Search the Community

Full interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27142340

#Rangers Union of Fans statement in response to comments made by Sandy Easdale today: “We note Sandy Easdale’s comments to the BBC today and would like to clarify some matters for him. Firstly, his attempt to blackmail the supporters is both transparent and expected. The financial position of the club is not down to lack of support or loyalty from any of our fans, it is down to two years of mismanagement and the squandering of huge sums of money, which Mr Easdale has been a part of for the past 7 months. Mr Easdale, despite his apparently intimate knowledge of the PLC’s financial position, was unwilling to provide the club with a loan without taking security on it. He now urges fans, who are completely in the dark regarding this board’s ability to take the club forward, to put their money in to sustain the current regime, fronted by him, on behalf of nameless, faceless shareholders of BPH and Margarita. We would like to know why Mr Easdale is being pushed out to speak on behalf of a PLC board he is not part of. Mr Easdale’s comments about the financial position of the club are share price sensitive, as are his comments about possible administration. These comments directly contradict those of the CEO, Graham Wallace, who is on record as saying that a second administration is not a possibility. Why is the PLC board allowing Mr Easdale to make these comments on their behalf and why does he have access to such information in any case when he is not a director of the PLC? Once again huge question marks are raised over corporate governance at Rangers by Mr Easdale’s role at the club, which has never been clarified. We would also like to state that we will not be lectured by a Greenock Morton fan on loyalty to Rangers. We have fans in our ranks who have had season tickets for over 20 years and have contributed more to Rangers over the years than Mr Easdale ever will. It is a measure of the distrust and complete disillusionment with this board that people who have devoted most of their lives to following Rangers have already cancelled their season tickets. Perhaps, rather than meaningless sound bites, veiled digs at those opposing Mr Easdale’s regime and unfulfilled promises about investment, Mr Easdale would be better clarifying what his position at the club actually entails and why he has access to sensitive PLC information when he has been unable, despite trying, to get himself onto that board. Perhaps he could also tell us what has happened to the investment he said was lined up for the club prior to the AGM in December? Did it ever actually exist? Maybe he could also clarify why Jack Irvine is still attempting to brief journalists on Rangers’ stories? Is it on Mr Easdale’s behalf? The board have stated that he has been removed and we are not aware of any previous philanthropic work carried out by Mr Irvine on behalf of Rangers. Finally we would question why Graham Wallace has just recruited another highly paid, PR spin doctor, Paul Tyrell, to replace Jack Irvine when the club does not even have a Chief Scout. We have moved from a PR man who disgracefully denigrated club legend, John Greig, to one who likened his own fans to the Khmer Rouge when at Liverpool. It is interesting that this new spin doctor arrives a week after Mr Wallace refused to clarify the position with his 100% bonus, and the suspicion is that this is another appointment to help the board rather than the club itself.”

Rangers manager Ally McCoist has admitted major shareholder Sandy Easdale’s description of the Ibrox club’s finances as “fragile” is a significant concern ahead of today’s publication of a 120-day business review. Rangers manager Ally McCoist has admitted major shareholder Sandy Easdale’s description of the Ibrox club’s finances as “fragile” is a significant concern ahead of today’s publication of a 120-day business review. McCoist was visibly taken aback when he heard Easdale had already given an interview to BBC Scotland yesterday, ahead of the manager’s own press 
commitments before tomorrow’s final home league of the season against Stranraer. Although Rangers will be presented with the League 1 championship trophy after the game, it is today’s long-awaited business review, prepared by chief executive Graham Wallace, that dominates the agenda at Ibrox. Staff at the club are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the review and whether it will impact on their jobs amid fears of further cost-cutting. McCoist said that the welfare of employees was of paramount concern. “Nothing’s changed in my opinion with regards the livelihoods of the staff,” he said. “That’s arguably the most important thing. Obviously the future and health of the club is of vital importance, but without doubt the people within the football club and their livelihoods are extremely important.” Easdale, who is also chairman of the club’s football board, yesterday admitted Rangers were “at a crossroads”. The businessman urged supporters to keep buying season tickets. The most recent set of interim accounts published by the Ibrox club saw accountants Deloitte note that “the company has made key assumptions in relation to the timing of season ticket monies”, adding that uncertainty over the receipt of season ticket income indicated “the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”. Compromising the club’s plans is a strategy of some fans, backed by former Ibrox director and potential investor Dave King, to withhold season ticket money in a fund. The sum will only be released when certain conditions are met by the board. Season-ticket sales to date were described as “slow” by Easdale. Also concerning for McCoist was the major shareholder’s sopinion Rangers could not survive another administration. “In 140 years, the club’s gone into administration once,” said Easdale. “I don’t think it would survive a second one. So I would ask every loyal Rangers fan – and I pick my words correctly in saying ‘loyal Rangers fan’ – supports the club at this time and gives it a chance.” It was this kind of rhetoric McCoist admitted was troubling, although he had not yet been fully briefed on Easdale’s comments. “He told the BBC that?” asked McCoist. “That’s news to me. I wouldn’t react to it until I had time to digest it to be honest. But if that’s what he’s said then that would be a little bit concerning.” The manager, who had a series of meetings yesterday with club hierarchy, was cautious when asked to comment on what he expected would be the contents of the review. “I would be hopeful of non-negative news,” he said. “We will react accordingly to the news we get. I don’t want to pre-empt this. There is no point in guessing what might or might not happen.” Earlier in the day Easdale had admitted he was uncertain what the future held for Rangers. “At the end of the day, the club is at a crossroads at the moment and a fragile position,” he said. “It can either go forward with a strategic view, with a long-term view, steady as she goes, or be pulled apart in other directions.” The bus tycoon also outlined his concern over season ticket renewals. He said: “I don’t actually know the figures but I think there are a couple of situations there; we’re a couple of weeks early. People are waiting for a report. At this moment in time, ticket sales are slow.” McCoist, meanwhile, is braced for being told there are limited funds with which to strengthen his current squad, who have gone through the current league season unbeaten. He said that being challenged to win the Championship title next season with an equal or even lesser budget would “go with the territory” of being Rangers manager in the current times. “It’s not a concern because I accept it,” he shrugged. “Whether I like it or think it’s right or wrong is immaterial – I accept it. It goes with the territory and I’ll have to handle that. “The budget has dropped in the region of 70 per cent of two or three years ago and it’s dropped again this year from last year. But what everyone needs to realise is that I don’t set the budget. I didn’t give the new players their wages, I had nothing to do with that, that was the previous regime, so you’d have to ask any questions relating to that to them. I was only working within the parameters that were given to me. I wasn’t the one who offered them x amount of thousand pounds a week. That wasn’t my gig. I just wanted to play them and thankfully I got the players.” McCoist is relieved that at least his options, if he has any, will become clearer by the end of today when it comes to the matter of signing players. The club have been linked with moves for Motherwell defender Shaun Hutchinson and St Mirren midfielder Kenny McLean, as well as Gavin Gunning and Kris Boyd, of Dundee United and Kilmarnock respectively. More crucial, McCoist pointed out, is the need to sort out the futures of players nearing the end of their contracts. “I’ve still only spoken to two players but in the crazy situation we are in, I haven’t been able to offer them anything,” he revealed. “If I get the go-ahead we would be interested in talking to them. “That’s all I can say to them,” he added. “It’s anything but ideal. My priority is to speak to the guys here at the club first. That’s the very least they deserve.” The Union of Fans, a coalition of Rangers supporters, issued a statement last night hitting back at Easdale’s comments. It said: “The financial position of the club is not down to lack of support or loyalty from any of our fans, it is down to two years of mismanagement and the squandering of huge sums of money. “We would like to know why Mr Easdale is being pushed out to speak on behalf of a PLC board he is not part of. Mr *Easdale’s comments about the financial position of the club are share-price sensitive, as are his comments about possible *administration. “These comments directly contradict those of the CEO, Graham Wallace, who is on record as saying that a second administration is not a possibility. “Once again huge question marks are raised over corporate governance at Rangers by Mr Easdale’s role at the club, which has never been clarified.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/mccoist-frets-over-fragile-rangers-1-3388199

Rangers are also understood to be on the verge of appointing Paul Tyrrell, the former director of communications at Manchester City, Liverpool and Everton, in a consultancy role. This from Richard Wilson BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27134948 During his time at Anfield, Tyrrell was alleged to have written a report comparing some Liverpool supporter groups to Cambodia's Khmer Rouge.

Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace is expected to reveal some of the contents of his 120-day business review on Friday. Having announced that he was embarking on the process at the annual meeting of shareholders in December, it has become the focus of attention, a symbol of the intentions of the current board but also of Wallace's ability or willingness to win over the Rangers support by being open and transparent. So what are the main issues and why is the completion of the review considered so significant? Here are the main questions ahead of its publication. Is it not just normal practice for a new chief executive to examine the business? Yes, but having made the pledge at the AGM - which had been built up into a momentous occasion by the attempts of four nominees, Paul Murray, Alex Wilson, Scott Murdoch and Malcolm Murray, to be appointed to the board - Wallace tied himself into his outcome. Even the timescale was scrutinised, since football clubs are essentially simple businesses to understand, with fixed costs and cash flows. It could have conceivably been completed in a quarter of the time, yet the 120-day deadline passed on Thursday 17 April with only notification from the club that an update would be published eight days later. Wallace has acknowledged that cuts are required, since costs are higher than revenues, so the review is expected to reveal how he intends to rebalance the business but also how fresh investment will be sought. It has attracted such attention, much to Wallace's exasperation, that it has become the defining moment of his regime so far. How specific will the update be? That is the key point. Having asked for 120 days and then taken longer to produce it, the expectation is that the review will provide significant detail and clarity about the way the board intends to rebuild Rangers. Wallace was only appointed late last year so cannot be held accountable for the spending of money raised when Rangers International Football Club was launched on the alternative investment market and the two tranches of season-ticket income. That is in the past and supporters and investors also want to know how future funding requirements will be met. Rebalancing the business by cutting costs will buy time but will not address the need for new investment. The playing squad needs refreshed - with departures as much as arrivals - the football infrastructure needs modernised and improved, and there are maintenance requirements at Ibrox and Murray Park, all of which needs to be paid for. What options does Wallace have? He is a chief executive restricted by circumstance. To meet costs, Rangers needed to seek a £1.5m loan in February from shareholders - Sandy Easdale and George Letham, although the latter's loan was the replacement for one provided by the majority shareholders, Laxey Partners, who were being paid a higher fee. Rangers have no financial slack, with cash reserves having run out and no access to credit. Season-ticket sales are crucial, since the interim results released in March revealed that going concern status was only granted on the basis that there would be a rise in uptake and an increase in prices. How much money comes in from renewals will determine how long Rangers can operate without seeking external funding. If the renewals fall, and there is material doubt about the business's ability to trade for the next 12 months, any season-ticket income ought to be ring-fenced to protect it. Is a fresh share issue likely, then? Wallace has said in the past that the business will need to return to the market to raise finance. His intention has been to complete the review, identify the funding requirements and then take a business plan to shareholders and potential investors. Dave King, the former Rangers director, has spoken of his intention to invest again, despite losing £20m that he put into the club under Sir David Murray's ownership. King has been critical of the board and has supported the Union of Fans' plans for a season-ticket trust fund, which would pool supporters' renewal money but only give it to the club in return for security over Ibrox and Murray Park, although the current directors are on record as saying they have no intention of seeking borrowing against the two main property assets. If King was to underwrite a new share issue, though, current shareholders would need to reinvest to maintain the size of their stakes and King could end up fundamentally changing the shareholder dynamic and effectively taking control of the business. If season-ticket sales do fall, is there a threat of administration? Without enough season-ticket revenue, Rangers will be unable to trade for the next 12 months without drastic cost cutting. A second administration can be avoided if the board seek external funding, with the only likely source being a rights issue. This requires shareholder approval, although it is questionable if it would raise enough funds with the share price currently being so low. This is where King wants to enter the fray, but those currently in control of the club would likely lose their grip on power. It is this impasse that Wallace needs to find a way round. His own credibility is on the line, as well as his professional judgement. Can Wallace win the fans over? Anybody taking the role of chief executive after Charles Green and Craig Mather would have faced an onerous task; supporters were weary and cynical. Wallace has made significant decisions - such as removing the finance director, Brian Stockbridge, and the PR consultant, Jack Irvine - but the Union of Fans has asked if he has removed the bonus culture at Ibrox and sought clarity on his own remuneration package. King also posed pointed questions about whether or not the board were seeking finance in December, at a time when Wallace was insisting that there was enough cash in the bank to see them through to the end of the season. He has been a chief executive under scrutiny and that will become more focused when some of the contents of the review are released. It has a lot of expectation to meet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27134373

Help required tonight. Meet at Ibrox underground at 6.45pm.

You would need to have been living on the moon for the past few weeks to have escaped the media frenzy surrounding David Moyes and his ill-fated tenure as the boss of Manchester United and the repeated references to Manchester United’s “Class of ‘02” who are, one by one, starting to appear back at Old Trafford like the prodigal sons of an empire gearing up to face an impending crisis. Ryan Giggs has already been installed as Interim Player Manager and one of his first actions has been to bring in Paul Scholes and Nicky Butt to assist him in addition to Phil Neville who has kept his job on the coaching staff following the departures of Steve Round and Jimmy Lumsden. Phil’s brother, Gary is the next frame to make an emotional return to Old Trafford in some capacity and that leaves only David Beckham to be approached (if he hasn’t already) to take up a role. All this activity got me thinking about our very own “Class of ‘92” and how they might fit in to the relative roles at our club, both on and off the field and what each of them would bring, should the opportunity present itself for them to return. We already have two prominent members of the Rangers Class of ’92 at Ibrox of course, in the shape of Ally McCoist and Ian Durrant and so I’ve picked four other members of that famous team who were within one game of the inaugural Champions League Final and who swept aside a strong Celtic and Aberdeen to claim a fifth domestic treble in the same season. I’ll leave it up to you nice folks to debate whether my choices are appropriate and whether the addition of these men would rescue McCoist and Durrant from a potentially similar fate to that of Moyes after being recommended for the job by their predecessors. First on the list is Stuart McCall. Making 54 appearances in the ‘92/93 season and chipping in with six goals Stuart was a stalwart in the team and I would compare his role in the team to that of Nicky Butt at United. Voted into the Hall Of Fame in 2008 (presented with his award by one Alistair McCoist) he is held in high esteem by Rangers fans and given the magnitude of his contribution to the season in question and throughout the proceeding glory years of Nine In A Row I doubt that there are many out there who would disagree with his inclusion here. The big question about him for me would be, in which capacity? He has been a relative success at Motherwell as head coach and can be rightly proud of his achievements there, operating with a limited budget and a much lower wage bill than his compatriot McCoist has at his disposal. For me, and given that this is (at the moment at least) a fantastical concept I’d put him straight into the role currently held by his friend McCoist, moving Durrant into the position currently held by Kenny MacDowall and making McCoist the assistant manager. Next up is Richard Gough. Eagle eyed readers will have noticed that I reserved the right to include off field positions for my Class Of ’92 and of the potential members of that team, I cannot see any better suited to boardroom leadership than Gough. He is of course currently Dave King’s spirit guide and is likely to play a big part in any future boardroom machinations, should King triumph in any meaningful way. He was a leader on the pitch and his role in ’92 cannot be underestimated. As the teams lined up in the tunnel before the Leeds United game at Ibrox it is said that he put the fear of God into the likes of Cantona and Strachan with his roaring, booming encouragement of his colleagues and that he took great pleasure in embracing Gary McCallister and making it clear that he expected his countryman to “do his duty as a Scotsman” much to McCallister’s and his team mates bemusement. To continue with the theme of comparing our heroes with their United equivalents, I’d put Gough in as our Gary Neville. The Light Blue equivalent of Gary’s brother Phil would be my third (and possibly most controversial?) choice David Robertson. A classy and attack minded full back, Robertson would bring some much needed tutelage to the likes of Smith, Peralta and Foster and would undoubtedly jump at the chance to return to the club he enjoyed so much success with. He was an ever present in the team who swept all asunder on the way to a treble and was for me, the most under rated player of that era. I have absolutely no idea what he’s doing now and if he has any qualities that would put him in the frame for anything more than just a defensive coach but given our current inadequacies I’d welcome him in our little thought experiment. Choosing the last of the quartet was a difficult task and I’ve put myself through much inner turmoil by passing over the likes of Mark Hately, Andy Goram, Ian Ferguson and John Brown. My rationale is as follows: If McCall is our Nicky Butt, Gough is our Gary Neville, Robertson is the other Neville and McCoist and Durrant are Beckham and Giggs then this only leaves Paul Scholes without a Rangers equivalent. Trevor Steven is as close as we ever had (in the same era)to the media shy midfield maestro and he is the final member of my own personal Class Of ’92. Signed from Everton to the amazement of his England peers, Steven chose to renew his partnership with Gary Stevens and buy into the European dream sold to him by Graeme Souness. His signing was over shadowed by the arrival of a certain Maurice Johnston and I think had he been signed at any other time, a much bigger deal would have been made of his acquisition. Steven was a cultured, right sided midfielder and was capable of unpicking even the best of defences with pin point passing and crosses which put many of McCoist and Hately’s goals on a plate. His form at Rangers earned him a place in England’s World Cup squad in 1990 ahead of the likes of David Rocastle and along-side John Barnes, Glen Hoddle and Chris Waddle. Added to that, he left to ply his trade in Europe for Marseille and returned for a second term arguably a better player just in time to guide us to that fateful tie with Bernard Tapie’s corruption tainted side. I realise that I have left out some fantastic footballers and indeed virtuous men here but I’ve chosen players based mostly on their abilities as footballers, abilities that made them a pleasure to watch something that cannot be said about the current Rangers side and I feel that each of these would be fitting appointments to take us forward onto the Championship and the inevitable meetings with our oldest of foes. Will it happen? Of course not, not in such a wholesale manner but we already have two of the six and who knows, maybe Gough and McCall would be realistic targets for a revitalised and bullish Rangers post ****? We can as always but dream.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/239-renewals-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place The last few years have been hugely difficult for Rangers fans. Administration, dysfunctional directors and confused coups from ‘Rangers men’ who believe they would be better placed to run the club; all this contributes to an ongoing period of uncertainty and frustration for many bears. Time is a great healer they say but, in actual fact, we appear no closer to finding genuine stability for Rangers football club in the short term – indeed the decision-making for the average fan is now even more of a challenge than before. Why? Well, the deadline for renewing season tickets is fast approaching. While some fans still have around two weeks to make up their mind, those who pay in instalments only have until next Monday to confirm their payment plan. Thus, with the club waiting until this Friday to finally publish their 120-day Review (no-one knows if this will be an update or a detailed report), fans have next to no time to decide whether or not the current board can be entrusted with millions more season ticket cash for 2014/15. Meanwhile, at the time of writing, Dave King and the Union of Fans have similarly failed to outline why their Trust fund is a better option or, indeed, how this would even work. To say fans are stuck between a rock and a hard place is an understatement. In an ideal world we’d all renew regardless. Despite the under-performance and inconsistency of the team on the park, next season is sure to be an exciting one and it’s safe to say will present much more of a challenge than the first two stages of the ‘journey’ back to the SPFL Premiership. Not only will Hearts be as eager as us to return to the top league at the first time of asking, there’s a good chance another Premiership team could be joining us both. In addition, as the existing Championship table shows, there will be at least two more teams more than capable of forming a title/promotion challenge for next season. Add in the recent defeats we’ve suffered from teams like Raith Rovers and Queen of the South, it’s safe to say next year will be far from a walkover for Rangers. The fact is for 2014/15 the SPFL Championship will be the most exciting competition in Scotland so I can’t be the only bear looking forward to the challenge. Renewal of our season ticket should be automatic. Yet it isn’t. Not only are thousands of fans unable to trust the board of directors with their money, for those uninterested in the often tedious boardroom politics the match-day experience is also average at best. Sure, it may appear somewhat bizarre to complain about a team (and manager) who look likely to deliver an unbeaten league campaign while scoring over 100 goals but aside from a few sporadic early season performances we’ve really struggled to achieve genuine quality home or away on a consistent basis. This is perhaps summed up by the difficulty in picking a Player of the Year for 2013/14. Yes, a few lads have done well in patches but I don’t think any player (and I include Lee Wallace in that) can really say they’ve been a stand-out all season. I don’t want to be hyper-critical but there really isn’t a lot to be positive about ahead of a new campaign. In that sense, I’m eager to hear from the manager in how he intends to address this ahead of renewals. So far, like many others who form part of the Rangers saga, he hasn’t. Of course, that’s possibly an unfair expectation when McCoist, like the rest of us, is supposedly unaware of his budget for next season. For example, we’re told Graham Wallace wanted squad wage cuts (to the manager’s credit, he seems to be the only one who has accepted a decrease) while recent loans show the club apparently doesn’t have the finance to complete a season of football – this only one year after raising £22million via an initial share offer, not to mention two tranches of match-day ticket income (in itself around the same figure) since 2012. Clearly, season ticket money (possibly around £12million for the coming year) defines the club’s operations going forward. Yet, many fans are being asked to renew without knowing exactly how competitive the club is going to be. With that in mind the content of the 120-day Review is now overdue and vital to the future of the club. I won’t bore the reader of this article with the plethora of questions about the review but the detail simply has to reveal the club’s direction for next season and beyond. While every single Rangers fan wants our club to be of a right-size for future demands, it’s also clear it needs to be re-capitalised for the challenges ahead. However I’d also suggest no fan wants money to be wasted on short-term player signings but instead (as what should have happened in 2012) the club stream-lined and positioned to be self-sustainable for the long term. This means investment in youth, scouting and the stadium to bring success for many more years to come. Yes, this isn’t easy to achieve (ask Sir David Murray) but we’re told Graham Wallace is of the highest calibre (and he’s apparently very well paid) to clearly explain how this is possible in his review. I’d certainly say four months is ample time to provide a report which offers the kind of detail and evidence based submissions to excite every Rangers fan about our future. In short, Wallace must make his plan one we can all buy into one way or the other for many years ahead. No bland generalisations, no business-speak and, well, no excuses. In saying that, what is the alternative for Rangers fans? Well, Dave King and the Union of Fans appear equally less than convincing so far. Statement after statement from King implores us not to renew our season tickets while the Union of Fans promise us some sort of Trust fund to release our money on a match-per-match basis to the club. Yet, a few months down the line, they’re also no closer to revealing their plans in that regard. Can fans retain their preferred seat? Who or what is entrusted with the property securities they’ve requested? What happens if the club enters further financial difficulty in the interim? So far, we’ve seen no answer to any of these questions. Similarly, Dave King’s actions have been less than consistent as well. Just how keen is he to invest in the club and what affect will his own past business dealings have on his and Rangers’ reputation? No-one can deny King’s previous impressive financial commitment but that cannot make him immune from the same questions we have of the incumbents. The lack of clarity in that regard remains a huge disappointment. To conclude then, despite months of uncertainty and superficial debate, Rangers fans remain no closer to a solution for their renewal conundrum. I don’t doubt the vast majority of last season’s 36,000 season ticket holders want to sign up for what will be a more exciting challenge next term but I also believe our incredible passion has been taken advantage of all too often in recent years for fans to hand over their hard-earned no questions asked. There’s absolutely no shame or disloyalty in wanting more for our money. Taking that into account, I’m disappointed in the club’s disregard for open fan consultation vis-à-vis the review. However, I feel equally let down by Dave King in his inability to turn words into demonstrable action by means of a viable alternative to the status quo. In light of all the above, I can’t be the only fan who feels they’re in an impossible position ahead of the forthcoming deadlines. This may well change today, tomorrow, or later in the week but it seems our annual investment will continue to be the pawn of others for the foreseeable future. Rather than stand by and let ourselves be used in such a manner, I’d hope fans would now begin to realise our power when it comes to Rangers and actually become a player ourselves instead of being played. Only then can we really have a proper say in the future. Anything else will just see that rock become a harder and harder place….

We've waxed lyrical about the board, team, manager, youth set up, supporters groups, membership scheme, infrastructure, share issue and anything else that we might find relevant. So, if you were Wallace, what areas would you prioritise that would shape your strategy? Wee bit of fun but after all the debating it'd be nice to see where we stand and how close our concerns are to the board's intentions.

Really! Worried about Hibs! A team Pat Fenlon destroyed who have been awful this season.

Anyone hear anything before Friday? A rumour on twitter that former Liverpool and Everton Media Chief Paul Tyrrell will be on board before Friday.

WITH boardroom civil war on the horizon at Hampden, MailSport unearths secret hijack plot and asks 'Has the SPFL gone power crazy?'. The SPFL’s blindside run at the SFA’s powerbase is about two things – control and cash. But the clubs’ push for power could end up costing the game MILLIONS in grassroots sponsorships. The professional clubs would take complete control of the development budget for football in Scotland if they won the day with their resolution. They believe the money could be better spent under their own umbrella and have also made a play to take control of the main board of the SFA. However, big-money backers of the game – like Tesco Bank, McDonald’s, sportscotland and the government-backed Cashback for Communities scheme – base their contributions on the fact that they are all-inclusive and not aimed at the elite end. MailSport believes all of these relationships – plus others with local authorities – would be in jeopardy if the pro clubs took control and ran the game to their own ends. The two boards will meet on Tuesday, brought to the table for the first time in a year to discuss the proposals – and the pressure will be on to avert a civil war in Scottish football. Revealed: The secret copies of four explosive resolutions the SPFL have proposed for the SFA's AGM. Here’s everything you need to know about the resolutions: Q/ So what do the SPFL want? The resolutions in a nutshell: 1. The Professional Game Board (PGB) provides one representative – Celtic’s Peter Lawwell – to the seven-man main board of the SFA but the SPFL want this increased to two. 2. Currently the president and vice president of the SFA must have served a minimum of a year on the PGB or Non-PGB, as well as four years on the SFA Council and have attended a minimum of eight Council meetings in five years to qualify for a nomination. The SPFL want to do away completely with these criteria. 3. The SFA main board control the budget for football development, from Mark Wotte’s performance department to the grassroots programme for kids and coaches run by Jim Fleeting and Andy Gould in Scotland. The SPFL feel the professional game should control this entire pot and want the PGB – in other words, the senior clubs – to take control. 4. The main board currently control the ability to elect any club for full membership. The SPFL want that right to be passed to the clubs to approve or veto new members. Q/ What’s the grand plan behind them, then? Individually, the four resolutions wouldn’t be as threatening but it’s their cumulative effect that could have grave consequences. The end game? The clubs will have two from the PGB on the SFA board plus control of a hand-picked president and vice president – thereby controlling the seven-man board with a majority of four, thus controlling the SFA. The clubs would also have access to the money currently used to fund the development of the game. They would also control future votes by being able to stifle any additional membership requests which would jeopardise their power of veto if they vote as a group. Q/ Why shouldn’t the pro game be better represented rather than the juniors and amateurs having a disproportionate say? They probably should – but if there are no checks and balances of their powers, is it good for the game as a whole to have pro clubs with vested interests running the entire game from the national team down to the grassroots? If push comes to shove with money and power, who will they seek to serve other than themselves? Q/Okay, but the current system still allows long-term blazers gaining power on the back of nothing but good attendance. Also true, and the SFA main board IS weak – the system does need looked at to allow more appropriate talent to rise to the top. Q/So this resolution is a good thing? Yes – and no! If there’s no need for office bearers to be time-served, you could end up with flavour-of-the-month fly-by-nights parachuted in by the clubs without any examination of their bona fides or their intentions. It’s possible that we could see some real talent and acumen appointed – but you’re relying solely on the judgment of the clubs to find it. Q/ What do they need to pass the resolutions? Each vote requires 75 per cent approval from the 94 members. Q/ Will they get what they need? They’re not speaking for all 42 clubs because a cursory call round indicates they haven’t actually consulted the rank and file. It’s unlikely they would get universal membership approval for all of it – the perception will be that the top 12 clubs will stand to benefit the most. Q/ Hang on, it’s Mike Mulraney of Alloa proposing all of the resolutions, though? He was one of three lower-league chairmen elected to the SPFL board last summer along with Les Gray (Hamilton) and Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir). The weight of the Premiership members – Stephen Thomson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) and Eric Riley (Celtic) – will be behind this but having Alloa, Stenny and Accies involved lends it an ‘everyman’ look ... not just being driven by the big clubs for their own gain. Q/ What about the cash, then – how much is at stake? Hard to put an exact figure on it but so much of it is ring-fenced for specific grassroots and community use, it’s not nearly as much as they think. The irony is the biggest chunk of the performance strand of it – around £2m – is used for Club Academy Scotland. So the clubs already benefit. Just not to the extent they think they should. Q/Why do the clubs feel the need to control it then? A couple of reasons. They don’t like the way Wotte is running things, they don’t think the performance strategy is worth what it costs, they don’t like the lack of control and input they have over performance schools and, simply, they see money they don’t have and they want it. They still don’t have a sponsor and a lack of cash will see them struggle to fulfil their promise of jam for all down through the divisions. It’s ironic considering the SFA has underwritten the only decent thing they’ve achieved as a body – the Premiership play-offs – to the tune of £1.5m. Q/ Are they right about the performance strategy, though? It’s still early but there is evidence the strategy is having an effect. Scotland won the Victory Shield at Under-16 level for the first time in 15 years. The U-17s have made the UEFA Finals in Malta, winning all three games in their elite round. The U-19s are in the elite round in England next months. The women’s team are well on their way to the World Cup in Canada with a 100 per cent record from six qualifiers, a feat that could earn the SFA close to seven figures. Throw in the fact the national team are back up to No.22 in the world rankings and they have a decent claim to their strategy working. Q/ But what about the rest of the game outwith the clubs? That’s the big worry. The SFA has overarching responsibility for the game as a whole and its development from the ground up. At last count, there are 130,768 registered players in Scotland from the youths to the amateurs to welfare to the women’s game. Meanwhile, the SPFL’s development branch – Club Academy Scotland, for pro youths from 11 up – sits at 3,185. Throw in the first teams and the clubs account for around three per cent of the football players in Scotland. Q/ Surely they should be the SPFL’s focus? They are. A working group set up between the organisations is looking at streamlining Club Academy Scotland and clearing out the jersey fillers and creating more ‘best v best’ football at the elite level. However, the clubs don’t like the performance schools and that they have no say in their operation. What some of them do like, though, is the idea of regional academies like the Forth Valley experiment involving Falkirk, Stenhousemuir and East Stirling. Q/ What benefit is there in the clubs taking on responsibility for the rest of it? Very little, if any. All they see is a top-line figure and pound signs. The problem, however, comes with the fact that much of the money is simply used to leverage other funding. For example, £476,000 is budgeted for a community programme that helps fund 70 coaches across the country – however most of their salaries are paid by local authorities through partnerships with the SFA. These partnerships would disappear if councils thought they were simply funding the professional game rather than its community branch. Q/ What about the other backers of grassroots football? Their visions all involve inclusivity and community benefit. McDonald’s work with all the home associations and have invested more than £1m every four years over more than a decade committed to growing the game. Likewise Tesco Bank, with £1.2m over the past four years. The government’s Cashback scheme has pumped in £2.2m over three years. On Wednesday, Regan and Fleeting were in the Isle of Lewis to unveil a new facility at Back that has received nearly £500,000 from Cashback, sportscotland and the Big Lottery. These resolutions would leave the pro clubs responsible for this kind of commitment to remote communities. Would they be interested? The Movers and Shakers The looming SFA AGM is shaping up to be one of the stormiest in the organisation’s 141-year history. Delegates will consider the four resolutions that would effectively hand control of the SFA main board to the clubs. Alloa chairman and successful businessman Mike Mulraney (right) is the name on the resolutions. He wants clubs to elect an extra member to the board – in addition to Celtic’s Peter Lawwell (left). SFA chief executive Stewart Regan (far right) has a fight on his hands. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-football-looks-set-civil-3434596

RANGERS are behaving as though their 120-day business review will have to be crowbarred out of their directors' hands. The more cynical of this club's supporters would not be surprised if the update was delivered in encrypted text this Friday, such has been the apparent reluctance to let the findings out into the public domain. Friday will be day 128, incidentally, and all that has been promised is "update" rather than any extensive illumination of the Ibrox strategy. This is what football has come to: thousands of fans desperately waiting for breaking news on what they would once have dismissed as bone-dry financial strategies. Maybe Graham Wallace, the chief executive, didn't realise he was creating such a hostage to fortune when he announced this business review at the annual general meeting in December, but its significance has mushroomed Directors and fans are in a Mexican stand-off over season tickets. If Wallace placates the masses, damage will be done to the Union of Fans/Dave King attempt to persuade thousands to break the traditional supply chain and instead put their money into a trust fund. But on all available evidence so far it's hard to see what Wallace can deliver which will remotely placate them. Wallace is probably shrewd enough to know what's coming his way when the information is released. In the four months since he bought himself time by announcing this review, Rangers have divested themselves of two figures most of the support considered to be toxic: finance director Brian Stockbridge and public relations adviser Jack Irvine. The club also secured a shirt sponsorship deal with 32Red. Hip, hip hurrays all round? Well, yes, for a moment. Each of those moves was significant, yet they have had no lasting effect on the swirl of negativity around Rangers or the hostility and suspicion shown towards the board. Wallace's own popularity and standing has steadily eroded. At the time of the annual meeting supporters were able to distinguish between him and the rest of the unpopular board. Now, much less so. What can he say in this review that will make the critics pause and say, "actually, yeah, that's not bad, this could win us round"? Three days ago it became personal towards Wallace when his salary and bonus was openly questioned by supporters group The Union of Fans. Maybe £315,000-per-annum really is the going rate for high end football club chief executives these days, although Rangers continue to seem like pushovers when it comes to doing deals with just about anyone. But if Wallace is on another of those 100% Ibrox bonus deals, as his critics clearly believe, fans will see him as being a continuation of the chain of ****s and opportunists when they had hoped he would come in and cleanse the club of them all. What seems likely now is that Wallace's update will exasperate and irritate those fans further, hardening their opposition to the board and deepening their resolve to starve out the incumbent regime by withholding season ticket money. The collapse of King's cordial working relationship with the directors is significant, given that he surely had some sort of insight into Wallace's intended strategy. Positions are entrenched. No fair-minded supporter will reject Wallace's findings on a stubborn point-of-principle. Perhaps he will surprise them and come up with a plan which seems imaginative, ambitious and realistic. But it's only two months since this Rangers board had to go cap in hand for £1.5m in emergency loans just to see the club over the line until the next season-ticket money. At the end of last year the board suggested the players take a 15% wage cut: that was rejected and, since then, nothing more has been heard of it and no other cuts have been publicly proposed. Wallace is on record as saying costs are too high. Money continues to haemorrhage from Rangers. If Wallace's update acknowledges that the club needs either severe cuts or substantial external investment then the latter will be embraced by those who champion King and find it unfathomable, and deeply suspicious, that his apparent willingness to invest has not been encouraged by the Rangers board. What freedom does Wallace have here? This review has been sanctioned by Sandy and James Easdale and the rest of the Rangers board. Would it ever see the light of day if it delivered findings they didn't like? When Rangers said the update would be announced on Friday April 25 (which will be day 127, incidentally), fans immediately clocked that they would have only the weekend to consider it before deciding whether or not to cancel the auto-renewal of their season-tickets (which may not be enough time if it that has to be done in writing). That was either a calculating move by the club or an unthinking one, but either way it looked sleekit and did nothing to build bridges with the support. Wallace and chairman David Somers have both spoken of the need to be more open and transparent with )supporters but done next to nothing to back it up. Wallace will be heard before the week is out, though. His job may pay well, but it's an unenviable one: this week he must calm and win over supporters implacably opposed to the regime he represents. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/wallaces-strategy-update-may-be-too-late-to-win-over-rangers-fans.24005492?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert

Thought I would put some more into what I have posted, I have nothing to gain or lose I suppose by posting on this board and dont want to hassle people, if the admin of the forum would like me to stop posting then they can private mail me and let me know. What I am saying is that I know 100% Dave will make a move in the next 7 days which will be to try and seize control of the club, you as fans will ultimately vote with your feet so to speak but Dave had to and has given this current regime all the time and met all their request made to him and to us as fans. I know this because I know this, you can believe this or you can ignore this, either way, I thought it would do no harm by posting the fact that Dave will be making substantial moves next week in order to be in a place to be the new majority owner come the summer. No ego, no nothing. its all about Rangers and where we should be, either follow or dont.

Poster on FF saying we have agreed deals with Scott Allan and Hutchinson from 'Well.

Chaps, I'm not looking to troll or create tension here, but for the life of me I can't work out why any bear can trust or support the current board. I've seen nothing from the board that can help balance up my own feelings and each passing week sees more shit rolled at supporters. So, in the spirit of good debate, what are the good points of the board which gets them support, albeit a small minority, but support all the same from fellow Bears. What are the positives from board.

IN ROBERT Bolt’s play and film, A Man For All Seasons, Sir Thomas More assembles his numerous domestic staff to break the bad news that he has fallen on irredeemably hard times. “I am no longer a great man,” he begins. “And since I am no more a great man, I no longer need a great household. Nor can I afford one. You will have to go.” Here was a practical demonstration of the kind of acute insight and quick wits that gave rise to the former Lord Chancellor’s reputation as one of 16th-century England’s most formidable intellects. Of course, More would also have been quick to acknowledge that even the humblest peasant farmer, faced with financial catastrophe – a failed crop, say – would have been similarly aware instantly of the necessity of a protracted period of austerity, or even abandonment of his smallholding and relocation as an employee on a steady, if modest, income. It is a grasp of elementary economics that seems somehow to have eluded anyone charged with executive duties at Rangers throughout the years since the instigator of the old club’s decline, David Murray, began the large-scale, reckless extravagance that led to calamity. Since then, despite the onset of administration and liquidation and passing through the hands of a succession of regimes to the present board of directors, the Glasgow institution has existed in a constant state of financial vulnerability, with no-one among the numerous sets of “saviours” apparently willing to identify certain damaging truths and take appropriate remedial action. This speaks of a culture problem at Ibrox, one that became entrenched during the 140 years that preceded liquidation in 2012 and has generally not even been acknowledged, far less addressed, despite the overwhelming evidence of the need to abandon principles that have been rendered wasteful by monetary imperatives. Chief among these actions is to emulate Thomas More and concede that Rangers are no longer a great club. That is, “great” in the sense of magnitude, as opposed to their historic high achievement and the resultant command of the affections and allegiances of many thousands of followers. An organisation whose annual turnover once was close to £60 million has now, according to the latest returns, shrunk to £19m – and even that amount is likely to be reduced again at the end of the current financial year. Yet, in the wake of liquidation of the old club and the birth of the new, the directors saw fit to sanction a yearly wage bill of around £7m for players charged with winning the fourth- and third-division championships. Salaries of non-playing personnel make the total around £9m, while the general costs of running the operation drain the kitty of £1.4m per month. These ludicrously high outgoings having to be met entirely from the club’s working capital, since their history of leaving behind creditors owed millions when entering administration means they no longer have access to credit lines at the banks. Despite the obviously perilous condition of their finances (a recent emergency loan of £1.5m from private individuals required simply to remain solvent until the end of the season), numerous supporters are immovable in their conviction that Rangers remain a “massive” club whose rightful place is at the head of Scottish football’s Premiership and competing creditably in the Champions League. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically flawed about aiming for the stars, but the problem with too many Rangers followers is that they want it to happen yesterday. Their ideal is the instant cure of a wealthy benefactor taking control and providing an unconditional minimum £50m of funding with which the team could be transformed from lower-league capabilities to national champions in the blink of an eye. And yet, curiously, there appears to be a substantial number of fans willing to rally to the banner of Dave King, the South Africa-based entrepreneur who, astonishingly, has publicly declared his unwillingness to invest in the club. So far, he has offered only words, primarily to blacken the names of the current directors. King has also shown himself to be as inconsistent as many who have become involved in the propaganda war at Ibrox, at first encouraging supporters not to renew their season tickets, then changing tack by saying that the chief executive, Graham Wallace, should be allowed to complete his 120-day review of the business, before returning this week with another fusillade in the direction of the board. King, convicted on more than 40 counts of tax evasion in South Africa, accused the opposition of a lack of integrity and honesty. But, among the array of head-turning schemes associated with disenchanted fans and the directors, the most preposterous is surely the demand by the former to be handed security over Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park as part of their renewing season tickets. This is like insisting that M&S give customers security over their flagship Oxford Street store in exchange for a pledge to buy more merchandise. The entire season-ticket phenomenon, in fact, has been warped into a grotesque caricature of its traditional place in the game and led to the utterly meaningless and misleading question: “What happened to the fans’ money?” This clearly ignores the fact that, when a ticket is bought, the money becomes the seller’s while the buyer gets the ticket. It’s not complicated. At the core of the Ibrox morass, however, there ought to be a warning that the fans should be careful what they wish for. Institutional investors collectively make up a large majority of shareholders, but each has actually spent a comparatively tiny amount on acquiring their equity. If they continue to be harassed, they could consider the venture not to be worth the bother, sell off the assets and close down the business. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/glenn-gibbons-rangers-fans-playing-dangerous-game-1-3381635

Graham Wallace will be finding little time for respite. A draft version of his 120-day business review is thought to be ready for senior figures within Ibrox, the rate of season ticket renewal uptake will be evident to the ticket office staff and supporters have raised questions about executive bonuses. He understood that he would not face conventional challenges when he took on the chief executive role at Rangers in November, but he will never have felt under greater scrutiny than now. Wallace brought with him an impressive CV and a strong reputation. Within English football circles, particularly at the highest level, Wallace remains an admired figure. Former colleagues at Manchester City, where he was chief finance officer then chief operating officer, still talk enthusiastically about his personal and professional qualities. Often, staff in other departments would turn to Wallace for advice on how to deal with difficult situations, even though they were not specifically his remit. Those qualities, and the experience gained during three years at IMG and five at MTV Networks, do not suddenly dissipate. Wallace understood the situation he was walking into when he accepted the job offer and believed that he could - as an independent figure - find a solution to the state of conflict around the club. The result of December's annual meeting of Rangers International Football Club shareholders was an endorsement of his credentials and he might not have anticipated such a protracted state of upheaval. Rangers fans have made vocal and visual protests about the way the club has been run It is questions that he has been assailed with. Former director Dave King, pointedly, asked if the board was seeking financing last December while Wallace was publicly declaring that there was enough cash to sustain the business to April. The Union of Fans asked about his bonus arrangements and specifically if he is entitled to 100% of his salary, the same contractual arrangement as one of his predecessors, Charles Green, and the former finance director, Brian Stockbridge. It was Wallace who removed Stockbridge from his post in January before bringing in the former Liverpool financial director Philip Nash in an advisory role. Both men have solid reputations, but neither is likely to have encountered such a difficult situation as the business of rebuilding Rangers. Wallace inherited a mess, with the money raised by the launch of RIFC on the alternative investment market having been spent and the revenue being smaller than the club's outgoings. Rangers were also tied into most of the commercial contracts agreed by Green, although Wallace has struck a sponsorship deal with the online casino, 32Red, which is for three years. There is, though, a fundamental challenge. Rangers need recapitalisation - something Wallace has always acknowledged - as well as the rebalancing of costs that the chief executive has been pursuing. At the AGM, he announced a 120-day review of every aspect of the business. This was a required initiative - the interim results to 31 December 2013 showed a £3.5m loss - but the timescale was ill-judged. Football clubs are simple businesses, with mostly fixed costs and income, but very difficult to run because of the impact of sporting performance on the finances. It seemed to supporters as though Wallace was buying time. There was also a credibility issue when it was announced in February that £1.5m was being borrowed from two shareholders, Sandy Easdale and George Letham, with the money secured against Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park, given Wallace's previous assertion about the cash in the bank. The 120-day deadline passed on Thursday 17 April and an update on the review will be released on Friday 25 April. It will need to declare how Rangers will raise the funds to match the investment requirements. Manager Ally McCoist's football department needs an overhaul The football department needs an overhaul, with a scouting network required, but also more strategic decision-making when it comes to the first-team budget. Costs are imbalanced and manager Ally McCoist agreed to accept a pay cut, but a long-term, sustainable approach needs to be implemented to return Rangers to the top flight in a competitive state. Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park also need maintenance work, but bringing the business back to an even keel by cutting costs and increasing revenue streams will not provide the level of additional funding that Rangers need in the short to medium-term. With the board having ruled out borrowing against their major property assets, the options are limited. A fresh share issue, which King is keen to underwrite, would dilute the holdings of any current shareholders who do not reinvest. This would alter the shareholder dynamic and the power base that supported the current directors at the AGM. It is this problem that Wallace has to solve. If he presents a review to the board that steers the business towards recapitalisation, will all of the directors agree? There is also the more pressing issue of season ticket sales. The renewal process is underway and the deadline is the week following the business review update. Many supporters have grown weary and cynical of the machinations, on all sides, of the saga. Yet renewals are critical, since the interim accounts published in March revealed that going-concern status for the next 12 months was only granted on the basis of an increase in season ticket prices and sales. If the renewal numbers are in decline, there is a legitimate question about how Rangers will be funded until the end of next season. Wallace is experienced and capable but also at the mercy of the situation he took on - although earning the trust of the entire Rangers fan base was always unlikely given the tensions that exist between different groups. There are some decisions he might, on reflection, have made differently, but it is the ones he makes now that will be critical, to his future and the club's. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27081026?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Monday, 14 April 2014 20:00 Business Review Update Written by Rangers Football Club "THE Board of Rangers Football Club notes the concern of supporters around the timing of release of an update from the Club’s business review ahead of the renewal deadline for season tickets. The Board confirms, in accordance with its previous announcements, that the business review will be completed as planned and an update will be issued to shareholders and supporters on 25th April, ahead of the season ticket renewal deadline as previously indicated." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6763-business-review-update

Thought this Investors Chronicle (IC) article was quite interesting and maybe worth posting since it mentions our new shirt sponsor 32Red and their deal with us.... 888 numbers prove the race is on By Harriet Russell 16 April 2014 A bullish set of numbers from online gambling company 888 Holdings (888) is the latest example proving the online gambling sector is locked in an unforgiving 'arms race', with companies attempting to win as much investor confidence and new customers as possible before the Point of Consumption (PoC) tax is introduced this December. 888 only released its full-year results at the end of March, reporting a 30 per cent increase in reported pre-tax profits and a 7 per cent jump in revenues year-on-year. Additionally, it handed back $50m (£30m) to shareholders, declaring an additional special dividend worth 7¢ share for 2013. And now, first-quarter figures are equally good, with an 11 per cent year-on-year rise in quarterly revenues and a 7 per cent improvement on the final quarter of 2013. Particular progress was made in consumer bingo, with revenues up 9 per cent on the final quarter of last year. This will be welcome news after the bingo business saw revenues plummet 16 per cent in 2013. But the bullish news update must be understood in a wider context. The gambling sector is facing one of the worst years for regulatory upheaval: if PoC is introduced on time, all online gambling companies will be subject to another 15 per cent tax on revenues generated from customers in the UK. It will no longer matter where the company is registered. Traditionally, online gambling companies avoided onshore duties by registering abroad - most commonly in Gibraltar - which rendered other taxes such as Machine Game Duty (MGD) and fixed-odds terminal betting duty irrelevant. But this will no longer be enough to safeguard against PoC. There is no word yet from most of the online gambling companies on how they plan to offset the cost of the new duty in the long term, and concern is building over the effect on prices and the consumer. Instead, the companies have laid out figures which they believe will represent the annual impact going forward. In 888's case, profits are expected to take a $20m beating in a full year. More concerning is the reaction from investors to the incoming taxes. While the March Budget did nothing to alleviate pressure on the sector (fixed-odds terminal betting duty rose from 20 to 25 per cent), widespread panic sent some gambling stocks plummeting. While the long-term measures are unclear and cause shareholder skittishness, a $20m hit to profits at 888 is barely material. The company has a market capitalisation of more than £500m and ended 2013 with over $100m in the bank. But understanding the numbers in relative terms hasn't stopped shares such as those in 32Red (TTR) taking a 16 per cent nose-dive since early March. Forced to address the share price movement, group chief executive Ed Ware insisted guidance for 2014 was still positive and reassured the market of the group's plans to fight PoC in the courts, should it be brought in at the current rate and on time. Mr Ware also emphasised that the changes to fixed-odds terminal betting announced as part of the Budget would not be affecting his business. For now, the gambling companies will focus on growing market share. They believe this is crucial to offset any profit challenges later in the year and will help outstrip future punitive measures. To achieve this, gambling companies are fighting a fierce war to garner as much media coverage as possible before the tax is introduced at the end of the year. Interactive gaming outfit NetPlay TV (NPT) secured a three-year deal with ITV and sponsored reality show Big Brother and its celebrity version last year. Marketing costs were vast, but it appears to be paying off: NetPlay TV reported a 25 per cent increase in new players by the end of 2013. Similarly, 32Red announced this week that it will be the new sponsor for Rangers International Football Club (RFC) for the 2014-15 season, and betting exchange group Betfair (BET) has signed deals for more television coverage over the next 15 months, including during the World Cup and Champions League broadcasts. IC VIEW: Online gambling companies are in a race against time. But investors shouldn't accept bullish numbers, increased spending and bumper TV deals as signs of confidence. In many cases, it will be the very opposite. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2014/04/16/shares/news-and-analysis/numbers-prove-the-race-is-on-eryg1ZRovbS73m2ubEijjI/article.html

GRAHAM WALLACE insists Rangers are making 'substantial progress off the field' as they gear up for next season's SPFL Championship campaign. The Light Blues this week clinched a shirt sponsorship deal with online casino giants 32Red, who will replace Blackthorn in the summer and become the Gers' partners for the next three seasons. Ally McCoist's side are just one season away from their return to the Scottish top flight and chief executive Wallace said: "We are delighted to announce this deal. It shows we are making substantial progress off the field. "This is a good long-term partnership for Rangers. "We can leverage the strength of the 32Red brand and this deal can help reinvigorate the Rangers brand domestically and internationally. "We are working very hard to re-energise and reposition the club on the international stage. That goes hand in hand with our progression up the leagues and we are planning for next season in the Championship with one eye very firmly on the seasons beyond that. "Having a strong commercial partnership portfolio is very important to the club. "Attracting blue chip brands to be partners allows us to grow our commercial revenue which in turn allows us to reinvest right across the business. We are very pleased with this deal and it is the first, tangible step in our new commercial strategy. "The Championship will be a very competitive division and we are doing all our preparation to make sure that, in the true traditions of Rangers Football Club, we expect to be competitive and we expect to be successful." Wallace is due to complete his 120-day overview of the books at Ibrox on Friday but the club confirmed this week that they will only publish an 'update' on April 25. Wallace said: "We will shortly be publishing the results of the club's business review, as we committed to do, following an in-depth review of all areas of club operations. "This will give fans an insight into understanding the current status of club operations and how we are working to put in place what is needed to build for future success." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/wallace-happy-with-off-field-progress-at-rangers-159803n.23978036

DAVE KING tonight fired another attack on the Rangers board. The South African businessman has declared war on the current Ibrox regime and has issued a strongly-worded statement again urging Rangers fans not to renew season tickets. The statement reads: I must respond to the Rangers board’s criticism of my appeal to withhold season ticket advances. This board continues its habit of evading issues by attacking the integrity of any individual or group that speaks out against them. I am happy to engage the board on our comparative integrity. Unlike this board, I do not regard integrity as a character attribute that comes with an ON/OFF switch. When I met with the board the Chairman requested that, other than the two public statements that we made, the balance of our discussions would remain private. I agreed to that and, despite requests from fan groups to disclose the full details of my discussions, I steadfastly honoured my undertaking. This board did not do likewise. In an ill-judged attempt to discredit me, they have now disclosed my comment to them that I preferred not to put money into Rangers if it could be found from other sources. In this instance they demonstrated their lack of integrity for no advantage as I had already, as part of my frank discussions with the fan groups, advised them that I had no prime ambition to invest further in the club but will do so if no other investors come forward. I would be delighted if the club could thrive without any investment from me. This attempt at a “juicy” leak by the board merely proves that it is impossible to engage this board on a basis of confidentiality and integrity. The board has now stated that it was always its intention to only provide the business review after season ticket advances had largely been paid. It has denied that it agreed that the business review would be made available prior to fans committing to season ticket advances even though I referred to this agreement in my public statement immediately after our meeting. At the time the board allowed my public statement, in toto, to go unchallenged. Presumably it had no concern with what I stated. Again, we have an integrity issue but fortunately have common sense as a referee. We know that the board did not challenge my public statement of last month. It is also common cause that the vital issue for the fans is to be told what ambition the owners have for the club and how this is going to be funded. It must be obvious that the fans need this information prior to investing - not after. The board’s new version lacks integrity even if it was believable. Given that the board is quick to raise integrity and trust as key issues I would like to pose simple questions that are easy to reply to with a simple yes or no. a) Does the board agree it is unfair to ask fans to buy season tickets before they consider the business review? b) Does the board agree that, given the present financial position of the club, it is appropriate to provide Ibrox Park and Murray Park as security against season ticket advances? c) Does the board agree that in the latter half of December 2013 it was in discussions to obtain finance that would be needed prior to the end of the current season? d) Does the board agree that in the latter half of December 2013 it provided public assurances to the fans that the club had sufficient cash to last until the end of the current season? Without satisfactory answers to these questions fans should not be expected to invest in season tickets.

FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has contacted the Lithuanian ambassador to the United Kingdom in a bid to help Hearts complete their exit from administration. Salmond, a Hearts supporter, remains hopeful that the deal can be completed, although last night both club administrator Bryan Jackson of BDO and a spokesperson for the Foundation of Hearts said there had been no further developments. Jackson is still awaiting an invitation to return to Lithuania to resume talks with his counterparts at Ukio Bankas. Those talks stalled last week, on the same day that creditors of Ubig, another company formerly controlled by Vladimir Romanov, approved the sale of their 50 per cent share in the Tynecastle club. Ukio have a smaller shareholding of just under 30 per cent, but hold a security over Tynecastle. If they agree to sell both shares and security, Hearts will be able to proceed with the Company Voluntary Arrangement they have made with the Foundation, the supporters’ umbrella body which aims to buy control for £2.5million. Jackson warned last week that the club was fast running out of money, and that a deal had to be finalised by around the end of this month. Foundation chairman Ian Murray, the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South, has also said that his organisation needs to complete the takeover soon in order to allow planning for next season to begin. Murray and Lord Foulkes, a former chairman of Hearts, have had several meetings with ambassador Asta Skaisgiryte-Liauskiene in recent months in the hope of speeding up the process. It remains uncertain how much direct influence any politician can have on the arcane workings of the Baltic republic’s legal system, but Salmond believes that he too should be seen to be doing everything he can. “At the request of the Hearts administrators I phoned the Lithuanian ambassador to try and facilitate the important moves that are being made,” the First Minister said yesterday. “I should say I’m a Hearts supporter, obviously, I declare an interest, but I’ve made the same approaches when necessary with other football clubs in Scotland who’ve been similarly struggling. “And of course I would always do that as First Minister, because it’s part of the First Ministerial role to help Scottish football, to help Scottish clubs when you can. And I’m sure that everyone in Scottish football, whatever team they support, wants to see Hearts back fighting fit, and part of the firmament of our national game.” Salmond declined to give details of his talks other than to suggest they had been positive. “They were helpful conversations and of course progress has been made,” he continued. “But the people behind the eight ball here are the administrators, and like every other Hearts fan in the country, I’m anxious to see more progress made. However, we know progress has been made and we’re hoping that things will reach a successful conclusion.” Unless Ukio’s creditors come to an agreement with BDO soon, Jackson would appear to have little option but to start planning for the liquidation of the football club. Hearts should be able to fulfil their fixtures for the rest of the season – they have five league games left, starting with a home match on Saturday against Ross County – but as things stand they will have no money to continue on into next season. Last night Labour peer Lord Foulkes welcomed the First Minister’s intervention, while pointing out that similar activity had been going on behind the scenes for some time. “It is good he is supporting Ian Murray and me who are in regular contact with Lithuanian ambassador & UK ambassador in Lithuania,” he said on Twitter. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/i-need-to-do-all-i-can-for-hearts-alex-salmond-1-3377777

APRIL 14, 2014 [h=1]UOF STATEMENT 14/04/2014[/h] by Garry Evans “Following discussions on the release of season ticket renewals, the Union of Fans would like to confirm that, in line with Dave King’s statements over the weekend, we will now be pushing forward with plans to collect season ticket money. We are delighted that Nine-in-a-Row captain, Richard Gough, and Dave King have both agreed to support this plan. We hope that other iconic Rangers figures will join them in publicly supporting this move in the near future. The money placed into the account will be released to the club, in full, as soon as they agree to give season ticket holders a security over Ibrox Stadium and Auchenhowie. There will be no drip feeding of funds and we do not consider that the board has any legitimate reason to reject this proposal. For the past two weeks we have, through a third party, put forward a plan to Graham Wallace which would have seen a security over Ibrox and Auchenhowie granted to trustees in favour of ALL season ticket holders. The security would have diminished as games were played and would have been discharged at the end of next season. We felt this would provide the board with an opportunity to build trust with fans over a reasonable period of time. We have received no response from the board to this proposal, or to the offer of a meeting to discuss things amicably. This board’s public pronouncements about engagement and trust are a sham. To be clear, had the board complied, it would have meant that we would not have needed to collect season ticket money in a separate account. It would have allowed the fans and the club to carry on with renewals as normal and would have removed any element of confrontation from the process. Despite repeated acceptance from Mr Wallace that the board do not have the trust of fans, and repeated claims that they are seeking to engage with them, this board have made no serious attempt to improve things. Their haste to release renewals before the completion of the 120 day business review, has now forced our hand. Legal advisers have been engaged and are working on the legal framework and bank account required to collect money. We would ask in the meantime that fans do not renew prior to evaluating this board’s ‘120 day’ review to take the club forward. We would also ask them to be vigilant and ensure they are not signed up for auto renewal, which they would need to cancel in writing to the ticket office before the 28th April. The vast majority of season ticket holders on the 4 month payment option from last year will fall into this category. We do not consider that there is any prospect of this action forcing the club into administration. It would be a gross dereliction of directors’ duties for this board to allow that to happen when substantial investment is on offer to them and when they can ensure they receive all season ticket money by securing Ibrox and Auchenhowie in favour of season ticket holders. We also have concerns that, even with all the season ticket money available to them, they will not be able to complete the season without further investment. Furthermore we reject suggestions this will push the board into securing Ibrox in return for further loans. Again, this would be in breach of their directorial duties when they would first have to reject a more favourable offer from the fans. We will be extremely interested to hear the board’s answers to the four questions posed by Dave King in his latest statement. Particularly the question relating to Graham Wallace’s undertaking to shareholders at the AGM that there was “sufficient cash in the business to fund the ongoing needs of the club in the near term”. We do not believe this statement to have been true. Our fans have an opportunity to safeguard Ibrox – we sincerely hope they do not succumb to emotional blackmail from people who know nothing about what our club means to us and that they use the only power they hold for the good of Rangers.” http://www.unionoffans.org/statements/2014/4/14/uof-statement-14042014

..................but Rangers still manage to buck the trend. WITH the majority of clubs in Scotland look like they are beginning to flourish once again, KEITH says Rangers seem unable to move on from the never-ending war for control that continues to rage on in the boardroom. SO now that the football’s finished for another season, where next for Rangers? Well it won’t be Celtic Park in May anyway. Dundee United made sure of that on Saturday when, even without hitting top form, they coasted safely into this season’s Scottish Cup Final on the back of a 3-1 win, secured at “neutral” Ibrox. Jackie McNamara’s wide-eyed bunch will now bound on towards Glasgow’s east end where they will be hotly tipped to finish the job against St Johnstone – despite the Perth side’s heroics in slapping down Aberdeen yesterday. By stopping the rise of the Reds dead in its tracks, Saints have already secured their own piece of history. A first Scottish Cup Final appearance now awaits them and they thoroughly deserve this moment, even if the rest of us were gearing up for what might have been an even more mouth-watering coming together of the New Firm. In many ways, the game up here was crying out for a United v Aberdeen final but even though they have been kept apart, the ongoing resurgence of these two old foes is perhaps a telltale sign that Scottish football might be getting its act together at long last. Despite the financial earthquake which reduced Rangers to rubble two years ago and the predictions of a devastating tsunami to follow, football in this country has survived its Armageddon. Yes, Hearts remain in a critical condition but it was downfall of Romanov rather than Rangers which visited this misery upon them. Crowds may have fallen at Celtic but any downturn in interest has been more than offset by the tapping into UEFA’s Champions League millions on an exclusive basis. Aberdeen, while licking yesterday’s wounds, can at least cling on to the League Cup for consolation. Motherwell are flying high again in the league, United and St Johnstone will now end the season as success stories one way or the other. It could even be reasonably argued that our national team and manager Gordon Strachan are feeling the benefit of the administration and then liquidation which led to Steven Whittaker, Allan McGregor and Steven Naismith setting off towards the top end of English football. Naismith, in particular, is beginning to look like a genuine star at Everton and could well be Strachan’s first-choice striker for some considerable time to come. All of which is good news. Green shoots are everywhere. Everywhere, that is, except at Ibrox. Because while all around them others are beginning to emerge from this long, nuclear winter and are even starting to flourish, Rangers continue to blow themselves to pieces. This club has reached a point where it now seems unable to move on, locked into a cycle of self-abuse. While this may be the source of endless amusement for some, maybe even most, those less blinded by their own prejudices can’t have failed to notice on Saturday what the Scottish game has been missing over these last two seasons. What most certainly has not been missed are the most offensive ditties from this support’s historic song sheet and those Rangers fans who indulged in them on Saturday continue to harm their own club. They ought to be focusing on a better future rather than returning to the bad old days of F***** this and F***** that. But, for the most part, the atmosphere created by both sets of supporters was utterly compelling. In fact, there was a pulse about Ibrox the likes of which has not been felt for some time. Even though some wish fervently for this club to be officially declared dead, the more rational must surely realise that a strong Rangers is good for business. United’s fans revelled in the occasion and in the opportunity to slap a long-term adversary back down. The atmosphere generated by these old rivalries made the match even more engrossing. In fact, this 90 minutes offered a tantalising glimpse of how things might be again one day. If ever, that is, Rangers are fit for purpose as a football club. Their problems on the pitch are obvious enough. Much remedial work is required to make this team a serious contender again but none of its problems are insurmountable. No, the real issues threatening the recovery of Rangers remain off the field where this never-ending war for control still rages on. Last night Dave King launched his latest thermonuclear statement at the current board, once again calling into question the integrity and honesty of those in charge. The very idea that this regime might be covering up the depth of the club’s current financial plight should appal a support which has been misled so ruinously by the likes of Charles Green and Craig Whyte before him. I asked in this column two weeks ago: “Can he (chief executive Graham Wallace) explain why he stood up at the club’s agm on December 18 and insisted robustly that all was well when, with the benefit of hindsight, the whole world can now see that plainly it was not?” Now King appears to be asking the very same question of the board and its CEO. With the situation deteriorating rapidly – and the sideshow distraction of the football all but over – it is time for these Rangers fans to decide in whom they would rather place their trust. If they do back the board, they must be prepared to do so blindly given that they have only three weeks left to renew their season tickets and still have not seen Wallace’s 120-day business review. Which would seem extremely foolish. On the other hand, if they back King then they must be prepared, in theory at least, to starve the club of the very money it needs to survive. Which would appear extremely high risk. The adoption of such a militant stance will raise the spectre of Administration II and bring many of these supporters out in a cold sweat. But the truth is this money will only be kept away from the club if the current regime remains intransigent and unwilling to secure it against Ibrox and Murray Park. There seems no logical basis for the board NOT to bend on this one. In other words, if the worse case scenario unfolded and Rangers were forced back under, the collapse will not have been caused by rebellious supporters but by a board that may need to be broken down completely for this club to be properly rebuilt.