quickly and it was like pushing water uphill. AM: There has been allegations made that Media House and Rangers used friendly journalists to publish positive stories about Rangers and Craig Whyte in particular hiding the truth about the Motherwell businessman – what do you have to say about those allegations? JI: Of course we promoted positive stories – that’s what PR people do the world over. However it didn’t take long for my old newspaper colleagues – and more importantly certain influential bloggers – to find out the truth about Craig Whyte and tell the world. There is no way I could have covered that up or would even have tried to. The dam had burst. AM: Many Rangers fans are now seeing Media House and yourself as culpable in the demise of Rangers under Whyte and are against your continued involvement at the Ibrox club – claiming that you are not there to represent the club but elements on the board? What is your take on this – what is your role at Rangers? JI: That is utter nonsense. We can only work with the tools we are given. Craig Whyte ran the club into the ground although you would have to say he inherited a pretty leaky vessel. Our role at Rangers is crystal clear. We carry out the wishes of the board in an attempt to help the business survive and prosper. However much I sympathise with the agonies the fans are going through, and I speak as one of the original Bond holders, it is not they who instruct me. It is the board. It is naive to think otherwise. AM: A twitter account called Charlotte Fakes has been publishing emails and other correspondence involving you, Whyte, some journalists and Rangers officials – which seem to paint all parties in a bad light. What is your take on what this person is doing? JI: It is illegal. It is a breach of the Data Protection Act and the perpetrator faces serious consequences when he is caught. It is frightening some of the stuff that is going on nowadays on the web. I often wonder what it would have been like in the early 90s when there was the coup to unseat the Celtic board. How would social media have treated that? Would Fergus McCann with his bunnet and squint been given a chance to mount his brilliant strategy or would he have been slaughtered by the fans with laptops? AM: Rangers fans have claimed that the ‘dignified silence’ approach was perpetrated by the likes of Media House and that instead of keeping quiet, you should have gone in all guns blazing. Making demands, threatening legal action etc. What was your approach during Whyte’s reign when negative articles were published? JI: I seem to remember we banned the BBC and if you knew me at all you would know that I am not slow to tell editors and journalists when they are talking bollocks. Lawyers were regularly involved . Do I go out and announce this in the Copland Road to the fans? What do you think? I worked with or trained a lot of the current crop of journalists. I’m not going to publically traduce them although I will make an exception for some of the more stupid ones. AM: Whyte met with several Rangers supporters groups and bloggers who were very friendly to him and backed him to the hilt during his reign at the club – they have now turned on him as if he is the anti-Christ. What is your take on this u-turn by said prominent groups and bloggers? JI: I presume you have certain groups in mind. I can’t think who you are talking about but let’s be fair. The fans loved David Murray then grew to hate him. Ditto Craig Whyte, Ditto Charles Green. So it’s not only bloggers who changed their minds. The economist John Maynard Keynes is alleged to have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” If that concept was good enough for him I hardly think we can criticise the bloggers. AM: Given the amount of flak, hassle and abuse you have taken – if you could do it all again would you still represent Rangers and Craig Whyte? JI: I have taken flak, hassle and abuse since May 1987 when I launched The Sun in Scotland. I thrive on it and the more I get the stronger it makes me. The answer to “Would you still represent Rangers” is obviously yes as I have just signed up for another season. I come from an East End Rangers family so I guess I’m stuck with it. Would I represent Craig Whyte? Not if I had known what I know now but it’s easy to be clever after the event as I keep reminding certain fans and journalists. Hindsight is a wonderful gift . AM: If you could stand in front of the Rangers fans today and talk to them what about the club and the way it is working and those wanting to take over – what would you say? JI: Give the board a chance. The Chief Executive has sunk a million of his own cash into the club. Fellow director James Easdale and his family have put in even more. Let’s all be mature. I know Frank Blin and Paul Murray are passionate about the club but to quote Mr Churchill: “To jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”

MOST football fans in Scotland do not support Celtic. The majority are not Rangers fans either. MORI and Gallup do not exactly do polls on this sort of stuff so there is no way to be scientific about it, but maybe each of them has about 35-40% of the people who follow a team and the rest are shared around all the other clubs. What those of all allegiances are coming to terms with - whether they rejoice in the fact or resent it - is that Celtic have turned the Scottish game into a one-party state. For most of its history the league title has been an endless tennis rally between Celtic and Rangers, the championship switching from one to the other every year or two. Only now and again has one of them emerged into the clear daylight of a sustained period of dominance. Celtic won six in a row from 1905, Rangers five from 1927. In the late 1960s and early '70s there were times when it looked as if Jock Stein had built a force that would never be caught. When Rangers emulated Stein's nine consecutive titles - latterly buttressed by the bountiful revenue stream of the Champions League - it felt as if Sir David Murray, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith had moved the Ibrox club to a position of power which would obliterate any competition. And what happened? The Lisbon Lions era was built around Stein's individual genius and when his powers waned Celtic were drawn back into the pack. In the late 1990s Rangers grew old and tired, and misspent their resources, to the point a rebuilt Celtic got back among the titles. Currently the record books show only two consecutive league wins for Celtic but that is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of Usain Bolt in the early stages of a 100m race. Everyone can be pretty sure of what is coming next. At Tannadice on Saturday there were the latest renditions of a tune that the Celtic support has been singing for quite a while: "Here we go, 10 in a row." It's part-celebration, part-triumphalism, part-threat to you-know-who. There are 40 clubs which have long grown accustomed to the idea of having no real chance of being Scottish champions any time soon, and one which has a demanding fanbase unused to being denied anything for long. It is common these days to hear people talk about how Celtic have the potential to begin a period of unprecedented domination "if they use their money wisely". What they mean is that if Celtic keep running themselves prudently, employing the right manager and players, staying out of debt and always having money to spend to replenish a winning squad, it is going to take an almighty effort for Rangers to ever catch them. The apocalyptic scenario for Rangers is that Celtic keep getting into the Champions League group every year. They secured £20m in Uefa money alone last season and now they have another £16m this season. That is almost twice as much dough as Rangers raised from a one-off share issue. If Celtic pull off another two qualifications in 2014 and 2015 that would amount to around £80m washing into the club before Rangers even have the chance to take them on in the league. Given that all the fundamentals - season-ticket, commercial and sponsorship income - are otherwise broadly comparable between the Glasgow clubs, the long-term difference between them will be Champions League income. And that means that when a player's agent tries to bring a talent to Glasgow (the same player is often offered to both clubs at the same time), Celtic should be able to pay higher transfer fees and wages every time they both want the same man. All of this is a chilling thought around Ibrox. Horrifying, in fact. The Uefa golden goose that was once Rangers', and then shared, is now exclusively Celtic's. They can thank David Murray and Craig Whyte for that. It used to be the rest of Scottish football that was excluded at one or both of the Old Firm's expense; now Rangers are out in the cold too. Rangers have been in the Champions League group stage 10 times and Celtic are about to play in it for the eighth time. At a very conservative estimate (Champions League income has grown over the past 20 years) that is about £180m of Uefa money the Old Firm have enjoyed, in addition to their already vastly superior regular income. Last season Motherwell made around £195,000 from Uefa, and Hearts and St Johnstone £75,000 each - a tiny fraction of Celtic's £20m. The champions' excellent campaign also meant £100,000 in "solidarity" payments from Uefa for all other top-flight clubs, but that amounts to (welcome) crumbs. The Champions League embodies the concept of a self-perpetuating elite in which the rich get richer. When I spoke to a couple of SPFL Premiership club directors about how they reacted to Celtic generating Uefa income on a scale which makes it impossible for them to be given anything more than the odd bloody nose over the course of a season, one said: "It almost doesn't concern us. We're resigned to them always winning the league now and our competition is to finish second. Most clubs are happy for them to get into the group because it means a bit of Uefa money for us. It's probably very different for Rangers." Every empire falls eventually. The eras of Stein and Souness/Smith came to natural ends. Rosenborg show that even monopolising a country's Champions League access does not guarantee permanent rule. But Celtic's position of strength, and their advantages, are greater than any board of directors have known since Scottish football began. By Michael Grant (Herald)

JOHN GREIG and Davie Cooper are two of Rangers’ all-time greats, legendary figures in the history of the club and idolised by the club’s supporters. Both players had blue blood running through their veins. In terms of their sheer devotion to the Ibrox outfit, they were identical. But, in truth, they were different characters all together. So much so that, in the early 1980s, with Greig as manager and Cooper playing under him, they ignored each other as a simmering feud threatened to boil over. It’s a notion most Rangers fans find difficult to understand. But the relationship between the pair at that time was a strained one – as is revealed in Neil Drysdale’s book, Coop: The Life of Davie Cooper, Scottish Football Hero. Quite simply, the winger didn’t fit into the style Greig wanted his team to play and was regularly left on the bench. That frustrated Cooper who, admittedly, took his omission to heart. He wasn’t dubbed the Moody Blue at Ibrox for nothing. That led to an impasse which was only made worse by his refusal to join Brighton in the summer of 1980. That was partly stubbornness but Cooper also couldn’t bear the thought of leaving his home in Hamilton and, more importantly, the club he loved. In Drysdale’s book, he examines the stand-off and, ultimately, the wing wizard’s acceptance that he failed to give Greig total commitment during his time as Rangers boss. He writes: “It was an indication of how relations had soured between Greig and Cooper that when the 24-year-old got the chance to leave, after an approach from Brighton boss Alan Mullery, he should end up staying while Gordon Smith headed south for a record transfer fee of £440,000. “Cooper was reluctant to leave his roots but there is pride in origin and then there is stubborn obstinacy. “Mullery wanted both Smith and Cooper but was told by Greig that he would only sell one of the two. Given how little subsequent use he found for Davie in his plans, it beggars belief the Rangers boss wasn’t ready to move him on if the price was right. “Greig made it clear to Cooper he would be well advised to contemplate expanding his horizons and – considering the money on the table – putting himself into the shop window with a switch to Brighton. “However, that cut no ice with the player who glanced at the map, calculated he wouldn’t be able to get home to Hamilton very often, and so wasn’t interested. “To some extent, one can see why a proud Ibrox man wouldn’t be overly delighted at the prospect of joining the likes of Brighton. But if he had gone and shown his abilities under Mullery, there would surely have been more enticing offers for him in the years ahead whereas he knew that as long as Greig was his gaffer, he would be spending more time keeping benches warm than playing. “Smith said: ‘Alan had been keeping tabs on both Davie and myself and wanted to sign the pair of us but John would only let one go. ‘I don’t believe Davie had any regrets about not going, but I wonder what might have happened if he had. There is no doubt he had more than enough natural ability to make a success of it in England. He could have ?tted in anywhere. ‘But you have to understand that Davie was living the dream and he loved the club, it was as simple as that.’ “It was now obvious that Cooper wouldn’t be wooed away from Rangers and had to accept he was a peripheral ?gure in Greig’s plans. And for those who cherish thrilling football this was a waste of one of the few genuine entertainers on the Scottish domestic circuit. “But while Greig could be faulted for his dearth of ?exibility, especially given the mediocre results attained by players he did select, Cooper wasn’t blameless. “As the months passed he fell into a slump exempli?ed by a lack of intensity at training and unwillingness to scrap for a place in the team. It might be he had concluded there was no merit in battering his head against a brick wall. “But that didn’t excuse his attitude and he subsequently conceded he should have battled harder rather than resort to the dumb insolence which typi?ed the dialogue – or absence of it – between him and Greig. “Cooper started turning up a few minutes late for training, then, once changed, went through the motions. It was childish and he knew it. Davie said: ‘I grew sloppy and the more frustrated I became, the less inclined I was to push myself on the training pitch. Then, when I found myself on the bench, I don’t think my attitude was all it might have been.’ “It was a stalemate which couldn’t have a happy ending. He and Greig were chalk and cheese and only one of them was cracking the whip. “Cooper’s disenchantment increased the more he found himself sidelined. It was an unhappy situation but one which had been brewing for 18 months. “Davie felt isolated, even unwanted at Rangers, even though he refused to take the easy option of demanding a transfer. But a decade down the line, he admitted: ‘I was out of sorts and took it out on John. It was unprofessional and I wish I had shown more application because we needed all the help we could get at the time. ‘John offered me a second chance but I couldn’t get it out of my head that he had given me a raw deal. ‘I look back and wish I’d realised it wasn’t personal. It was just the two of us were different. That didn’t mean either was right or wrong.’” Greig’s spell as Rangers boss ended in 1983 when he was replaced by Jock Wallace. He had won just two League Cups and two Scottish Cups in five years. But his place in the hearts of the supporters was never in doubt and they named him the Greatest Ever Ranger in 1999. Cooper, before and after his death in 1995, was similar to Greig in terms of the fans’ adulation of him. After Greig left, he shone under Wallace and Graeme Souness after that. He became a Rangers legend which, despite that spat with Greig 33 years ago, was all he ever really wanted.