Keith Jackson:

[D'Artagnan 173]

Crucible doesn't want to know. He seems to be scared the SFA haven't been told the truth and that Whyte is still around. Though he trusts the present incumbents enough to support them at an AGM.

 

I have a feeling it's more an anti certain individuals and Groups than an outright support for Easdales and Stockbridge.

 

It's good to know that you support those of us who want to know the names, we must have the truth before we can move on.

 

If your read the New WATP magazine CB - you will find I go a whole lot further with what I want to see implemented.

[crucible 0]

I've asked you this before but you've not answered, but I'll persevere because I find your mindset on this subject so opposite from mine that I'm intrigued at how you came to it.

 

Are you simply disinterested in the ownership of Rangers? Is it all about the team on the park for you and you've not really much interest in boardroom and ownership issues? I'm not being dismissive or judgemental when I ask this, I'm just genuinely curious why someone who contributes to threads on the subject fairly regularly doesn't seem interested in who owns Rangers?

 

I am happy with the outcome of Pinsent Masons inquiry I have no desire to bring it up again under any circumstances, regan has made it clear the possible consequences of whyte involvement, I have no desire to challenge him on that or see him supplied with any possible ammunition to advance his thoughts on the matter.

 

If you and others are willing to risk all to prove some point carry on, as before I won't be joining you, not because I believe whyte is involved but because I am aware of the possible consequences of opening a can of worms that was well sealed by Pinsent Masons. In case you haven't noticed we are where we are, we have no power to change that other than climbing the leagues, we are at the behest of others.

[andy steel 0]

Fair enough, Crucible, but that point of view relies on trusting Regan not to open the can of worms as and when it suits him (or his puppet masters).

 

I've no confidence that he won't suddenly discover holes in the investigation just at the least convenient moment for Rangers. That's why I want to see us exhaust every avenue to clear up any uncertainties before the likes of Regan leak to the Record or someone that, hey, after all, there are irregularities and hey, it's Rangers who will be punished. We need to make that position impossible - only way to do it is basically to do Regan's job for him, and provide complete transparency.

 

Not fair on the confidential investors, but as AMMS pointed out earlier, if you invested in Rangers at this point and expect privacy you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

And in fact, on that point, given the haste which with the media pursued life stories for the likes of Bill Miller, Bill Ng, Charles Green, Uncle Tom Cobley and all I find their reluctance to actually find out about BP & Margherita Holdings a little suspicious. I am, of course, completely paranoid on the subject,

[Zappa 0]

That last paragraph has some merit. However, D'Art is right it's all about opinion. It seems to me that you are not really giving us evidence, but rather an opinion that the Pinsent Mason report is somehow incomplete.

 

What I'm saying here isn't merely an opinion though, it's a fact that the statement from Pinsent Masons which D'Art posted and we've been discussing clearly addresses "inherent limitations" in their investigation of the "available evidence" in the opening sentences. The fact that they've used that wording in the opening lines of their statement can maybe be interpreted in different ways, but given that we have sight of a leaked section of their report suggesting there were problems with cooperation in the investigation, does it not make absolute sense to conclude that Pinsent Masons weren't actually fully satisfied? They would have had no choice other than to release a statement which states they found nothing based on the evidence they had available to them, but cover their rear ends by immediately highlighting the "inherent limitations of a private inquiry".

 

How many reports, investigations, tribunals etc. will it take to be conclusive? Just what kind of statement will satisfy you, and from whom?

 

We shouldn't need expensive reports, investigations or tribunals though because all we need to know is who are actually behind the Club's major shareholders who are calling the shots, changing the boardroom personnel and currently running our club from behind masks.

 

Anyone who wants to make major decisions regarding the Club and it's boardrooms should reveal themselves because to not do so is taking the piss out of the loyal fans the who keep the Club and company running. The fans are the biggest investors in the club and always have been, so why should they be kept in the dark while the club is robbed blind by chancers? It's a scandal!

 

The SFA seemed to be satisfied with the Pinsent Mason report, that in and of itself says something. Even if it only tells us that they are too skint to initiate their own probe.

 

Feels like I'm repeating myself here, but the SFA is a total and utter shambles. It's disjointed & corrupt, outsources it's thinking & decision making processes and is now totally unfit for purpose. The SFA itself is not 'fit & proper'. The SFA is now run by muppets, puppets and faceless tribunal panels.

[amms 0]

I am happy with the outcome of Pinsent Masons inquiry I have no desire to bring it up again under any circumstances, regan has made it clear the possible consequences of whyte involvement, I have no desire to challenge him on that or see him supplied with any possible ammunition to advance his thoughts on the matter.

 

If you and others are willing to risk all to prove some point carry on, as before I won't be joining you, not because I believe whyte is involved but because I am aware of the possible consequences of opening a can of worms that was well sealed by Pinsent Masons. In case you haven't noticed we are where we are, we have no power to change that other than climbing the leagues, we are at the behest of others.

 

So if Regan hadn't made that statement would you then want to know who owns us? Is it the threat of Regan making good his statement that leads to you not wanting to know our owners?

[crucible 0]

So if Regan hadn't made that statement would you then want to know who owns us? Is it the threat of Regan making good his statement that leads to you not wanting to know our owners?

 

Regan did make the statement, lawwell has now seen fit to comment on something that he has no reason to at this time, I know who the owners are they are Blue Pitch and Margarita works for me and apparently it did for the SFA until people started making waves.

[amms 0]

Regan did make the statement, lawwell has now seen fit to comment on something that he has no reason to at this time, I know who the owners are they are Blue Pitch and Margarita works for me and apparently it did for the SFA until people started making waves.

 

That was nearly an answer. Hypothetically, if he'd never said it would you then want to know who is behind Blue Pitch and Margarita? It's not a trick question.

[barca72 440]

What I'm saying here isn't merely an opinion though, it's a fact that the statement from Pinsent Masons which D'Art posted and we've been discussing clearly addresses "inherent limitations" in their investigation of the "available evidence" in the opening sentences. The fact that they've used that wording in the opening lines of their statement can maybe be interpreted in different ways, but given that we have sight of a leaked section of their report suggesting there were problems with cooperation in the investigation, does it not make absolute sense to conclude that Pinsent Masons weren't actually fully satisfied? They would have had no choice other than to release a statement which states they found nothing based on the evidence they had available to them, but cover their rear ends by immediately highlighting the "inherent limitations of a private inquiry".

 

 

 

We shouldn't need expensive reports, investigations or tribunals though because all we need to know is who are actually behind the Club's major shareholders who are calling the shots, changing the boardroom personnel and currently running our club from behind masks.

 

Anyone who wants to make major decisions regarding the Club and it's boardrooms should reveal themselves because to not do so is taking the piss out of the loyal fans the who keep the Club and company running. The fans are the biggest investors in the club and always have been, so why should they be kept in the dark while the club is robbed blind by chancers? It's a scandal!

 

 

 

Feels like I'm repeating myself here, but the SFA is a total and utter shambles. It's disjointed & corrupt, outsources it's thinking & decision making processes and is now totally unfit for purpose. The SFA itself is not 'fit & proper'. The SFA is now run by muppets, puppets and faceless tribunal panels.

 

 

When you make your conclusion "that Pinsent Mason were not fully satisfied" it is still an opinion. When they say "inherent limitations of a private inquiry" they are entirely correct. They conducted a private enquiry and as such they cannot compel anyone to give testimony. They may, however, feel that the available evidence that they were able to accrue was sufficient to base their eventual opinion on. This opinion was accepted by The Rangers' board and the SFA and it would appear that whatever our opinions are, as fans, they are secondary to that acceptance.

As far as the majority shareholders go, I feel your frustation. However, if they do not wish to be known that is their prerogative.

I don't have very much regard for the SFA myself but they remain a very dangerous organization as far as Rangers are concerned and we must, for the time being, not allow the puppetmaster to cut any of our strings.