Tannochsidebear

There is one worldwide Rangers supporters umbrella already in place. The Rangers Worldwide Alliance (better known as the Rangers Supporters Assembly) incorporates RSC's from all over the world, with reps from each area getting directly involved with the board of the club via regular meetings. The oldest, and up until a decade ago, the only Rangers Supporters group was the Association. The organisers of the famous Rangers Rally's held annually for years and years. However nowadays they really only bother about away tickets for member RSC's. Well run and organised, but they dont get involved in any politics or controversy. The RST was set up 9 years ago as a Direct result of the meltdown Murray had taken us into after his failed Advocaat dream had left us virtually bankrupt and turned us overnight into a selling club with no ambition, which we have been ever since if we are honest. The RST was originally set up due to the hurt and anger of fans to the way Murray had run the club into the ground since 1998, and tried to make him more accountable to the fans. After a good start and paying membership numbers up at around the 5000 mark, things began to go wrong with internal wranglings and power struggles taking over from the good work which had been done under the initial chairmans watch. If truth be told it hasnt been too successful since, but is still a very vocal and ambitious vehicle for its (too few) members. The point im working towards however is that in the last year or so the 3 organisations have been working together more and more and are pretty much on the same page on all issues concerning the club these days. They still have their own autonomy and meetings, still do their own projects, but on the big subjects are pretty much working as one. So whether you support any of the 3 groups, you are really getting the same united voice on the big issues. The fighting and posturing between them seems to me to be coming from the supporters/opponents of the groups and the various forums they speak on anonymously, not the boards of the groups themselves. With this being the case, I can see no reason for the creation of a new all-encompassing Rangers fans organisation, as it would end up being run by the same people who have stepped forward and given many many hours of their own free time. With their being 3 different groups, if there were Ranges fans out there who wanted to get involved properly, not just on an internet message board from their work or home, they have had many chances over several years to join one of the groups, who are not being inundated with offers of help, and try to make a difference themselves. It appears that while a lot of us are happy to talk the talk, not many of us have the available time or inclination to walk the walk.

Have never called him Sir, and have never refered to our training centre as MP. I understand BBC Scotland are digging heavily into SDM to do the same hatchet job (sorry investigative journalistic piece) on him as they did on CW. Only a decade late with that one as nobody at the BBC had the balls to do it when they were asked to do so nearly a decade ago. Shame the current management of the BBC in Scotland werent around then. Murray's name will come out of this as the scumbag he is, we just have more important things to deal with just now.

Frankie, I wonder if you know why, within a couple of hours of TBK pulling out, Bill Ng's group were not named as PB. Surely they must have pushed for that? It looks to the uneducated guesser that their bid is not seen as anywhere near good enough by D&P, and therefore the delays since and subsequent renewed bids from Kennedy and now talk of TBK coming back in (surprise surprise!) have been after discussions with D&P, which in turn must give Ng's group the feeling that they are not really in a good position?

As far as I know it DOES include restrictions on re-signing players, which is what a contract exptension really is. They could not have issued new contracts to the players, they have probably just got a lergal agreement to their being able to leave for reduced fees at the end of the season if a new owner is not in place.

What a mess this is all becoming. On Sunday night at around 10pm I had heard that D&P had agreed to name TBK as PB status within 48 hours. At that time for the first time I was delighted that some progress had actually been made and it had seemed that the Fans Groups statement had some impact and things were finally moving towards a suitable conclusion. (And I dont mean that I was over the moon with TBK as PB, just a non-liquidation bidder being named as PB). Now at Thursday and we have since seen TBK refuse to pay the £0.5M to stall the deal, Ticketus jump ship to a better offer from Ng, Ng then being the only serious bid left but still no announcement of PB, Ticketus then saying they are keeping their options open, Kennedy reviving his bid, TBK back in, rumours of a new bidder throwing something in, still no announcement from D&P, and here we are nearly at the weekend again, and another week closer to the end of the season and another 10 point deduction. Will someone (anti-liquidation only) please show some mettle and get this completed and stop playing your posturing poker games with OUR club.

Thanks for the reply. We will have to agree to disagree on this one BH. You think you can promote trusts without promoting your own clubs trust, I think that you cant possibly do that with any integrity. In this instance "you" refers to anyone in that same position, not having a pop at BH in particular.

I was indeed beside you at that AGM and the fall-out from that was indeed very well documented at the time. Likewise I didnt go to this years AGM so not sure how it went as I havent quite got my minutes yet either! I have no issue with him resigning from the board of the RST, but IMO if it was me in charge of SDS trying to promote other clubs to create trusts and spread fan ownership, I would certainly feel I had to practice what I preached and at least be a member of the Trust associated with the team I supported. I dont see how I can promote Trusts in general and not be a member of my own trust. He is perfectly entitled to be non-supportive of the current board of the RST's ideas and workings, but not even retaining membership whilst taking on a position at the mother group just jumps out to me as being wrong. Perhaps its me.

lol, but its not quite the same thing really now is it? Im not having a go at the guy himself, (although I can see on re-reading my post that it might appear that way) more the position. I cant see how a representative body (in football circles) can say one thing and do another.

I'm sorry BH, but thats not really good enough is it. Dame Pauline Green is a political figurehead for the organisation, and she doesn't even say that she has a favourite team. As a Rangers supporter and former secretary of the RST, and as head of SD in Scotland surely you have a duty to lead by example and at least be a member of the Trust of the team you support. I really can't see how you can promote supporters trusts while snubbing your own teams Trust. What signal does that give out to those you go to see to promote trusts at their clubs?

My understanding was that there was going to be a huge board with fans reps covering the various coimmitment levels per his share option offer. This would potentially have led to around 6 fans on the board representing the 3 tiers of supporter ownership, but out of a total board of around 20 members. The fans (through these reps) would certainly have had a say on the clubs affairs and hopefully would have been able to have influence in the direction of the club, but they certainly would not have had "control" of the club.

I can agree that he certainly seems to like his own reflection, Mr Kennedy, and is not shy to speak to the press when asked. Actually though, I think what he said today can give the fans some comfort in that while he is not our preferred choice (nor Admins), he repeats the line that he wont let the club go into liquidation, and todays reminder in the wake of TBK's withdrawal can surely be seen as reaffirming his original position, which isnt a bad one for us to have as a back-up plan.

Im not as disappointed as some today on hearing the news that TBK's dream is over (for now anyway). All that has mattered to me is that the club does not go into liquidation and get the 3 year Euro ban which will have an impact on everything at our club for many more than the 3 years of no decent income. The news that Bill Ng is now the clear front-runner and also does not want to go down the liquidation route is fine with me. The fact his consortium is not scraping around trying to stump up enough cash to get them through until a share issue can be done, but has the cash to put together a strong CVA and finance the club properly from the start is the main thing for me at this time. Obviously we do not know too much about him or his consortium or his plans for the club, as he has chosen to keep his cards close to his chest until he gets the job done. perhaps if TBK had done something similar and not boasted about their Ticketus deal they would have got there. Im trying not to be too critical of TBK as they are genuine Rangers fans who tried to do their very best to save the club from liquidation, and while (for now at any rate) their bid for control seems to have failed, they should be thanked for putting a substantial amount of their own time and money into the project, and we would hope that any plans they had for the club would be discussed with Bill Ng at a future date to see if there is anything that can be taken on for the good of the club. We should be above getting into a slagging match over who backed who and why. None of that is even slightly important. The important issues were that the winning bidders did not go down the liquidation route, and that we come out of administration with a workable CVA and the club can move forward and start to prepare for next season. That is all that really matters at this stage.

So the head of SD in Scotland and a board member of the national SD isnt even a member of his own club's supporters trust. What message does that put out exactly? How can you encourage Trusts for other clubs when you snub your own? I know you had a falling out with other board members but how do you square your position at SD with your snubbing of your own clubs Trust?

Watch them all get wrapped into one and/or any bans served concurrently.

The stall was to be seen to be fair to all parties, to avoid any appeals and mud-slinging post-naming of PB status. I dont agree with D&P often, but I can understand this delay. What I dont agree with is there assessment of how long they should be giving the 3 parties to get the additional info they may or may not require. 24 hours should have been enough, it is not difficult to make a phone call and get the info required.

And just who are Rangers Unite? All the other Rangers fans groups are well known Rangers supporters who are not afraid to be named and to have public discussions. I have read the website and their aims, and it reads like the back of a fag packet stuff. Has this actually been costed, or even attempted to be costed. How much would unsold Hospitality given away to members cost for example. 5,10 & 15% discounts on merchandise seem to be have been made up without any thought to margins or the effect on income. I agree with a lot of the ideas in principle, in fact I have been pushing a lot of them myself for years on here and elsewhere, but without knowing who is behind Rangers Unite, and therefore not even knowing if they are indeed Rangers supporters or an Operation tango equivalent, I will be having nothing to do with them. Anyone operating behind a cloak usually has something to hide.

I also understand the PB will be named today or tomorrow at the latest. I would hope that when this happens the 2 failed bidders will continue to monitor closely the events in the event that the PB cannot get a deal with either Creditors or Whyte.

I disagree. If it was us, we would be criticising Ki for his sitters and Lennon for his tactics. Our team would be being slaughtered today by the fans for another bottle-merchants performance in a big game. Any talk of the penalty would be offset by the offside goal. I have seen situations like this many many times on Rangers boards. We dont act like them.

A floating charge is standard practice in any business's affairs. Example: Company A owns a property outright where its head office is. It also has an overdraft facility that allows it to trade through good and bad times, perhaps because of seasonal income trends. In order for the bank to allow them an overdraft facility, it is normal for them to hold a "floating charge" over the Company's assets. This means effectively that the Company promises to pay the bank back its money should the need arise, and that it has more than enough big assets to pay the bank back. The only other ways of getting a facility like an overdraft from a bank is to either give the bank a fixed charge (in the way your bank owns the title to your house while you owe them a mortgage for it) over a particular asset, like a piece of machinery or a property. YOu then cannot sell this asset without the bank's consent, and if your business went bust, it would be that particular asset the bank would sell to get its money back. Or you can give the bank other assets to retain for you, like gold reserves or a savings account. Although this is more unusual as if you had reserves like this you probably wouldnt need an overdraft in the first place. All in all, a floating charge is absolutely nothing to worry about, and doesnt mean OUR stadium is being pawned off as part of a finance deal.

Real Radio update, now back down to only £134M.

I'm sorry, but the admin team are the ones the protest is mainly aimed at IMO. They have been asked to ensure that the bidding groups are aware that the fans will not support any group that wants to give the club a 3 year Euro ban, and as D&P are the ones who will choose the preferred bidder status, this obviously is pointing this out to them as well. Having just read the admin statement which calls for the red card protest to be called off, I am even more convinced in its importance. What I am guessing this means is that they may prevent the organisers from access to the grond to lay out the cards in advance.

Thats funny, I have read the report and it quite clearly says £55M, of which £27M can be covered without any effort. I wonder why no news outlet are saying Rangers could owe as little as £18M? This surely is just as sensational as saying it could be £___ (enter your own ridiculously made up figure)

Now Real Radio are stating a figure that could reach £150M!!! It looks like a challenge to see which media outlet can turn what could be as low as £18M into a figure which could be as high as £150. I'll go for BBC Scotland news at 6.30 to go for approaching £200M. For those not having seen the document, the figure is £55M which includes £26M for ticketus, which disappears if TBK buy the club, £7.7M for Debentures which have to be included on paper but wont be repaid, and £3.3M to other clubs which is covered by the £3.5M we are due FROM other clubs. The BTC has not been declared yet, and Rangers and Murray's lawyers are still confident of winning this case, so to include up to £90M as a factual figure in early mhedia reporting is laughable at best and scaremongering at worst.

Because the first report from this meeting came from FF, a lot of bears took the view that this must have been a RST event. It took a while to get the point over that it was a mixed consortium that agreed this, but this was accepted once it was accurately explained. I think everyone knows and accepts what the red card protest is all about now and are mostly supportive.

Thats not too bad. Given that Ticketus are either going to deal with TBK or get stuffed in lengthy court action, we can safely rule that money out of the equation. We can rule out the debentures as this wont need to be paid. The money owed to other clubs is covered by the money owed to us by other clubs, so nothing to worry about there. That leaves your general day to day creditors and the tax man. HMRC are saying (privately) that they wont be difficult to deal with, even if they get a 100% win in the BTC which is very unlikely. I can see absolutely no reason why a CVA cannot be reached with these creditors getting a reasonable deal that they wont turn down. The outrageous part of it, as expected is that D&P have earned about £1.2M already. The 2 partners (assuming they havent pulled in more partners to work on the gravy train, sorry case) must be working (or billing) around 70 hours per week to have got their part of this fee to the level it is at. A company (us) trading at around £40M turnover (excl Europe)is accruing Admin costs of around 30% of its entire turnover, pro-rata. Nice work if you can get it.