barca72

This part is very encouraging. Patience will be required, it appears. " Mather touched on the issue of taking the club’s detractors to task and alluded to the fact he feels Rangers must choose their battles with wisdom. He was keen to stress those at the top of the club’s hierarchy are aware of who has tried to hurt the Light Blues in the past. And he highlighted that Gers will stand up for themselves and strike back – but only when the time is right. Mather added: “There will be times when you want us to tackle our enemies and it will seem like we’re somehow reluctant to do so or that we don’t care. “You might believe we don’t feel hurt to the same extent as you but I’m here to tell you we do. “Sometimes you have to wait. We have chosen and we will continually choose the right moment to strike. “Please, please never believe that I or any other directors don’t know the names of the people who have tried to damage this club. We know all of them.“We know what each one tried to do and I can assure you we will never, ever forget about that. “Rangers is on its way back now and it’s more alive and united than ever. These gatherings show that and you are powerful proof of that.”

As I read you here you have two points, i) If we receive an offer we should consider it and if it is our best interest we accept it. - Okay, fair enough. I just don't think we shall ever be offered anthing that will be in our best interest, because our best interest is something they have shown to have no taste for. ii) Why we would turn down the merest notion of being fast-tracked. - I don't trust them after the last twelve month. No one has done a due diligence that we have seen that we can believe any of their promises. I have a fear that the cabal will not allow any change in power and we will be in a worse position than we are now, with no allies. I don't believe that the proposed move is legal and will indeed hit snags. We need to have no part in a cabal cover up to save their failing regime. It is just plain wrong to assist in cutting adrift the rest of SFL 2 and SFL 3. You are assuming that whatever offer they bring will be genuine and can be negotiated in good faith. I don't believe that. Finally, I would much rather they do not attempt to fast-track us up the leagues because without trust you have nothing going for you. Really, how can we trust the leadership of Scottish football. Without changes there, I would be inclined to leave well enough alone. With the state of the game and with us in SFL 2, I don't think they can maintain their positions much longer, the leadership that is. If that were to happen and with genuine fair-minded people in their positions I think the game would draw closer. Perhaps then Trust might be possible. p.s. time for a bit of shut-eye on this side of the pond.

You are deflecting from the discussion here. No one but you has mentioned hate, spite, self-pity and self-harm. No one is talking revenge or bragging rights. The discussion here is whether we should accept being fast-tracked to SPL2. You say you want an amicable solution. From whom do you expect that solution to come? Regan, Doncaster, Lawwell and the rest of the cabal? Really? We are NOT asking for anything. We WANT to be able to progress with the task set for us. We have risen above all harms done to us and we ARE making a valuable contribution to our sport. If I remember correctly, Queens Park F.C. have said that because of the gate money they have made due to Rangers visits this season they are more or less set up for the next five or more seasons. All this discussion about SPL2 etc. is at this moment in time nothing but speculation. The most important thing for our club at this time is stability. Stability gives us a springboard from which to grow strong. If we continue to be driven forward by other people's agendas then we will always be off-balance and at the behest of those who wish to control us. I don't understand how you would be willing to call for our club to suck it up and move on when we already have. Just last week when the report about the Green-Whyte relationship was about to be published we had Regan threatening to punish Rangers if it did not meet with his approval. The conditions under which Scottish football is operating at the moment are not of Rangers' making. The "leaders" of Scottish football have created these conditions. The way you lay out your case I get the feeling that you want Rangers to come up with a solution and agree to be subjunctive to the cabal. Sorry, I don't want my club to be beholden to anyone, neither do I want my club to be treated any different from any other club in SFL 2. I see no reason for Rangers to progress in any way other than they are at the moment. We cannot influence any votes. We are not invited to any of the meetings that are supposedly leading the game forward. What would you have us do, other that what the cabal dictates? I, like you, am part of a global support for Rangers that measures in the millions. We have a love for and a pride in our club, because down through the ages this club has shown itself to be a sporting, influential and honourable institution that has conducted its affairs with a responsible dignity second to none. We all know that this club has done nothing wrong other than being owned by first a megalomaniac and second by a complete shyster. I for one would not advocate that our club would engage in any actions, voluntarily, that would jeopardise the loyalty of its support. The supporters are the reason Rangers are here today. They are the ones who will keep Rangers commercially viable. Leave us be to get on with the job. Success is always better when it has been earned. I'll guarantee you that if Rangers are allowed to progress through the leagues to the top of the SPL not one fan will have left the Rangers' family. What was it Mr. Struth had to say about dignity?

We don't owe the SPL anything, under any circumstances. They punished an innocent club fot the sins of a shyster. The history of our club screams dignity. Why would we sell that for a meagre jump of one year.

Cheap thrill at the expence of honour.

Here is an example of the duties of a chairman of the board. There could be variations of course but this lays out a basic template for Walter's duties. ROLE DESCRIPTION for CHAIRMAN of the BOARD 1. PURPOSE The Chairman of the Board shall, together with the Lead Director, as applicable, facilitate the operations and deliberations of the Board of Directors (the â??Boardâ?) and the satisfaction of the Board's functions and responsibilities under its mandate. 2. GENERAL 1. Appointment and Removal of Chairman of the Board - The Chairman of the Board shall be elected annually by the members of the Board at the first meeting of the Board after each annual general meeting of the Company‟s shareholders or between annual general meetings upon the resignation, death, disqualification or removal of the Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall serve at the pleasure of the Board, or until the earlier of the close of the next annual general meeting, the death of the Chairman of the Board or the resignation, disqualification or removal of the Chairman of the Board from the Board. 2. Qualifications - The Chairman of the Board shall be a member of the Board. 3. Access to Management and Outside Advisors - The Chairman of the Board shall have unrestricted access to the Company‟s management and employees. The Chairman of the Board shall have the authority to conduct investigations into any matters within the scope of his or her responsibility, retain and terminate external legal counsel, consultants or other advisors to assist him or her in fulfilling his or her responsibilities and to set and pay the respective compensation for these advisors without consulting or obtaining the approval of the Board or any Company officer. The Company shall provide appropriate funding, as determined by the Chairman of the Board, for the services of these advisors. 3. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Chairman of the Board shall have the functions and responsibilities set out below as well as any other functions that are specifically delegated to the Chairman of the Board by the Board. In addition to these functions and responsibilities, the Chairman of the Board shall perform the duties required of a chairman of a board of directors by the binding requirements of any exchange upon which securities of the Company are traded or any governmental or regulatory body exercising authority over the Company, as are in effect from time to time (collectively, the â??Applicable Requirementsâ?). 1. Board Management a. Chair of Board Meetings - The Chairman of the Board shall chair Board meetings that he or she attends. The Chairman of the Board may vote at a Board meeting on any matter requiring a vote. b. Board Meetings - In consultation with the Lead Director and Chief Executive Officer, the Chairman of the Board shall set the agenda for each Board meeting. Each Board meeting agenda shall include appropriate strategic issues and any other matters requiring approval of, or consideration by, the Board. c. Access to Management and Outside Advisors - On an ongoing basis, the Chairman of the Board shall work with the Lead Director to assess whether the Board and its committees have appropriate administrative support, access to senior management and access to outside advisers for the purposes of the Board fulfilling its mandate. d. Director Performance â?? In consultation with the Corporate Governance Committee and Lead Director, on at least an annual basis, the Chairman of the Board shall lead the review and assessment of director attendance, performance and compensation and the size and composition of the Board. e. Execution of Documents â?? The Chairman of the Board shall sign all contracts, documents or instruments in writing which require his signature. 2. Advisory Matters Relating to the Chief Executive Officer a. Input on Chief Executive Officer Matters â?? Except when the roles of the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer are carried out by the same person, the Chairman of the Board shall provide input to the Corporate Governance Committee in respect of the appointment, removal, evaluation and succession of the Chief Executive Officer. b. Meeting with Chief Executive Officer â?? Except when the roles of the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer are carried out by the same person, the Chairman of the Board shall regularly meet with the Chief Executive Officer to provide feedback and advice on behalf of the Board. On an ongoing basis, the Chairman of the Board shall communicate with the Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of the Board regarding concerns or comments of the Board, shareholders or other stakeholders. 3. Strategic Planning - At least annually, the Chairman of the Board shall review management's strategic planning initiatives. 4. REPORTING TO THE BOARD 1. The Chairman of the Board shall report to the Board on material matters arising in undertaking his or her functions and responsibilities under this mandate and, if necessary, shall make recommendations to the Board for its approval on these matters.

Who says you haven't had it?

from GS english is right we as fans deserve to know what went on. No he's not. We, the fans, have asked the board to get their act together and stop the leaks. Give us statements that report the situation in as clear and calm a manner as is necessary. English has given us this line of guff before where he says that the fans are entitled to know what is going on when all the while he just wants at the information to write a piece that stirs everything up. He is no more trustworthy for us than Jackson or Spiers. The board have issued a statement that covers the situation . It must burn English that they won't give him any more. Hopefully that's all the sieve at the SFA get as well.

Felt good to read that piece. Makes you wonder why the " journalists " of the MSM don't publish articles like this.

It seems to me that this sense of requiring the support to be more solid and less brittle is growing stronger. It seems to me that the fans feel that the club and the support have been under siege for long enough. Leaving our own board to the side for the moment, we know that the major villains are the mhedia, Doncaster, Lawwell and Regan. We can deal with the mhedia by starving them but just how do we deal with the other three. Everybody has complained and said that they have to go, but how do we get rid of them? They seem to be cocooned and free from having to face responsibility to both the Rangers fans and indeed Scottish football as a whole. We have seen the club go after them with the embargo and win but this was frowned upon by FIFA and UEFA which allowed them to come back with their 5-way agreement and blackmail us in to cooperating to get our licence. These questions that D'Art and the other posters have posed require to be answered and since the mhedia wont ask them we need another vehicle to be allowed to pose them ourselves. D'Art may have given us the answer with his question - " Given one of the fundamental precepts of the European Law on Human Rights is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, would the SFA concede that their handling of the Rangers situation constitutes a breach of those rights ? " I don't know the proper name but I'm sure there must be something along the lines of the European Council for Human Rights. I don't know who to contact for the RFFF, but I can't think of a better place for that money to go than to force Regan et al to defend some kind of a case before such a Council. If the club can't take them to task then surely shareholders of the past and/or present holding companies who ran/run Rangers can get a fair hearing - free from any pressure from FIFA or UEFA on the club - and answers to these questions that are just hanging there and at the same time force the media to carry the story. This would surely cause a clear out, forced by FIFA or UEFA of the SFA, SPL and the Professional Game Board. I'm sure if such an action was practical then the fans would solidly throw their support behind it. We know the mhedia will come back at us accusing us of destroying Scottish football etc. They can have the option of paying us back all of the money they witheld from us and freely answer the questions, or not. I shall now wait to be slaughtered, but surely we have to do something other than throw barbs.

I would not trust Regan for one second. This man is no friend of Rangers. This is the man who walked out on the Rangers fans at a Q&A, then expects us to believe that he "feels " for us. This first words out of his mouth in that newspaper report is an indication that he wants to punish the club. Green admitted that back in May/June of last year he was talking to Whyte in an attempt to get his shares for 2 pounds. As soon as the CVA collapsed and the club was forced into liquidation he either bought with or transferred the club to Sevco Scotland, hence severing any connection with Whyte. So he told a few whoppers to Whyte, who do you know in this life that is not two-faced to a degree? That was between individuals, nothing to do with Rangers. What does Regan hope to establish so that he can punish Rangers? Regan is playing nice to Rangers right now because he wants that report, but he will turn in an instant and burn us with it if he can. The last time he listened to McKenzie at Harper McLeod it cost him 500,000 pounds, he can't afford to go that route again. John Gow is right, give him nothing that he can use against us. This is a report commissioned by the Rangers board for internal use. It should stay that way. The only thing the SFA and their ilk recognize is strength, the board should show some and refuse to release the findings. We have no need to hasten any move that will weaken us from an external force.

The SPL reject the SFL proposal without even a small discussion with the SFL to see if there is any possible common ground for their proposal. If this does not indicate to the chairmen of the SFL clubs just who will run the new merged league body and exactly how much notice will be given to their views on any given subject then I don't know what will. Even if, in the short term, all of the SFL 1 teams benefit from this SPL proposal they must realize that the SFL 2 and SFL 3 teams are being cut adrift and at some point some of the SFL 1 teams will end up in these lower divisions - look at Dunfermline. Surely they won't give the whole game to the SPL power-hungry dominators.

" The clip's source or origin and the date it was made is unclear from the recording. The identity of Brian is not known. " If they can't confirm a source, why react to the story? The mhedia stirring the pot again.

Likewise Rod MacKenzie of Harper McLeod on points of law.

If Whyte is convicted of obtaining the club illegally there could be all kinds of legal points to be argued against the SPL/SFA. However, RangerRab's point is about suing for punishments that were unmerited because said crime had taken place. When Rangers entered administration and before liquidation Rangers had earned but not been paid second place prize money. This money is still due at this point to the oldco. At this point the SPL have only deducted ten points from Rangers, hard to argue with that. Other than argue positions against the SPL for allowing Whyte to take over Rangers, the SPL haven't done too much wrong. When Rangers entered liquidation ( again this is down to Whyte, not the SPL ), the SPL voted Rangers out of the SPL and took their SPL membership away. At this point the second place prize money had not been paid to 'oldco' Rangers. Duff & Phelps were supposed to go after it but never got it. Maybe BDO are fighting for it for the 'oldco' shareholders, they're not saying a helluva lot. At the point where Green bought Rangers through Sevco Scotland, as I understand it, he was trying to argue that he was now entitled to the second place prize money. I have only ever read the draft copy of the five-way-agreement and in there the SPL/SFA/Liewell gang manage too sequester the second place prize money. So that was my point in the last post that although the second place prize money was due to the 'oldco', because of/at the point of Green signing the five-way-agreement under duress you would have a case against the SPL, this could prevent or at least delay a merger which would see the SPL disappear voluntarily if they have to answer a law suit. The SPL would of course argue that Green signed away the prize money as part of the five-way-agreement and is hence legally binding. Now I'm not a lawyer but if you are, can you tell me if this kind of legal action by the RFFF on behalf of the 'oldco' shareholders would fly, or is the recovery of said money solely down to BDO ?

Do you think they would be unsuccessful because Green signed the five-point-agreement? Would there not be something under the 'signing under duress' area?

I agree. I would think you would have to start the case before the merger or the SPL will have ceased to exist.

Talking about getting bang for your buck as far as advertising goes, look at these crowd figures ... Crowd figures for the weekend of 4/5 May 2013 Rangers vs Berwick Rangers - 50,048 SPL Dun. Utd. vs St. Johnstone - 6,437 ICT vs Motherwell - 3,857 Hearts vs St. Mirren - 16,312 Ross County vs Celtic - 5,873 Dundee vs Aberdeen - 6,441 Kilmarnock vs Hibs - Not Reported ( Fan illness ) Total ( not incl. Killie crowd ) - 38,920 SFL Div. 1 Dumbarton vs Partick Thistle - not reported Dunfermline vs Airdrie - 4,624 Falkirk vs Morton - 3,179 Hamilton vs Cowdenbeath - 1,434 Livingston vs Raith Rovers - 650 Total - 9,887 Supposing we estimate 4000 for each of Killie & Dumbarton games - we have ... - 8,000 - 9,887 - 38,920 Total for SPL & SFL 1 - 56,807 Total for Div. 3 champs - 50,048 So both leagues, SPL & SFL 1, only topped Rangers by about 10%. What was that about SPL 2 ... ?

As a follow up to my previous post I have found two areas in Contract Law that may give Liewell a reason to pause - Novation: The Common Law has long recognized a procedure by which an outside party { the new increased SPL } may achieve a contractual status as a replacement for an existing party { the present SPL } who wishes to be relieved of his rights and duties. The process is known as NOVATION, and it takes the form of a termination of the original contract and the substitution of a new contract for it. Novation must be voluntary; one party { the SPL } cannot insist upon it over the objections of the other { SFL }. The new contract formed by novation may differ from the original either by a change in the parties to it or by a change in the terms. Vicarious Performance: A promisor { the SPL } cannot escape his liability to the promisee { the SFL } by imposing a substitute for himself without the consent of the promisee. In other words, he cannot transfer or "assign" his liability, even assuming he can find someone willing to assume the liability for him { which would be the new improved SPL group }. The promisee may, of course, consent to a new contract with a change of parties, but then the arrangement is not within the terms of the original contract - it is novation. ... So Liewell cannot just come in and bully the SFL into a new contract.

I may be wrong here, but I think that in any contract if one of the basic elements of the contract is broken - a signatory to the contract, the SFL being the representing body of 32 clubs, has by no action of its own had its make-up changed, then that contract can be declared null and void since that signatory no longer represents 32 clubs. This would mean that the exisiting contract would not represent the existing interests of the original 32 clubs. The SFL, or what is left of it including Rangers, would be free to negotiate their own contract. Where then would the SPL get the money to pay the trickle-down payments expected to the clubs that are prepared to join them?

Another good catch D'Art. This is not the first time you have caught and analysed the actions and objectives of these politicians. I wonder if you are in a position to, and have considered running for a political office yourself. I think you would excel at such a job.

That's not a bad wee team right there.

Mark I thought you were a great player in your day, but as a columnist not so good. This is just plain wrong. You make this statement ' ... and it is not about what has happened in the past. It’s all about saving Scottish football.” Rangers are not responsible for the state of Scottish football, and it is wrong of you to lay that charge at their feet. The men responsible for the state of Scottish football are it's leaders, for allowing the situation to degrade to it's present state. What would be the point of Rangers accepting any form of fast tracking only for the same men to put the game at risk again the next time they have a crisis and don't know how to handle it? I think that before you ask Rangers to do anything these men - namely Regan, Doncaster and Lawwell - should be removed from any position of influence in the SFA or SPL or the Professional Game Board, for the good of Scottish football. These organizations should be made to pay Rangers for their loss of players, winnings, transfer monies and fines - after all we know Rangers were not guilty bar for Whyte's actions - but we know that they can't afford it so that, and only that, should be Rangers gift to the Scottish game. The illegal transfer ban would have to be removed immediately, and some kind of compromise negotiated with UEFA to ensure Rangers are allowed back in UEFA competitions immediately. Even with these concessions it would take Rangers a season or so to win the top league, but we can live with that for the sake of the game. Yes it is about what happened in the past and you know that as a support we shall never forget, but I am astounded at just how much you expect us to forgive, please remember again just what "sporting integrity" is. Without new leadership, the game's biggest club will quite happily take it's medicine. The rest can survive on their own bile. See you in Division 2.

I would suggest that the people who are important as regards the results of this inquiry are the Rangers board and management, and the Rangers support. Whether a detractor or not, the rest can go run up our collective humpfs.