barca72

D'Art, I endorse the sentiment of your Covenant but I don't think now is the time to request it. I don't know if this board has as yet earned the right to be villified as boards in the past certainly have. However, I agree with the idea of fan representation on the board as the best way to achieve transparency. Even then I don't think the fans will have the need to know of the nuts and bolts of every contract, but certainly of the existence of these contracts. As I see it, before the fans deserve their Covenant, they have to present themselves as a unified body. All of the different factions must come together and repair the fractures that exist. If they don't do this then any major fan representation is doomed to fail. I don't mean that the vehicles that the fans have available to them should be merged into one, choice is good eh?, but more that all the fan groups can agree on a philosophy that is acceptable and can represent strong fan support. At the moment there is too much fracture, resentment, mistrust, deceipt and even hatred between some fan groups and even individuals within fan groups. We as a support need to hit the reset button and start off with the idea that the only thing that is important is Rangers, and move on from there. This will not be easy as we are a broad church with many points of view requiring representations, but it must be done. Maybe we could use the RFFF as a test vehicle to see how close we could come to a many-sided organization which delivers transparency. Probably an organization with a representative from each fan group. This Rangers' support has the potential to project Rangers into a position of, as yet, unseen leadership and strength in the game. Maybe if we show the board that - 'if we have the tools, we can finish the job'.

Warburton himself says that the Scottish Championship is a hard sell to English players. We must get promotion this year, ergo loan signings are perfectly acceptable for now. We have two more windows after this one to entice better players on a more permanent basis, before the real business starts against THEM.

You would know about that then, eh?

Who cares? Scotland, England, the whole of the U.K., Rangers still come out on top of the table shown, and that's the point.

How about Lionel Letizi from Plg's era?

Now that everyone has expressed their pleasure at the new CB signings, does this mean that they will provide enough in defence to cover up for the deficiences of Bell? Or do we still need a new goalie?

Bh, I think this 'sporting' angle you are on is a non-starter. When I was younger I played the game and even at amateur level if a player whom you had just beaten was purposely walking off the park and whose body-language was telling you that he was not happy, you let him go. As you know, in any large corporate body the rest of the organization will take on the personality of the top man. Ask the SFA & the SPFL about 'sporting integrity'. That's not to say that I would like to see the players' respect for each other's efforts eradicated by not having a 'sporting handshake', I wouldn't. However, for you and the rest of the SFA attempting to take the moral high ground with Mohsni is wrong. What is also wrong is Mohsni kicking an opponent. What is also wrong, and in my mind every bit as serious as the reaction from Mohsni, is this Erwin's assault on Mohsni. If you look back on the replays of both games this Erwin character was not afraid to use tactics that the other players did not appreciate and that the 'sporting' referees let him go. I don't know about you, but when I was playing the game, I loved a game when I won and I absolutely hated the game when I got beat. I never punched anybody at the end of a game, but there again nobody attempted to assault me either. I can't honestly say that I shook the hand of every opponent I played against. Please, give it a rest. The guy was beaten and wanted to get into the dressing room without any further interaction. So what? There's many a game down through history where players have not been inclined to shake hands after the game. Ask DeCanio and Lennon. I agree with Ian1964, I may have whacked him after being assaulted but using the boot is a bit much.

Great post, D'Art. A perfect capture of the words and sentiments the rest of us would like to be able to record.

When you pay your money you have no control over when another fan will voice an opinion or warble a few tunes in your immediate vicinity, however, I took your meaning to be that your view would be obscured by the raising of banners etc. which as we have seen, happens quite a lot with this group. That's a hard choice.

Oh I'm serious about RR's position. If you re-read these posts you'll see this has got f*ck all to do with any beef I may have with RST. Maybe you need to screw the nut and get real with just how close to the line RR are should MA decide to get nasty. Why the f*ck would the board want to encourage anything that could impact on the success of a joint-venture, and yet you are advocating that they should do just that. When challenged you back off and say it's just merchandize. Aye right.

on A) I'm saying that the club does not want to be seen to in any way to encourage the boycott or allow anyone to sell any goods on club property. on B) From a monetary point of view I agree, but when you read the contract all they need is a reason to instigate the deadlock clause and we lose RR. on C) I assume these %ages are from the club's point of view. The point is if the club lose RR they can never hope to enhance their ability to generate ANY revenue from merchandize. We won't even own our own brand. We shall have to accept what SD give us to sell at an exhorbitant price in our own store. It WILL be cheaper to buy alternate merchandize on the street. I don't think I'm being daft when I express concern for the future of RR, especially when we know how ruthless MA can be. As I see it, it is better that we are in a reasonable state of harmony with SD to allow some equitable business talks to take place. p.s. Let me ask you if you have read the contract?

Whether it was or wasn't we shall still need to win these games. Big ask, but Warburton has to get the team to hit the pitch running.

SD don't need a legal case, they only need to inveigle a situation that leads to a deadlock situation, and bye-bye RR. Do you think they haven't seen and read about RST's position with the alternate merchandize? p.s. If it's just some blue shirt with a lion rampant on it, why would Rangers' supporters want to buy it or wear it as if it represented their club's official shirt? Sounds daft, eh?

Your own argument gives you the answer. On the one hand you say that the club has tried but can't rid themselves of street vendors - which means they are not actively co-operating with them, and on the other you want the board to give permission to someone to actively sell alternate merchandize to the goods being boycotted in the joint venture. You don't see a conflict of interest there which is grounds to repeal any contract?

You have heard some people say that even during the boycott they will still buy their kids some merchandize. SD will still have reduced profits but we shall have nothing at all. For us to sell the merchandize that they give us would be cost-prohibitive.

C'mon Zappa, do you honestly believe that if during a period of boycott the club was to openly encourage a seller of alternate merchandize, this would be perceived as an okay business practice by SD?

In the original contract SD can buy us out for a %age of the previous year's profits. If there are no profits they get RR for a song.

Wrong. This is a joint venture and this board cannot be seen to be aiding and abetting a boycott.

Boycotting is just wrong from a Rangers' point of view. I understand the need to relay our disgust about contracts to SD & MA by signing petitions etc., but this boycotting business is just weakening our position and strengthening SD's.

I don't know if he's worth that. In the playoff games against us young Murdoch did a fair job in closing him down, and his contribution was severely curtailed.

Approx. 2:00 min. mark he zooms right in on the crux of the matter - "... get more value out of the contracts we have with our suppliers." I hope he can execute as well as he talks, in his discussions with SD. He feels like he's genuine.

Hope he's good in the air. We need somebody who's dominant back there.

The SFA Judicial Panel Verdict on Rangers Ken Olverman 66. That shortly before 19 September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was aware that Rangers FC were due to make a payment to HMRC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and Value added Tax. On making enquiry with Mr Craig Whyte about said payments, he was not authorised to make the payment which was therefore not paid on the due date. Upon his expressing his concern to Mr Craig Whyte Mr Ken Olverman was in due course instructed that payments to HMRC were to be suspended and withheld. At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC’s financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC. 67. That in the course of his subsequent communications with Mr Craig Whyte about the payment of these social taxes due to HMRC Mr Craig Whyte stated to Mr Olverman that non-payment of the sums due was a tactic or negotiating ploy intended to improve the position of Rangers FC in any attempted negotiation with HMRC of a settlement in “the Big Tax Case”. Tax due 68. That between September 2011 and February 2012 Rangers FC withheld in excess of £13,000,000 from HMRC due in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. As at the date of the Tribunal determination the said sums were still outstanding and due. 74. That in the course of the latter part of August 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was contacted by two senior officials of the Customs and Excise (VAT)* division of HMRC. Their enquiry was in relation to invoices which had been discovered in the business records of Ticketus which bore to have been raised by Rangers FC. The invoices related to sums of many millions of pounds and the VAT element in each of them had been the subject of offset by Ticketus in the submission of its VAT returns for the last period. Such was the size and impact of this offset of VAT which had been paid by Ticketus in respect of these invoices, that Ticketus had made a claim for payment of a substantial sum to it by HMRC by way of recovery of VAT paid. 75. That Mr Ken Olverman, the Financial Controller of Rangers FC had no knowledge of the existence of the invoices purportedly raised by Rangers FC. The raising of such invoices was a matter which fell squarely within his sphere of responsibility and it was inconceivable that such invoices for such large sums could be raised and issued from the finance office of Rangers FC without his knowledge. He had no knowledge of any agreement with Ticketus which might give rise to any invoice within the period concerned. He was unaware of any current transaction with Ticketus and knew that no sums of money had been received in recent times from Ticketus into any accounts of Rangers FC. 88 That during that period between September and February, no payments were made by Rangers FC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. The non payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of “the Big Tax Case”. 92 That on 14 February 2012 Rangers FC were placed in Administration by order of the Court of Session. Two insolvency practitioners from the firm of Duff and Phelps were appointed administrators. The principal Creditor was HMRC and sums owed to it were in excess of £13,000,000. 93 That in all material respects, between 6 May 2011 and 14 February 2012 Mr Craig Whyte was “the directing mind and will” of Rangers FC. * It was the investigation by this department that finally triggered the the intent of the other departments within HMRC to bring Whyte down ( in my opinion ), because his blatent intention was apparent now. Rangers subsequent fortunes were a by-product of Whyte's actions. Sorry Rab, but if you still want a conspiracy theory I think you will have to talk to Dr. Death directly. Why Rangers? The Attribution of Improper Conduct on the Part of a Director to his Company. This was one of the central legal issues in the case. The Compliance Officer submitted to the Tribunal that in so far as any company (including such a company as Rangers FC) is an abstract legal concept but is at the same time a separate legal personna, it cannot in its own right be responsible for acts or omissions. However, it can and should be held accountable under the principle of identification of the company with the director or officer who is the “controlling or directing mind” of the company. And from the verdict portion ... The Tribunal took into account the extraordinary circumstances of the offences and the extent to which Rangers FC through its directors had been apparently misled and deceived by Mr Craig Whyte. Against that it took the view that whatever their position a number of individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public. That may be matter for their long term reflection but it does reduce the mitigatory impact of the suggestion that Rangers FC were innocent victims. The Tribunal also took into account Rangers FC had no disciplinary record involving any similar matters. It also took into account the exemplary manner in which Rangers FC had conducted itself at the Disciplinary Hearing and in its related dealings. Whyte Mr Craig Whyte was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, and the Tribunal was in no doubt that he, together with a number of business associates, had engaged in scandalous business activities, which, if not illegal, of which in certain matters there may be a doubt, had a corrosive effect on the reputation of a proud football club. The Tribunal was left in no doubt that Mr Craig Whyte did not engage in his activities in Rangers FC with any view to the interests of Rangers FC or Scottish football in the wider context. The Tribunal was driven by the evidence which it accepted as credible and reliable in the proceedings before it to conclude that whatever the longer term objective might have been, Mr Craig Whyte’s interests lay only with Mr Craig Whyte. The Tribunal was in no doubt that the directors of the club prior to his share acquisition were deeply suspicious of him and time appears to have justified that view. There are a number of aspects to his behaviour which will no doubt be the subject of continued investigation by appropriate agencies ( hence the need for the investigatory powers of the liquidator's office ). The Tribunal could do nothing else but conclude that his conduct in bringing the game into disrepute lay at the highest level of offence. It was clear on the evidence that the elements comprising his conduct bringing the game into disrepute were intentional and calculated and extended over a substantial time period. It is clear that he engaged in a programme of exclusion of all directors except those whom he had brought with him to Ibrox, and their conduct, the Tribunal considered, bore no hint of credit at the very least. Here's a link to the full list of creditors ... http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/rangers-administration-full-list-of-creditors-1-2325870

We need a centre-half who is particularly dominant in the air in the 18 yard box. Does Wilson fit that need?