Search the Community

Andy Little ‏@AndyLittle_7 26s It has been the best 8 yrs of my life. Being a Ranger has been an honour + I'll be one 'til the day I die. Thank you to all at the club.

Everyone seems to be talking about Rodgers or Pellegrini depending on who wins the league i guess, but in my mind it would be scandalous if Pulis didn't get it. His work at Palace has been nothing short of remarkable. After tonight's result, Poyet is also in with a shout. Any more contenders?

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6929-club-statement

Is it 1 game in 3 or 4 years? Perhaps it is as a scout because his career ended years ago.

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2014/05/dave-king-time-to-step-up-and-pay.html?spref=tw

Yet another good article with the questions a lot of fans have been asking plus some that have never been brought up before. Wednesday, 30th April 2014 In a week that saw the board of Rangers conclude their 120 day review into the business, Season Ticket renewals across the country are in various stages of action, with Dave King and the "Union of Fans" encouraging Season Ticket holders to pay their season ticket monies in to an Escrow account that is intended to hold and release funds when Rangers sign over securities for the Albion Car Park and Edmiston House to Season Ticket holders. With many of our members expressing concern that the "Season Ticket Trust" hasn't been made clear to them, we believe it is appropriate to seek clarity by asking the following questions of Dave King, and the "Union of Fans". It should be noted that we also have concerns about the 120 Day Review, and how the club plan to bridge an apparent cash flow shortfall, with the club £1.5M down before next season has even started Q - Has an Escrow account been set up yet? Q - If so, who is hosting that Escrow account facility, i.e. which bank? Q - Who are the Trustees of the account, other than Richard Gough? Q - How do I pay in to it? Q - If I pay in to it, what guarantees do I have over what seat I will be paying for, and that the seat will be in my name? Q - What written assurances do I get that the money will be returned, in the event that the assurances the Trust are requesting from Rangers are not granted? Q - What assurances, other than guarantees over Rangers owned assets have the Trust requested? Q - 66.6% of the loan value, not including interest, is due to Rangers Supporters Trust board member George Letham. Don't the Trust feel that withholding funds to Rangers runs the risk of Rangers defaulting on the loan to Mr Letham, and thereby Mr Letham theoretically stands to gain £1.075M worth of shares in Rangers International Football Club? Q - Can George Letham confirm what his plans are regarding his holdings if that share value is transferred to him, namely, will he retain ownership and voting rights, or will he proxy votes to the Rangers Supporters Trust (RST)? Q - For those who sign up for Away Tickets, how will they get tickets in future? Q - Do current Travel Club members stand to lose travel club points by using this Trust? Q - How will Richard Gough act as Guarantor as a resident of the USA? Q - What are the Administration costs of the Escrow account, and how will they be funded? Q - In the event that Rangers are willing to compromise over loan securities, with the agreement of Sandy Easdale and George Letham, who will become the signatory for these assets on behalf of Season Ticket holders Q - Do shareholders that live abroad with a shareholding in value higher than the price of a season ticket get any security? Q - Why was there no mention of the Season Ticket Trust, or any information about it in the UoF leaflet handed out last week? Q - Will the Trust facilitate split payments like those offered by the club to pay for Season Tickets (through Zebra finance over 4 or 10 months)? Q - Will Season Ticket Holders who have sat in their seat for a number of years be able to secure "their" seat at Ibrox, or will they stand to lose "their" seat? Q - Will money deposited accrue any interest? If so, what will be done with that money? Q - Where will the interest payments be shown? Q - Who decides exactly when the money will be released to the club and in what form? Q - Will the custodians of the account be separate and distinct from the organisations who wish only for the board's removal? Q - Will every member have a say in when the money should be released? Q - What exactly does the board need to do (beyond what they have) to make the monies available? Q - What lines of communication have been opened with the club to urgently discuss the aims of this project? Q - Who exactly has the authority to negotiate with the club? Q - How often will fans putting money into this scheme be updated of progress and by what medium? Q - What other transparency is guaranteed by way of communicating to those who pay in to the scheme? Q - Are other Rangers supporters' organisations involved in this scheme? Q - Are the Rangers supporters trust or any of their senior or high profile members involved at the core of this? Q - Will there be a board of Trustees in the scheme, and if so, how will they be elected? Q - How can supporters and contributors become involved to influence the decisions being made? Q - Are any previous board members of any of Rangers corporate entities, other than Dave King, involved? If so, at what level? Q - Are there any conditions attached to the Trust that require a nominee of the Trust to join the PLC board or the football club board of Rangers? Q - If so, how will that nominee be chosen? Q - Will the Trust be VAT Registered? Q - If the board acquiesce to UOF demands who will then hold first charge/security on the stadium rights to our club? Q - What IT problems could possibly delay implementation of the Trust? We trust that the relevant people involved in the Trust will both answer these questions and make themselves known to Rangers supporters, who are understandably cautious about contributing their hard earned money to a scheme that appears to carry a high element of risk. We feel that supporters should seek clarity both from the PLC board of the club, over their plans for the future, and from those promoting the Season Ticket Trust.

The First Annual Gersnet Dinner will be held at Malaga Tapas, 213-215 Saint Andrews Road, Glasgow G41 1PD on 26 April 2014 at 3.00pm for 3.15pm till 7.00pm. NOTE NEW TIMES DUE TO EARLY KICK OFF V STRANRAER http://www.malagatapas.co.uk/ The restaurant is currently ranked in the top 20 in Glasgow on Tripadvisor http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186534-d1087980-Reviews-Malaga_Tapas-Glasgow_Scotland.html MENU FOR THE FIRST ANNUAL GERSNET DINNER (THE BEARS PICNIC) Primer Plato (First Course) Selección del chef de varias tapas, por ejemplo (Chefs Selection of Various Tapas e.g.): Pescados (Fish) – Pescado en Adobe ( Spanish Marinated Fish in a combination of paprika and spices) Fritura de Pescado (Fried Mixture of Fish & Seafood; king prawns, squid & white fish, served with garlic mayonnaise) Carnes (Meats) - Albondigas en tomate (meatballs cooked in a rich tomato sauce) Pinchos Morunos (Authentic Spanish Skewers of Sizzling Pork, marinated with cumin, garlic & red wine) Verduras (Vegetables) – Pisto Manchego (Mixture of roasted vegetables: peppers, potatoes, eggplants and onions mingled with tomato sauce) Bravas con salsa Picante (Malaga Tapas own take on the quintessential Spanish patatas bravas) 3 tapas per person Segundo Plato (Second Course) Paellas: Marisco (seafood), Valenciana (mix of chicken & seafood), Montana (chicken and dry-cured chorizo); Verduras (vegetarian) (the selection on the night will depend on numbers) Postres (Deserts) por ejemplo (e.g.): Crema Catalana (Spanish version of crème brulee fired at the table!) Copa Malaguena (Ice cream, honey coated peanuts, raisins and topped with Pacharin liquor) NB: The above are examples from Malaga Tapas’ current menu (see web site); as the owners import a high percentage of the ingredients from Spain, the actual dishes available on the night may vary from the above. £18.00 por persona (per person). All those wishing to attend please post in this thread. I am proposing to collect a deposit of £9/10 per head and in order to avoid any possible suggestion of impropriety, I intend opening a bank account with two signatories, specifically for that purpose. Frankie has approved the opening of a Gersnet Dinner account with me and Andy Steel as signatories. I'll PM the details to all those who sign up when I get it organised.

Hey folks! Here is the Gersnet match preview writing schedule for forthcoming games. As always, the match previews will be done by volunteers on a first come, first served basis, so shout out if you fancy writing a preview for a certain match and we'll put your name down for it !! _____________________________________________________________ Completed fixtures Aug 3 - Forfar v Rangers - League Cup Round one - Zappa (done) Aug 10 - Rangers v Brechin - League 1 - Frankie (done) Aug 17 - Stranraer v Rangers - League 1 - 26th of Foot (done) Aug 23 - Airdrieonians v Rangers - League 1 - amms (done) Aug 27 - Rangers v Berwick Rangers - Ramsdens Cup R2 - BrahimHemdani (done) Aug 31 - Rangers v East Fife - League 1 - Zappa (done) Sept 14 - Rangers v Arbroath - League 1 - 26th of foot (done) Sept 17 - Queen of the South v Rangers - Ramsdens Cup QF - stewarty (done) Sept 22 - Forfar Athletic v Rangers - League 1 - andy steel (done) Sept 28 - Rangers v Stenhousemuir - League 1 - Crawford01 (done) Oct 06 - Ayr United v Rangers - League 1 - amms (done) Oct 19 - Brechin City v Rangers - League 1 - Pete (done) Oct 26 - East Fife v Rangers - League 1 - 26th of foot (done) Oct 29 - Stenhousemuir v Rangers - Ramsdens Cup SF - the gunslinger (done) Nov 01 - Rangers v Airdrieonians - Scottish Cup R3 - Zappa (done) Nov 06 - Rangers v Dunfermline - League 1 - Frankie (done) Nov 09 - Rangers v Airdrieonians - League 1 - Juancornetto (done) Nov 25 - Arbroath v Rangers - League 1 - Pete (done) Nov 30 - Falkirk v Rangers - Scottish Cup R4 - Super_Ally (not done) Dec 03 - Rangers v Forfar Athletic - League 1 - amms (done) Dec 07 - Rangers v Ayr United - League 1 - Juancornetto (done) Dec 14 - Stenhousemuir v Rangers (postponed) - League 1 - andy steel (done) Dec 26 - Rangers v Stranraer - League 1 - Nobody (not done) Dec 30 - Dunfermline v Rangers - League 1 - calscot (done) Jan 02 - Airdrieonians v Rangers - League 1 - Pete (done) Jan 05 - Stenhousemuir v Rangers - League 1 - Nobody (done by Pete) Jan 11 - Rangers v East Fife - League 1 - 26th of foot (done) Jan 20 - Forfar Athletic v Rangers - League 1 - ranger_syntax (done) Jan 25 - Rangers v Arbroath - League 1 - Juancornetto (done) Feb 01 - Rangers v Brechin City - League 1 - Zappa (done) Feb 07 - Rangers v Dunfermline - Scottish Cup R5 - ian1964 (done) Feb 15 - Ayr United v Rangers - League 1 - Frankie (done) Feb 22 - Rangers v Stenhousemuir - League 1 - amms (done) Feb 25 - Stranraer v Rangers - League 1 - bluebear54 (done) Mar 01 - East Fife v Rangers - League 1 - Pete (done) Mar 09 - Rangers v Albion Rovers - Scottish Cup QF - Juancornetto (done) Mar 12 - Rangers v Airdrieonians - League 1 - Nobody (done by Andy Steel) Mar 15 - Rangers v Dunfermline - League 1 - 26th of foot (done) Mar 17 - Albion Rovers v Rangers - Scottish Cup QF replay - Juancornetto (done) Mar 23 - Brechin City v Rangers - League 1 - stewarty (done) Mar 29 - Arbroath v Rangers - League 1 - BrahimHemdani (done) Apr 06 - Rangers v Raith Rovers - Ramsdens Cup Final - the gunslinger (done) Apr 12 - Rangers v Dundee United - Scottish Cup SF - Juancornetto (done) _____________________________________________________________ Upcoming fixtures: Apr 15 - Rangers v Forfar Athletic - League 1 - Zappa Apr 19 - Stenhousemuir v Rangers - League 1 - ??? Apr 22 - Rangers v Ayr United - League 1 - pete Apr 26 - Rangers v Stranraer - League 1 - ??? May 03 - Dunfermline v Rangers - League 1 - ???

Long article and rambling open letter on DR website RE: investor Alan MacKenzie and Dave King http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-investor-urges-dave-king-3482599?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Firstly allow me to clarify something – the content of this blog and the information shared is done so with the express permission of the Union of Fans – following a full and frank discussion between myself and Chris Graham. Those who are interested in the finer details and legal aspects of the Season Ticket Trust are probably going to be disappointed; any queries you have will have to wait until the ST Trust website is up and operational. What I did ask however was this: If the board acquiesce to UOF demands who will then hold first charge/security on the stadium rights to our club ? The answer, as many undoubtedly suspected, is Dave King and Richard Gough, under the auspice of Dave King’s new company, Ibrox 1972 Ltd. Quite simply as far as The UOF are concerned it all boils down to a question of trust, and they trust King more, far more, than they do the current board. It is all hypothetical of course, dependent on their scheme being successful, the Rangers board acquiescing to their demands and relinquishing the security for both stadium and Auchenhowie. Many will have realised by now this would mean handing over the security of our club’s 2 biggest assets to 2 men who currently are not even shareholders in our club. They will not be accountable to the board or to shareholders, which at least in theory, is the current status quo. I hope for the sake of our club, should this scenario ever come to fruition, that the UOF have exercised sound judgement in their assessment of Dave King, otherwise it will qualify as a blunder on a scale of magnitude with the ill-fated Men of Troy. As the current board and King, with their respective aide-de-camps, battle vigorously for not only our hearts and minds, but also our season ticket monies, the whole debate has become extremely polarised, the language and tone war like, with little opportunity for either constructive or conciliatory dialogue. The problem is however that the dominant voices in the debate do not necessarily reflect the feelings of our support. Keith Jackson touched on this last week in an article when he referred to the silent majority of the Rangers support – the ones who have no interest in off-field politics and whose sole interest is turning up each week to see the Rangers. Furthermore the polarisation of the situation and debate fails to take cognisance of fans who have no confidence in the current board but who are equally unenamoured by Dave King. Rather than choose between the two best prospective candidates it is more akin to choosing the lesser of 2 evils. A particularly sad indictment of where we currently are as a club. To date, the considerable failings of governance by our current board which I highlighted in a previous blog, remain unresolved. In particular the veracity of the 120 day review remains under question as a consequence of claims by the Daily Record regarding the withdrawal of credit and debit card provision. Before we file these claims as the ranting of a “Rangers hating rhag” perhaps we should check the filing cabinet – look under “BBC & Craig Whyte”. I can only re-iterate the warning of a previous blog – we cannot afford to make the same mistakes of the past. A few have commented on the madness of the situation facing us as a support. With trepidation, and a tinge of embarrassment, I quote from Dan Brown’s book Inferno, “Madness breeds madness” The Rangers support should bookmark this moment in time, with its paucity of choice, for a future date, when next we sit down with any conviction to consider the merits of fan ownership.

By TheLawMan on RM

THEY were dismissed, by some at least, as troublemakers with personal grievances against Rangers. They were accused of being opportunists who were simply after a place on the Ibrox board without spending a penny of their own money. But now the grave fears they expressed about their beloved club have been shown to be far more than just scaremongering. Scott Murdoch, Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray and Alex Wilson all failed in their bids to be elected directors at the Rangers agm in December. The backing of many institutional investors and major shareholders ensured the existing incumbents were all returned by sizeable margins. Yet, the Requisitioners, as they became known, have since been vindicated in their view that all was far from well behind the scenes at the club. And their prediction that limited funds would run dry without fresh investment - which they had managed to line-up - has also been proved to be accurate. The revelations contained in the 120-day business review carried out by Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace, then, came as no surprise to the group. "I read the review on Friday and noted what Mr Wallace had to say about the previous regimes and how they conducted their business with alarm and interest," said Wilson today. "To be honest, it is what we as a Gang of Four were saying in the build-up to the agm. "We also had a degree of disbelief that the club had enough money to see it through to the end of the season. "We had no inside information. It was just a general feeling. If you looked at the existing funds and the cash burn and then tracked forward you could see it running out. "Everything that we said was going wrong was indeed going wrong. Everything that we said we felt was going to happen has transpired. It is really, really, really frustrating." A complaint has been made to Police Scotland about Wallace allegedly misleading shareholders at the agm by stating the club had enough money to see out the season. Wilson said: "Whether Mr Wallace knew or not is for the police to investigate. "He had a financial director, Brian Stockbridge, who we had no confidence in and we said he was a disgrace at the time." But the Scot, who has worked in HR for multinational companies including BT, Ford, Guinness and ICI during a successful 40-year business career, feels another matter should be scrutinised. He was taken aback by an interview that shareholder Sandy Easdale gave to BBC Scotland last Thursday - the day before the review was released to the London Stock Exchange. Easdale revealed the Rangers finances were "fragile" and then expressed the belief that the Ibrox club would be unable to survive a second administration. Wallace distanced himself from the comments made by the bus tycoon in a series of media interviews on Friday. However, Wilson agrees wholeheartedly with the Union of Fans who have publicly called for club chairman David Somers to look into the matter. He said: "I have worked on boards before. Stuff like that is price sensitive. Speaking publicly about it breaks all sorts of stock exchange rules. "Mr Easdale is not on the main board. So how did he have access to that information? "If a board member has price sensitive information and has released it to another individual it should be looked at. "The director responsible should, at the very least, be censured." Somers broke cover to issue a firm denial of the "odious and unfounded" allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" against Wallace on Monday night. But there was no mention of the remarks made by Mr Easdale who has been accused of an "utter lack of corporate governance" by the Union of Fans. Wilson said: "The chairman has been notable by his absence and by his lack of comment on some of the issues which have arisen at the club. "If serious accusations are made, as has been the case, then you would expect the chairman to step forward and make a statement saying what will be done or saying that no action is necessary and why. "Graham Wallace's rebuttal of Sandy Easdale's remarks on Friday, when he said he doesn't speak for the board, was interesting. "Was he trying to save the situation with regards to price sensitive information being used?" Wilson was also scathing of the possibility that senior executives, including the chief executive, at Rangers could receive substantial bonuses at a time when staff are being made redundant. He said: "To make a ham-fisted approach to the players last year and ask them to take a 15% pay cut without at the same time taking an identical cut was a disgrace. "Again, I don't know what the situation with bonuses at the club is, but I would hope there is no executive on that board taking away a bonus when the finances are in such a parlous state. "We (the Requisitioners) said we would serve on the board for nothing. "Our purpose was not personal gain or self-aggrandisement. We were all prepared to work together for the good of the club." Lifelong Rangers fan Wilson, who has two season tickets at Ibrox and commutes to games from London, was also unhappy about supporters being blamed for the loss of credit and debit card facilities. It has been alleged that First Data withdrew their services in January - the month before fans were first urged to pool their season ticket money in a trust fund. Wilson added: "By all accounts, withholding season ticket money was not a serious proposition when they (First Data) first asked for security back in January. "I am sure that the action being taken by the Union of Fans has hardened their resolve. "But it has a lot more to do with just fans saying they were going to withhold season ticket money. "Once again, this smacks of the board looking to blame somebody else for the club's problems." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-requisitioners-warned-cash-storm-clouds-were-gathering-161584n.24094362

If the board acquiesce to UOF demands who will then hold first charge/security on the stadium rights to our club ?

DAVE KING has savaged Rangers’ 120-day review and branded it good news for CELTIC fans. The former Ibrox director dismissed chief executive Graham Wallace’s findings — claiming an office junior could have produced the same in a day.

"The Union of Fans is absolutely appalled by Graham Wallace’s business review and revelations over the weekend regarding Mr Wallace’s alleged behaviour and that of this board. Given the serious nature of the allegations, we expect David Somers, in his role as chairman, to suspend Mr Wallace until these investigations are complete. It is our firm belief that shareholders have been misled. First of all we would like to address the London Stock Exchange statement, and Mr Wallace’s subsequent comments in his press conference, which attempted to lay the blame for the withdrawal of credit and debit card facilities at the door of UoF and Dave King. We are aware that FirstData, the payment processing company, first alerted Mr Wallace to the need for security for these facilities on 23rd January of this year, a full month before Dave King and the Union of Fans spoke about the idea of a season ticket trust. FirstData clearly communicated that this was due to the shocking financial results released in December and Mr Wallace’s attempt on the 16th January, just four working days before FirstData raised the issue, to get the players to take a wage cut. FirstData did not at that time raise any issues with a possible decline in season ticket sales as being a reason for the need for security. Once again we have seen a Rangers board attempt to deflect the blame for their own incompetence onto fans who only want the best for the club. Even more seriously, this is a blatant attempt to mislead shareholders as to the underlying reasons for the club’s inability to provide these facilities. As if this was not bad enough, we now find out that Mr Wallace has been reported to police over his comments at the AGM about the club’s financial position. We have consistently stated that his AGM undertaking that the club had sufficient funds was false and nothing that has happened since has shaken us from that belief. We are not surprised that his consistent refusal to address this issue has led to angry shareholders taking this action and we hope there will be a full and thorough investigation. Mr Wallace’s ‘120 day’ review could have been written by any Rangers fan before Mr Wallace even took up his position. It is full of vague promises for the future which read like a wish list from a fans forum. Whilst much of the content in terms of football progress is certainly desirable, there is a complete lack of any detail as to how this board can achieve it. They have provided no evidence that they can raise the necessary funds to take the club forward and we have no confidence in them to do so. We note Mr Wallace’s criticism of previous boards. James Easdale sat on the previous board from July of last year. Is he now going to be removed for his part in this financial mismanagement? Sandy Easdale became a de facto member of the previous board in September last year and has clearly had unprecedented and unjustifiable access to the PLC’s financial details since. His public statements just prior to the review showed that he has access to information he should not, were share price sensitive and showed the utter lack of corporate governance being enforced by Mr Somers in his role as chairman. It is time for Mr Somers, our absent chairman, to step forward and clear up this mess. He must explain why his CEO, Mr Wallace, misled shareholders. He must suspend Mr Wallace pending the conclusion of police investigations. He must deal with the serious questions over Sandy Easdale’s role and why he is being treated like a privileged PLC board member when he is simply a minority shareholder with undue influence. He should also inform shareholders and fans whether the board as a whole was aware that the reason given to the London Stock Exchange for the need for security to obtain credit and debit card facilities was misleading. He is responsible for the total lack of corporate governance on this board and must act now or his own reputation with be irrevocably damaged. This board is a disgrace to Rangers Football Club and the current members of it are running our club into the ground whilst simultaneously making a mockery of the positions they are privileged to hold." http://www.unionoffans.org/statements/2014/4/27/uof-statement-270414

"HMRC don't respond to speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality". How many thousands of us have received this, or a similarly worded response from HMRC ? Or for those of us who have pressed MP's for an answer the appropriately named Ministerial Correspondence Unit of HMRC ? Some of you older Bears will remember how the producers of the American TV soap Dallas, wrote off the events of a whole series by suggesting one of the characters had merely dreamt it all. That's fine - perhaps I will awaken tomorrow morning to find the Rangers Tax Case Blog never existed or "The Men Who Sold The Jersey's" BBC Scotland documentary was just a nightmare. But of course they aren't just figments of a bad dream, they are every bit as real as the leaked confidential information which gave the foregoing blog and documentary a modicum of credibility. There is no "speculation" about it, nor is it an "alleged breach of confidentiality". Those of you who have read Follow We Will, by The Rangers Standard, will be well aware of the considerable injustices foisted upon our club and will be familiar with the damaging press articles written at the time of our fall. These happened, not simply because a charlatan had managed to gain effective control of our club and run it into the ground; it was because those dispensing injustice or penning scathing articles were doing so because they had bought into the lie that Rangers had indulged in “years of cheating”. That erroneous supposition was as a consequence of not just leaks and breaches of confidentiality, but the further subsequent manipulation of that obtained information. I remain convinced to this day that the SPL vote not to re-admit Rangers into the SPL was based on a presumption of guilt over EBT’s rather than anything else. “If you wanted to know the latest news on their tax travails, rangerstaxcase was a place you went because, unlike newspapers or radio stations, rangerstaxcase was connected to the heart of the FTT and everybody knew it. It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal” (Tom English – The Scotsman 25.11.2012) I had originally written to HMRC as part of an ongoing process of elimination; expecting them to assert that they had cross referenced the documents and evidence they had seized and undoubtedly catalogued, and were satisfied that the leaked confidential information appearing in the public domain had not come from themselves. Their response, as per the opening paragraph, not only astonished me, it also suggested to me something was clearly not right. However after numerous exchanges of correspondence it became clear neither HMRC, nor government ministers at the Treasury with ministerial responsibility for HMRC, were going to deviate from the clearly well rehearsed, but nonetheless erroneous "speculation" and "alleged" generic reply. At this point it’s is perhaps worthy of a short re-cap. Confidential information regarding Rangers tax dealings was appearing almost daily on a web blog and had already been subject of a documentary produced by our national broadcaster. The revelations by both the foregoing was to earn them awards in their respective fields. Whilst all this was happening the Investigative Agency responsible for collecting and securing evidence and information in the Rangers Tax Case was referring to breaches of confidentiality using terminology such as “speculation” and “alleged” Then the unthinkable happened - the experts sitting at the First Tier Tax Tribunal disagreed with Graham "Selective Amnesia" Spiers and all the other "internet and Scottish media tax experts" in declaring Rangers not guilty. This result was to prove the catalyst for the emergence of Professor Peter Watson of legal firm Levy & McRae, who announced on 27.11.2012 that he had written to Crown Office on behalf of Sir David Murray, asking them to launch a criminal investigation into such leaks. The only problem was that we heard nothing more on this, nor in fact was it even confirmed if Crown Office had indeed launched a criminal investigation. Consequently I raised my own criminal complaint in respect of the various breaches of confidentiality, in my capacity as a shareholder of Rangers oldco. In due course I received a letter from Ruaraidh Nicolson, Assistant Chief Constable Strathclyde Police, who confirmed the matter was already subject of an ongoing Police investigation. I presume this is as a consequence of Professor Watson’s complaint although this has never been confirmed – but confirming the investigation was ongoing was my priority not who had made the complaint. At this point I decided to test the water again with HMRC. Only this time I decided to do so with some political clout. Two options were available to me, my MSP or my MP. The latter, Jim McGovern, Scottish Labour, was the only Scottish member of Parliament to sign George Galloway’s Early Day Motion 913 – accusing our club of using insolvency law to avoid paying tax – a subject he and I had a fairly acrimonious exchange of letters with regard to. I therefore opted to engage the services of my local MSP – Joe Fitzpatrick SNP. But before I managed to meet Mr Fitzpatrick an event occurred which was to prove to be a significant “game changer” If words speak to you then the ones I was reviewing on my computer monitor were positively screaming at me. People speak of that "Boom - Headshot" moment, well this was one of them. Furthermore the author, as well as the context left no doubt whatsoever as to the absolute veracity of the narration. I was reading Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith's summary of the SPL Independent Commission Enquiry:- “Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust.” For those who are unfamiliar with legal jargon the word "productions" refer to evidence. It was simple enough to understand - a considerable volume of evidence had been stolen from The Rangers Tax case and passed on to BBC Scotland, and of course perhaps others. This stolen evidence then became the research material and driving force for the documentary "The Men Who Sold The Jerseys". So why is Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s Report such a significant game changer ? Well it establishes that the material utilised in the BBC Documentary, and published on the BBC Website (and possibly utilised elsewhere) – originated from material seized by, and in the care of HMRC who, as the investigatory agency, were ultimately responsible for these “productions”, irrespective of who had custody, charge or care of these documents at the time of the theft. You will recall in my last article I highlighted how hundreds of Rangers shareholders writing to HMRC to complain about these breaches of confidentiality were subjected to a standard response of “HMRC do not comment on speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality.” Lord Nimmo Smith’s report completely destroys and usurps that HMRC generic response, and serves to confirm it was neither speculation nor alleged breaches of confidentiality. The consequence of this is that HMRC have some considerable explaining to do to the Rangers supporters who highlighted these breaches of confidentiality, as HMRC’s assertion of it being “speculation and allegation” is not consistent with the facts and circumstances alluded to by Lord Nimmo Smith. Either the security surrounding the evidence was so inept, so poor, that it was compromised on numerous occasions, or in one “grand heist” allowing the perpetrators to not only supply BBC Scotland with stolen evidence, but also other outlets such as The Rangers Tax Case Blog which, almost on a daily basis managed to produce documentation relating to Rangers tax affairs. Are we honestly to believe that HMRC were unaware that such theft (s) of evidence occurred and furthermore due to incompetent management of their evidence they were unaware that “copious material” was being removed and passed on to others ? It is worth remembering at this point that contained in HMRC’s own Charter, under the heading “What you can Expect From Us” is a commitment to “Protect your information and respect your privacy” But this theory is not without considerable problems. It would mean that HMRC totally ignored the material being published by BBC Scotland and The Rangers Tax Case Blog, ignored the concerns of the many hundreds of Rangers shareholders who wrote complaining of the breaches of confidentiality – in short that they adopted a head in the sand mentality to reports of apparent breaches of confidentiality which were being flagged up to them. Investigative Agencies seizing numerous items of documentary evidence, catalogue it for ease of reference – it would have been a simple task for HMRC to check the material appearing on the BBC Scotland and Rangers Tax Case Blog Websites by cross referencing it with their own catalogued evidence in order to establish if a problem existed. Quite simply believing this theory requires us to accept a level of negligence and incompetence by HMRC which would in my opinion, be tantamount to criminal neglect. A further possibility is equally unpalatable however – quite simply that HMRC were aware of the breaches of confidentiality and the theft of evidence, but for reasons best known to themselves, decided to deliberately mislead and misdirect the complaints from Rangers shareholders with their generic “speculation and allegation” rebuttal, perhaps in the hope that it would all blow over and in time interest would wane. During the course of this sojourn I have received confirmation that the ongoing Police enquiry into the Breaches of Confidentiality in the Rangers Tax Case is as a consequence of the complaint raised by Lord Peter Watson on behalf of Sir David Murray. It is significant that this complaint was raised after the conclusion of the first tier tax tribunal. Which begs the question why HMRC had not raised a similar complaint earlier? Is it really acceptable that in the highest profile tax case ever seen in Scotland, the Investigative Agency, HMRC, had the evidence stolen and they failed to report this theft to the Police for investigation – despite it appearing on National Media outlets as well as anonymous web blogs ? I am currently awaiting a response from HMRC to several Freedom of Information Requests served upon them via my solicitor. I am of the opinion that as well as failing to deliver upon their own charter, the subsequent response from them, if provided, will confirm they have also failed to uphold their own operational guidelines with regard to the loss of evidence in the Rangers Tax Case. Given the level of inconsistency, ambiguity and possible misleading of the public, I think it is high time that the investigators themselves were subject to investigation. Let us all push for the Government Enquiry, both our club and our support deserve.

IN THE standard media take on Rangers’ affairs, Graham Wallace is the big, bad bouncer barring entry to the club to Dave King, a man whose deep pockets would ensure everything went with a swing for those inside. Yet, Ibrox chief executive Wallace has tried to create the impression that King will be welcome to join the party. Just not take it over. “We have quantified a range [of investment, the figure being £30 million] where we think the club needs to be looking at in order to be competitive,” said Wallace, as the club published a damning 120-day business review which showed £70m had been haemorrhaged over 18 months. “Right now we don’t have the authority to issue a fresh batch of shares and say to Dave King ‘Here you are… £20m? In you come...’ “What we’ve said is we will go to the shareholders for authority in the autumn and the timing of that is important because it gives us time to demonstrate stability in how we’re running the business from an investor’s perspective. When we do that, the equity offering will be open to existing shareholders, it should probably also be open to fresh investors, including Dave King, and potentially others. There’s no one stopping Dave King or anyone else putting money into the club today other than the regulatory authority the board needs to have. “Dave has said before, there may be 15 per cent of the existing shareholders who may not want to participate further, in which case there’s a significant block of stock that would be available.” Wallace denies the current directors fear their power being diluted by King’s involvement. “When we met with him, when you look at his ambitions and his vision for what he would like the club to be, they’re not dissimilar to what we’re trying to do,” insisted the chief executive. “We want to be competitive, we want to be punching at the top of the Premiership and in order to do that we know the club needs investment.” Rangers supporters find themselves in an horribly invidious position. They are understandably contemptuous of the current board for the cash burn and calamitous contracts that Wallace excoriated in his review. However, through a gushing press for King, the only alternative being presented is a man who mismanaged his own financial affairs so profoundly he had to repay more than £40m to the South African tax authorities and lodge certain payments to 
prevent his convictions landing him in prison. “A wide cross-section of the fan base is looking for some form of guidance, some form of reassurance as to how their club has been run,” Wallace said. “I hope as they look at this review that they get a sense of where it’s been, where it is now, and more importantly where it can go. “People are worried about putting their money into the club and three months later it not to be there and they’ve lost their £400. I completely understand that, and I’ve been repeatedly asked if the club is under threat of another administration and I’ve said the same thing every time – no, it’s not. “The point about the fans is, yes, there’s a desire on behalf of a segment of the fanbase to support someone like Dave King, who’s offering up – on paper, at least – a potentially significant amount of money to invest in the club. I understand that. “We’re giving the assurance that if the fans continue to back the club in the way they have, then there is no threat to the financial stability of this business. That’s the single most important thing. If fans are really concerned about the financial health of their club, if they give us the support by behaving as they have done and renewing their [season] tickets, then we’re in a very very strong position.” That is tantamount to the emotional blackmail the supporters’ coalition the Union of Fans has railed against. Wallace might not be so tainted in the eyes of the wider support, and might have been perceived more as a figure to trust by them, were it not for the £1.5m loan at exorbitant rates the club required only months after he stated such an injection would not be needed to keep the club afloat. The chief executive now accepts his credibility was damaged. “It was an issue, yes. I responded to a question at the AGM about [whether there] ‘is sufficient cash to continue to trade in the near term’ and I said there was. That was an honest answer made on the assessment of what was available at the time. As we’ve gone through the review, there were certain assumptions made in the business plan which, when we went to push the button on them, we found they didn’t exist. So yes, we got to a position where we had to look at an alternative strategy for a very short, defined period of time. So yes, our credibility was questioned. “Subsequent to putting the deal in place there were offers of similar amounts at vastly reduced monies. I think we’re in a better place now.” A huge measure of sensible husbandry is required at Rangers, but with Wallace stating manager Ally McCoist’s playing budget for the Championship will be “comparable” to the indefensible £6m with which the club have bulldozed their way through two part-time lower divisions, questions can be asked about lessons learned. Perhaps in one sense they have been. Rangers announced in their review that they will appoint a chief football operations officer, essentially a director of football, who will “concentrate initially on developing player talent identification, scouting and recruitment capability”. In the past two years, Rangers have certainly been guilty of having a flawed recruitment strategy that has been the largest consistent drain on their revenue and resources. “In terms of building this club to be competitive back at the top level, the level of infrastructure is not there,” said Wallace. “So scouting, recruitment, talent identification, managing and driving value from sourcing players [needs to be addressed]. Bringing players in here, if they’re good enough to play for us great but if they’re not then they might do a season and move along and get some value. “We’ve no one looking at that. That’s what I see this particular role focusing on. It’s very much a support role for me, for the manager, at an overall level. The hunt for this person begins now and it’s about getting the right person, with the right skill set and the right experience. I’d hope over the course of the coming months to have someone.” Wallace maintains this new appointment did not reflect on McCoist’s job security. “I have never even had a thought about the manager’s future. We speak every day and meet two or three times a week. “He’s obviously interested in the financial budget. We’ve talked about it. He knows we’re going to make funds available for the summer. He doesn’t know the magnitude, the number. We will sit down and agree that.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-open-the-door-to-dave-king-1-3390262

I’m going to start this blog with a warning – We must ensure, for the future of our club, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I say that because it is important we focus on the facts and not the personalities involved. There is a considerable amount of information circulating at the moment and it’s vital we scrutinise it in a totally objective manner. Not only because it is the right thing to do – but because the future of our club may depend on our ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. The Union of Fans only have themselves to blame to an extent, that their anti-board message has not been widely accepted by all. Their insistence on being so deliberately confrontational with our current board, as well as their sometimes puerile rhetoric, may go down well with those already in their camp but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with all the support. As I’ve written previously, when the man you are openly supporting suggests some are “looking for a fight” it’s surely worthy of re-assessing how you are coming across to people. It’s a real pity the debate has become so polarised. There is almost a sense that you are either pro or anti-board. I’m aware of a supporter yesterday who was threatened for refusing to chant “sack the board”. – a sad indication of the state of play. The reality of course is that for every pro or anti board supporter there are probably many more of us who are utterly confused, worried and trying to get to grips with facts amongst a deluge of propaganda. It’s important that those in our support who are against Dave King, for whatever reason, still realise they have a responsibility in holding the current board to account, and reticence of the possible alternative does not mean we ignore unacceptable standards from those currently in power. And just why should our current board be viewed with suspicion and be subject to challenge ? Well for starters we have employed a new PR Guru. Such an appointment baffled many within our support, particularly with the crying need for a chief scout. One is left to ponder what our board’s priorities are for our club. We have a non-executive director, Sandy Easdale giving interviews to the BBC where he suggests intimate knowledge of financial matters pertaining to the club. This should raise serious questions about the level of governance at boardroom level. From the CEO’s review we have learned that contracts were signed off by the previous board without any legal representation on behalf of the club. Quite simply that is nothing short of scandalous. Do the current board intend to investigate these matters and retrospectively pursue those responsible ? As many us are learning to our angst, the ability to renew season tickets by Credit or Debit Card is no longer available due to the merchant, 1st Data, requiring what is viewed as an unreasonable level of security for such a privilege. The CEO’s review states : “The Board believes that one of the major factors influencing the merchant acquirer to change its terms was the extensive negative coverage of calls in some quarters for supporters to refrain or delay purchasing season tickets. “ The Union of Fans have denied this and their denials have been supported by a National newspaper which claims it has viewed correspondence which suggests this is not the reason for the increased levels of guarantee. The ball is now in the board’s court. The integrity and veracity of both the board and the review has been challenged by a national newspaper – it is up to the board to instruct 1st Data to clarify the reasons behind the additional security requests. Quite simply if the board fail to take action over such a critical point then they have failed both themselves and the Rangers supporters who were patient enough to wait for the 120 day review. We must not let personal feelings or personal dislikes affect our ability to exercise vigilance or judgement. It’s a luxury not only we cannot afford, but more importantly, our club cannot afford.

In response to a number of threads which kinda veer into polarised positions, I'd like to set out why I think the running of our club is in the wrong hands at present. I avoid calling them 'the board' because it's hard to remember who is actually on which board at the moment, who is responsible for what and who gets to lock the safe, so to speak. That in itself is a criticism of those at the top & I haven't even started! The two people who are most often seen & heard as our main people are Sandy Easdale & Graham Wallace. To begin with Mr Easdale: he's had a struggle to be accepted, since he came with baggage. I would be the last person to insist that to be a Rangers fan or official you need to sign up to the whole manifesto of beliefs. But when it comes to blazers, I do feel that 'not having been to jail to VAT fraud' is a broadly non-controversial opening qualification. This raises the philosophical debate about whether jail is for punishment or rehabilitation: as a lapsed socialist I see it more as the first than the second, since those who are there tend to have harmed society and, bluntly, society deserves to get a kick back. Even, however, if you lean toward rehabilitation, does Mr Easdale strike you as rehabilitated? The world of West Scotland's bus garages may not sound like the sort of place to find Sonny Corleone tied to a chair, but neither is it a clear, visible symbol of someone having learnt a hard lesson and overtly trying to do better. You could liken it to a pimp who is jailed, does his time and buys a strip club; not criminal, but not much use in persuading folk you are a reformed character. All this is speculation and could - who knows? - be most unfair on Mr Easdale. Nevertheless image counts and his image, which is now tied to our club, is not a good one. Coming with such baggage, he would have had a hard fight to get some fans, maybe puritan ones, onside in any event, but he has decided that steady, unobtrusive work with tangible results is not the way to go and plumped for issuing legal threats to fans, questioning the loyalty of fans, and blaming fans for the club's problems. Whether you agree with the man that he was being impugned unfairly, threatening Rangers fans while ignoring the libelous attacks of fans' of every other team in Scotland is, bluntly, an insane policy if the aim is to promote yourself as a trustworthy figure. The lack of the ability to think a situation through and deal with it is dismaying; when the UoF or Sos were at Murray Park last week for a photo-opportunity it showed how anyone with any sense ought to have dealt with it. His remarkable access to ST sales figures and the financial status of a plc of which he is not a board member could, you might argue, point to a searingly sharp analytical business mind. Graham Wallace certainly made it clear that Mr Easdale was speaking in a personal capacity as shareholder last Thursday; I wonder if every shareholder, should they chap Mr Wallace's door, would receive such detailed information as Mr Easdale apparently gets? Mr Wallace, Mr Wallace. His deflection of Mr Easdale's blatant presence as eminence grise didn't do much for his credibility either, which was a shame because he at least of all the players who have high-kicked their way across our stage in the last two seasons seemed to come without baggage and with, it seemed, the tools to get the job done. He didn't have to lay out his credentials, they were there to see. However, trying to sell the most obvious of nutmegs over Mr Easdale's position did not leave him looking very sharp and counts against him. If it has been disappointing to see him bullshit us over Mr Easdale's interview. It has been doubly disappointing to find out, a day after the event, that far from Rangers credit facility being withdrawn due to the actions of fans or agitators, it was withdrawn because credit companies see us as a bad risk. I'd urge you to consider for a moment that credit firms - the leeches, the parasites, who cause so much suffering by lobbing bales of cash at people in no state to repay them - even these people don't want to touch us. This is not, in my book, an achievement which goes down in Mr Wallace's 'debit' account and, although it cannot be exclusively laid at his door as 'his fault', his dealing with it has been pitiful and serves only to erode both trust and credibility. His legal case seems a little vindictive; frankly there are deals and tranches of missing money more deserving of investigation. I think Mr Wallace dealt well with the media following the 139 Day Fantasy press conference last Friday, and in an ideal world he could probably do the decent job we all hoped he would. But you have to assume he sanctioned or was at least asked about hiring Paul Tyrell a day before he announced job losses; on the one hand we know we have to cut costs, on the other cutting them to pay someone to defend he and the rest of The Keystone Kops seems grotesque. You have to assume he is going to take a bonus unless more pressure is brought to bear, since he declined to answer questions on the subject and that seems grotesque; you have to assume he was aware that it was not fan issues which led to the credit situation described above but decided to blame them anyway. That's a lot of assuming, but since Mr Wallace won't answer the questions what else can I do but assume? So my view of the 'current lot' is one person with a dreadful reputation and image who constantly engages in battle with the people he then asks for money and trust from; and another person who is either massively out of his depth or finds clarity and transparence subtle concepts to be moulded as needed. Neither inspire any confidence in me, not because I desire Dave King and his millions to bail us out, nor because I have a reflex condition which means anyone in office is immediately a crook. There's no doubt we're heading for complete division as a fan base between those who back the board (beyond belief in my view but it's a free country) and those who perceive that the malaise lies at the boardroom door(s) and until they are cleaned out we're going nowhere. As a lonely handwringer these many years I am not especially freaked about splits in the support: but it's going to be sad to see nonetheless. Anyhoo, that's how things look from here.

Amazing day at ibrox today, signed my professional contract for rangers⚽️ hopefully the future is bright??

According to STV the review will be published to LSE today as planned. Please ensure all discussion takes place in this thread where appropriate. Full review for download here: http://t.co/HNRfyvKDAe

RANGERS chief executive Graham Wallace has insisted that major shareholder Sandy Easdale was not speaking for the Ibrox club when he cast serious doubt on their financial position and repeated his own assertion there is “no threat” of a second administration. Easdale, who controls more than 26 per cent of the shares in Rangers, described the club’s situation as “fragile” in a BBC Scotland interview ahead of Wallace’s publication yesterday of his business review and strategic plan for the League 1 champions. The long-awaited document painted a damning picture of Rangers’ operations since its business and assets were *purchased by Charles Green’s consortium in May 2012 following the descent into administration and liquidation under Craig Whyte’s ruinous tenure. Despite raising £70.7 million through a share issue, season ticket sales and commercial income between that date and December 2013, only £3.5m was left at the end of last year. Wallace’s review admits the club “mismanaged almost all of its cash reserves following administration” and that a “perfect opportunity to rebuild Rangers has been completely missed”. Wallace has now set out a strategy which will require capital funding of up to £30m over the next three years and which he believes can culminate in Rangers winning the Premiership title in 2017 and qualifyingfor the Champions League. The club intend to have another share issue later this year to raise cash, but their immediate financial position is dependent on the sale of season tickets against the backdrop of former director Dave King’s call for supporters to instead place their renewal money in a trust fund. But, although Wallace *admitted poor season ticket sales would have an impact on the club’s financial operations, he distanced himself from Sandy Easdale’s bleak assessment and the possibility of a second *administration at Ibrox. “Sandy Easdale’s comments were made by him in his *capacity as a shareholder,” said Wallace. “He’s not a director of the PLC board, so they were not made in a capacity in respect of the PLC company. “I’ve gone on record before to say there would be no threat of administration and my position today is exactly the same. There is no change to my view based on the club’s current position and our future projections. “Sandy Easdale wasn’t put out to comment by the club. “He made them as a shareholder. You would have to speak to him directly to ask the context in which he made those comments. “If you are asking me if ‘administration II’ is a possibility, then I’m saying categorically ‘No’. There would need to be a significant reduction in season ticket renewals to present a major problem to the club.” Wallace denied that the current level of season ticket sales was as much as 9,000 down on the same period last year. But the situation has been further complicated by the withdrawal of credit and debit card services to pay for season tickets after the company who processed them for the club *demanded security over Ibrox Stadium to protect itself against any potential liabilities. Rangers turned down that *request and supporters will now only be able to purchase season tickets by bank transfer, cash or cheque payment. “We have extended the season ticket renewal window through to 16 May and we will monitor the progress of the fans renewing over the coming weeks and assess it,” added Wallace. “There is no sense of panic – no sense of panic at all. Season ticket sales have been slow and I don’t think that’s surprising. A lot of people have been waiting to see what we were going to see coming out of the review, a sense of comfort and security that if they put their money in, the company is still going to survive, but also a sense of ambition in terms of where we want to take the club. “We’ve never said that we would look to run this club on a limited cost basis. What we did say was that we would look at every pound we were spending and ask ourselves if we were spending it in the right areas. I think we’ve been true to that. “So what we’re setting out is a summary of the position as it was, an assessment of where we are today but, more importantly, a vision of where we want to take the club over the next three to five years. We’ve spent a *decent amount of time on a proper robust business plan. “I said at the time of the AGM that there was no point in going out and looking to raise funds if you haven’t got a robust plan that sits behind that. “So that’s what we’ve done and I very much hope that the Rangers fans will look at what we’ve said and support us with a sense of comfort that we’re running the club in the right way, that we have a sense of ambition and that their aspirations for a successful team on the field is equally matched by those of us in the boardroom who are *trying to grow and develop the club.” What Wallace described as a “small number” of staff will be made redundant as a result of the review findings. He also outlined plans for two new major roles at the club – a chief football operations officer, responsible for player talent identification, scouting and recruitment, and a chief commercial officer tasked with maximizing club revenues. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/wallace-at-odds-with-easdale-over-rangers-finance-1-3389705

Reports he is gone, just about to be sacked. Stories in most English papers and all over twitter. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2609419/David-Moyes-sacked-Manchester-United-lose-patience-following-Premier-League-failure.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27165564 Graham Wallace's 120-day business review provides a snapshot of Rangers' potential future. The challenge for the chief executive and his fellow directors is guiding the club to that point. There is detail in the document , certainly, and some commitments to act in the months ahead. How supporters react will determine the extent of the difficulties that Wallace will face, though, which means that trust is as much of a critical commodity as finance. Both have been in short supply in recent months. The review is a mixture of regret and hope. The amount of money that was squandered after the launch of Rangers International Football Club on the Alternative Investment Market is startling, and blame is placed firmly on previous executives, and by extension the directors who oversaw them. That analysis is accurate, but does not also take into account the fact that the appointments of previous and current directors were all sanctioned by the same group of aligned shareholders. Rangers' power structure is ultimately gathered around those shareholders who granted their voting proxies to Sandy Easdale, himself the holder of a smaller shareholding, ahead of the annual general meeting last December. It is only change at shareholder level that will alter the power structure. Wallace arrived as an independent figure, but he is now inextricably linked with events at Ibrox. His credibility as chief executive relied, to some extent at least, on the contents of the review, but also now on his ability to deliver it, the accuracy of its contents and his judgement in recent months. Easdale has expressed concern about Rangers' finances The latter is already in question following revelations that the club were informed last January, several weeks before any talk was raised of a season ticket boycott, that accepting credit card payments would require security being granted. This was because of the accounts, and Wallace's suggestion that the playing staff might accept a pay cut, rather than any fan initiative, yet the review - which was delivered to the stock exchange - states otherwise. With season ticket renewals "slow" according to Easdale - and believed to be significantly less than they were at this stage in the process last year - it would seem that Rangers fans were waiting to be convinced by Wallace. It did not help, for instance, that he said at the AGM that there was enough cash in the bank to sustain the business until the end of the season, only for the board to then seek a £1.5m loan from Easdale and George Letham (who offered better terms than those initially offered by the single largest shareholder, Laxey Partners) in February. It was also a crass juxtaposition for Wallace, following the release of the review, to fail to deny the bonus arrangements in his contract while at the same time revealing that there would be a "small number" of redundancies amongst the non-playing staff. This also followed the appointment of Paul Tyrrell, the former director of communications at Manchester City, Liverpool and Everton, in a consultancy role in the immediate run-up to the publication of the review. Wallace has, at times, seemed unable to negotiate the political intricacies of his position. It would have exasperated him, for instance, that the day before the review launch, Easdale gave an interview in which he described the club as being in a "fragile " position and suggested that it would not survive an insolvency event. He was revealing information sensitive to the RIFC share price, but isn't a plc director, in contravention of stock market rules. Wallace insisted that administration was not discussed during the 120-day review, but the message in the review is clear that if season ticket sales fall substantially, then the business will be unable to trade. It seems inconceivable that if insolvency is a possibility then it hasn't been discussed. The same message is contained in the revelation that Rangers cannot accept credit or debit card transactions for season ticket sales because the merchant provider was seeking security, which is likely to reflect a threat of insolvency should season ticket sales fall. This is a consequence of past recklessness, since supporters have lost faith in those running the club. It will only irk them further to read assessments in the review that £2m was spent on stadium wifi, LED displays and jumbo screens which were "non-essential"; that players were signed last summer that executives should have known the club could not afford. There were promises of optimism, in assertions that Ally McCoist will be given funds to spend over future transfer windows in a "more structured and planned" signing policy and that a three-year plan has been drawn up to deliver the Scottish Premiership title. Former Rangers director Dave King Fans will also like the notion of a chief football operations officer, an academy fund and commercial developments. Wallace's position as chief executive will rest on his ability to deliver these, though, as well as persuading the fans to renew their season tickets to such an extent that there is an overall uplift in sales. So what does the future hold? In part, that is dependent on how much money is left, and whether or not immediate costs can be met in the meantime. For now, there remain a number of scenarios. Should there be a shortfall in renewals, the intention is to hold a pre-emptive share offer, of up to 43,400,000 shares, to existing stakeholders. This would likely be at a discounted market price - and the share price fell by 15% to 22p following the review - and so would only raise up to around £9.5m. There is a further intention to seek the approval of shareholders in autumn 2014 for a new rights issue, to raise equity for investment. This would, again, be a pre-emptive offer, allowing current shareholders first refusal on a pro-rata basis to protect the size of their stake, but unsold shares, commonly known as the rump, are normally then offered to non-shareholders. This is where Dave King, the former Ibrox director, could make a move. There are other options for King, and he could in theory potentially acquire the right from existing shareholders to take up their allocation from a share issue. As with the Union of Fans, King chose to keep his counsel following the publication of the review, out of respect to the family of the late Sandy Jardine, the former Rangers defender who died on Thursday. South African-based businessman King now at least has options, as he looks to implement his strategy to invest in the club. King has publicly asserted that he wants to invest up to £30m in the club, if needs be, but that would be on the basis that he also gains control of how that investment is utilised. In the end, it came down to several thousand words, some reflection back and some casting forward. The review emphasises that Rangers are in a potentially dire financial position, and signalled what attempts might be made to address this. Can Wallace deliver? Will supporters buy into it? And what will King do now? The following days will be more revealing than the review itself.