Jump to content



Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'wars'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me




Favourite Rangers Player




  1. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek affair with one or two misleading facts, but the crux of the message is relevant and I haven't seen it posted since it was published on Sunday afternoon, so............ Rangers in danger of getting red card over governance By Kate Burgess You wouldn’t run a football match the way that Rangers Plc is being managed. Indeed, you couldn’t under the laws of the beautiful game. Even before Rangers International Football Club has completed its first full year as a public company, it has lost all but one of its original eight directors and is on its third nominated adviser, or nomad. That is the nearest thing the Alternative Investment Market has to a referee. The board substituted the captain and manager before the half-time whistle blew. Now their replacements have gone. Last week, Craig Mather, chief executive, and another director quit after the company postponed its first shareholder meeting. This followed a court ruling that four board candidates, including the former chairman, should not have been barred from standing for election. The company has until Christmas to hold the vote. Meanwhile, RIFC – whose shares have fallen from 75p at float to just under 50p – has neither chief executive nor chairman and just two directors. One is Brian Stockbridge, finance director. The other is James Easdale, bus operator and local businessman, who with his brother controls about 24 per cent of RIFC’s shares and was brought in as a non-executive amid another board ruckus in July. The company acknowledges that it must strengthen the board “to meet the standards required of an Aim company”. However, if a team spent as much time fighting among itself and scored so many own goals, fans would boo it off the pitch, or worse. It won’t be so easy to kick RIFC off Aim. The London Stock Exchange, which oversees Aim, is a hands-free regulator. It largely leaves nomads – who are paid by companies – to decide whether a business is fit to be public and its governance is “appropriate”. Even now, when Rangers’ governance has gone beyond normal measures of appropriateness, the LSE has not rushed in with a red card. Yet. But the nomad will have to justify to the LSE the “appropriateness” of any board candidate. It will be tough to find someone who meets the LSE’s criteria and is willing and able to broker a long-term peace. But if it cannot, then the RIFC’s shares are likely to be suspended. And if the warring continues, the company’s Aim quote will be cancelled, stranding shareholders – including thousands of Rangers fans – with untradeable equity. The most elegant end to this tawdry tale would be to find a buyer to take RIFC off the public market. Then at least fans will have a chance of selling out at something like a fair price. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5320d384-3754-11e3-9603-00144feab7de.html#axzz2iI2Yanan
  2. We are under investigation from glasgows finest as to armed forces day daily record page seven the police report is now complete amazing the speed of the investigation when you think that the same police are dragging their heels into those who wronged our club .
  3. Lifted from FF: ''Thats two younger lads now both under 19 had police come to their doors early morning to arrest them for singing said song. I was also told by a polis up in Ayr that FoCUS are watching out for people singing this now due to the YCV reference''. Just a heads up.
  4. Posted by Roy Greenslade It will be interesting to see if any newspaper covers the fact that members of Britain's armed forces appeared to join in with Scottish football fans as they sang sectarian songs at a match yesterday. Initial reports suggest not. Some 400 uniformed soldiers, seamen and air force personnel attended an armed forces day at Ibrox, the Rangers ground. After a formal march and band music, a group of soldiers (they were in khaki) were filmed dancing, clapping and singing along with the crowd. Although it is difficult to make out the exact words on the video posted on YouTube, people have identified sectarian songs and chants celebrating the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. Rival Celtic fans were quick to point to songs that are supposed to be banned from all Scottish football grounds under a new law passed by the Scottish parliament. One commenter to the YouTube site wrote of it being a "disgusting vile and tawdry spectacle". Another wrote: "Shocking stuff. I hope this vid is forwarded to the footballing and army authorities." Two media reports about the events that have been published - one here on the STV site and another here on the Daily Record site - make no reference to the soldiers' antics. The STV report mentioned that an army band "entertained fans" and quoted Major General Nick Eeles, general officer commanding Scotland, as saying it was hoped to make it into an annual event. The Record did write that "the match-day experience began in dramatic circumstances" but only because two marines "abseiled down the Govan stand ahead of kick-off, before delivering the match ball to the referee." How odd that both outlets missed the story? Or do their reporters think soldiers chanting jingoistic sectarian songs in unison with football fans is unworthy of comment? Incidentally, Saturday was not the official armed forces celebration day in Britain (that falls in the close season). The club, with the full approval of the military, decided to stage its own separate event. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade
  5. http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/282-jim-spence-rangers-jibes I won't post the article as there are a few images used at the link for context... Suffice to say, poor Jum gets nailed by an on-form Chris...
  6. Lifted this from FF, hope that's ok. Thought it was worth posting, seems that the guys who do the Founders Trail are getting abuse from VB. For those who have read the statement from the VB's and the avoidance of doubt i'll try to cover the nonsense that we at the Founders Trail are accused of. We've posted the reasons why many times on RM but the VB's continue to ignore this and are more intent on spreading lies. We as a group took the decision not to take the Founders Trail on to their website as under no circumstances were we wanting the Founders of our Club associated with certain rather obvious elements of that site. The easy thing to do would have been to stop posting on RM but there are many good Bears on there who've taken the Tour with us and we weren't going to deny them access to information relating to our research and subsequent events. We're also accused of A) not mentioning William McBeath on the Tour and B) not giving the VB's credit for the work done at Willie's grave in Lincoln. The fact is we tell William's story in it's entirety during the Tour including at Fleshers Haugh about how he probably organised our first ever match with his fellow ex-pats from his home town of Callander . We visit the location of two of his homes and the old St. Andrews Hall where he received a Gold Badge from his fellow Founders for his part in the inception of our Club. We also as part of our Tour hand-outs, which every passenger receives, have pictures of Willie's grave in Lincoln before and after the work that has been carried out . We acknowledge that ''this fantastic work was carried out by fellow Rangers supporters''. Those who have actually taken the Tour will of course verify this. Those who sit behind their PC's spreading poison in an effort to discredit the Trail and our Founders choose to ignore the facts. Only they know why. We don't mention Celtic during the Tour and we don't mention any website.We aren't interested in inter-website squabbles only spreading the fabulous story about our Founders. The Plaque at Fleshers Haugh and the work carried out was paid for by the world-wide Rangers support and this is highlighted. It belongs to you , the people. We're continually accused of '' Only running the Founders Trail to line the organ-grinder's ( Mark Dingwall) pockets''. Where do you start with this ? it's certainly not listed in our published annual accounts, however our donations to various charities are. If we were robbing Rangers supporters then why is the VB website so keen to be associated with us ? We've asked on countless occasions to be left alone to continue our research and to continue with the celebration of the greatest sporting story of all but they continue to hound us with threats and allegations. What hasn't struck them yet is they're actually doing the work of those whom they proclaim to challenge. Rangers first, at all times.
  7. On Saturday, not long after the Stranraer match, the club published a statement entitled, “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. The article was written under the tag, ‘Rangers Football Club’, although almost everyone acknowledges that it was probably penned by the club’s Director of Communications, James Traynor. Although the statement was generally well received by Rangers fans, it was more noticeable for what it didn’t say, rather than what it actually did say. Whilst the statement is welcome, it is long overdue, and I doubt if it will have any substantive or meaningful impact on the serial Rangers haters who constantly misrepresent and malign our club. I suspect that most Rangers fans consider the statement to be much too terse, and would have preferred a more comprehensive, robust and forceful statement. Certainly given the nature and content of the statement, it is noticeable for its failure to comment on the serial offenders at Rangers who consistently utilise the local anti-Rangers media to further their own agendas, or censure those Rangers bloggers who are aligned with one side or another in the current Boardroom wars, and who often give interviews to the local rags, including the Daily Record. In fact it fails to confront the leaks that are clearly emanating from Ibrox, and it doesn’t ‘sit well’ with the fact that our board of directors, club officials and employees regularly utilise the local rags for their own ends. Fine words from James Traynor – but actions speak much louder than words! It is for that reason I have penned an alternative version of “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. For The Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative version) “Rangers Football Club is aware of wildly inaccurate stories circulating on various websites and would like fans to know that these flights of fancy will be monitored by our lawyers. Where it is considered necessary, we will instruct our lawyers to initiate legal action against the owners and administrators of any website, or any other media vehicle, that publishes (or disseminates by any other means) material that is inaccurate, libellous or misrepresents the club’s position in any way. The club will keep fans advised of any action initiated as a consequence of this monitoring process and will provide regular updates on the club’s official platforms. In particular, our lawyers are examining a malicious piece which seems to suggest that the club does not own its facilities. That suggestion is, of course, utter nonsense, and the club wishes to make it unequivocally clear that the club owns all of its facilities in their entirety. We urge Rangers fans to treat these idiotic and lumbering articles with the contempt they deserve. Better still, ignore them completely. However, we acknowledge that many fans may wish to analyse and assess them and, where appropriate, respond to their misrepresentations by means of their own websites and blogs. Indeed the club recognises the very practical assistance provided by the fans in monitoring these articles and responding in circumstances where the club is, either, unable or unwilling to do so. But we must also stress we cannot waste time responding publicly to every blog or ridiculous claim against the club, although we acknowledge the magnificent work that has been done by Rangers fans in challenging the reprehensible Rangers Tax Case blog; BBC Scotland’s consistent misrepresentations and its inaccurate and biased reporting; the vindictive and malign blogs of those such as Alex-Thomson of Channel 4, Phil Four Names, Paul McConville and, of course, those journalists in the mainstream media such as Graham Spiers, Tom English, Keith Jackson etc. who continually misrepresent, and unreasonably, attack our club. There is also a dangerous proliferation of anonymous obsessive’s on various social media sites and we will not give them any credence, although we will continue to monitor the material they publish and seek to identify the source of any leaks, particularly where specific material is proven to be genuine correspondence emanating from Rangers Football Club. In such circumstances we will take appropriate action against any director or officer of the club who is found responsible for leaking confidential information including, if necessary, precautionary suspension and summary dismissal. Nor can we react to every journalist and publication that appears to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda; publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. The paper’s intent is clear, and we urge our fans to see it for what it is, as we urge those prominent bloggers who are closely aligned to the Club, and prepared to give interviews to the Daily Record, and provide them with information relating to the business of our board, its shareholders and the club’s operations, to desist forthwith. In this regard, the club will make every effort to ensure that no member of its board, any shareholder, club official or employee will provide information to, or give interviews to, the Daily Record or any of the other recognised anti- Rangers media. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms, and we will make every effort to ensure that, from this point onward, there is substantive and meaningful information available to fans on the club’s platforms in relation to current anti-Rangers news stories, statements that misrepresent the club’s stated position and those that are causing significant concern to the fans. This is particularly relevant given the current boardroom upheavals. Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this Club, although we can confirm that he and Media House currently represent the interests of the Easdale brothers who are major shareholders in Rangers Football Club.”
  8. MYSTERY still surrounds just what sort of a dodgy deal disgraced former commercial director Imran Ahmad struck with the even more disgraced and totally discredited Craig Whyte in order to get his hands on the former owner’s Rangers shares. However, by the admission of Imran Ahmad’s front man, Charles Green, we do know that some sort of shady back street deal was struck between Imran Ahmad and Craig Whyte. We know it was more than just the “stringing Whyte along” tactic claimed by Ahmad and Green. We know because Charles Green revealed it in a letter to the Scottish Football Association in which he wrote that in July last year, after liquidation, Imran Ahmad was given the task of getting his hands on Craig Whyte’s shares. The reason, again according to Charles Green in the same letter, was that this was necessary in order that a name change could be effected from Sevco Scotland to incorporate the words, Rangers Football Club. What Charles Green insists Imran Ahmad did not do, again the Green claim is made in his letter to the SFA, was make any form of legal commitment in relation to remuneration or compensation for the shares. So, just how did he get them? For we know, according to the gospel of Charles Green, what Imran Ahmad did not do. What we do not know is just what sort of deal – which did not involve any form of legal negotiation – Imran Ahmad actually did cook up with fraudster Craig Whyte. And that is something which will surely thwart any outrageous plans Imran Ahmad may be making to return to Ibrox , despite the fact he has now sold almost all of his Rangers shares and made an obscene profit. And Charles Green’s close association with Imran Ahmad and his unwillingness to make the nature of the Imran Ahmad-Craig Whyte stitch up known, will also bar his way to the Blue Room. For the Scottish Football Association have already pounced on this latest gaping hole and inconsistency in the letter Charles Green sent to them in April when he was still chief executive. By the time the SFA replied to Rangers, Green had been booted out of that role, therefore the reply was sent to then chairman Malcolm Murray, now, of course, no longer on the board. In the letter, the SFA said they were a little bemused by the events of July 2012 in relation to securing Craig Whyte’s shares, as the understanding was by that time the Ahmad-Green Consortium had indicated to Whyte that he would not be part of the structure in the future and that once the asset transfer had gone through they had essentially severed their connections with him. The SFA further added that in that context it seemed curious Whyte was willing to co-operate with Ahmad to transfer shares and to facilitate the passing of name changing resolutions. Then, quite properly, the SFA asked what arrangements had been entered into at that point to procure Whyte’s co-operation. The SFA also pointed out that the Administrators had appeared to have insisted on the release of the debenture relating to shares earlier than July 2012. Finally, the SFA asked why this did not enable the Consortium to take control of the shares? Why indeed? It seems, once again, Charles Green has indulged in his old tactic of believing bullshit baffles brains. And once again been caught out. With still no real clarity as to what the real relationship, as late in post liquidation in July 2012, was between Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Craig Whyte. ..... AND...... I am looking forward to meeting The People at a special dinner at Ibrox to launch the first ever biography of the great Bill Struth. The event, on Saturday September 7th, is being organised by Simon Leslie, the man behind the successful tribute dinner to Iron Curtain goalkeeper Bobby Brown which celebrated his 90th birthday last April. Further details of the Struth celebration are available on the Follow Follow site or by contacting Simon at sie1872@googlemail.com
  9. Stephen Birrell doesnâ??t like Catholics, he doesnâ??t like Celtic Football Club manager Neil Lennon and he doesnâ??t like Celtic supporters. These are not exactly unusual sentiments in certain parts of Scotland. But what is unusual is that last week Birrell was jailed for expressing such prejudices. His crime was to join a Facebook page and share his unpleasant views with the rest of us. Birrellâ??s pearls of wisdom included: â??Hope they all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags. Haha.â??; â??Proud to hate Fenian tattie farmersâ??; and â??Theyâ??re all ploughing the fields, dirty scumbags. FTP [Fuck the Pope]â??. This guy is not a pleasant individual and obviously not likely to turn up on many lists of people we would most like to have dinner with. But no threats were made, there was no incitement to commit acts of violence and Birrell did not actually harm anyone. Yet the 28-year-old football fan was charged with â??religiously aggravatedâ?? breach of the peace and sent to prison for eight months. He was also banned from attending any football games in the UK for five years. In short, this was seen as a religious hate crime and all this has happened even before the new Offensive and Threatening Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill (Scotland) is passed by the Scottish Parliament - a law that would introduce prison terms of up to five years for making sectarian comments at football games or on the internet. The idea of sending someone to prison for expressing their personal hatreds seems bizarre in a society that claims to allow freedom of speech. But in the frenzied atmosphere being whipped up around the new laws, a judge sitting in a Scottish courtroom felt emboldened to deprive a person of his liberty by criminalising his words. Birrell is not the only victim of this draconian new mood. Last month, my nephew Brendan travelled all the way from West Belfast to Glasgow to see his beloved Celtic play, only to be arrested while entering the ground for shouting â??Up the IRAâ??, a slogan still found on many gable ends in his hometown. He was held in prison all day and overnight before being charged with â??religiously aggravated breach of the peaceâ??. Given the prevailing climate, the addition of â??religiously aggravatedâ?? turns a minor incident that has been normal behaviour for a section of Celtic fans at games for many years into a serious crime with serious consequences. And then there were the two fans whose banner mentioned the â??Hunsâ??, a term used by Celtic supporters (and even some Rangers fans) for many years to describe the Rangers football team and its supporters, a term that has now been criminalised in the rush to label every expression as a symbol of sectarian hatred. These fans were also arrested and one was charged with a hate crime. The case was postponed several times, leaving the fans unaware of their fate. For months, I have warned that politicians are using the physical attack on Celtic manager Neil Lennon by a Hearts fan to blur the distinction between words and deeds. This poses a serious threat to free speech and civil liberties. But few civil liberties champions have joined this particular campaign, apparently finding the principle of free speech easy to sacrifice when it comes to â??uncouthâ?? football fans who upset their liberal sensibilities. But you donâ??t need to like fooball fans to defend their right to free expression. I donâ??t like anything Birrell says or represents, but I defend absolutely his right to say it without being locked up and labelled a criminal. Birrellâ??s case, and the many more that will inevitably follow as fans outdo each other in their rush to take offence at the sectarianism of their rivals, have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the ongoing demonisation of one group â?? football fans â?? in society. Scotlandâ??s first minister, Alex Salmond, can now claim the dubious distinction of presiding over one of the most authoritarian and illiberal pieces of legislation in Western Europe. Anyone who remotely cares about basic civil liberties should howl with rage at the imprisonment of Stephen Birrell and should stand up now to defend free speech and the right of football fans to be offensive, whether on Facebook or in the stands at Ibrox and Celtic Park. Kevin Rooney is a teacher based in London. He will speaking at the debate Silencing sectarianism: footballâ??s free speech wars at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 30 October. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11337/
  10. CELTIC Charity Fund, the charitable arm of Celtic Football Club today presented a donation of £10,000 to the work of Poppy Scotland. The Clubâ??s donation will be used to support ex-Servicemen and women across Scotland in a variety of ways, including treatment and rehabilitation for those injured while serving. As we look ahead to Remembrance Sunday, Poppy Scotland will this week launch the 2011 Scottish Poppy Appeal. Celtic is pleased to kick-off this fundraising activity with this substantial donation. Celtic Chief Executive Peter Lawwell said: "As we approach Remembrance Sunday next month, we remember the victims on all sides of all conflicts. Many people from all walks of life have entered the Services, and indeed, we all remember the contribution which so many Celtic players made during both World Wars. "We are pleased to make this donation which will hopefully assist many people in Scotland dealing with devastating injuries. "We understand fully the tragedy of conflict and the wider effects which this brings, which is why we are also pleased to support War Child, the global charity which cares for the child victims of war in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and across Africa." Ian McGregor, Chief Executive of Poppy Scotland said: "We are extremely grateful to Celtic Football Club for their continued support of the Scottish Poppy Appeal. This generous donation will enable us to continue to deliver our life-changing work for Scotlandâ??s Armed Forces community. "As well as continuing to fund therapy, housing and retraining for veterans, we are also hoping to introduce short breaks for the families of Service personnel who are away on active duty. "As we indicated last year we feel that after three very successful years of the poppy shirt initiative with the SPL, we wanted to work with each club individually to develop a range of new activities. Today is just one example of how the clubs are getting behind the Appeal this year and we look forward to building further on the excellent relationship we have with Celtic, and the other 11 clubs, in the coming weeks."
  11. The ownership of Rangers by Craig Whyte is entering a crucial phase as the tax tribunal approaches The key passage in the story of Craig Whyte and Rangers will happen in the not too distant future. That much is certain, after yet another week in which the Ibrox club found themselves courting front as well as back pages of newspapers. The occasionally warped situation where football fans have more of an interest in directors and balance sheets than full-backs and strikers has one positive offshoot. That is, scrutiny of those purchasing clubs should limit the potential for ruinous scenarios. Notwithstanding the fact boardroom change is inevitable following most company buyouts â?? let alone hostile ones such as this â?? the departures from Rangers directorships of John Greig and John McClelland were notable. Both made it clear they felt hampered and frustrated by Whyte's management. Greig is the former player perhaps most symbolic of the club. McClelland remains a respected figure in Scottish business circles. Both were part of an old regime at Rangers that expressed concern about Whyte's takeover in May; now, the old guard has been all but eliminated. Two of that group, Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre, have between them successfully frozen £780,000 of Rangers' assets as they pursue breach-of-contract cases. These are increasingly bitter battles, with Whyte firing spoken bullets towards the duo who, the owner believes, were complicit in Rangers' previous financial mess. In riposte, former Rangers board members will point to a £40m borrowing at the end of June 2009. By the time Whyte purchased Rangers two years later, he did so by buying out a bank debt of £18m. In that 24-month spell, Rangers won four out of six domestic trophies. Bain was the chief executive and McIntyre the finance director who collaborated with the Lloyds Banking Group on a business plan. The potentially significant impact of Employee Benefit Trust payments came to light during this period, but there has never been any doubt about the origin of these schemes in relation to Rangers: via the Murray International firm, effectively the football club's parent company, several years earlier. The former Rangers management team would also dispute the widely held notion that Whyte's due diligence uncovered a separate tax liability the club continue to dispute. That came about, it is instead argued, because of a precedent ruling that allowed Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to "revisit" Rangers. A day after the exits of Greig and McClelland, Whyte reopened his war with the BBC by withdrawing all club co-operation with the broadcaster. Central to this move was a documentary about the Rangers owner's business history, screened on Thursday evening, which has since triggered legal action by Whyte. For all the arguments about the public-relations merits of such a stance, one thing is clear: a sizeable chunk of the Rangers support has no problem with Whyte taking on the BBC. They regard this as a fightback against perceived reporting injustices. The blunt reality is that a vocal element of fans care little about the past of directors; they want to know their club is safe and that their team will win games. The entrenched attitude here is similar to that towards Bain and McIntyre. Whyte used another broadcast outlet, Scottish Television, to insist that his Rangers legacy will be a positive one. Which is, external and media wars aside, the most meaningful issue here. After all, that relates to Rangers' very future. The message from Whyte about the onset of administration if Rangers lose their upcoming tax tribunal is now more consistent. The consequence of that turn of events has seemed obvious for months, with the club patently unable to cope with a bill that could reach £49m in the event of defeat to HMRC. Whyte, as the secured creditor, would then inherit a business with only his chosen overheads. A key question that has to be asked to Whyte is: "Who will be the primary beneficiary based on the structure in place if Rangers enter administration?" Without threats from a bank or taxman, Whyte could then be in a position to sell Rangers on for a profit on an investment that was initially £18m and has since increased. Yet the penalties and brutal realities attached to administration go beyond those that would hamper Rangers' SPL title bid; few financial analysts see any sense in this being a chosen course of action for Whyte when he took Rangers on. The man himself insists everything possible will be done to keep Rangers from administration, an entirely understandable public stance. Still, the most bemusing aspect of Whyte's Rangers takeover â?? as has been the case from day one â?? relates to why he completed the deal with such a massive tax liability possibly forthcoming. The other recurring theme around Ibrox is what will happen if Rangers successfully challenge the tax authorities. If that occurs, Whyte will control a business without two of the main creditors that have cast such a long shadow over the club in recent times. Rangers would, in such circumstances, be more attractive to potential investors. Would Whyte, at that stage, seek a short-term profit by selling the club on, or prove that his talk of long-term investment is meaningful? Before he took over, those in the Ibrox boardroom were convinced Whyte did not intend playing a long game at Rangers. It may be no coincidence that Dave King, who has been linked with buying Rangers regularly in the past, has not severed his ties by resigning as a nonexecutive director since Whyte took over. Whyte's hint that Rangers would not challenge any loss of the tax tribunal highlights at least one thing. That is, he wants Rangers' circumstances clarified as soon as possible. In the meantime, a lack of European football in any form leaves an obvious hole in their income stream. The club have been embattled for some time, but how Whyte handles forthcoming events will be more worthy of scrutiny than what has come before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/oct/21/craig-whyte-rangers?CMP=twt_gu
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.