RANGERRAB

Does he need to stop play?

I don't know for sure but I'd have thought so.

By allowing play to continue WHAT IF McCulloch got back and cleared off his own goal-line to prevent hertz scoring? Or Rangers got possession from which McCulloch scored?

That's why when a player is to get sent off I'd always thought play would get stopped immediately unless there was a clear goal-scoring opportunity, which wasnt the case yesterday.

As discussed on RM, why did the referee allow play to continue if he considered McCulloch's 'challenge' to be a straight red card?

Should he not have stopped play immediately & sent him off if he considered it to be a straight red?

Looking at those highlights it would appear the referee gets a clear view of the incident and wouldnt have needed any input from the AR or forth official?

An interesting OP but I've two brief comments about LeeMcCulloch:-

1) he is not good enough to play CB for Rangers

2) if he is currently earning £18k p.w. or thereabouts then that is a scandalous amount of money to be paying someone as things stand at Rangers. That money could be much better spent elsewhere at Rangers. Ditto his pal McCoist too

In terms of home attendances Newcastle must be the third most-watched side in the EPL(behind Man Utd & Arsenal).

No wonder their supporters despair at their lack of success & ambition shown by their owners...

Good is he?

Playing in the top league in Holland suggests to me he's a better bet than signing out-of-contract SPL dross like McCoist did

Everyone up front is out of contract at rhe end of this season. Getting suitable replacements for them will be the biggest challenge for Stuart McCal(assuming he's still there)

Adam was/is a luxury player who needs 'workers' beside him to do the spadework he doesnt do.That's OK in a team not at the top level that Adam has played for such as St Midden, Blackpool or Stoke.

At clubs such as Rangers & Liverpool that doesnt work.

The SPFL (if we get there) is a bigger stage than the Eredivisie, do me a favour.

Its only bigger if Rangers are in it

This is the calibre of player we should be looking at IMO

who will simply be replaced by another Rangers hating muppet!

Gerry McCulloch maybe?

Shirdel never got into the first team at Hamburg did he?

do we not have some kind of European ban to serve

As I understand we need theee years of audited accounts before we get back into European competition. Since the newco was set up we've had two sets of accounts so presumably by the end of next season we'll have had the third set and would be going for a Euro spot either via league position(providing we're in the top division) or via SC.

Thats how I understand it but maybe either Bd or FS could clarify

Well, you'd have to ask the SFA that. I don't know why they're dragging their heels as given the club's financial problems the issue should be fast-tracked.

 

King has also gone to the Court of Session on the issue so that shows how seriously he's taking this issue. One would hope that will happen soonest as well.

 

Personally, like Cantor Fitzgerald it seems, I don't think there will be an issue but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.

Would the SFA apply the same set of rules to King that they applied to Whyte? Or did they sit back,do nothing and allow Whyte to cause the expected carnage to Rangers as it helped Liewell's club get a free run at the CL every year?

I'm not King's greatest fan but it would be interesting to see if the SFA tried to prevent him joining the Rangers board. DD over in the East End has a very colourful past over in his native Ireland, especially in his dealings with disgraced former Irish PM's. Was that ever taken into account?

As I posted yesterday to no reply it's a bizarre rumour when Douglas Park was appointed as a director within hours of the EGM result. Did you point that out to your source?

 

Douglas' group have board representation and while I'd hope there was some healthy competition of ideas with King and Murray, the suggestion they'll have fallen out over less than a million pounds given their solid reasoning for King not being able to commit to the short-term loan seems rather exaggerated to me.

 

Let's be clear: King has yet to be confirmed as fit and proper (apart from an as yet unknown NOMAD). As such if King put money into the club or acted as a director then it may be the case the SFA would hold the club accountable. That's why King hasn't been involved so far which also suggests that corporate governance is now a priority instead of something we play fast and loose with.

 

It's that risk and flouting of rules that ultimately caused AIM to delist us and anyone attempting to say differently is making mischief for reasons only known to themselves.

So when will DK be considered F&P by the SFA and be able to sit on the RIFC plc board?

End of the day it's now up to King, Murray and co to prove we don't need any money from institutions

This will be what makes or breaks the board which was elected at the start of last month.

As a business Rangers are trading at a loss which is unsustainable longterm without funding from somewhere.

If that funding is not to come from institutions or Ashley loans where will it come from?

T3b ? King? Do these people have the funds we require? Can their self-appointed spokespersons vouch for this?

It's exactly the point.

 

It'll be the same people investing as would have if we were still listed.

who will be investing then? do tell us

Seriously who the f*&k else was ever going to invest in us?

Not the point. Which shareholders is the statement referring to ?

The delisting probably does not matter to the ordinary Rangers supporter who has bought 500 shares mainly because I would suggest this fan buys the shares not as a traditional investment but for support and sentimental reasons.

 

If, however, you own a substantial bundles of shares, say for argument sake 9% of the share capital you might be a little concerned about who has sufficient resources to purchase your shares and at what price. To this extent your investment in this case is locked in to Rangers. I would have thought such an investor might then look for an exit strategy or compensation. On this we will have to wait and see.

 

The other issue that is now clearer is that funds for taking Rangers forward will have to come from individuals or organisations such as Rangers First. It is to be hoped that such supporters have sufficiently deep pockets

Unless DK has the funding we really are in the brown stuff now................

Namely King and T3B if the fans don't partake.

I doubt very much if T3B have the funds

The stage is very much Mr King's..................

Here's the bit which worries me from the club statement:

it is the Board's view that the Company's future capital requirements can be met by shareholders

Saw this news on the BBC website earlier, obviously after reading this thread it reads better here in reflection to DK's 'broken' promise. It is clear that this wont be the last piece of news pointing fingers at the new regime when it should be firmly pointed at the old one.

We were led to believe a NOMAD would get appointed.

The old board managed to get a NOMAD

We survived for years pre-Whyte with a restricted market so not sure why we can't go forward on that basis as well.

when we had SDM & MIH. Who have we got now?

Let's get a few things straight here:

 

1. There was a NOMAD employed by King to survey the task in hand.

2. They found King (and his colleagues) fit and proper which is important.

3. Unfortunately, they couldn't commit to the full-time job because of the external pressures involved via AIM complaints.

4. Nevertheless, the club have put in place a short term solution while looking to join PLUS which we used reasonably successfully previously.

5. All in all, it's not the end of world and yes Dave King looks a bit foolish but the only people to blame for this are those who played fast and loose within previous regime(s).

Join PLUS ?

Well, that's completely untrue.

Well what are they worth then?

your shares are pretty much worthless

I wonder what Ashley & the remaining Institutional investors course of action might be now ??