buster.

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.

Well done to those who decided to release them.

I think the context is important when making that comparison. Rangers have been operating under the cloud of Mendacity for years and it is enriching individuals and related parties but killing our club.

Yes, we know that social media is monitered and in these complicated times you have to be careful when others may be collating material to use in furthering their interests. The RIFC board seem to have been adding as many layers as they can to their security concern story.

My point had to do with mendacity directly concerning the present executive management of Rangers. Indirect whataboutery doesn't deflect or negate that point.

D, I agree with much of your article but the one wee difference in opinion would be that now is the time to box clever rather than "rage".

Q. What did the RIFC board expect to change by switching it from one London Hotel to another London Hotel ? A. Nowt and therefore increasing probability of an adjournment. RIFC board:.......... Mendacious and Devious in the extreme.

One of the problems is the Ashley financial muscle (including 'expensive' advice) allied to what would seem as a stubborn streak that isn't adverse to corporate street-fighting. I don't think anyone expects a smooth passage,........ tbh I'd expect them to have a list of options that they'll have to block requisitioner success. The panorama has changed since the 2013 McColl and Murray(s) led requisition. Today, it has a more solid base, a more solid strategy and a much more unified fanbase. On the other side of the fence we now have the more overt and dangerous presence of Mr MASH. Just a thought but one of the reasons I consider the insolvency event an option for Ashley is that wrt the fanbase they have burnt a lot of bridges and might think a new friendly third party would have a better chance of getting us onside. Reallity will almost certainly be something completely different

I'd say it noteworthy how short the Llambias and Leach 'honeymoon period' lasted. The fact that they arrived in Glasgow with significant 'baggage' listed on their 'real or semi-hidden CV' and that the fanbase has rightly become ever more sceptical has them trapped in a corner within weeks. Reading the recent RFB Minutes would seem to very much further the case against them and who they represent.

Yes, but how long would such legal action take, how much would it cost and what would be the prospect of success ? Re. Second tranche of the 5M

In the hypothetical but currently plausible scenario that the requisitioners look like pushing the incumbents out of the boardroom if a GM is held, then what options are left for the present directors to prevent this from happening ? 1. Don't have / delay a GM. They have in recent times been putting questionable layers on the premise that the safety of incumbents is threatened and this is one avenue where they could seek a delay. 2. With or without the delay, spend the first tranche of the 5M credit facility but after further 'due diligence' Ashley decides against facilitating the second tranche of 5M and forces an insolvency event. Therefore incumbents leave office but (friendly) administrators are appointed. 3. Try and do a deal with other shareholders. Any Others ?

Was it Stockbridge who shoved Llambias at Mar Hall ? Obvious spin pushing for the Sunday headlines that quickly moves on from the supposed "attack" with all it's lack of details or police involvement and goes onto the wonderful plans that Deek and his boss have for us,....obviously including the line "a force in Europe again". Again they are trying to put layers on a scenario they are constructing as a potential option regards the General Meeting.

Footnote Whilst not being at Gerd Muller levels of sharpness, at least Boyd looked interested tonight.

Interesting comparison with another 'large' centre forward in the Championship. Zeefuik arrived at Hearts and took 62 minutes in his first ever Scottish football match to match the two league goals that Boyd has scored this season.

The lack of creativity is certainly an issue but it's not difficult to see that for whatever reason, Boyd lost his 'professional way' and threw the metaphorical towel in. For me the writing was on the wall (in pencil) prior to the season beginning when he was pictured in the new strip on a pier in North America. IIRC I said on here that I had to do a double take because I thought that given his shape, he was an ordinary punter . I remember the Willie Vass pic's of himing being substituted once and you could see he didn't want to be there. Not long after, we had his cameo at Tynecastle where his frustration seemed to actively seek a red card. Boyd is marking time and running down his contract and he knows someone will take him on hoping he'll get back to his Killie shape despite their reputation for excellent pies. IMO he shouldn't be in the team or the bench but then if you look at how many players are in a similar position.......it highlights the bad management both at football and executive (TRFC) levels.