buster.

So you are already getting pre-emptive digs in regards finance after you have been generally backing those who have managed to syphon off many of our revenue streams.

A positive continuation following yesterdays news of the sale of 450K shares from within the Easdale block to the RST. The present incumbent stage has two main groups that seem to have been in a broad alliance, the Easdale Block and Mr S.D. MASH. The Easdale block is a mysterious and would seem to have various members/groups who 'enjoy' the benefits of onerous contracts. Sandy Easdale has been their front since Green left the public lobby. They have an important stakeholding and want to protect their contracts and any other benefits as best they can which as been via executive control but this would seem to be coming to an end. It remains to be seen what 'devestation' they leave behind. James Easdale leaving is more a symbolic positive than a practical one, the block still remains (hopefully crumbling). Mr MASH is the main danger and his men are presently in charge. A penny for the thoughts of Fat Mike.

Maybe it will come out of the Keith Bishop 'Slush Fund'.

Fingers crossed. A lot of finance will be required and much of it will have to be allocated to infrastructure rather than the first team. Big problem will be our revenue streams/onerous contracts. There is a rebuild from scratch required (new modern model) and a lot of patience will be needed, not forgetting some realism. Good appointments will be crucial in the boardroom aswell as in the football operation.

The unknown ?? If we were to oust the incumbents there will be carnage to repair with what may be limited revenue streams. The scale of this and the extent to which Ashley may look to deal or be aggressive is unknown.

A very significant trade.

Just to say that I was referring to something else but can't go into detail. Only that it would appear to be a 'positive'.

Have heard similar. Although you need seven pairs of eyes to keep a watch on what may be the reasons/motives/price behind it.

League season heading into the last third and Van Gaal has still not convinced. He has spent a huge wad of cash but doesn't seem to have been able to put a side together that shows anywhere near value. The press have generally given him a lot of leeway but for how much longer if Man Utd were to be struggling to qualify for a CL place ? Reasonable expectation as per earlier in this thread was a third place finish. I reckon they'd now bite your hand off for fourth spot. Some tasty League fixtures coming soon...... March ManU v Arsenal ManU v Spurs Liverpool v ManU April ManU v Man City Chelsea v ManU

Thank's for that BD ! I think this would come under the category of 'financial hits' that would have to be taken and money allocated to lawyers would be better spent looking into the circumstances surrounding the onerous contracts and subsequent revenue streams.

I think you have to consider the lead-up to, reasons for and general 'political situation' surrounding the meeting with the RFB, where Leach either made a grave misjudgement to say what he did or he did so quite prepared to run the 'risk'. By expressly asking for the remark not to be included in any Minutes or Public Record of the meeting, he flagged up that he himself immediately knew that it was apparently not one he'd like to be quoted with in public. He did this at the sametime as being on one side of an increasingly entrenched corporate battle where the RFB had made it clear they no longer had confidence in the RIFC officebearers and battles are often where the conventions are put aside in the general interest (eg.whistleblowers). He also did this knowing full well that much of the DL&BL input to the meeting was weak and was never going to come near to putting in an order to buy materials, never mind re-building bridges. In fact some of it sounded to me as if the meeting was only ever going to produce more negative headlines for the RIFC board and that they had no real intentions to build any bridges (Note opening from DL). This coming hard on the heels of a series of what could be termed as RIFC OG's, many of which were so 'rifle to foot' that had it been on the field of play, the bookies may have investigated for deliberate foul play. IMO Leach has made a serious error of judgement to say what he did regardless of any mitigating circumstances he would point to. One in that he has either failed to grasp the strategic political situation or is actually carrying out orders within a strategy coming from Ashley that seems to delight in poking the support with a sharp stick whenever possible...................................This is before you even consider the remark itself. As for industrial tribunals, I simply don't know how they work or what they would be prepared to consider as evidence. I think there is a wider case to be made for sacking of both DL and BL as employees but this might be complex, costly and not without risk. A cleaner and immediate break may be better with legal energies channeled towards onerous contracts where possible.

The governing bodies have repeatedly shown throughout the last few years that they aren't fit for purpose and until they are, things like consistency will continue to be abstract. Beyond the Scottish authorities you could also criticise UEFA, FIFA and for that matter the way the UK/Scotland is being run from London/Edinburgh for differing macro reasons. Bottomline, they do what they do for Money and Control. They tend to have the majority chasing contrived bogeymen whilst the real ones are sitting comfortable, often counting their millions. Truth is a Moveable Feast, those who can best disguise it are well rewarded. Accountability and Responsibility are old hat.

I think it comes down to money, TV deals, prospects of sponsership and the like The authorities would have been desperate that the first OF game in years passed off with a minimum of negative vibes.

From the Boudiccaproxy company website http://www.boudiccaproxy.com/about-us.html Sounded as if Alex wasn't informed or prepared to engage in meaningful, constructive discussion with a shareholder.........or perhaps they see engagement as a one-way street just as those who have gave them the remit to call RIFC shareholders, most probably paid from Ibrox.

It would appear that this was a question that wasn't even put to the people in the poll. Early educative years will obviously have a huge bearing regards the formation of attitudes and division. With that in mind the poll asks about 'family influence' but decides that the elephant in the room can be summarily dismissed, why ? Because it is 'off limits'.............................why ?.....................Because some lobby groups are extremely powerful. Bottomline Unless any such study, poll, initiative etc is willing to look at the problem in an objective and independent manner it is worthless. Actually it is worse than useless, it is propaganda.

He doesn't appear to have been getting paid 'directly' by Rangers for a while, rather being labeled as the Easdale family spokesman. However IMO he has always represented the interests of the 'Easdale block' and perhaps as an extension has advised the RIFC board as a whole. Perhaps Llambias/Ashley side have decided to go down a different route to try and salvage the situation. I'd be interested to see the Irvine invoices and the path they tread because I'm sure it'll be Rangers who indirectly pick-up the tab.

Gary Thompson / KBA will need to hire a PR/Spin Firm for themselves. Barely in the door and they are the story........... The RIFC board............form Bean to Cup they keep Fecking up.

Borrowed from FF.

------------------------------------------- Well done to the RFB

To make informed judgements in the Rangers saga, you need to have more than just financial expertise.

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ George Santayana

I think that article echoes previous analysis that seems to ignore variables that could be considered as 'elephants in the room'. Some of which, D'artagan broaches in his recent article on the same site. Going on what we know from recent experience, I think it fair to say that the article does not portray a full and accurate picture from which to come to an informed judgement.

Given circumstances and the juncture in our ongoing saga, any 'whistlebowers' are only acting in the public interest (including the support and the majority of shareholders).

The real detail from Forlan that the SFA might like to take note of is who actually makes the decisions. The man from Mash and the man from Sports Direct. Q. What is the common denominator between MASH and SD ?

So the mendacious RIFC board line-up has:- - a Sports Direct man (Leach) - a MASH man (Llambias) - a shadowy figure in the corner who fronts the mysterious 26% (S.Easdale) - a Goffer (J.Easdale) - an Unfunny Flak Deflector / Clown (Somers) Their sell-by date is about to expire and they have burnt their bridges.