wabashcannonball

It's a papist conspiracy ? personally I blame the shools and a lack of moral values, which we Presbyterians and Wee Free hold so dear. I phoned my nephew in Vancouver, he was OK with his auld uncle waking him up, says to his knowledge there was no meet with Akers in Vegas, said no one mentioned him. The soup gets thinner by the hour, as does everyones expectations and patience.

You're just buttering him up Frankie.....:fish:

There are stories and there are stories, I heard that Muir got his retaliation in first...on behalf of Minty, totally wrong footing the new brush from Lloyds, who had inherited a noose from HBOS. I won't go through it all again, suffice to say that subsequent events have to a great extent proven that Minty held and holds increased leverage, which Muir utilised to the full. Be under no illusions, Muir through no fault of his own is cast as some hatchet man, I for one do not countenance what our possible fate may have been at the hands of an English bank without his expertise.

It may be deeper than that BdTS, the LSE brief not STV. As also picked up by NL, the Offeror in this case RFC Holdings Guernsey were required by the code to respond to press speculation, and as advised by the code respond very carefully, which they did. The question is who leaked and caused the speculation and why, my money says it wasn't anyone working with Mr Ellis.

Through your good offices Boss, could you elicit any details from Mr Canadian Bacon of a private meeting between the NARSA board and Mr Chris Akers, that took place allegedly last Friday in Vegas, all in the pursuit of clarity and the great unwashed being availed of whither fact or fiction.

Just to add fuel to an already out of control fire, STV are now backtracking, maybe someone actually read the LSE brief and understood it, eventually. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/182074-no-certainty-that-offer-for-rangers-will-be-made/

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. :spl:

And most welcome he is to, I find him most affable and fights his corner extremely well, as I must say does NL and RBR, because I may see things differently doesn't make them bad people, it just means we have different views as to the same end....how Minty goes.. ETA........I may not like it but I accept it, there is only one source that matters and that is the Mint.

"Nothing like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted." My information from NARSA - Blows today's media stories out of the water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I started a thread on Friday about my info from NARSA and those of you who saw it will see that I was honest enough to admit that much of what I said was right, other parts weren't. As I told many of you privately, there was a rumour that Andrew Ellis himself was going to be at NARSA. This turned out to be kiech. Sometimes when you ask a straight question, you get a straight answer. The NARSA board had a 'meeting before the meeting' with AJ, Watty and Bain on Friday, which is where Ellis was rumoured to make an appearance. In my infinite wisdom, I specifically asked after the event to someone who may be able to find out if Andrew Ellis himself was in attendance. The answer I got was 'No, but everyone else is'....to which I assumed he meant everyone else from the club. Interestingly enough, I began to have serious doubts over the weekend, given that everyone in Vegas was there for a good time and probably couldn't be bothered to call for a chat, I left it at that and assumed there'd been some sort of misunderstanding. But the more I thought about it, the more frustrated I got. How could you get something like that wrong? That led to be a couple of days later when I managed to catch up with some people who were in attendance. The answer I received to the question about Andrew Ellis being at NARSA was the correct one. But as it turned out, maybe I asked the wrong question? If only I'd asked 'Is Chris Akers there'? I'm pretty sure I would've got a more positive answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by BdTS; Today at 09:52.

Nobody tells Murray anything, haven't you noticed, that is unless you may think "they" have pumped in an extra �£150 mill for the "privelege".

Aye you were lucky enough to play with a full back who was as good as any winger too, the great Eric Caldow....are you listening ashley cole ya fud, it brings a mist to my eye when I think of those wonderful days and getting locked out of Ibrox on a Wednesday night for a league cup game against Motherwell, fantastic crowds fantastic days, never will I see the likes again...:robbo:

I really don't see what the issue was, as there wasn't one. Muir was and is an employee of Murray not the bank, why people. Smith included spread malicious nonsense to the contrary is the real question.

Naw your OK Scotty......I remember you weel tearing doon the right wing, and it wiz a real T bladder in those days, made in Partick by John Tomlinsons on Dumbarton road next to Partick station, just down from Woolies...aye those were the days, you didn't need a degree in skulduggery to watch the fitba....

The last word as always, will be Minty's. PS......."Where an offeror is marked "Disclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required", dealings and positions in relevant securities of that offeror are not required to be disclosed under Rule 8 of the Takeover Code (the "Code"). This is either because it has been announced that the offer or possible offer is, or is likely to be, solely in cash or because disclosure is not required for some other reason." That begs another question, it is more than likely a cash deal, so what the fek have they been discussing for months, when they haven't agreed a price.

PART 2 The other article published on the 13th of February, "The saviour within?", covered much of the ground that is covered in the early parts of this article, but put simply, it stated that Donald Muir was the man who was perhaps better equipped than anyone else to bring Rangers back from the brink. If Walter was working wonders on the pitch, Muir was the man to work wonders off it – and he has succeeded. Has this article been vindicated like the "State of the Rangers" article? Absolutely. This is perhaps a little bit more intangible and difficult to 'prove' than the other article as there are no cold hard published facts relating Muir to certain 'victories'. Admittedly it still takes a little conjecture to shine the spotlight rightly onto Donald Muir - but every attempt should be made – it's the least the man deserves after the character assassination that was directed at him to suit others own ends. After all, before Muir where were we? To paraphrase a much used analogy, the club was sailing 'rudderless'. We'd been up for sale for what seemed like an age, no closer to finding a buyer. We hadn't signed a player for two seasons. The club was saddled with mounting debts and a sugar daddy owner who'd lost the will to fight for the club – at least front of house. Presently, we now stand on the eve of another momentous pivot point in the history of Rangers Football Club. Through all of the political posturing in the corridors of power in Ibrox over the last few months it now seems that Andrew Ellis has pushed himself to the front of the queue and is ready to make a move for the club, with an LSE announcement being made that talks were at an advanced stage. We know very little about Andrew Ellis, his intentions for the club or his financial backing, other than the fact that he wants Murray to stay as an honorary president and wanted Smith to be kept on as manager – as he has (thanks to negotiations with a certain 'enemy within'). The club is certainly a much, much better prospect for Ellis and his team than it was before Donald Muir was part of the Rangers board. He, alongside Martin Bain, Alastair Johnston and the rest of the board have wrangled much of the uncertainty, speculation and troubled times away from the club. This is not to say that everything is now rosy in the garden, we are still faced with tough times and many finger nails will be bitten to the nub before the season even starts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'll concede that, but if there was ever a better example of how media and agenda driven Chinese Whispers can get it spectacularly wrong then the story of Rangers in season 2009/2010 is the archetype. It was whipped to fever pitch that weekend in February and the sniping at the authors of these articles and Muir felt just shows how much it hurts people with vested interests and agendas know they are backing the only wrong team in town and believing the wrong whispers. Of course, the immediate rebuttal which would be the go-to argument for the anti-Muir brigade will be that the 'pressure' they asserted will have somehow had a butterfly effect on the present outcome. For me, that has as much strength as a straw man fallacy. Internet discussion on topics is to be expected. A disagreement on opinion is to be expected; in fact, on RangersMedia it is actively encouraged. Yet I'm sure that the authors of these articles are aware of that – I mean, one of them opened with the assertion that he'd need to fire on his tin hat before proceeding. However, a man like Donald Muir, lifelong fan of the club, simply did not deserve what he was faced with by some sections of the support. Will he be vindicated for his role? Will he be awarded apology or even a nod of appreciation? Will he be looked upon as the man that was pivotal in the reinvigoration of Rangers Football Club as it faced one of the most difficult times in its history? Not if we let it be brushed under the carpet alongside Graham Duffy. I for one would like to applaud Muir for his steely determination and broad shoulders and I will always thank him for being one of the fundamental factors in bringing the club I love to my core back from the brink. Perhaps one day in years to come, in a spirit of peace, love and harmony, we can invite Mr Muir back to be our chief executive after all. And we'll all live happily ever after.

from RM reiterating what we always knew here. Serious question....what exactly was Smith up to and why, was he spittin the dummy because Muir was advising against giving him to much money to waste, or was he firing bullets for another takeover faction, whatever it was Smith owes Donald Muir an apology at the very least and the supporters an insight into his allegations. It's the evening of Saturday the 13th of February 2010. Placards are being readied; banners are being kept under lock and key, their contents a matter of whisper. Flurries of internet activity, text messages and phone calls being exchanged on an hourly basis, the preparations are nearing completion. A section of the Rangers support was ready to protest. The night before the day when lovers the world over are preparing to reach their arms around their significant others and remind themselves of the affection and love they have in their shared bond. In the world of Rangers, it was the eve of one of the most important games in the 2009/10 season. The midweek before, we had endured a stuffy draw with Motherwell leaving the supporters frustrated at not being able to capitalise on the hapless and deteriorating performances of Tony Mowbray's Celtic. Come Saturday however, Celtic drew with Aberdeen in an epic eight goal encounter leaving Rangers with the impetus to beat Hibs on Sunday and surge the club to a ten point lead over our greatest rivals and potentially onward toward a second successive league title. Purely on the football pitch, Valentine's Day was to be a pivotal moment in the season; however, this was also being echoed off the pitch amongst supporters and the tone was certainly not of free love blowing through the Govan air. Ever since the turn of the year there had been speculation brewing from many different quarters about the financial circumstance that Rangers was perceived to be in - swimming against a tide of debt, facing a future stripped to a skeleton. Forty days to find a buyer or face an existence on par with St Mirren was the whisper that became the 'news'. Troublesome noises were reverberating from a Scottish media with a taste of blood in their mouths; threads and articles were being scrawled with haste from commercially run forums acting as judge, jury and executioner, cynically you could say to profit from advertising hits; 'fan chiefs' were popping up on the radio to offer their views on the turmoil yet, the default position adopted by almost all Rangers fans was one of bewilderment and a genuine thirst to just be told the truth. Rangers were being portrayed by both friend and foe as a pauper on the street corner, crippled by financial pressures being ramped up by Lloyds Bank, waiting for its remaining possessions to be stripped almost personally by the devil incarnate; the so called "enemy within", Donald Muir. Donald Muir was appointed to the Rangers board without much fanfare in October 2009 and introduced as having "more than 25 years' experience of strategy implementation and business transformation activity internationally in a variety of industry sectors". He has a bulletproof reputation in the city as a turnaround specialist and therefore he undoubtedly had the confidence of the bank to make a positive impact on the club. He was brought in by Sir David Murray who at the time was subject to mounting rumours of a badly recession-hit MIH; however we were told publicly that he was not appointed by the bank and does not get paid by them. But of course that doesn't stop conjecture and speculation - after all, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I digress; let's get back to the narrative. So there we stood in the few days running towards the weekend of Valentines day; staring into the void of uncertainty and muddied waters - with rumour of financial meltdown aided and abetted Lloyds with Muir cast as the treacherous puppet master. Pressures were being ramped up by media sources across the country through a number of mediums. Some of the Rangers support decided to get proactive. Tired of waiting for answers, a group of fans decided to get out there and make things happen for themselves and by proxy, for everyone else. A protest was hastily arranged. Despite reported investment, public relations at Rangers has been poor for a long time, there's no doubt about it. In many respects, the Rangers' Board deserved the Protest that was hashed together first over the internet and then by a thrown together steering committee with bears from different walks. Had there been a bit more involvement of the support, a bit more openness, a bit more clarity from the club, there would have been no need for the support to seek answers through these pound the street means, as these, to me at least, have always whiffed of the unwashed. The spreading wings of the protest could have been clipped with ease however, nipped at the bud. Our incumbent Chairman could have done the type of televised interview that our former Chairman was sometimes so adept at when it came to the crunch and he decided to pull his head above the parapet. But that didn't come. Johnston is the strong silent type and is almost always straight down the middle. Even a dampening official press release would have put some minds at rest. But that didn't come either. So the supporters decided that they had no other option but to take to the streets. However, somewhere along the line the plans for the protest became distorted, a machine gun style quest for answers from everyone, someone, became more focussed and Muir became the target once again for many. One of the Rangers forums going as far as to invoke a filter making the phrase "enemy within" automatically appear whenever his name was typed - their eggs were placed firmly in their basket on this issue. Message boards were awash with arguments about the motivation of the protest. Some arguments carried old baggage, yet most inquisitive minds just wanted clarity about what exactly the protest was aimed at, never mind what was going on at the club. Petty swiping became prevalent; with different 'camps' emerging with people who were for a protest and some that felt it was unnecessary. One the eve of the protest these camps were at a standstill, the protest was to carry on regardless, as was their prerogative and the people who thought it unnecessary got on with preparing to head to Ibrox to support the team as they did week in week out. However, it was at this precise juncture that two articles appeared on this website. One entitled "Rangers Protests ââ?¬â?? Donald Muir, the Saviour Within?" and another given the title "State of the Rangers - This is the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth". In all honesty, the protest went largely un-noticed, all the bluster soon was yesterdays news; a damp squib with some predictable and pointless banners alongside some genuine and impassioned requests for clarity. One thing that did happen was that the authors of both of the aforementioned articles were immediately given treatment by fellow Rangers supporters that Muir had became accustomed to ââ?¬â?? their characters being sniped at from faceless internet assassins whose identities, allegiances and motivations were easily unmasked from behind their monikers. The "State of the Rangers" article contained the assertions of one of the staff members of this site and the information obtained was completely contradictory to the narrative that had been pushed by the media and by some factions of the dissenting Rangers support. In summary, this article pointed to the following bullet points of information: ââ?¬Â¢ Rangers will not be downsized next season and the bank doesn't run Rangers. There is a business plan agreed and the bank will be serviced with a repayment of Ã?£1 million per year towards reducing the debt ââ?¬Â¢ The budget for player's salaries will be the same next season as it is this season. ââ?¬Â¢ Contract offers have been made to Boyd, Novo & Broadfoot and, if they wanted to, they could sign them tomorrow. ââ?¬Â¢ If Rangers win the league and therefore qualify for the Champions League there will be a budget for the manager to strengthen the squad, but at the moment he cannot buy players until he sells to keep in line with the business plan. If we take a cursory look at the statements made in the press recently by Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain and Walter Smith since the end of this season - every one of these four key assertions has came to fruition. In fact, it reads much like a summary of the news that has came from the club in recent weeks. The million pound repayment was not news to some at the writing of the article as it had been outlined in the end of year accounts a matter of months before. The bank were, and still are, satisfied with this agreement; the doubts that this was not the case and that the bank were going to call in all the debt at once was only ever a rumour - hearsay designed to cause mischief and to worry our support when the facts of the matter were there for everyone to see. What of the budget for next season? Well an exact figure has not been outlined, presumably as there is no such thing as a fixed budget for Smith to work from. It's all relative - spend more on wages and new contracts, have less for transfer fee's and visa versa - common sense really. But in terms of a ballpark figure, Ã?£5 million seems to be the universally agreed banding that Bain and Johnston confirmed which is based on a percentage of the guaranteed Champions League monies. As predicted. For clarity; "We have agreed with Lloyds that we can spend some of the Champions League income and we also hope to maintain wage levels as they currently stand and reinvest any transfer proceeds that we might have." Martin Bain (26/05/10)

Another day in fairy dell...... THE deal which could end Sir David Murray's Ibrox reign WON'T be sealed by the weekend. SunSport revealed yesterday how London-based property tycoon Andrew Ellis is fast closing in on a deal to buy Rangers. That was confirmed in a statement issued by Ellis' company last night which admitted negotiations are at an 'advanced' stage. Suggestions the takeover will be completed by Friday were described as premature by both parties. Sources close to the Ellis consortium, and Gers owner Murray, insisted NO agreement has yet been finalised. Talks between Ellis - who is being backed by Arab investors - and the Murray Group ARE on-going, but the Ibrox takeover saga now looks set to rumble on. Ellis remains the ONLY interested party and, with former Leeds chairman Chris Akers, he is working on a �£33million buy-out that would wipe out most of Rangers' debts. He's still some way short of acquiring Murray's controlling interest in Gers. If a deal is not done, SunSport understands that Murray would have no hesitation in taking the club OFF the market.A source close to the deal last night told SunSport: "It will not be done by Friday. Talks are still going on but it's not reached a conclusion yet." The news will further frustrate fans who have been concerned about the future of Rangers ever since Murray announced in 2006 he was planning to sell up. The Ellis Group, operating under the name RFC Holdings, have been studying the books at Rangers for four months. It's understood they have secured a promise of Middle East funding. Ellis and Akers believe Gers will make a �£10m profit next year - and further speculate projected sales will be �£55m over the next 12 months. If the takeover goes ahead boss Walter Smith could be handed a �£10m transfer war chest with Murray being given the role of honorary president. The statement from RFC Holdings said: "The company confirms that it is in advanced negotiations to acquire a controlling interest in Rangers Football Club. "However, no price has been agreed and no timing has been established for the conclusion of the talks." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...#ixzz0qOuXofGi

It has been intoned to me, that SDM may be mounting up.

I believe it will not happen, but why this long drawn out fiasco is anyone's guess, that's what Minty does best keeps us guessing and always to his advantage. The statement from the stock exchange throws up more questions than it answers, it was allegedly previously a done deal or claimed to be, we have a statement from the SE stating no deal is imminent or price agreed. The whole episode is becoming more than farcial, it would be good if someone like Bluedell good major the "known facts" together and only verifiable facts, and give a layman's terms overview of the position as it stands at this moment. I am aware if Ellis had denied the DM story, he would have disqualified himself from any bidding for six months, to have done so would have been amateurish in the extreme, and served no purpose other than disqualification. I am in agreement with most that Minty's time has passed, but it would be foolish to even attempt to second guess him, while all this is going on Minty is allegedly maintaining a "dignified" silence, when all is said and done we are not any further forward than when Ellis first came on the scene.

Or mirrors.

xRegulatory Story Go to market news section Company RFC Holdings (Grnsy) TIDM Headline Stmnt re. Press Comment on Rangers Football Club Released 18:21 09-Jun-2010 Number 3649N18 RNS Number : 3649N RFC Holdings (Guernsey) Limited 09 June 2010  9 June 2010 RFC Holdings (Guernsey) Limited ("RFC" or the "Company") Announcement re Press Speculation regarding Rangers Football Club Plc RFC, which is controlled by Andrew Ellis, notes today's press reports regarding discussions between the Company and Sir David Murray. The Company confirms that it is in advanced negotiations with Sir David Murray to acquire a controlling interest in Rangers Football Club Plc ("Rangers") however no price has been agreed and no timing has been established for the conclusion of the talks. If a deal is concluded between Sir David Murray and RFC, the Company would be required under Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers immediately to make an offer for the remaining issued share capital of Rangers. It is emphasised that this announcement does not amount to a firm intention to make an offer and there is no certainty that any offer will be forthcoming or as to the terms of such an offer. For further information please contact: Astaire Securities Plc 020 7448 4400 Antony Legge / Gavin Burnell The directors of RFC accept responsibility for the information contained in this announcement. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the directors of RFC (who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this announcement for which they accept responsibility is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information. This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END This should cover it. Rule 2.8 provides that a person who makes a statement that he does not intend to make an offer for a company will normally be bound by that statement for a period of six months (unless there is a material change of circumstances and subject to any specific reservations set out in the statement). Occasionally, speculation will appear in the press concerning a possible offer by a particular person, when the reputed offeror has in fact not been considering any offer for the company in question and there is no foundation for that speculation. The reputed offeror must in such circumstances take care, if he chooses to comment on the speculation, not to make a statement of a kind to which Rule 2.8 applies if he does not wish to be bound by the statement for a period of six months. The Executive should be consulted before a statement is made in such circumstances. A public statement simply denying that the speculation has any foundation is likely to be construed by the Executive as a statement that the reputed offeror has no intention to bid for the company concerned.

This article raises another question, the RSA were allegedly assured proof of funding had been tabled, this article if true questions that proof of funding. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks/noon-deadline-as-arabs-linked-to-rangers-buy-out-1.1033817 Probably not a lot in itself, but just another piece of possible misinformation in a long list, for what should be a straight forward business deal.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.murray-international.co.uk%2Fnews_archive%2Fpremier_property_group%2Fnews02.htm&ei=pHMPTIrrG4eRnwfCptieDQ&usg=AFQjCNGxrrl3T_v8d_VNpdvq801Gu392CA http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/06/09/rangers-owner-david-murray-unveils-plans-for-180m-housing-development-86908-22320991/ How skint is skint, or is it just bad reporting 11 years late.

No bluedell I do not disagree with you, you always make good sense, don't let the ramblings of an auld man make you doubt that, but I always cling to the hope that there are people with integrity and a sense of duty above all whither on the Rangers board or in other high places. A foolish hope I know, but there it is.

0141 580 8606 ... Have stated that no announcement is expected from the club.