T-1000

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

As once determined by the House of Lords in the Brown case though this was not concerned with punching but committing homosexual sado-masochistic acts.

It is not really a matter of whether we like or dislike Ashley more what legal remedy may be available to him should Rangers be delisted and the possibility of this being detrimental Rangers.

I also rather suspect delisting would not be welcomed by institutions, or for that matter Ashley, who presently hold shares in Rangers because there would no longer be a ready market for the sale of their shares and who therefore might find themselves locked in to an investment they no longer want. Whether these shareholders would have available to them some form of legal remedy is a question for a corporate lawyer.

No statement has so far been lodged at Companies House. From the wording of the statement issued by Rangers it may be that Deloittes did not actually resign but instead did not seek re-appointment. However, this would have been evident at the agm where it would be stated that were not seeking re-appointment. Were they in attendance at the agm? Whatever the reasons as Barca has indicated a statement should have been lodged; so it is all a bit odd.

That can't be the reason because we are not playing Partick this year.

Particularly the amount paid to advisors for setting up the meeting, voting arrangement and so on.

Newgate is a city PR/Communication firm with Roddy Watt being one of their client advisors. Not sure what is happening with respect to appointment of a new NOMAD; has anyone heard anything on this?

I think you may have misinterpreted the latter part of the post by Der Berliner.

I agree the board can probably tap into contacts about possible managers that you or I might not be able to do but I would have thought a footballing fan who considers that the board should have had an extensive list of names at the ready would be able to name possibly one or two realistic possibilities who are obviously better than McCall.

I am sure factors such as, availability, cost, fit with Rangers, ability to converse and motivate players all played a part in the decision to hire McCall. What I would like to hear from you are the names of obvious alternatives who you think would have been more appropriate.

I originally the loans were a good move in that it provided competition for places. Now I am beginning to wonder, given their lack of availability, if it was also a bit of a publicity stunt by Ashley to make it look as though he cared about the club and was willing to help. Trying to be positive I suppose it is possible that all five might be fit and available in time for the play-offs.

I also believe it would be useful to hear a bit more about the rationale for the decision that has been taken by Chris Graham. I think the directors' position was made more difficult because of the way their appointment to the board has been protrayed as a new beginning for Rangers. Dave King has also in a number of interviews made it clear that he (and Paul Murray) need to satisfy the authorities that they are 'fit and proper' persons to be a director of Rangers thus acknowledging the importance given to the Directors being individuals of integrity. Thus, if no action had occurred in this instance then they would have left themselves open to the charge that although the faces on the board may have changed critics would allege that it was the same old Rangers. I also think that if Chris wanted to survive he needed to issue an apologetic statement as soon possible after news of the tweet surfaced in an attempt to pre-empt criticism.

Although there seems to be quite a division of opinion on this issue I hope we might agree that it would be useful if Chris Graham learned from this experience of the need to be careful about what he says either in interviews or on the net because now that he is a director his views will be taken, especially by critics of Rangers, as the views of the club.

i must remember that one; 'No dear, I am not having a wank in the toilet, I am having an exchange of cultural ideas'

In addition, the statement by gunslinger is simply false.

Looks as though Ibrox is about to sink :fish2

I think it is possible to talk about religion without offending its participants and I have had conversations with Muslims on many occasions about their religion and as far as I am aware they have not been offended but I will check this out with them. The statement by Dr Asif specifically referred to the particular tweet and therefore I am unsure how you arrive at your final conclusion.

Do you have anyone in mind who is an obvious choice in the long term as someone who would rebuild the footballing side of Rangers. Names I have seen mentioned as managers, such as Butcher, Davies, Weir and so on do not seem to have any clear advantages over McCall. I think he is worth a shout this season and then believe at the end of the season the Directors should re-appraise what he has done and also have a clearer sense of his abilities and vision for a future Rangers.

Perhaps not an attack on Islam but apparently offensive to Muslims as per quote from stv website below: President of Glasgow Central Mosque, Dr Asid Khan, called for Rangers to carry out an internal investigation and branded the tweet "reprehensible". He said: "With freedom of speech comes great responsibility to not offend other people. In this case, such a tweet is very offensive to a large proportion of the population, not only Muslims.

Your assertion above that it would only be good manners to apologise and reference to the tweet being offensive to any Muslim bear seems somewhat inconsistent with your own suggested wording in post 174.

Perhaps to defuse the situation it might be helpful for Chris Graham to apologise if anyone was offended by his tweet and state that it was sent as an immediate reaction to the atrocities in Paris. Personally, I think, given the public nature of twitter, that it was not the smartest of tweets to send and given the media attention it has received it would not surprise me if his other tweets are subject to scrutiny.

I presume in your final comment are are concerned that the youngsters might show the team up.

I suspect the directors having watched the Cowdenbeath and QoS games are now more acutely aware of the need for a quick change if the club is to have any chance of winning the play-offs. A sort term appointment for McCall seems a reasonable idea assuming of course that he is willing to take it. I rather hope if offered the opportunity that he does accept otherwise we might see the names of Ally and Walter in the running. McCall, of course, might not want to take it unless there are assurances about some long term future role. I would suggest, however, that for the longer term it would be good to see the board looking beyond the UK, to Holland, Spain and so on and not just restrict themselves to who might be available in Scotland/England.

Agree re pre-Fulham. Likeable; depends on whether it affects players' motivation and whether it puts players off moving to the club. Anyway, it would seem that King is not in a big hurry to appoint and also appeared to be keener on a coach rather than a manager.