Stimpy

Would a helpful Bear like to stick the Trust Logo on this instead of the Rangers crest? Thanks in advance.

Have tried thinking/recalling my expectations back then and I either never had any or just can't remember as things took one turn after another.

That's my dream. Save me a fortune.

Yeah, it's all very confusing. Clear as mud!

As well Dermot lives in the ROI or his car would be burnt out!

The two current members of the Association that sit on the RST board are stepping down with another coming on board as their replacement. Not sure who chaired the meeting but I've been told from two very different people the statement is not a reflection of what was said or agreed. Further to that, I was also told all reps present have asked for minutes of the meeting without any success. Being friends with the RTID NI chairman, I talked today with him over this. He agrees with unity, as does everyone, but won't be getting involved in favouring any group. It's all about Rangers for RTID NI.

They done the same when they qualified for the CL. All for our benefit methinks. Journos wet themselves over the result too and feel the need to big up the SPL.

Did he really say all of that?

As would I.

Must be creditors since the shares belonged to the oldco?

Yeah, you're correct but I think D&P have recuperated some of the money form the sale?

:flute::flute: :drum::drum:

Can anyone tell me how many players from the ROI have played for us?

If it's who I think it is, and I'm 90%+ sure of their source, then I have no reason to doubt this.

RTID NI Meeting, Welders, Belfast. Summary of the eveningâ??s discussion â?¢ The committee and body of the hall both discussed, and expressed their willingness to have more clubs involved from outside of Belfast and North Down. From the discussion two RSC members from South Down and Antrim were unanimously elected onto the committee. The committee will further write to RSCs and extend the invitation to be elected onto the committee. â?¢ Charles Green will be visiting NI next Thursday. There will be an open meeting (Q&A) with RSCs and individual supporters. However, there are limited spaces so we will allocate around 75% to RSC reps and 25% for season ticket holders in NI. Details on how to book your seat will be made available tomorrow evening. â?¢ RTID NI will endorse the Community Share Scheme the RST announced earlier this month. All in attendance saw the value of such a scheme and what it will bring to Rangers FC and the greater support. â?¢ The committee agreed that RTID NI requires an official website and will seek out web developers to construct and host the site. â?¢ Two members of the hall will organise a Xmas function on behalf of RTID NI. Some good music, great company and all to further RTID NIâ??s cause, and indeed Rangers. â?¢ RTID NI will endorse and fully support the proposed Famine Memorial thatâ??s going up in Glasgow. The hall was very much in favour of the memorial representing both sides of the community affected by the famine. â?¢ RTID NI will have a covenant drawn up along with an official constitution. The meeting came to a close with an agreement to organise the next one following on from Charles Greenâ??s visit to Northern Ireland.

Hope you never take down my particulars if you ever have to arrest me. Banged up for life.

Whoa, 2-3 months was tweeted. Came from another member of his family.

Second last paragraph is bollocks. Other than Rangers fans, the rest have assumed guilt.

The Rangers Supporters Trust has been in correspondence with former Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston and he has kindly agreed that we publish a synopsis of his thoughts on a variety of salient points in order that fans can have a better appreciation of the facts. Let me explain my personal motivation here. If in any way I can spread my sentiments, which are based on a combination of knowledge of the facts, interpretation of events, and a philosophical understanding of culpability as it relates to punishment, that in some way would cause the Tribunal that is sitting to determine the destiny of Rangers heritage to pause for thought and provide more objective consideration of the case before them, then my agenda will be to a greater extent served. I just can’t sit by on the side-lines and watch a miscarriage of justice be activated by a kangaroo court. It is not my personal objective to denigrate the football institutions of Scotland, but their actions and words go a long way to influencing public opinion as to the interpretation of the events that have taken place and how members of the public frame their own opinions as a result. The whole process has been established to satisfy a self-serving agenda by vested interests in the SPL. The SFA, however, is the supreme governing body of Scottish football and should invoke its ultimate authority to forestall the inevitable inequity that will ensue if the capital punishment decision is left to the SPL. The SFA is complicit in all of this because they have not at least up until now had the courage to publicly acknowledge that they either ignored or did not really understand the well-publicized structure surrounding the relationship that Rangers FC had with certain of its players. I have been reviewing my files from around April 2011 relating to the annual routine of Rangers FC applying for and being granted a license to participate in organized football in Scotland. Because of the publicity surrounding our club at the time, the SFA wrote to us asking for more details about the public speculation concerning our financial and tax situation. The latter obviously referenced the impact of the EBT schemes as creating a potential taxation liability. The club responded accordingly and provided details, as it had done in previous years, by declaring player salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc., but also payments made to a Remuneration Trust. The SFA compliance officers must have known, both from the description and context of the reports, that such expenditures had some connection to player compensation. However, without any further investigation at the time, Rangers FC received its SFA license to compete in the 2011/2012 season. Rangers, therefore, were entitled to believe that they were not in breach of any SFA regulation requiring reporting of player compensation. If there was any question that the essence of these payments to a Remuneration Trust could have endangered the proud historical record of our team, then why was it not raised long before then. At best, the SFA is relying on inconsistent interpretation of its own rules, and to do this retrospectively is totally at odds with underlying principles of equity in the law. A lawyer representing Celtic recently was successful in having charges against that club dropped because of the inadequacy of the SFA's prescribed rules, regulations, and sanctions. The same principle should apply here. If the SFA now decide to adopt a more focused evaluation of the data they request from its members in order to be granted a license, they should ensure that the legislation upon which they rely for enforcement and the corresponding sanctions are more transparent and predictable. Let me also address the prevailing mood in certain quarters that seems determined to pile on to Rangers when they are vulnerable as confusion over the current structure and authority has allowed allegations and conjecture to trump reality as the institution of the club seems now to be a pawn where rhetoric, no matter how real or substantiated, prevails. Inflammatory and emotional words have been used and recited to justify this rush to judgment which I believe are fundamentally ill founded and out of proportion to the realities of the events that transpired. First, when the previous football commission reported on EBT’s in a very high profile statement, they took the view that if Rangers was indeed guilty of structuring EBT schemes that transgressed the law or the rules of the relevant federations, then this was “close to match fixing.” This is the headline that in my opinion prompted the determination to slay Rangers with capital punishment, which in the case of our club would retrospectively alter the records of our historical achievements of which we are all so proud. “Match fixing” has connotations that correctly relate to bribery and corruption involving players and referees, fielding players that did not meet the criteria and qualifications of the governing bodies, e.g. they were over the age limit, or they were registered to another club, or they were playing while they had been banned for previous misdemeanours, etc., etc. Rangers has never been accused of or been remotely involved in any activity that would justify the terminology that whatever transgressions they might be found guilty of perpetrating was close to “match fixing.” Secondly, and this is really important to the extent that it is a phrase that is prominent in the rhetoric of those whose objective is to crucify Rangers, and that is “financial doping.” The term as I interpret it is an attempt to relate an activity that is outlawed generally throughout the world of sport and regarded as cheating and taking undue advantage of banned stimulants and conjure up a connection with the financial mechanics of a club that has acknowledged that it in the clear light of day and very transparently embraced the use of Remuneration Trusts. Our opponents maintain, illogically, that without the use of EBT’s Rangers would have been unable to afford the quality of players that they fielded and thus gained an advantage over other clubs against which they competed. As an aside, it is interesting to recognize that there has been no complaints about Rangers fielding such players in the Champions League, the Europa League, etc., but the current accusations are being promoted not coincidentally by other members of the SPL who are now attempting to act as judge, jury and executioner against their consistently most potent rival. The reality of the situation is that Sir David Murray, who was intimately involved in the architecture of these efforts to organize the business in a way to mitigate taxation which is totally legitimate and acceptable under all tenets of the law, would have signed and paid for these very same players whether or not EBT schemes were in effect or not. The only difference being one which only has a financial consequence, i.e. it would have increased Rangers reliance on bank debt. During most of the period under investigation by the upcoming SPL Tribunal, he as well as his company enjoyed a very mutually productive relationship with the Bank of Scotland. The Rangers Board, of which I was a member, consistently believed that if and when the debt reached a level where the bank became uncomfortable, Sir David as he did in 2004 when he underwrote a subscription for Rangers shares and thus eliminated much of the bank debt, would be able and willing to repeat this recovery effort. Whether or not he ultimately would have done so is now irrelevant, but what is clear is that “financial doping” is not and could never be construed as describing a situation where a club extends its credit facilities with a recognized financial institution. The level of the debt that a club is willing to tolerate, whether you are Celtic or Manchester United, is determined by that club in conjunction with the lender. Whether the amount involved is £10 million or £600 million is irrelevant to the principle. On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the malfeasance created by Craig Whyte when he manifestly used funds that did not belong to Rangers, i.e. taxes withheld from employees’ wage checks that rightfully should have been transmitted to HMRC, which avoided him having to invest his own money contrary to his expressed commitment to the Rangers stakeholders to do otherwise, and being either unwilling or unable (or both) to raise any credit to invest into Rangers, exposed our club as a victim of what could be loosely determined as “financial doping.” Thus, Whyte was able to pay the club’s operating expenses including player wages, but it was Rangers which suffered by being ultimately forced into liquidation. Keep in mind, which is not always clear in the molasses of misinformation that is currently circulating, Rangers went into liquidation and suffered all the penalties and sanctions of which we are now aware, solely because of Mr. Whyte’s failure to pay HMRC the withholding tax that the club collected during the short term of his disgraceful proprietorship. Finally, I would hope that the panel which has been charged with investigating Rangers' activities will draw a large circle around a universe of relevant reference points that should be considered in assessing the magnitude of the allegations made against the Club. For example, was the accepted practice of mitigating players overall tax liability utilized by several of the biggest clubs in Europe by drawing up separate contracts segregating off their image rights, which essentially denied that any compensation related thereto was a function of their obligation to play football, any different in principle than the alleged actions of Rangers FC?

Been told Green sought legal advice on this statement and not attending. He covered all the basis from what I'm led to believe.

100% agree with this Craig, however, I really do feel that we should do better. Serbia looked awful, in fact one of the few international sides that's perhaps technically inferior to ourselves. Levein's ego means our best striker is not even in the squad. Fletcher is no world beater but a damn site better than Miller who looked worse for wear today. We can do better but we're no means at the qualifying stage yet. Glorious failure is our best chance.

Fook. If we're kicking him then the prize money goes up tenfold.

Not going to disagree but, for example, my partner was christened in a Presbyterian Church, she believes in god, and no longer attends church. In fact, she hasn't attended church in the time I've been with her which is over 10 years. She still has faith and makes the odd prayer. She's protestant and I highly doubt no one can tell her any different. The other side is she would never call herself staunch! That's the point I was making.

I don't get that part, that so many feel you have to attend church to be religious. Similar to folk saying you have to go to Ibrox to support Rangers even though we have more fans than Ibrox can hold. For the record I'm an atheist, but I do like criticising the Catholic Church because of how they generally conduct themselves.

Think it was always around £40m. Over £20m in wages but I guess that's dropped dramatically now that we're in division 3. Not sure what other cost cutting measures are in place as Ibrox is never been cheap to run. Perhaps BD or Craig can give us a more accurate breakdown?