colinstein

It's worked for Hearts

If we had a D.O.F. who would it be. Who would be coach.....I've heard Cathro mentioned since he is good with youth but I've also read on here we've already got a highly respected youth coach at MP (can't remember the guy's name)

yes....even "follow follow" and "broxibear"

This would be an opportunity to change the badge from "Ready" to "Aye Ready"

I don't want King or anyone else to pore money into us to pay inflated wages to players. That's not the way forward. If we were to be second in our first season up then we shouldn't be paying a wage bill any more than Aberdeen I've had it with us being a cow to be milked by other clubs in Scotland and Europe and that model is not sustainable. We need to develop our own talent and put a management in place to do that as for those saying McCall failed in England...well I think the same applies to McInnes.....and he's done ok back up the road

Rangers should reclaim ownership of their badges and trademarks from Mike Ashley if they pay him back a £5m loan. The club signed over the rights to 31 UK registered trademarks to his Sports Direct firm on a temporary basis when they took out the credit facility in January. STV can reveal the "assignation" of the trademarks is not irrevocable and ownership should automatically be returned to the club upon repayment. The terms and conditions of Sports Direct's ownership of the badges are clearly stated in documents lodged with Companies House when Ashley provided the club with its credit facility in January. It can also be revealed that Sports Direct have no rights to produce Rangers-branded merchandise from which the club would not receive a slice of the profits. The club were granted an "exclusive royalty-free licence" to use the badge by the sportswear firm for the duration of the security. Sports Direct can still produce and sell Rangers merchandise through Rangers Retail Limited, from which it receives 75% of any profit through a dividend. The club currently receives 25%. Rangers announced on Thursday night they were launching a probe as "a matter of urgency" after documents filed at the Intellectual Property Office detailed the transfer in ownership of their trademarks to the sportswear firm. A Rangers "source" has also been widely quoted describing the transfer as "odd", questioning the timing of the ownership switch. Intellectual Property Office records document the transfer as being lodged on March 12, six days after Ashley's associates Barry Leach and Derek Llambias were removed from the club's board. However the agreement was struck more than six weeks previously, a point noted by the Intellectual Property Office in the finer detail of the transfer. STV understands Rangers are continuing to examine the documentation to ensure there is no get-out clause which would prevent the badges being returned in the event of the loan being repaid. Ashley's trademark ownership The assignation of ownership over Rangers' trademarks is detailed a document outlining the "registration of a charge", entered into by the club when it accepted a £5m loan from Sports Direct on January 27. The document has been publicly available since February 12, three weeks before Dave King, Paul Murray and John Gilligan were voted on to the board at Ibrox, with Leach and Llambias removed. On the first page of the assignation document, compiled by Brodies LLP, it is stated that "it is a condition precedent to the making available of loan facilities by Sports Direct to Rangers that Rangers grants this assignation to Sports Direct." It continues: "This assignation is being granted by way of security". On page three of the document, it is again made clear that Ashley's ownership of the trademarks is for purposes of security and outlines the terms and conditions of a return. It states: "On irrevocable payment or discharge in full of the security liabilities, Sports Direct will promptly at the request and cost of Rangers re-assign the assigned rights to Rangers (or as Rangers shall direct)." In addition to the 31 trademarks transferred, Sports Direct also hold security over a further 31 registered by Rangers abroad. Three are registered in Canada, two in South Africa, seven in Australia, two in Japan, four in New Zealand, two in Spain, two in Morocco, four in the United States, two in Thailand and two in Turkey, as well as sole trademarks in China, Norway and Switzerland. Why does Ashley need ownership? In the transfer of intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, for security on a loan, it is not uncommon for an outright assignment to be granted to the lender. A right of redemption is typically inserted in any agreement, which gives the company handing over its trademark the right to have them returned once a loan has been repaid in full. Rangers have such right of redemption included in their agreement with Sports Direct but the board are continuing to examine that it is watertight and has no additional conditions attached. Rangers' rights over their badges Concerns raised that Sports Direct would produce Rangers-branded goods which the club would receive no revenue from are also set aside in the paperwork, as are any fears that Rangers are having to pay the company for the use of its badge. "Sports Direct hereby grants Rangers an exclusive royalty-free licence" it states, before outlining that that licence does not permit the club to use the badge on goods which will typically be sold through their joint Rangers Retail Limited venture. It continues: "While the licence subsists, Sports Direct undertakes not to use the trademarks in the territory, or to grant others the right to do so." http://m.stv.tv/news/west-central/316649-rangers-badges-transferred-to-mike-ashley-as-security-for-5m-loan-deal/

I'm seeing reports that the badges will be returned after the £5 million is paid back. Apparently on SSN

I was sure we were going to win and like a big wean I've been avoiding the papers today

I think Moshni has a lot to offer bombing forward from mid field. You'd need to make sure there was someone behind him though should his pass go astray

right enough don't see him falling back to do his defensive duties either

he continually opines Rangers won't be back at the top for at least a decade if ever

how will the money be distributed ?

I'm surprised at this. Was Llambias really prepping us for admin ? How could Ashley benefit from that....he couldn't buy the assets and the penalty would ensure we stayed down....surely that would affect his retail sales

not really. Cops and emergency services would need the actual numbers in the ground There looked like about 40.000 in the ground to me but I was in the main stand and couldn't see the club deck from there

nothing like FF hunners get banned on there

ers the spearmint ers the spearmint chewing gum all the macaroon bars the spearmint chewing gum an' the milk chocola ate

He's one of us On Edmiston Drive that night when he stood on the steps at the front door he said to the large crowd of us...."who are Rangers.?..not Green or any of them.... YOU are fucking Rangers and if we're playing on a public park....you'll be there. respect

that would explain his dipin form if he had that on his mind, There was obviously something traumatic happened to him.

There's no chance of Easdale taking legal action for the consequences of a board he was a member of. It's all pish

if the plan is a new share issue to finance us......then it's quite important where's the money coming from otherwise

don't know either

we'd need auditors to get a Nomad........ I believe they resigned several months ago.....but it wasn't declared wonder why ?

His vision of big capitalists owning about 1/3, fans the same, and assorted smaller investors the rest, would mean the capitalists would always hold sway. We need fan ownership

why does that matter ?

I think they have to act in the interests of the majority of shareholders....not every one of them It looks to me like they acted in the interests of a minority shareholder.....but if you throw in the Easdale block that would have made it 35% at the time. Would we have to prove that the rest of the shareholders were against it.?....that might be difficult